Sitting of 20 July 1999

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

PRIVATE BUSINESS
TRANSPORT SALARIED STAFFS' ASSOCIATION(AMENDMENT OF RULES) BILL
As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.
CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL
Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
To be considered on Tuesday 27 July.

Oral Answers to Questions
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

    European Union (Northern Dimension)
    Ms Rachel Squire: If he will make a statement on the development of a northern dimension to the EU's common foreign and security policy. [90455]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The objective of the northern dimension is to improve the co-ordination and effectiveness of the European Union's policies and programmes in its northern regions and to contribute to the developing relationship between Russia, the other states of the Baltic region and the European Union. The Government fully support the initiative.
    Ms Squire: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming Finland to the presidency of the European Union and in paying tribute to the crucial role that Finland played in the Kosovo peace settlement, especially through its president, Martti Ahtisaari? Does she agree that Finland's initiative late in 1997 in developing a northern dimension to the European Union's common foreign and security policy recognises the interdependence between the European Union, Russia and the Baltic states and the pivotal role that the EU can play in promoting stability in non-EU areas?
    What support have the Government given to the promotion of the northern dimension of EU foreign policy, and what action has been taken?
    Ms Quin: I strongly support the points made by my hon. Friend. I join her in welcoming the Finnish
    950
    presidency of the European Union, and also wish to pay tribute to the officials in my Department who have worked with their Finnish counterparts to help to prepare for that presidency.
    I agree with what my hon. Friend said about the Finnish attitude to the northern dimension of EU foreign policy and to the co-operative initiatives that the Finns and others in the EU are trying to build up with Russia and the Baltic states. There are a number of areas of co-operation, such as those signalled by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary when he visited Russia and Murmansk earlier this year.
    Mr. Michael Colvin: How can we have an effective common foreign and security policy without a defence element, which can be achieved only by amalgamating the Western European Union with the European Union? What are the implications of that for a country such as Finland, which is traditionally neutral?
    Ms Quin: The Finnish Government, and the Finnish presidency, are keen to work towards strengthening the common foreign and security policy that was the basis of last year's St. Malo initiative. We are working with the Finns and other nations to find the best way to move forward institutionally, but we all agree that practical results are important. The European Union nations, in co-operation with the NATO countries, need to have the capabilities and facilities to make an effective contribution to peacekeeping tasks. That is what the strengthening of the defence and security initiative is all about.

    Indonesia
    Miss Melanie Johnson: What plans he has to assist progress towards democracy in Indonesia; and if he will make a statement. [90456]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): We strongly support the transition to democracy in Indonesia, to which we attach great importance. We contributed more than £2 million in preparation for the first genuinely multi-party democratic elections since 1955. The money was spent on voter education, BBC local radio projects and assistance for domestic election monitors. We welcome the fact that the elections ran smoothly, and we are considering how we should help consolidate democracy in Indonesia.
    Miss Johnson: I thank my hon. Friend for that response, and for the wide-ranging help given by the Government towards establishing full democracy in Indonesia. Will my hon. Friend be especially mindful, and watchful, of the army's role in the country, and give consideration to the freedom of trade unionists such as Mr. Pakpahan? I hope that the Government will support independent trade unions in Indonesia. The previous Government had the opportunity to do that, but did not take it.
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's observations. Certainly, the Government have put a great deal of effort into promoting the observance of human rights in Indonesia. I can tell my hon. Friend that

    951
    Mr. Pakpahan was released at the start of President Habibie's period of office. We welcome his release, and the other releases that took place at that time.
    Mr. David Heath: Of course we all wish Indonesia well in the conclusion of the electoral process. If and when Megawati Soekarnoputri becomes president, will the Government guard against engaging too enthusiastically with her—in the way that was evident with Presidents Suharto and Habibie—until real advances in human rights, good governance and the provision of support for Indonesia's minority peoples have been achieved? Without the stability that will come with the fairer distribution of resources across the archipelago, are there not real risks for the region?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman may be a little over-enthusiastic, as the election result will not be announced until 24 July, making it a little early to anticipate the process that must be followed after a Government have been formed. The election and the count have been a spectacular achievement in democracy for Indonesia and its 128 million voters.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: We welcome that exercise in democracy. Bearing in mind the fact that the Government have yet to be formed and that there will be a referendum on East Timor, has the Minister any thoughts on how democracy might be maintained if speculation is correct that the Indonesian Government are already withdrawing troops and others from Timor?
    Mr. Hoon: I am not aware of that speculation. We monitor the situation in East Timor closely, and I held several discussions on it during my recent visit to New York, particularly with my United Nations counterpart. Security is vital in East Timor if consultation is to take place freely and fairly, and we look to the Indonesian Government to create the right conditions.
    Ann Clwyd: Is my hon. Friend aware of reports that British-supplied Hawk jet aircraft were seen flying low over Dili, the capital of East Timor, last Thursday, and making two low passes over the town? Diplomats on the spot say that that was a macho gesture to remind the East Timorese of who is in charge. Given that we have been continually told that Hawk aircraft are not used in East Timor, will my hon. Friend investigate those reports and make known his objection to such flights?
    Mr. Hoon: My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has already written to the Indonesian Foreign Minister to express our concern at press reports that UK-built Hawk aircraft have flown over East Timor. We have reminded the Indonesians that there are no circumstances in which UK-supplied military equipment should be deployed there.

    EU Enlargement
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What policy objectives he plans to secure under the Finnish presidency of the EU in relation to enlargement. [90457]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): Negotiations to enlarge the European Union have made good progress since the launch of the accession process during the British presidency. Six of the applicant countries have opened detailed negotiations, covering 15 of the 31 chapters of European law. We are working for a commitment by the end of the Finnish presidency to open negotiations on membership with Bulgaria, Romania and others.
    The Government are delighted that the Commission post with overall responsibility for external relations, including enlargement, has been secured for a British nominee, Chris Patten. I am sure all his hon. Friends in the Conservative party would wish to congratulate him.
    Mr. Swayne: I am sure that the Secretary of State is right on that. However, at the conclusion of the United Kingdom presidency, the Finnish Prime Minister said that enlargement was more problematic than it had been a year before. Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the most important item on the agenda of any presidency, and of the forthcoming intergovernmental conference, must be enlargement so that an outward-looking Europe can be secured?
    Mr. Cook: I entirely agree with that sentiment. The British presidency's priority was, with full consensus, the launch and smooth start of the accession process. The recent agreement on Agenda 2000 provides the financial headroom to do that. I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support, for once, on European policy, and I assure him that we shall press strongly to make a success of enlargement.
    Mr. Donald Anderson: Will Turkey be invited to the proposed European conference in the later part of the year? Is there any indication of whether Turkey would accept such an invitation? How does my right hon. Friend envisage an improvement coming about in the strained relationship between the European Union and Turkey?
    Mr. Cook: I regret that Turkey did not attend yesterday's meeting of European Foreign Ministers. The invitation remains open to Turkey, and we hope that it will be accepted. It is in the interests of both the EU and Turkey that we establish constructive working relationships, and we are ready to do so when Ankara proves ready.
    Mr. John Maples: I join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming Chris Patten's appointment as a Commissioner. It is good to see the overwhelming victory of the centre right in the European elections reflected by the appointment of at least a few Commissioners of that persuasion.
    I have been taking a look at Finland's published programme for its presidency of the European Union. It calls for the extension of qualified majority voting and the end of what it calls "harmful tax competition". Translated, that seems to me to mean a further surrender of the British veto and the imposition of a European savings tax. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that the British Government will vote against those proposals?
    Mr. Cook: First, there is an IGC coming—I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on having acquired the

    953
    information on that. It will follow on the Portuguese presidency, and the Finnish presidency will be responsible for making preparations for it. If we are serious about the point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—giving priority to enlargement—the European Union has to carry through the reforms necessary for that enlargement.
    I remind the hon. Gentleman that if it had not been for qualified majority voting, we would never have been able to lift the ban on British beef—something that his Government never achieved in all their time in office.
    Mr. Maples: Of course, it would not have been imposed in the first place without qualified majority voting. The two issues are linked, because the Finnish presidency document says:
    "Work will be pursued on the proposals on the taxation of savings and interest and royalties with a view to reaching agreement before the Helsinki Council meeting."
    That will not wait for the IGC. These decisions are imminent and the British people want to know whether the Government will stand up for Britain's interests or conspire as usual to undermine them.
    Mr. Cook: Of course the Government will stand up for the British interest. Part of that interest is in making sure that industries on the continent do not receive unfair subsidised tax breaks from their Governments. That is why Britain is proud of the fact that a British Minister is leading the working group on such unfair tax competition. If the hon. Gentleman would go out and talk to industry in Britain, he would find that it was as enthusiastic as we are about achieving a level playing field with our competitors.
    Mr. Russell Brown: Has my right hon. Friend seen statements from the Governments of Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic that they seek membership of the European Union? How does that square with the clear views of Conservative Members who wish to see Britain withdraw from the EU?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point. It is one of the remarkable features of the debate that the Conservative party constantly distances itself from Brussels while the whole of the rest of Europe is queueing up to join the bus that the Tories want to get off.

    East Timor
    Mr. Andrew George: What discussions he has had with his opposite numbers in the United Nations regarding the present situation in East Timor; and if he will make a statement. [90458]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): I had extensive talks with the United Nations in New York about East Timor as well as other issues between 5 and 7 July. The Secretary-General decided that registration for the delayed United Nations-organised ballot should go ahead on 16 July. The United Nations will, however, keep the security situation under constant review. The Secretary-General will make a further assessment of
    954
    conditions on the ground half way through the registration period before deciding whether and when the consultation should take place.
    Mr. George: In view of the present unstable situation in East Timor prior to the vote, what assessments has the Minister made of the Indonesian Government's apparent intention swiftly to withdraw from the area if the vote goes against them? Does he agree that the Australian Government, which has a joint security treaty with the Indonesians, is now in a strong position to help to bring peace to that area? What contribution will the Foreign Office make towards bringing peace to the area? It is clear that international intervention is becoming more and more likely.
    Mr. Hoon: We have sent seven police officers and two military liaison officers to be part of the United Nations mission for East Timor, which is headed by a British United Nations official. It is important that Indonesia fulfil its responsibility to ensure security so that the consultation can go ahead. Contingency plans are being prepared by the United Nations for an early withdrawal by Indonesia from East Timor following the result of the consultation.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: In the light of the attacks on the UN posts in East Timor, what have the Government done to try to bring to the attention of the new Indonesian Government the clear view that their pro-integrationist militia will not be tolerated in the period running up to a referendum?
    Mr. Hoon: Following the attack on 29 June on Maliana, I summoned the Indonesian ambassador to express our deep concern and to request that his Government bring the pro-integrationist militia under control. On 8 July, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary wrote to the Indonesian Foreign Minister about the situation. The EU has been taking similar action. We welcomed last week's visit to East Timor by half the Indonesian Cabinet to assess the security situation. As a result, we anticipate that the situation should be calmer.

    Agenda 2000
    Mr. Win Griffiths: If he willmake a statement on progress in implementing Agenda 2000. [90459]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): Legislation implementing the vast majority of the Agenda 2000 package has now been agreed. The whole package was supported by the European Parliament in May. Much of the legislation will come into force from 1 January 2000. The Berlin summit deal on the budget and on policy reform made provision for enlargement. Pre-accession aid of 3 billion euro a year will be available to help the candidates to prepare for accession. Substantial structural funds will also be available for new member states joining between 2002 and 2006.
    Mr. Griffiths: Not unnaturally, there has been a great deal of publicity in the United Kingdom for the Government's huge success in achieving funding under

    955
    objectives 1, 2 and 3 and also in achieving the safety net. That is especially appreciated in Wales. However, there has not been much publicity for what has been done on the other side of the coin—the progress towards enlargement itself. Will my right hon. Friend enlighten us on that matter?
    Ms Quin: In relation to preparation for enlargement, the Government and the EU are doing a great deal. In particular, Departments throughout Government are working with their counterparts in the applicant countries to prepare those countries in specific policy matters. I especially commend to the House the twinning scheme which links our Departments with several Departments in applicant countries. In the second round of twinning, we have won more successful schemes than any other country.
    Mr. John Wilkinson: Is not the prerequisite for entry to the EU, the ability to join the single currency, a serious impediment to the applicant nations of central and eastern Europe? They should have been allowed to join long since. The Berlin wall fell almost 10 years ago; is it not true that the EU has demonstrated itself to be a rich man's club—more interested in protectionism and feathering its own nest than in showing itself as a true community of outward-looking nations to which the countries of eastern and central Europe are welcome?
    Ms Quin: The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that this year is the 10th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. However, I do not draw the same conclusions from that as he does. There is much to rejoice over in the transformation that has taken place during the past 10 years. I am very pleased that the countries of the EU—including our own—have built up so many political and economic relations with countries that were formerly behind the iron curtain. Indeed, the whole process of enlargement and the funds that have been attached to it should show that we are serious in ensuring that we build a constructive relationship with the countries from which we were formerly divided.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Although I accept that the Minister herself has visited the applicant countries for EU membership, when will the Government address the deficiency in their senior members' visits to such countries on behalf of the UK? Is it not true that, after two and a half years of Labour Government, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has not visited any of the applicant states? Why is that? Why was priority given to south America and Australia? Is it not true that the Prime Minister has not yet been able to visit any of the applicant states, either? Bearing in mind the fact that Ministers in countries comparable to the UK have kept a high profile, and have advanced the interests of their commerce, in the applicant states, when will the matter be addressed?
    Ms Quin: While I appreciate my hon. Friend's strong commitment to the countries of central and eastern Europe, his information is not up to date. There have been many ministerial visits—in fact, I think that there have been five ministerial visits to Poland in the past month. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has visited all
    956
    the applicant countries. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has visited certain of the candidate countries and plans to do more: his recent visit to Poland was cancelled, but for a reason that hon. Members on both sides of the House should understand, which is the situation in Northern Ireland. Ministerial contacts across the board have improved dramatically over the past year and I hope that my hon. Friend welcomes those efforts. We shall undertake more visits, but our engagement with applicant countries is already at a very high level.
    Mr. Archie Norman: Does the Minister consider it satisfactory that, in the financial forecast developed after the Berlin Council to meet the Agenda 2000 objectives, the financial forecasts for EU budget payments go up by 12 per cent. between 2000 and 2004? Does she consider it satisfactory that, at a time when people are concerned about extravagance and waste in the Commission, the only line in the six years of those forecasts that continuously rises faster than inflation is expenditure on the EU' s administration itself?
    Ms Quin: I am amazed that the hon. Gentleman does not welcome the financial package that was agreed at Berlin, which stands in stark contrast to the financial packages agreed by the Conservative Governments in 1992 and 1988, under which overall expenditure soared and the bill to the taxpayer was considerable. The most recent round of financial negotiations is the first time such expenditure increases have not resulted. We got a satisfactory solution that included generous receipts to this country in terms of structural funds, but kept well within the ceiling of 1.27 per cent. of EU GNP.

    Kashmir
    Fiona Mactaggart: What discussions he has held with his counterparts in other Governments about the future of Kashmir. [90461]
    Ms Jenny Jones: What plans he has to assist in negotiating a ceasefire by India and Pakistan in Kashmir. [90464]
    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe: What assessment his Department has made of relations between India and Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [90471]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): I have discussed recent developments in Kashmir with the Foreign Ministers of both India and Pakistan. I expect to meet the Pakistani Foreign Minister for lunch next week. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister saw the Prime Minister of Pakistan last week and subsequently wrote to the Prime Minister of India. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Hoon), has also discussed the latest fighting with the high commissioners of both countries.
    In all those contacts, we have pressed on both countries our support for the Lahore process of dialogue and our concern that that process should not be disrupted by an escalation of conflict. We therefore warmly welcomed the withdrawals from the Kargil heights. We hope that that

    957
    will open the way to meaningful dialogue between both countries to address all outstanding issues, including Kashmir.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that it is high time India and Pakistan resolved their dispute over Kashmir? While India and Pakistan squabble, the people of Kashmir suffer. Does he recall the energy that Commonwealth Heads of Government devoted to tackling apartheid in South Africa? Given that India and Pakistan are both Commonwealth countries, is there a role for the Commonwealth in helping to find a just and lasting settlement in Kashmir that builds on the United Nations resolutions and on the Simla process to bring peace to that troubled region?
    Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend is probably aware, the majority of the population of the Commonwealth lives in Pakistan and India. It pains all members of the Commonwealth to see two strong members of the Commonwealth with so many difficulties between them. I do not know whether there is necessarily a role for the Commonwealth in resolving the tensions between India and Pakistan: in the first instance, both parties would have to agree to seek that mediation. I hope that, now there has been an agreement to withdraw, the way is open to resume the promise that was held out at Lahore of meaningful dialogue between both Prime Ministers, who showed real courage in making that commitment.
    Ms Jones: One of my constituents, a British citizen, told me recently that he saw eight members of his extended family killed during the recent conflict in Kashmir. Bearing in mind the fact that the lives of British citizens are being affected by the conflict, and that, last year, both India and Pakistan demonstrated to the world that they have a considerable nuclear capability, may I urge my right hon. Friend to use whatever power he has to press the Governments of India and Pakistan, however difficult it is for them, to stay with the negotiations and make every effort to ensure that the conflict is finally brought to an end? It is beginning to affect us all.
    Mr. Cook: I assure my hon. Friend that the content of my conversation with both Foreign Ministers and the contents of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's conversation with the Pakistani Prime Minister were exactly along the lines that my hon. Friend urges—namely, that both countries must, through dialogue, seek to resolve the areas of tension between them. My hon. Friend singles out a worrying aspect of the picture: the near-nuclear capacity of both states. Britain has taken a leading role in trying to encourage both countries to sign up to the global non-proliferation regime, and the task force initiated by Britain met again only yesterday.
    Mr. Sutcliffe: My right hon. Friend will know that there is a large Kashmiri community and an equally important Indian community in Bradford, both of which are frustrated and concerned about what is happening between India and Pakistan. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that frustration is caused partly because the 1948 United Nations resolution has not been acted upon? Both communities are frustrated at the failure of the international community to deal with the situation and to
    958
    bring both parties together. The solution can be determined only between India, Pakistan and the Kashmiri community.
    Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with my hon. Friend's last point. This issue must be addressed, in the first instance, by the parties to the dispute: India and Pakistan, who should have regard to the opinion of the people of Kashmir. My hon. Friend touches upon an important issue for us in Britain: we must ensure that the dispute over Kashmir is not imported to this country.
    Mr. David Lidington: Does the Foreign Secretary agree that any political settlement must command the assent of the majority of people in Kashmir? Does he envisage a more proactive role for the United Nations, the Security Council and the Secretary-General in trying to bring the different sides of the conflict together?
    Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely that any outcome—if it is to be just and lasting—must be acceptable to the people of Kashmir. However, I do not wish the hon. Gentleman to underrate the difficulty of establishing what is acceptable, particularly given the line of control that divides historic Kashmir. Whether there is a role for the Secretary-General or anyone else is in the hands of the two parties. Both sides must be willing to accept such mediation and good offices before the offer could be productive.
    Lorna Fitzsimons: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the problems is the Indian Government's refusal to accept a United Nations role? Although it begrudgingly acknowledges that there are monitors on the ceasefire line, the Indian high commission does not agree with the resolution that India took jointly to the United Nations Security Council. Will my right hon. Friend therefore use all his powers to ensure that all international diplomatic players exert whatever influence they have on the Indian Government, first, to monitor human rights; secondly, to demilitarise the zone, which has the highest military/civilian ratio in the world; and, thirdly, to allow free and fair elections to take place in Kashmir? We all agree that, while there is a continuing military presence, there is no chance of democracy flourishing.
    Mr. Cook: It is correct that, if we are to make progress in addressing the underlying source of the problem, the only realistic way forward is through interim confidence-building measures. They might include strengthening the observance of the line of control, because UN monitors in Kashmir regularly detect violations on both sides of that line; or greater transparency in human rights matters and the observation of human rights by outside monitors. Those measures could form part of a process that would lead to tackling the underlying issues of tension. I hope, when the Lahore dialogue recommences, that it will be able to address some of those, and other, confidence-building measures.

    Anti-Semitism (Russia)
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on anti-Semitism in Russia. [90462]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): We continue to be concerned about anti-Semitic incidents in Russia. As I said in my written answer to my hon. Friend's question on 22 June, anti-Semitic comments by Duma Deputies Makashov and I1yukhin last year caused widespread outrage. The recent stabbing in the Jewish cultural centre in Moscow also reminds us of the dangers of extremism. We instigated European Union presidency representations on anti-Semitism in January, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised the issue with the Russians during his visit to Russia in March.
    Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for her statement. Clearly, there is grave concern in the Jewish community which is fuelled by the growth of anti-Semitic statements such as those that she mentioned and the attacks on synagogues in Moscow and the far east in May, including, most recently, the appalling attempted murder last week of Mr. Kaimonarsky, the director of the Jewish cultural centre in Moscow. Although the Russian Government promise that they will take action, very little appears to have happened on the ground. When Mr. Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, comes to London tomorrow for a two-day visit, will my right hon. Friend raise with him our concerns about the extremely worrying lack of action and find out whether something practical can be done to deal with the problem?
    Ms Quin: Certainly, human rights will be one of the issues on the agenda for the discussions between my right hon. Friend and the Russian Foreign Minister, Mr. Ivanov. We constantly seek information about that area of policy via a number of routes, including, not least, our embassy, and we make representations whenever it is appropriate. I also discussed those issues with the President's human rights adviser, Professor Kartashkin, when he visited London earlier this year.
    Mr. John Bercow: When the Foreign Secretary made representations about the offensive statements by Russian Deputies, was any apology, whether direct or indirect, forthcoming? In considering the problem of anti-Semitism among the Russian population as a whole, will the right hon. Lady accept that economic adversity, although it can never justify or excuse that evil, provides fertile ground for its continuation? Does she therefore agree that early pressure on the Russians to undertake the reforms necessary for economic progress is of the utmost importance?
    Ms Quin: First, shortly after Deputy Makashov's original outburst, President Yeltsin condemned such racial intolerance, and I understand that the Russian authorities have brought charges against Deputy Makashov, so action has been taken.
    On the more general issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, obviously we are engaged in dialogue with the Russians on a number of economic and social issues, including economic assistance resulting from International Monetary Fund negotiations. The European Union is formulating a common strategy towards Russia, which is an attempt to have a strategic overview in our relations with the Russians, including economic and social issues. We are concerned to ensure that our policies, particularly on aid and trade, help to tackle some of the problems and have an impact in Russia as a whole.

    Middle East
    Mr. John Gunnell: When he next expects to meet representatives of the Israeli Government to discuss the middle east peace process. [90465]
    Dr. Brian Iddon: If he will make a statement on the UK's relations with the Palestine National Authority. [90467]
    Mr. Tony Colman: If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with the state of Israel. [90468]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): The new Prime Minister of Israel, Mr. Ehud Barak, will call on my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister tomorrow. We warmly welcome his bold inaugural speech in which he committed himself to achieve
    "a peace of the brave".
    His early meeting with President Arafat and his commitment to implementing the Wye agreement provide earnest of his good intent.
    The people of Israel voted overwhelmingly for peace. Britain will help in any way that we can to support the search for a stable and secure peace for all the peoples of the region.
    Mr. Gunnell: I join my right hon. Friend in warmly welcoming the change of atmosphere since Mr. Barak took control. However, for the past few years, under Mr. Netanyahu's direction, there was continued settlement building in the west bank and east Jerusalem. In his discussions with Israel, will my right hon. Friend make it clear that it is important to reverse that position to assist the peace process?
    Mr. Cook: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend that the essential basis for any progress on the peace agreement is the principle of land for peace. For that reason, we have continued to criticise unilateral breaches of the peace agreement by the expansion of settlements on the occupied territories, which we consider illegal. We shall certainly explore that as part of the peace process. Any final settlement will need to be a package, and one acceptable to both sides—Palestinian and Israelis alike.
    Dr. Iddon: The announcements from Washington yesterday were particularly encouraging. The Palestine National Authority's economy is badly damaged by severe restrictions on movement of goods and people, especially between Gaza and the north and south of the west bank. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, as a further boost to the peace process, it is important to press for implementation of the parts of the Wye agreement that address that very problem?
    Mr. Cook: Yes. We warmly welcome Mr. Barak's commitment to proceed with the Wye agreement and to implement it. That must be one of the best steps towards confidence-building before we can start on the final stages of talks. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the inconvenience, irritation and very deep economic impact

    961
    of the restrictions on movement in the Gaza strip and the west bank. If we are to ensure that the peace process can continue in a stable and lasting way, we must be able to show the people of Palestine its benefits to them individually and its economic gains to their society.
    Mr. Colman: I am sure that the whole House will welcome Prime Minister Barak on his visit tomorrow. It shows the very high standing of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister. I am obviously concerned about ensuring that the peace process moves forward at great speed. The Wye plantation agreement was accompanied by a memorandum of understanding on arrangements, should the agreement go forward, between British armed forces and Israeli defence forces. Prime Minister Barak has famously called the middle east
    "a tough neighbourhood to live in".
    As we go forward on the bitter choices of return of land, should not the security vacuum that may arise from it be filled by ensuring the full implementation of the memorandum of understanding between the two Governments?
    Mr. Cook: We did sign a memorandum of understanding separately from the Wye agreement, to which we would certainly be committed. We have worked very hard with the Palestine National Authority to assist it with technology and capacity to ensure security, and have provided British advice and support in that effort. It is very important that, although we cannot provide a 100 per cent. guarantee of security, there must be a 100 per cent. effort to achieve security—without which neither side can trust the peace process.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Foreign Secretary welcome signs—according to reports in today's press—that in response to Israeli peace initiatives, the Syrian Government appear to be instructing Hezbollah to lay down its arms and stop waging its proxy war against Israel in the Lebanon? Is he concerned by reports that Hezbollah is apparently resisting those demands? In the context of any peace settlement between Israel and Syria, does he agree that in order to lay many of the ghosts of the past, it is important that the Syrian Government cease their decades of sheltering Aloïs Brunner, who, as the right hon. Gentleman will be aware, was Adolf Eichmann's henchman in charge of implementing the holocaust in France?
    Mr. Cook: I am not in a position to confirm the reports in the press over the past 24 hours about Syria's calling on radical groups to refrain from armed resistance to Israel or to the peace process, but if they can be confirmed, they are very welcome. For today, that is perhaps the appropriate response. Plainly, as we enter into dialogue with Syria, and as Israel carries that forward, there may be other matters to be addressed. If Syria's response is confirmed, it underlines Mr. Barak's courage and wisdom in making a commitment to seek the withdrawal of Israeli troops from south Lebanon in one year. The peace process must be comprehensive; it must proceed on all tracks, not just the Palestinian track. There is now hope that we may be able to take that process forward in the next 12 months.
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: May I, like the Foreign Secretary, welcome any progress that
    962
    is made on the peace settlement in the middle east and offer the Opposition's support to Prime Minister Barak on the occasion of his visit tomorrow?
    Does the Foreign Secretary agree that, in the complex and sensitive discussions on the peace process, the Foreign Office should always use Ministers and highly trained professional diplomats? Will he therefore explain why, earlier this year, he used, as an envoy to King Abdullah of Jordan and President Assad of Syria, the Prime Minister's chief crony and Labour party fund raiser, Lord Levy? Will he explain how Lord Levy earned the privilege to represent the United Kingdom in that sensitive area, instead of elected Ministers and trained diplomats?
    Mr. Cook: I can give the House and the hon. Lady absolutely no assurance that we shall use only Ministers or official diplomats in areas of sensitivity. If the hon. Lady ever occupies this side of the Chamber, she will discover that it is quite normal, where there are sensitive issues to be taken forward, for Prime Ministers to use special envoys.
    Moreover, if the hon. Lady had seen—as I have seen—the telegrams from our posts in Jordan and Syria, she would know that both paint a glowing portrait of the success of those visits, the strength of relations that Lord Levy established and the way in which he was able to take forward dialogue on the peace process with Syria, which may partly have influenced yesterday's statement. I believe that those visits did a good job for Britain and a good job for our relations and the peace process. I wish that Conservative Members would stop carping when we establish good high-level contacts with leaders in the region.
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Mr. Barak has been quoted as saying that although he wishes to stop the illegal settlement on Ras al-Amud, it is too late to stop the development on Har Homa. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that Har Homa's development would be in defiance of international law and the fourth Geneva convention, and that if the Israeli Government wish to stop that development, they can?
    Mr. Cook: My views on Har Homa are well known in Israel and here. Any unilateral breach of the peace process is unhelpful to the peace process as a whole. In fairness to Mr. Barak, he can no more put back the clock to the start of the Netanyahu Government than this Government could put back the clock to 1979. He has to start from the point at which he inherits. We very much welcome the commitment that he has shown to the peace process. We shall be happy to discuss with him tomorrow how he takes it forward.

    Iran
    Mr. Tom Brake: What plans he has to improve relations with Iran; and if he will make a statement. [90470]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Our policy towards Iran aims to encourage the reforms already under way in Iran while pressing for improvements in those Iranian policies that are of concern.

    963
    We strongly support the Iranian Government's efforts to improve relations with their neighbours, to properly enforce the rule of law, and to achieve full freedom of speech. That support was demonstrated by the successful meeting between my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and the Iranian Foreign Minister last September, followed by the exchange of ambassadors with Iran this May.
    Mr. Brake: I thank the Minister for his statement. Is he aware that his twin-track policy towards Iran is causing concern among the Jewish community, the National Council of Resistance of Iran and other groups? They consider that a single-track policy that focuses on human rights would be more appropriate. In relation to the Jewish community, will Ministers seek assurances from the Iranian authorities that the 13 members of the Jewish community who are currently detained will have access to family visits and kosher food, will have adequate legal representation, and will have a fair and open trial?
    Mr. Hoon: Our twin-track policy does focus on human rights—it is part of the twin track to ensure that where there are continuing concerns about human rights abuses in Iran, we raise those vigorously at every level with the Iranian Government. In particular, on the point about Jewish detainees, I invited the Iranian ambassador to the Foreign Office on 1 July and urged him to ensure that there would be a fair trial and access for visitors, together with legal representation. I received assurances on each of those matters. In particular, I understand that visits have now been allowed.
    Mr. Mike Gapes: Does my hon. Friend share my concern at the reported remarks by leading members of the military in Iran against the policies of the elected President, and the fact that there is clearly a danger of a serious backlash and reactionary moves away from the limited liberalisation that has taken place so far? Will he assure the House that as well as taking up the issue of minorities—including the Jewish minority—in Iran, we will not tolerate any reversion to the dreadful reactionary policies that were adopted under Khomeini?
    Mr. Hoon: That is the essence of the Government's twin-track policy—to encourage reform, and at the same time to concentrate on areas of continuing concern. If my hon. Friend is referring to recent events in Iran, I think that it is still too soon to make judgments about their outcome. It is right for the Iranian people to resolve those matters, particularly the role of the army.
    Mr. Peter Viggers: Is the Minister aware that a considerable number of hon. Members recently attended a briefing on Iran by the BBC? We were all impressed by the quality and breadth of that briefing. Will he join me in paying tribute to the work of the BBC external services, which probably do more than any other institution to promote knowledge and understanding, especially in countries suffering some form of internal difficulty?
    Mr. Hoon: I was not aware of that particular briefing, but I happily join the hon. Gentleman in congratulating the BBC on the excellent work of its external services, which serve as a source of information for large numbers of people
    964
    around the world who otherwise would not have access to that information, because of the policies of their Governments.

    Kosovo
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on the reconstruction of Kosovo. [90472]
    The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): My European Union colleagues and I discussed the reconstruction of Kosovo at yesterday's meeting of the General Affairs Council. We will discuss it again next week at the Sarajevo summit of the stability pact.
    We have won the military conflict that has liberated Kosovo from oppression, but our task will not be complete until we have won the peace by building a sustainable economy and a democratic society for all the people of Kosovo.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about reports that the United Nations is running out of money to fund the vital reconstruction of villages such as Qirez and Polac, which I visited in the last weekend of June, and where every house, school and mosque has been destroyed?
    Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend, from the evidence of his own visit, is right to draw the attention of the House to the task that remains before us, which is immense. I do not think that the final problem will be one of resources. The European Union and the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development together will undertake most of the reconstruction effort, and resources are available to them and have already been earmarked within the EU. However, we are concerned at the slow pace of development on the ground. That is why we supported the appeal by the Secretary-General of the United Nations for a trust fund to start now on small projects that can provide confidence and hope in Kosovo, and why Britain was the very first member of the United Nations to make a contribution, by offering $1 million.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that conditions will be attached to the reconstruction aid being given through the European Community? Will he also say which specific external programmes will be cut because of the additional reconstruction aid agreed by the Budget Council last week?
    Mr. Cook: I am not sure what conditions the hon. Lady has in mind. Let us be clear that we are providing the money not to any Government of Kosovo, and far less to any Government of Yugoslavia. The funds being provided for the reconstruction of Kosovo are part of a United Nations effort, of which we are part. We will, of course, want to make sure that that money is used prudently. On the question of the budget, the money will come from category 4, which at present is underspent, and we do not anticipate other parts of category 4 being cut back.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: I understand from animal welfare groups that the state of meat control in Kosovo is extremely serious, because the Serbian heads of the meat management departments who controlled the quality of meat have left and taken much of the equipment. It seems to be a general problem that a great deal of the administration of Kosovo is no longer functioning because of the withdrawal of the Serbian management.
    A constituent of mine inquired about the possibility of going to Kosovo to help with the peacekeeping efforts in a specialist role, and was told that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office was promoting such vacancies for British staff there. That was news to me, as it may be to a number of hon. Members. Will the Foreign Secretary encourage hon. Members to seek constituents who can help in such specialist roles in Kosovo for short-term periods while the economy gets back on its feet?
    Mr. Cook: I congratulate my hon. Friend on finding a question relating to the reconstruction of Kosovo that I have never previously been asked. I shall consider it and write to my hon. Friend. On the broad principle, he is right. One of the revealing features about the extent to which the 1989 autonomy was cancelled by Serbia, is the stark degree to which all public industry and services were in the hands of Serbian, not Kosovo-Albanian, management. Many of those dismissed in 1989 are still in Kosovo and available to undertake such tasks, but in the short run there is an immense appetite within Kosovo for people with specialist skills who can help in the management of the reconstruction. We have appealed for such people—not just from central Government, as there is also a real role to be played by local government servants working at a local level in Kosovo.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: I understand the huge and urgent requirement for reconstruction in Kosovo, but can the Foreign Secretary assure the House that that aim will not divert the Government from their long-term strategic support for other countries in the region, most notably, Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania?
    Mr. Cook: The hon. Gentleman is right. When we travel to Sarajevo next Friday, we will have an opportunity to give the countries of the region the clear message that we are determined that the outcome of the Kosovo conflict will be a turning point for the region and that we will bring down trade barriers with the countries of the region, promote a climate for private investment there, and tackle the security issues which have resulted in far too high military expenditure in some of the countries of the western Balkans. We must ensure that we not only reconstruct Kosovo, but act throughout the region to prevent future conflict of the same kind.

    Turkey
    Mr. Robert N. Wareing: If he will make a statement on Her Majesty's Government's relations with Turkey. [90474]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): The United Kingdom is keen to
    966
    continue to build constructive relations overall with the Turkish republic. I recently visited Turkey from 12 to 14 July, when a number of issues were discussed.
    Mr. Wareing: Have real representations been made to the Turkish regime about the way in which it has suppressed the Kurdish population for years and years? How can we regard Turkey as a democracy when it deals with part of its population in that way? What positive steps will now be taken by the international community—to borrow a phrase—to put right the conditions in that country so that it can enter the world community on the same basis as other democracies?
    Ms Quin: On my visit, I raised a number of human rights concerns, including the treatment of people within Turkey's own borders with regard to laws controlling freedom of expression and some of the court and legal proceedings there. The new Government have introduced a number of measures to the Parliament in the past month, which are welcome steps, but there are also a number of ways, through our mutual membership of organisations such as the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the Council of Europe, in which those real matters of concern can be pursued.

    Cyprus
    Mr. Robin Corbett: When he next plans to consult his European Union partners on further approaches to resolve the Cyprus problem. [90477]
    The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Ms Joyce Quin): We and our EU partners are in regular contact about Cyprus and continue to give strong support to the United Nations Secretary-General's efforts towards a settlement in Cyprus. The members of the G8, which met on 20 June, and the UN Security Council, which met on 29 June, have urged the Secretary-General to invite the leaders involved in Cyprus to enter without pre-conditions comprehensive negotiations starting in the autumn. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have assured the Secretary-General that he will have our full support in efforts to get those negotiations under way.
    Mr. Corbett: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will she and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary reflect on the fact that today is the 25th anniversary of the cruel and tragic division of that island? I urge her and all Foreign Office Ministers to renew their efforts to persuade the authorities in Ankara to understand that any ambitions that they may have to join the European family of nations cannot be fulfilled unless and until they facilitate a settlement of the Cyprus problem.
    Ms Quin: My hon. Friend is right to remind the House of today's anniversary, and I know that an early-day motion referring to it has been tabled. He is also right that we should renew and redouble our efforts to make progress towards resolving the Cyprus issue and I made that point forcefully during my visit to Turkey last week.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. John Swinney: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order relates to the title of this afternoon's Opposition day debate on health care provision in the United Kingdom. On 1 July, when responsibility for health policy was transferred from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament, you were a very welcome visitor to Edinburgh for the Parliament's opening. Is it appropriate for a debate on health care provision in the United Kingdom to take place in the House of Commons, bearing in mind the fact that the Scotland Act 1998 has come into effect and legislative competence on health policy has been transferred from Westminster to Edinburgh, or is this another example of the Conservative party's inability to come to terms with constitutional change?
Madam Speaker: No question of order arises. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman that the devolution statutes have, of course, altered ministerial responsibility, and they therefore affect questions and Adjournment debates to which such responsibility is directly linked, but debates on abstract motions, such as the one to which the hon. Gentleman refers—[Laughter.] Debates on such motions are not limited in the same way.
Mr. John McDonnell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not giving you adequate notice of my point of order; I have no excuse save my own incompetence. I raised a point of order during last week's debate on the City of London (Ward Elections) Bill relating to the fact that a Minister has to make a statement before Second Reading on the compatibility of all Government legislation with the Human Rights Act 1998, which the House passed last November. The response of the Chairman of Ways and Means to my point of order was:
"No similar provision occurs in the case of either private Members' or private Bills."—[Official Report, 14 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 464.]
That means that the House will debate the Bill without having legal advice on its compatibility with the human rights convention, an onus that I believe was placed on us by the 1998 Act.
In addition, I believe that the promoters of the Bill have received legal advice, but it has not been published. The House has neither its own independent advice nor access to the legal advice given to the promoters. I would welcome your consideration of how we should proceed on that matter.
Madam Speaker: I know that the hon. Gentleman was advised by the Chairman of Ways and Means that private Bills are not covered by section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998. That Act obliges a Minister in charge of a public Bill to make a statement of compatibility. If he wishes to change the law, he will have to invite the Government to do so or he might have to introduce a Bill himself. If I can be of any further help, I will certainly look at what he has said and come back to him, but I doubt that I can do anything more at this stage.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I also apologise for not having
968
given you due notice of this point of order, and I am not expecting an immediate answer. I should like to ask you to reflect on the proceedings last night under the business of the House motion concerning the Railways Bill, as recorded in column 899 of Hansard. A number of issues arose during a fascinating debate. The Deputy Speaker advised us that the matter did
"not have to come under a Standing Order",
and that the motion fell
"to be determined on its merits."
When my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked whether there had to be a Second Reading of the Bill in the next Session, the reply was:
"That is not a matter on which the Chair can rule—it is a matter to be elicited in the course of debate."—[Official Report, 19 July 1999; Vol. 335, c. 899.]
That experimental procedure—it was quite clear that it was experimental—leaves unresolved a number of important questions, not least the status of any changes that the Select Committee may seek to make to the Bill as a result of its deliberations. That would, in turn, lead on to the question whether such a Bill in those circumstances required a Second Reading distinct and separate from the first Second Reading.
The House is in an odd position. We are in a state of complete uncertainty as to the status of the Second Reading, the Select Committee deliberations and so on. It would be helpful if you would think about this matter, Madam Speaker, and let the House know your views before the recess.
Madam Speaker: The motion that was passed by the House last night was a free-standing motion, and it was not under any Standing Order. Had it been so, that would have been shown on the Order Paper. The effect of the motion is that the Bill is not committed to a Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 63, but stands referred to the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. I shall ponder what the right hon. Gentleman said, and if I can be of any further help, I shall come back to him.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During your response to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Mr. Swinney), the House giggled sympathetically when you used the phrase "an abstract motion". With respect, is that not ducking rather an important issue? What is to be classified as an abstract motion and what is not? Some of us would like guidance on what motions affect the whole of the United Kingdom and what areas—alas, in the opinion of some of us—are no longer the responsibility of the House of Commons. This is a very important issue.
Madam Speaker: I made a statement to the House last week. There is no ducking of any issues. If the House of Commons finds what I say amusing, hon. Members can laugh about it by all means. We should express ourselves in various ways.
Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, apologise to you for not giving you due notice. Late last night in the debate about the procedures that we were to follow on the Railways Bill,

969
at column 922 of Hansard, I drew the House's attention to Standing Order No. 65, which says:
"All Committees to which bills may be committed…shall have power to make such amendments therein as they shall think fit".
I wonder whether you could, on reflection, give us some guidance on whether we are able, in the usual way, to table amendments that the Select Committee would have to consider, as though it were a Standing Committee. If any Member of the House tables such an amendment, how is a Select Committee to handle it, and how is the Committee to report the Bill back to the House for us to consider those amendments at a later stage?
Madam Speaker: As I said to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who raised a point of order with me on a similar issue, I have not been given notice of these complicated questions so I shall report back on those matters.
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I, too, apologise for failing to give you any notice of my point of order, which follows on from that of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). He has just pointed out the fact that, last night, the House was advised from the Chair that we should wait to discover whether there would be a second Second Reading, a fact that we were intended to find out in the course of debate. Given that we did not do so, and that you have kindly agreed to look into this matter, can we be told how in future, if such a situation recurs, we are to discover well in advance of any such second Second Reading that it will take place?
Madam Speaker: That may be an issue that has very little to do with the Chair, but a good deal to do with the
970
Government. However, I will look at the points of order that have been raised concerning the issues that were dealt with last night.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I have already taken a point of order from you, Mr. Dalyell. Please resume your seat.
Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. When you are considering the complicated events of last night, will you bear it in mind that, during our proceedings, Mr. Deputy Speaker advised us that we were debating a committal motion, and not a continuation motion? With the greatest respect, that would seem to be somewhat at variance with your thoughts this afternoon, which make a great deal more sense to me—
Madam Speaker: Order. They are not at all at variance. It was a committal motion last night.
Mr. St. Aubyn: I apologise.
Madam Speaker: So you should. What is your point of order to me?
Mr. St. Aubyn: My point of order is that you have just told the House that the Bill was not committed to the Select Committee.
Madam Speaker: It was committed to a Select Committee. It was not committed to a Standing Committee under Standing Order No. 63, but stands referred to the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee. Perhaps hon. Members should listen clearly to what I have to say and refer to the Official Report tomorrow.
Mr. Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I hesitate to cross you, but are you prepared to issue a Speaker's certificate to any motion or item of business that is abstract, as this is a matter of considerable consequence to Scottish Members of Parliament?
Madam Speaker: The answer is no. Abstract is a term of art, and I have a very wide vocabulary.

Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries (Amendment)
3.41 pm
Mr. Archy Kirkwood: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Government to consult interested parties on whether to designate the coastal waters off Berwickshire as Scottish internal waters and to report to Parliament; and for connected purposes.
I seek leave to introduce a Bill whose purpose is to reopen the consultation process undertaken prior to the implementation of the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order earlier this year. I am particularly interested in the section of the order which affected 6,000 square miles of what was previously understood to be Scottish waters off the coast of Berwickshire. By virtue of the order, the area—known locally as the Berwickshire bank—now comes under the legal jurisdiction of England.
The Bill, if enacted later this Session, would require the Secretary of State for Scotland to reopen the formal process of consultation with fishing and other interested parties, and report back to Parliament. It may be unusual to introduce a parliamentary Bill for this purpose, but I believe that that is the only option open to Ministers—I note with satisfaction that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland is in his place—if local people in Berwickshire, and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, are to have a meaningful chance to have their views considered and heard properly.
The Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundary Order 1999 was introduced to create a Scottish zone within British fishery limits. Scots law for sea fisheries applies within the zone created by the order. The order was an integral part, and inevitable consequence, of the overall political settlement enshrined in the Scotland Act 1998. It sets out the boundaries by listing the necessary Ordnance Survey co-ordinates in schedules attached to the order. It was debated in Committee on Tuesday 23 March 1999.
I fully accept that it is not a trifling matter to seek to revisit a statutory instrument properly laid and debated by the House so soon after it has been implemented. Nor do I make any charge against Ministers who, I am sure, acted in good faith at the time. However, they were advising interested parties, including local Members of Parliament, that there was no cause for any concern in the boundary changes and that there would be no practical difficulties for the fishing industry.
Ministers believed that they got a good settlement for Scotland in the totality of coastline classification as waters adjacent to Scotland, and I agree with that judgment. I certainly agree with the judgment as it relates to the national Scottish position, but I believe that the consultation process—in so far as it was carried out on the local situation—was flawed, and flawed in particular in relation to the Berwickshire bank.
I further believe that the Standing Committee was not in full possession of all the principles and facts used internationally in deciding boundary questions between competing jurisdictions. Moreover, because of a lack of adequate notification, the Committee could not possibly have known of the strength of local feeling against the proposals.
I should like now to deal very briefly, in turn, with each of those matters—the first of which is the defect in the consultation system used. The Eyemouth and District
972
Fishermen's Association and the Scottish Fishermen's Federation are very angry that the order was made without any of the usual consultations that are held between the Scottish Office and fishermen's organisations. When, for example, the Scottish Office undertook a review of controls of inshore fishing in Scotland, numerous organisations were personally contacted. The Government maintained, however, that the arrangements in the order involved nothing very significant, and that that had been pointed out by the former Scottish Office Minister, the hon. Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who, in Standing Committee, said:
"I fear that hon. Members are reading a bit too much complexity into the matter and suggesting that there is something either sinister or cynical about the measure."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 March 1999; c. 14.]
Additionally, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in his letter to the Scottish Fishermen's Federation, dated 13 July, said:
"decisions on the location of these"—
boundaries—
"are matters solely for the UK Government".
He went on to say that
"the location of the boundary line has no substantive impact on the rights of Scottish fishermen to operate throughout UK waters."
Fishermen's organisations, and the fishermen who fish off the Berwickshire bank, do not agree with those propositions.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith), who was a Committee member when it considered the order, said that he was unaware that there had been no consultation with the Scottish fishing industry. He has subsequently asked the Government to reconsider the order and review the east coast boundary.
In the Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) was not alone in expressing concern about the implications of what the Committee was being asked to decide. He said:
"I retain a certain nervousness. I want to be sure that the principles that he"—
the Minister—
"describes have been applied correctly and that, if they prove to have been in error, it is recognised that we shall have to return to the issue, if necessary with a modified order."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 23 March 1999; c. 11.]
Therefore, in common with other hon. Members in the Standing Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed was totally unaware that the Government had failed to consult properly any of the fishermen's organisations.
Secondly, there are also important questions of international law. The Secretary of State for Scotland has argued that median lines are the commonly accepted approach, used internationally, to determining boundaries. On further investigation, however, and with the help of the Library, I have discovered that the main court in adjudicating disputes on maritime boundaries—the International Court of Justice—has never accepted that equidistance should be an absolute rule. Indeed, in the recent dispute on which it adjudicated—between Denmark, Holland and Germany—it was established that the overriding principle should be equitable settlement, rather than strict geometric equidistance.

973
Significantly, equitable settlement allows for resource and historic use considerations to be taken into account. Therefore, if a truly equitable settlement is to be reached in this case, a proper statutory period of consultation must now occur.
The third, and final, issue is the order's impact on the local fishing industry. Berwickshire fishermen believe that the new boundary will result in administrative and legal problems—for example, Scottish fishermen accused of an offence in the zone south of the new boundary would be tried in an English court. Apart from considerable time, trouble and expense, an English lawyer would have to be hired, as the vessel's Scottish lawyer would have no right of appearance in an English court.
The order creates the absurd situation of there being two quite distinct jurisdiction boundaries in the sea area east of Scotland and England, off the coast of my constituency. Consequently, fishing vessels operating between those lines, if fishing, would be in England, whereas they would be in Scotland if engaged in non-fishing activities. That is exactly the type of nonsensical situation that Standing Committee members, when considering the order, wished to be assured would be avoided.
Berwickshire fishermen certainly believe that the boundary has always—for at least the past century—been at Marshall meadows. Conventionally, the sea boundary went due east from that point, and, 30 years ago, that was confirmed by the definition of the oil fields' location.
The purpose of the Bill, therefore, is to try to reflect the view of local people and of fishermen's organisations that the issue is serious and that it will not go away. If it is not addressed now, it could produce difficult situations in the future. If it is not dealt with in a constructive and conciliatory manner, the sense of betrayal that local people feel will grow.
Fishermen in Scotland are looking to the Secretary of State to engage in meaningful, fresh consultation. This ten-minute Bill would allow for fishermen's demands to be considered and addressed, and I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Archy Kirkwood, Mr. Michael Moore, Mrs. Ray Michie, Mr. Donald Gorrie and Sir Robert Smith.

SCOTTISH ADJACENT WATERS BOUNDARIES (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Archy Kirkwood accordingly presented a Bill to require the Government to consult interested parties on whether to designate the coastal waters off Berwickshire as Scottish internal waters and to report to Parliament; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 145].
Opposition Day
[19TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Health Care
  3.50 pm
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  Dr. Liam Fox: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the failure of the Government to deliver improvements in the provision of health care in the United Kingdom, resulting in increased waiting times for patients, plummeting morale in the medical and nursing professions, distortion of clinical priorities and the increasingly widespread rationing of drugs and treatments; and believes that repeated announcements, soundbites and photo opportunities are no substitute for a coherent and effective health policy.
  After more than two years, we can now start to compare new Labour's promises with what it has actually delivered. We can compare what it said that it would do, and often pretends that it is doing, with the reality of the health service that patients experience and within which doctors and nurses work every day.
  As of this morning, two thirds of the trusts and half the health authorities expect underlying recurrent expenditure to exceed income by the end of the year. More than one third of trusts intend to cut direct service provision this year to balance their budgets.
  The debate is about the widening gap between the growth in expectations and the ability of the service to deliver quick results.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: I can deliver quick results, but not that quick. No thank you.
  The debate is also about the competence of a Government who make announcements about the same spending over and over again and engage in gimmicks and soundbites to hide the intellectual vacuum in a Department that denies that rationing in our health care system even exists.
  Mr. John Swinney: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: A surprise appearance. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Swinney: The hon. Gentleman has raised the issue of competence and I want to probe that issue further in the context of the motion. The motion is about health care provision in the United Kingdom, but with effect from 1 July, control of health policy was devolved from this Parliament to the Scottish Parliament. How competent is the Conservative party to move a motion about health care provision in the United Kingdom, when that is a matter over which this Parliament no longer has the power to exercise control?
  Dr. Fox: I am sure that had the motion been out of order, you would have ruled it out of order,

  975
  Madam Speaker. Besides, all citizens of the United Kingdom are entitled to free treatment wherever they go in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, this Parliament is responsible for making the money available for health care in all parts of the United Kingdom—and long may it remain so.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: No, but I will in a little while.
  It is interesting to note how the disappointment that now exists among large sections of the electorate came about. On 1 July 1996, in "The Road to the Manifesto"—which for her was to be a short road to the Back Benches—the right hon. Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) wrote:
  "Labour will cut NHS waiting times".
  The facts are a little different. In March 1997, 30,100 patients had waited more than a year to be seen. By the end of May this year, 48,300 people were in that position—a 61 per cent. increase.
  In December 1996, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, who was then Labour health spokesman, said in a speech on "A Health Service for a New Century":
  "I am particularly conscious of the need to avoid upheaval yet again within the Health Service. Change is needed, but it must happen in a sensible and phased way, and it must never become change for change's sake."
  However, not only has everyone who works in the national health service been avalanched with paper by the Government's attempts to make the system ever more centralised, but Dr. Ian Bogle, in his first speech as chairman of the British Medical Association, attacked the Government, saying that the pace of change was "frightening", and that doctors were
  "apprehensive and fearful for their future".
  He continued:
  "Congratulations, Mr. Blair, you have managed to alienate the whole profession."
  Then there is the question of political appointments. The then Labour spokesman also said:
  "We want greater accountability and transparency for the planning and funding decisions made by health authorities, hospitals and GPs. Solely political appointments made to non-executive directorships on the boards of trusts and authorities must end."
  However, the figures show that 189 Labour councillors have been appointed as chairmen or non-executive directors on NHS trusts since the general election—posts that can boost their incomes by up to £19,000 a year. By contrast, only 25 of their allies in the Liberal Democrat party, 11 Tories and three independent councillors were chosen in the same period. What a bunch of phoneys the Government have turned out to be.
  Far more important than the Government's broken promises is the plunge in morale in the national health service to which Ian Bogle referred in his speech. That plunge, which has happened throughout the country, is clearly evident to those of us who visit hospitals and is
  976
  nowhere more visible than in the destruction of junior doctors' morale. Two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the House that when the Government
  "came to office, 6,500 junior doctors were working more than 56 hours a week—an unacceptable figure."
  He was correct. He then said:
  "Now the figure is 4,800."
  That is wrong. The figure is now 8,508; 26 per cent. of junior doctors work beyond the new deal limits. The Prime Minister added:
  "I am pleased to say that only one junior doctor in six works now for more than 56 hours a week"—[Official Report, 7 July 1999; Vol. 334, c. 1024.]
  That is incorrect. Only the Prime Minister's arithmetic can turn 26 per cent. into one in six. For the rest of us, the figure means that one in four of all junior doctors in this country are not complying with the new deal. That is an increase of 78 per cent. over the previous non-compliance figures of 30 September 1998. If the Minister thinks that those figures are wrong, I hope that he will give us the correct ones.
  What do those figures tell us? They tell us either that the Prime Minister does not speak to the Secretary of State, or that the Secretary of State does not know the figures. Perhaps neither of them really cares about the figures.
  The truth is that our junior doctors are starting to work more hours than they did before. Rules govern the length of time that a person can drive a lorry or fly an aeroplane, but the Government do not appear to mind the number of hours that people can guddle around with a scalpel in a patient's insides. The Government propose that there should be no limit on junior doctors' hours for the next four years and that the transition to 48 hours a week will take 13 years. When that was decided, the Secretary of State called it "good news for doctors".
  Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: In a moment.
  Padraig Flynn, the former European Union Employment and Social Affairs Commissioner, said that he was "very, very dismayed" at the decision. He said that it was unacceptable for patients to be treated by doctors who are exhausted, and that such a long transition period was
  "not politically feasible or morally acceptable. It does not take 13 years to improve work organisation in European hospitals."
  Notwithstanding the interference that may come from Brussels on this matter, it is surely right that the Government should ensure that no junior doctor works more than 56 hours a week by the end of this Parliament. I look forward to the Secretary of State giving that commitment this afternoon.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: At a time when a senior consultant has been accused of failing in his duty because of overwork, is it not even more dangerous that junior doctors, who are often a patient's first line of defence, work even longer hours than some consultants? Northern Ireland has the highest rate of junior doctors working hours that are too long.
  Dr. Fox: When I was a senior house officer in obstetrics, I worked one weekend that began on Saturday

  977
  morning and finished at the end of Sunday night. I had no sleep at all and managed to assist in nine emergency caesarean sections. I thought that those days were gone, and I expected that the progress made by the previous Conservative Government in reducing junior doctors' hours would continue. Apparently, however, the move is in the other direction. That is extremely demoralising for junior doctors and terrifying for patients.
  Another worry is the rise in non-UK doctors in the national health service. I was surprised at the figures showing the proportion of our doctors who were born and trained here. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State laughs, but will the public laugh when they find out that 18 per cent. of consultants, 67 per cent. of staff grade personnel, 68 per cent. of associated specialists, 31 per cent. of registrars and 38 per cent. of SHOs come from overseas?
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is the hon. Gentleman addressing the House or the Strangers Gallery?
  Madam Speaker: I hope that he is addressing the House. That seems to be largely what he is up to.
  Dr. Fox: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I am not so thin-skinned as to be deflected by spurious interruptions that are intended to prevent us from discussing the Government's appalling reputation.
  All of us support training in the national health service, but we must hope that it does not become an increasingly international health service.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: May I offer the hon. Gentleman an opportunity to praise the rich contribution made in my constituency by overseas doctors, who invest in our health care and in saving lives, as well as contributing economically to our communities? Will the hon. Gentleman say that they are welcome, and that they would be mistaken if they heard any racist overtone in what he has said? I merely offer him an opportunity to clarify what could be seen as—I hope that it was not—a sad insult to the rich contribution of overseas doctors to our health care.
  Dr. Fox: I have read a lot in the newspapers about the simplicity of the so-called Blair babes, but I have never heard the case better put.
  One of the major problems facing us at present is compounding the drop in doctors' morale. In difficult times in the NHS, doctors and nurses used to be able to console themselves that no matter what resources they had to work with, they could properly prioritise patient care. That has changed fundamentally. My colleagues and I have travelled the country, speaking in particular to surgeons in hospitals. As a result of the Government's waiting list initiative, those surgeons are under increasing pressure to get the lists down, irrespective of what that means for patient care. If it means treating more varicose veins and ingrowing toenails, and keeping those who require cardiac surgery waiting, that must be done. If doctors do not act in that way, they face financial penalties.
  Clinical priorities are being distorted. When one talks behind the scenes to sympathetic officials, or even—dare I say it—to sympathetic Ministers, one hears them say
  978
  that they understand that that is happening, but that Tony's promise must be fulfilled. Party politics is being put before patient care. When caring medical professionals say that clinical judgment is being distorted, they are simply told that that is how it must be: the promise was in Labour's manifesto, and if those who are most sick must wait longer, so be it. That is a sad indictment of the way in which our health system is being run.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Has my hon. Friend noticed a clear illustration of that point, which appeared in Hansard? During a statement on health on 6 July, at column 828, the Secretary of State for Health was told that a 90-year-old patient at the Royal Surrey hospital, Guildford, had been made to wait more than 24 hours before being given a bed on a ward, and he replied: "The craw can wait." Can my hon. Friend imagine such an insulting remark being made about a patient in a Labour area? Does that remark not prove that the Labour party's true feelings are for their own interest, and not for patients?
  Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend—
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): rose—
  Dr. Fox: Does the Secretary of State wish to make a point of order?
  Mr. Dobson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: I am not giving way. I have to reply to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Dobson: rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) is not giving way.
  Dr. Fox: My hon. Friend must appreciate that clinical priority is no longer the deciding factor. What matters is what suits the opinion polls and how statistics can be reduced without their accidentally becoming individuals who have families and needs. If the Secretary of State wishes to put the record straight, I shall give way.
  Mr. Dobson: I do want to put the record straight. If the hon. Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) reads the corrected Hansard, he will find that I was referring to something said by the hon. Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames). Two newspapers managed correctly to record what I had said, even if Hansard did not.
  Dr. Fox: I am none the wiser for that correction.
  In dealing with clinical priorities, the downgrading of the opinions of medical staff is not in any way the fault of medical staff themselves. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have the very highest regard for doctors and nurses in our health service. I spent all my working time before entering politics working as a doctor in the health service. If the current trend continues, in which statistics

  979
  are all-important and patients are downgraded, we shall shortly find ourselves with first-class staff working in a second-class service.
  Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend touched on the plight of heart patients. Is he aware that the patients charter specifies that no heart patient should be obliged to wait more than 12 months for cardiac surgery, but that a recent survey of 35 trusts showed that no fewer than 21 of them were failing to meet that target and that some people had to wait up to 17 months to receive the treatment to which they were entitled? Is that not an outrage?
  Dr. Fox: It is an outrage and it is a tragedy. The outrage is that patients are being made to wait in order to manipulate the figures. Hernias and varicose veins are being pushed up the surgery list while serious cases that cost more money and take more time are being pushed down it. It is the distortion of clinical priorities that lies at the heart of our complaints about the Government's running of the NHS.
  My hon. Friend's complaint about waiting times is mirrored by complaints about waiting lists. Despite all the rhetoric, waiting list figures have started to go up again. They have gone up by 21,197 since March this year. That, the Secretary of State would no doubt say, is an increase of merely 2 per cent., but it is worrying—and not only if one happens to be one of the 21,197. There is a seasonal factor. A rise in waiting lists at this time of year does not bode well for the second part of the year. Waiting times have gone up for many patients. In March 1997, 30,100 patients were waiting more than a year to be seen, but at the end of March this year, 48,300 were waiting—a 61 per cent. increase.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: How can the hon. Gentleman reconcile his crocodile tears about alleged waiting lists with the fact that Conservative Members not only want to abolish the road fuel duty escalator, which would cause more asthma and would cost billions of pounds' worth of public money which could otherwise be put into health, but would abolish the escalator on duties on tobacco—a policy that would cost thousands of lives? There would be less money for health and more people would die as a result of the hon. Gentleman's stupid policies.
  Dr. Fox: They are not alleged waiting lists. I am citing the Government's published figures for waiting lists. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman might want to have that argument with his Front-Bench team. In the seven years I have been in this place, I have heard some pretty poor red herrings to detract attention from an Opposition attack, but that one took the biscuit.
  Waiting lists have started to rise again. The number of patients waiting for their first out-patient appointment following GP referral has increased. What matters to patients is that they get the appropriate treatment at the appropriate time. They do not care how many people are in front of or behind them in the queue. The Government believe that the people of this country will believe them when they put patients on a waiting list to go on a waiting list, say that waiting lists are coming down and pretend that the Government are doing well. Do they take people
  980
  for fools? Patients care about the time between seeing their GP and getting their treatment. They are not bothered about what statistical measures and accounting procedures are put in place to ensure that the waiting list figures look right.
  Department of Health statistics comparing March this year with March two years ago when the Government came to office show that, this year, 208,000 more patients were still waiting more than 13 weeks—an 84 per cent. increase—and 121,349 had waited more than 13 weeks—a 115 per cent. increase. Of those patients, 82,000 were still waiting more than 26 weeks—a 115 per cent. increase—and 50,968 had waited more than 26 weeks—a 92 per cent. increase. All the promises that waiting times and waiting lists would come down were nothing but meaningless hot air, but people know that health care has got worse under Labour.
  One of the ways in which the system has got worse is that the Government refuse to accept that there is any rationing in our health care. We all know that there was, is, and will continue to be, rationing in health care as long as medical science is able to provide more than any publicly funded service can afford. That is a matter of fact. To pretend otherwise by entering the state of denial in which the Government find themselves does not help us to move the debate towards a better model of health care. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), the then shadow Secretary of State for Health, asked the Minister for Public Health:
  "Is there rationing or is there not?"
  The Minister replied,
  "No".—[Official Report, 15 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 746.]
  When I was a GP, health care was rationed; we had to decide whether to state in the referral letter that the case was an emergency, urgent, quite urgent, or not urgent. That is how health care was rationed. As we are told that there is now no rationing, I wonder whether patients with hepatitis C are being refused Ribavirin—a drug that would help them immensely. Is that not rationing? When multiple sclerosis patients in most parts of the country are told that they cannot have interferon, although patients in other parts of the country can have that drug, is that not rationing? That is rationing by postcode—the most unfair rationing of all. When some breast cancer patients pay £12,000 for a six-month course of Taxol, is that not rationing? Are the Government still going to have the nerve to tell the House today that there is no rationing in health care? There is rationing; we accept that. Why can the Government not have the intellectual courage to say what everyone in the medical profession and patients know is true? There is rationing.
  Mr. Eric Illsley: Is it not true that the previous Government denied that there was rationing in the NHS? I am aware of that from a personal case. When my daughter was a patient at the Sheffield children's hospital, for month after month the doctors pleaded with me to try to get the Conservative Government to stop the rationing of various drugs in the NHS. Dr. Wales, a consultant at the hospital, was unable to provide drugs for his patients; he had to rely on the patients' GPs to use their own drugs budget to provide the drugs that he prescribed. I received letters from two

  981
  previous Secretaries of State—one of whom is in the Chamber today—denying that any form of rationing on those lines took place.
  Dr. Fox: The hon. Gentleman was not listening. I was just making the point that, as a practising doctor, I always realised that there was rationing—it takes place now and it will always take place as long as medical advances outstrip our ability to fund them. It does not take membership of Mensa to understand that equation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should have a word with Members on the Treasury Bench about the forms of rationing that he mentioned. Does he believe that the argument is progressing when those Members deny that there is any rationing at all in our health care? We cannot move to a more rational debate as long as we remain in this denial process—the intellectual vacuum and thought-free zone that pervades the Treasury Bench.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Fox: No, I do not think I shall. The hon. Gentleman has already interrupted—wholly fatuously—although he had the opportunity to make an interesting point for once.
  When one has to go on a waiting list for a waiting list, that is all right because it is a people's waiting list. When one cannot receive cancer treatment free on the NHS, one must not worry because it is the new NHS. When the health service keeps people waiting for their heart surgery so that the Government can keep their election promises, that is okay because they are Tony's promises. What we have—dressed up as health policy—are broken promises dressed in gimmicks and delivered with incompetence. Labour said that Britain deserved better. Britain still does deserve better, but all that we have had is let-down Labour.
  4.14 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  'welcomes the action the Government has taken to turn around the National Health Service by finding £21 billion extra funds for the coming three years, starting building work on 13 new hospitals, modernising every Accident and Emergency Department that needs it, abolishing the unfair and divisive system of fundholding and replacing it with Primary Care Groups putting doctors and nurses in the driving seat, cutting waiting lists, ending 18 month waiting in the NHS, creating the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and National Service Frameworks to promote quality treatment, delivering the biggest real terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years, publishing the most comprehensive strategy ever produced for improving the status, training, pay and job opportunities for Britain's half a million nurses, midwives and health visitors, with 3,800 nurses returning to the NHS so far this year and 2,200 additional doctors in the Government's first year of office; further welcomes the 450,000 more waiting list operations carried out last year plus the 142,000 extra emergency cases treated, and half a million more outpatient cases dealt with; and congratulates the staff on providing record results in what remains the fairest and most efficient healthcare system in the world.'.
  Rather than make a statement on an important matter before the debate, it was agreed with Members of the Opposition Front Bench that I should make it before beginning my speech.
  982
  In recent years, the number of cases of meningitis has increased. The increase—
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Usually, a statement is advertised to the House. If the Secretary of State is to make a statement now, is it appropriate that parties other than the Conservative party were not notified, and should they have been notified?
  Madam Speaker: I have no knowledge of who was notified of the statement—I was not notified myself. However, if the Secretary of State wishes to give information to the House, he should be allowed to do so. If he gave the information outside the House, Members of Parliament would be the first to complain.
  Mr. Dobson: In recent years, the number of cases of meningitis has increased. The increase has been caused by meningococcal group C infection, which is often associated with outbreaks in schools and colleges. Last year, that group C infection affected around 1,530 people and caused 150 deaths, mainly among children and young people. I am sure that the House will be pleased to learn that a new vaccine against this infection has been developed, carefully tested and shown to be safe and effective. I am glad to be able to announce that it is now expected to become available on the national health service this autumn, a year earlier than was expected.
  The vaccine is being developed by three companies, all of which expect to bring forward production of the vaccine. One company, Wyeth, expects to be the first, with supplies coming on stream this autumn. Following discussions I have had with the company, it has taken steps to increase production capacity and is now confident that it can supply substantially more doses by December than it had originally intended, and even more vaccine next year. The two other companies, Chiron Biocine and North American Vaccines, are expected to be able to supply the vaccine early next year. Therefore, providing the suppliers' timetables are kept to and licensing and procurement proceed smoothly, a new immunisation programme in this country should start in October this year and expand as rapidly as the manufacturers can supply more vaccine.
  Because the new vaccine is being produced for the first time, there will not be enough to supply everyone from the start, so it will have to be targeted at the babies, children, and young people who are most at risk. It is proposed that, in the first instance, the new vaccine should be made available for: babies when they get their routine diphtheria-tetanus-whooping cough, polio and Hib vaccinations at two, three and four months; children receiving their first measles, mumps and rubella vaccination at around 13 months; children over four months and under one year who will be recalled specially for immunisation; and young people aged 15, 16 and 17. Children over one and under five will be covered in the second phase, and other age groups will follow as stocks of the vaccine become available. Those priorities have been endorsed by the members of the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation, the National Meningitis Trust and the Meningitis Research Foundation.
  For the rest of this year, stocks of the new vaccine will not be large enough or available soon enough to cover young people going to college and university for the first

  983
  time. However, this group, especially those in halls of residence, has proved to be vulnerable to meningitis C, especially in the first few weeks of their first term. To meet their needs, I have decided that the existing vaccine, which is effective only for about three years, should be made available to any people in that category who want it. It is recommended that they get vaccinated before they go to college or university this autumn. If they need it, they will be able to have access to the new vaccine at a later date.
  I am making this announcement today so that the NHS can make the necessary preparations for the new immunisation programme. The chief medical officer, chief nursing officer and chief pharmacist are writing today to all those working in the NHS who will be responsible for implementing the programme. It would, of course, have been better if we could have had sufficient doses of the new vaccine to immunise everyone straight away, but that is simply not possible as this is a new vaccine and stocks are having to be manufactured from scratch.
  Meningitis fills parents with fear because it can arrive out of the blue and bring a healthy child to death's door in a few hours. The brand new vaccine will help to reduce the incidence of meningitis but it will not bring it to an end. Sadly, the development of a vaccine to counter the remaining form of meningococcal infection is still some years away. A substantial number of people will contract meningitis even when the full immunisation programme is in place, and some will die from that disease. However, at least we are making a start, and my announcement today should give us a chance of almost halving the number of outbreaks and deaths among the children of this country each winter.
  Providing everything proceeds as intended, the NHS will be the first health care system in the world to have the use of this new vaccine. I would like to pay tribute to the hard work of the companies and the staff of my Department, the Public Health Laboratory Service, the National Institute for Biological Standards and Control, the Centre for Applied Microbiology and Research and the Medicines Control Agency for all they have done, and are doing, to expedite the availability of this brand new weapon in the unending fight against illness and death.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way and for giving me notification of this information earlier. When does he intend to move to a universal programme rather than simply a targeted programme? How many people does he think will be involved? Will health authorities receive extra cash allocations to cover this new programme?
  Mr. Dobson: There are two points. First, we are utterly dependent on how quickly the three manufacturers can provide sufficient doses of the vaccine. However, I hope that we will have virtually universal coverage by either the spring or summer of next year. Secondly, the programme will be funded centrally and the health authorities will not have to find a penny out of the money that they have been allocated already.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: On the substance of his statement, can the Secretary of State tell the House what
  984
  cost-effectiveness analysis has been conducted of the announcement and the vaccination? Why did he not make a statement in the usual way?
  Mr. Dobson: My officials and the health economists have made their assessments. I looked at those assessments and I decided that it was a reasonable proposition. That is my judgment, whatever others may say. I offered to make a statement in the usual manner but the official Opposition asked me to make my statement in the course of my speech, and that is what I have done.
  Madam Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman has made the statement at the beginning of his speech, I will limit questions because I want him to proceed to the general debate and address the Opposition motion. I shall allow a few more interventions.
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The announcement is obviously welcome. The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that no one in the House will challenge that desirable outcome. However, is it not obvious why he has made this statement today? In line with the press relations machinery of this Government, when Labour is in trouble it finds a piece of readily accessible good news that it believes will divert the reporting. The Secretary of State could have made this statement yesterday or tomorrow. However, he has made it today because he is facing a difficult debate about general health policy and is seeking to divert attention from, among other things, the figures on waiting lists and waiting times about which my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) has challenged him.
  Mr. Dobson: The right hon. and learned Gentleman has obviously tried to raise the tone of the debate.
  Mr. Andrew Robathan: Answer the question.
  Mr. Dobson: If there was a question. The fact is that we did not get everything nailed down until yesterday. I have a speaking engagement in Liverpool tomorrow and it was necessary to get this information to the national health service as soon as practicable so that it can get on with it.
  I think that the Tories should abandon this obsession with spin doctoring. It was alleged in several newspapers and on television and radio by Lord knows who that we had timed the release of information about the people who tried to place a racial block on the use of organs donated from a relative. I was told about the incident and, within an hour, I had issued a denunciation of the practice and called for an inquiry. I did not consult anybody—spin doctors or anyone else. I simply thought that it was right to set the record straight. We are making this information public today because I think that it is the right thing to do.
  Madam Speaker: Order. I shall call one more hon. Member, who represents the Ulster Unionist party, to put a question to the Secretary of State on his statement and then I shall expect the Secretary of State and other hon. Members to move on to the general debate on the Opposition motion. I call the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
  Rev. Martin Smyth: This is an abstract debate on the national health service, but I believe that the national

  985
  health service is concrete. I take it that the statement refers not only to England, Wales and Scotland but to all the regions.
  Mr. Dobson: I can confirm that the statement is UK-wide, even if the Scottish National party Member who has now departed the Chamber would have wished it not to be so.
  On the general debate, the national health service certainly needs improvement, and nobody is complacent about that. We recognise that the NHS needs to change, and we have made a start. Some say that we are going too fast, some say that we are going too slow, and some even manage to make both complaints at the same time.
  I have to remind Conservative Members of the state of the health service when we took over. There were record waiting lists, and they were rising faster than ever before. The debts run up by the NHS in the year before we took over amounted to £450 million. The number of nurses in training had been cut. The number of doctors going into general practice had been reduced. The investment in new buildings, new plant and equipment was at its lowest for 10 years.
  The system introduced by the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who accuses me of politicising a statement on meningitis, had set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital. The pay system for almost all staff was archaic and inflexible. Expenditure on information technology systems had been a scandal almost from start to finish. There had been no preparation for the millennium. Violence against NHS staff was soaring. We have made a start on changing that.
  Despite the increases in the past two months, the waiting lists are 60,000 lower than those that we inherited. Last year, 450,000 extra people from the waiting lists were treated, as well as 142,000 extra emergency cases and more than 500,000 extra out-patients. The debts accrued by the NHS last year totalled £12 million, compared with the £450 million run up in the Tories' last year in office.
  We now have the highest number of nurses in training—15,000—for six years. The applicants for places in nurse training have doubled compared with the previous year. There are 481 primary care groups throughout the country, with doctors and nurses in the driving seat. It has been necessary to invest £300 million in dealing with the millennium problem. An extra £21 billion is going to the NHS over the next three years, and £18 billion of that is for England.
  This year, £110 million is being invested in bringing every accident and emergency department up to scratch. An extra £350 million is being invested in new equipment, and £100 million is coming from the lottery for equipment to diagnose and deal with cancer. Thirty-seven new hospitals have been given the go-ahead, and 17 of them are already being built. Despite that, public capital is also being increased by 50 per cent. over the next three years.
  I do not know what the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was saying from the Front Bench about overseas doctors but I can tell him that, since we came to power, prejudice and discrimination against overseas doctors in the giving of distinction and merit awards has been stopped. There has been a 50 per cent. increase in the number of such doctors who have received those awards. We owe a great debt to them. The idea that if people
  986
  do not graduate from medical school, we can expand the number of doctors without getting some from abroad is preposterous, and the hon. Gentleman knows it. He ought not to attack overseas doctors.
  Mr. Crispin Blunt: rose—
  Mr. Peter Viggers: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not because I have to get on.
  When Opposition Members talk about the appointment of chairpersons and non-executive directors of boards, I am very proud to stand here and say that for the first time in the history of the health service—and of any public body in this country—50 per cent. of its members are women and 12 per cent. are from black and ethnic minorities. I am proud of that and I am glad that I did it. We have reduced the number of mixed-sex wards. The nurses' pay increase this year was the best for 10 years. Two thirds of qualified nurses are now earning more than £20,000 a year.
  Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No I shall not.
  We are changing the grading system that held down the promotion of nurses. We have introduced nurse consultants so that the top pay for nurses will go up from £27,000 or £28,000 a year to £40,000 a year. As the Prime Minister announced, there is a new and expanded role for nurses, which was welcomed by the Royal College of Nursing, the Royal College of Midwives and Unison but denounced as a gimmick by the Tory Front-Bench team.
  We are also trying to ensure better quality across the health service and that we get away from the postcode differences that have developed. With the support of the medical profession, we have set up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to give authoritative and independent guidance to the health service. We are establishing national service frameworks to lay down what should be provided in the treatment of people with heart disease, old people, mentally ill people and those with diabetes across the country. We are also obliging all trusts to undertake a duty of clinical governance so that, for the first time, instead of just looking at the books, they will have to consider the clinical performance of their units to ensure that they are up to scratch. We are putting in place the Commission for Health Improvement to back them up.
  Mr. Viggers: The Secretary of State's amendment says that the Government are
  "modernising every Accident and Emergency Department that needs it".
  How dare he say that with what in anybody else would be bare-faced cheek when he knows perfectly well that he is closing the accident and emergency unit at the Haslar hospital in my constituency and, despite his bland assurances, making no effort to provide adequate accident and emergency cover for my constituents?
  Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman ought to know, for a start, that we have modernised the accident and emergency department at the Portsmouth hospital.

  987
  The decision to close Haslar hospital was not for me but, as it is a military, naval and Air Force hospital, for the Ministry of Defence. I have said to his constituents—and meant it—that we must ensure that the arrangements implemented following the closure of Haslar meet the full needs of people who live in the area, and I shall ensure that that is done.
  Several hon. Members: rose—
  Mr. Dobson: No, I shall not give way.
  We have also, partly at the behest of Tory Members—that is the truth—tried to ensure that, for the first time, standards are set and met for the provision of cervical and breast cancer screening services, which had been dispensed with under the previous Government. We have made sure that more effort is targeted on improving the health of people in the worst-off areas through investment in health action zones. We have provided an extra £700 million for mental health services over the next three years, largely to be spent on extra beds and new staff. We are already negotiating with consultants about a future consultant's contract, and more people are opting to become general practitioners.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring knows that what he was saying about junior doctors is somewhat adjacent to the truth. We agreed with junior doctors much more rigorous standards for judging whether the new deal was being complied with. When we did that, we said that it would make the figures worse, and it has. However, comparing like with like, the number of junior doctors working longer hours has been coming down since we have been in office—and it will continue to come down.
  Junior doctors have quite rightly been saying that they are concerned about their hours, their working conditions and the conditions in which they wait to work. We have been having meetings with them to try to improve matters. Of late, their approach at meetings has been to make a very substantial pay demand, and we have had to explain that the pay of junior doctors, like all other doctors, is a matter for the Doctors and Dentists Review Body. We either have review bodies or negotiation; we cannot use the review body decision as a starting point for negotiations. I hope that we can make some reasonable arrangements with junior doctors' representatives but, as the British Medical Association has recently reaffirmed that it wants to continue with the review body, I assume that they do.
  Dr. Fox: So when the figures for junior doctors' working hours—published by the Government—show that they are increasing, they are actually decreasing. That is interesting newspeak, even from the Government. However, I wonder whether the Secretary of State would reconsider a figure that he just gave us. He says that the number of doctors entering general practice is increasing. There has actually been an 18 per cent. reduction in the past two years.
  Mr. Dobson: Not according to the figures that I have. There is no point in disputing figures over the Dispatch Box; I shall sort this out with the hon. Gentleman later.
  We have also made substantial efforts to make working in the national health service safer for all staff. There was a massive increase in the number of people who were
  988
  assaulted and abused. We have been trying to improve the situation for nurses and ambulance staff—people working in accident and emergency. When I discussed that with people from the BMA, they said that the previous Government had said that nothing could be done about it—it was the sort of society that we live in these days. It may be the sort of society that the Conservatives want to live in, but we are not going to.
  We have just completed successful negotiations with representatives of the pharmaceutical companies and brought about a 4.5 per cent. price reduction in the cost of drugs to the national health service, which will save the health service £200 million and has ensured that research-based British companies can continue to be research based.
  Mr. Bercow: rose—
  Mr. Dobson: We have introduced other new developments. NHS Direct, the 24-hour nurse-led helpline, now covers 40 per cent. of the country and will cover 60 per cent. by December. I assume that that will not be attacked by the Tory Front-Bench team because it was welcomed by them the last time that we announced it. It is working very well.
  We are developing a limited number of pilot schemes for walk-in centres in city centres, shopping centres and city-centre hospitals. There has been some criticism of that idea on the grounds that the doctors do not like it, but we invited people to apply to run them, and 99 places in the country applied for the right to operate a walk-in centre. All 99 had to have the agreement of the GP-dominated primary care group in their area, and I am very sorry that I have had to disappoint 80 of them and announce only 19.
  Walk-in centres are intended to modernise the provision of care in various areas. We shall consider their impact on other services in the areas, but they are popular with the doctors who have applied.
  Mr. Bercow: rose—
  Dr. Peter Brand: rose—
  Mr. Dobson: I give way to the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand).
  Dr. Brand: Is it not human nature, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that if you are offered a free good in addition to the work that you are already doing, you will say yes? However, that does not square the profession's problems, in that resources are being taken up and top-sliced from the core services of the NHS.
  Mr. Dobson: They have not been top-sliced because the resources are taken from the modernisation fund and had not previously been allocated. Dr. James Kingsland, a GP from the Wirral who has been visiting and considering the various applicants, says:
  "It is very much new money available for general practice, to complement the primary care services already in place. It is cash for primary care groups. By the very nature of their applications, they have to be PCG supported. It is a GP-led initiative."

  989
  He is right, and it is working.
  Mr. Bercow rose—
  Mr. Dobson: We are trying—although we fail at times, and we are not making as much progress as we should like—to modernise the national health service. We all know that the modern Tory party wants to undermine and privatise it. We have only to consider the history as it relates to the hon. Gentleman's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). As the third shadow Health Secretary since the general election, she advocated substituting private health insurance for large parts of the national health service, and has apparently been promoted.
  The right hon. Member who was a deputy leader of the Tory party and who rejected the idea of health insurance as barmy has been sacked. If we look at what the hon. Gentleman who is now the Tories' representative has said in the past, it appears that he, too, has a fixation about shifting to the private funding of health. In 1993, it was reported that he had helped the Association of British Insurers with a document entitled "Transfer of Responsibility from the Public to the Private Sector", which urged an expansion of private medical insurance beyond the current policyholders, through tax incentives to the under-60s or through contracting out certain NHS benefits. That fundamentally undermines the concept of the NHS, but it is apparently the Tories' line.
  Every time Conservative Members speak in their constituencies, they demand more money for their bit of the health service, but they do not vote for that in the House. The shadow Chancellor described our plans for spending on the NHS as "reckless", and said that when the Chancellor had been goaded on health and education, he had "gone soft on spending." What we say is decent investment in improving the health service, the Tories regard as reckless, stupid spending.
  The NHS is far from perfect; it never will be perfect. It is improving, but it will take us a long time to turn things around. So much of it depends on new additional staff. It takes a long, long time to train a doctor. It takes three years to train a nurse or a midwife. We cannot turn things around in a day, but the NHS is getting better. It is not getting better as quickly as we would like. However, it is getting better, and it will get better still.
  4.41 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the debate. We welcome the announcement that, surprisingly, was made at the beginning of it, although it would have been better if the announcement had been made in the usual way. I do not attribute the fault entirely to the Secretary of State, but announcements on important specific matters should be separated from debates on the health service in general. This is a debate about the Government's record after two years in office.
  We welcome the fact that the Conservative Opposition have flagged up a series of issues in the health service where the Government's record clearly has not lived up to expectation. Although the Secretary of State made the case that there have been some improvements in the health service—that is unarguable—it was noticeable that, on the assertions and allegations made by the Conservative party, he did not have an answer.
  990
  There has been increased waiting time for patients. There has been plummeting morale. There has been a distortion of clinical priorities. There certainly has been increasingly widespread rationing of drugs and treatment. One of the key propositions on which the Government came to office was that there would not be a difference of treatment for patients depending on where they lived. That is not the case now. The situation has not improved under the Government, and we still have postcode rationing, as we did two years ago.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: Not yet.
  The Government came to office against the background of the public saying, first, that the NHS was the issue that mattered most to them, and secondly, that they wanted the Government to spend more on the NHS—not just more, but more as a share of our national wealth. That has not yet happened. More has been spent, but the Government have not yet made the commitment to spend more as a share of our national wealth.
  When will the Government start delivering on the key promises that they made to the electorate two and a quarter years ago?
  "We will save the NHS",
  they said in their manifesto. Their first promise was
  "100,000 people off waiting lists".
  Two and a quarter years later, in England, that figure still has not been achieved.
  In its manifesto, the Labour party stated that it
  "commits itself anew to the historic principle: that if you are ill or injured there will be a national health service there to help; and access to it will be based on need and need alone—not on your ability to pay, or on who your GP happens to be or on where you live."
  What one gets from the NHS still does depend on where one lives, and we want to know when that, too, will change.
  The public feel that they have been betrayed or let down on a number of other matters. There are significantly fewer beds—more than 5,000 fewer in the major specialties in England. Nearly 100,000 operations have been cancelled on the day that the operation was booked. Up to April this year, investment was nearly £500 million lower each year than it would have been on the projections of the outgoing Conservative Government. This financial year, NHS trusts and health authorities in England started the year £163 million in debt. We read in the papers yesterday that Wales also now has a £72 million deficit, which means that, on the basis of the current United Kingdom allocation of money, the NHS there may have to close trusts and hospitals.
  The Secretary of State has made progress on appointing more women and more members of minority ethnic communities to run health service boards and authorities, but he has not answered the allegation that, during the past two years, he has packed the NHS with more and more of his people. Given the accusations that he and his party levelled at the Tories in office, to increase the number of Labour appointees to NHS trusts' non-executive posts from eight to 226 Labour activists is a complete contradiction. If that is not cronyism, I do not know what the public think it is. Despite the number of

  991
  women, members of ethnic minority communities and people with disabilities appointed, that record, good as it is, is tarnished by the fact that the Government have insisted on so many people coming from their party.
  Some of the stories, apparently true, about the sort of people appointed in the Prime Minister's part of the world, in Sedgefield and round about, who appear to have been appointed simply because they were local party activists, just undermine the credibility of proper management of the NHS.
  Mr. Dobson: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that a considerable number of the Labour supporters appointed are women, black and Asian, who therefore make a big contribution to the increase in the number of women, who are up to 50 per cent., of appointees, and the number of black and Asian representatives, who are up to 12 per cent? That is a good thing, and I shall keep on saying that it is a good thing, whatever anybody else says.
  Mr. Hughes: I have made it clear to the Secretary of State—I have said it to him privately as well as publicly—that to get a better gender and ethnic balance and a better inclusion of people with disabilities in NHS management is clearly a good thing. But if he is saying that he is willing to appoint those people, particularly or only if they are Labour supporters, that is not a good thing, and the sooner the Government seek an agreement across parties and beyond parties about appointments, rather than consulting and then ignoring what they are told, the better. I have practical experience of a consultation that was not followed, because Labour people were appointed against my advice.
  Mr. Bercow: I hope that I do not fatally damage the hon. Gentleman's prospects by telling him what a good speech he is so far making. Given that the Secretary of State referred to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and to the supply of drugs, does the hon. Gentleman agree that my constituents, Caroline Cripps and Marc Smith, and constituents of other right hon. and hon. Members, who are suffering from multiple sclerosis, are entitled now to ask the Secretary of State exactly how long they are supposed to wait and suffer before NICE issues definitive guidance? Does he further agree that the premise upon which that guidance, when it ultimately emerges, is based, should be that, where it is judged to be clinically appropriate to prescribe beta interferon, it should ordinarily be prescribed?
  Mr. Hughes: I understand and accept the general premise of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and if he bears with me for literally about a minute, he will see that, in my list of specific questions for the Secretary of State, there is one relating exactly to the equality of access to drugs, which was promised in Labour's manifesto when it sought office two years ago.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hughes: I will in a moment.
  Labour has clearly failed on a final matter: it kept promising us that the famous waiting list targets would be met—not that there should have been such targets in the
  992
  first place—but that great day has also not yet dawned. There has been not a reduction of 100,000 in the waiting lists—even if that had been the right target—but a considerable increase in the number of people waiting to get on to the waiting list, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said.
  I have to say that the recent extraordinary comments of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State about the attitude of the public service in general have not helped. Only two weeks ago, the Prime Minister told the British Venture Capital Association:
  "You try getting change in the public sector and public services".
  People in the NHS, who have been subject to change after change after change, did not take that kindly. I should have thought that the Secretary of State, who has traditionally been a good supporter of the public services, would have been well advised not to add fuel to the fire by accusing those in the NHS, and doctors in particular, of
  "failing to keep pace with the expectations of the people".
  My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) attended the British Medical Association conference in Belfast and doctors' leaders were clear about the fact that they respond to the Government's requests for change, but they want a bit more support from them and a bit more understanding of their position.
  I shall list the questions that the Government must answer after two years in office and at the end of the parliamentary term. The Secretary of State may be being considered for a move in the reshuffle, or he may stay in his current post, so he could usefully give the answers to the Prime Minister as well as to the country and the House.
  When will Labour deliver equality of treatment for patients in the NHS, wherever they live? That question was asked by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). When will it deliver equality of treatment for NHS staff, wherever they work and whatever their race? When will it deliver a reduction in the time that people have to wait for hospital treatment in the NHS after referral by GPs? When will it deliver its so-called early pledge to cut by 100,000 in England the waiting list for treatment in the NHS? When will it give up prioritising waiting lists over waiting times in the NHS? When will it make sure that we have enough consultants, hospital doctors, GPs, nurses, midwives, dentists and other professionals? What is the time scale? Is it a year, two years or 10 years? We have never been told the date. When will the Labour Government put an end to the reduction in the number of beds in the NHS? When will they reduce their commitment to use private finance for capital building in the NHS? When will they make a commitment to pay for all long-term nursing care in the NHS? That was expected from a Labour Government. Lastly, when will Labour increase the share of our national wealth that it commits itself to spend on the national health, including the NHS? We have never heard a word about that from them.
  I do not want to elaborate on my first point, because equality of access has been discussed so often in the House, by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) among others, that the case has been well made.

  993
  However, I shall elaborate on my second point—racial discrimination in the health service. Not many months ago, the House considered the Health Act 1999, and my hon. Friends and I tabled amendments in Committee and on Report that would have ruled out discrimination in the health service. They were rejected by the Government. The Secretary of State subsequently referred to the incident in Sheffield where it appeared that somebody had donated an organ for use on the basis that it could go only to a white person, and that was accepted. When that became public knowledge, the Secretary of State suddenly said, "Perhaps we need a change in the law to outlaw discrimination in the NHS." My hon. Friends and I, with the backing of the Commission for Racial Equality, argued for that some months ago and it would be helpful to know before the end of the debate whether the Secretary of State accepts that that is now the case.
  Mr. Dobson: I am advised by our lawyers—the hon. Gentleman can give that whatever weight he likes—that the Race Relations Act 1976 applies in full to the NHS. If it does, why do we need to change that?
  Mr. Hughes: I should be happy to debate that with the Secretary of State outside the Chamber, but my advice and understanding, and that of the CRE, is that not all matters relating to employment, which I shall come to, and to treatment, are governed by the 1976 Act. A general duty of non-discrimination would ensure that the Sheffield case did not arise, and would also cover events such as old people being turned down by the health service and discrimination on other grounds.
  I have been approached by colleagues in Rochdale—this may interest the hon. Member for Rochdale (Lorna Fitzsimons)—about a severe case of racial discrimination in the health service. On 24 June last year, the Rochdale Healthcare trust was visited by representatives of the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a dean from Manchester university, Professor Hayden, who was acting on behalf of the colleges to examine training in the Rochdale health service. At the end of her examination she said:
  "finally I am disappointed not to find many UK graduates employed in your hospital. I am giving you a clear warning that when I come back in two years' time if this has not changed then I will remove some of the funding for training."
  That comment caused great distress to people working in the health service in Rochdale, where recruitment is on the basis of application and ability. Since then, the dean has made only a statement that her comments were misunderstood, and not a full apology. There is no confirmation that her comments will not have an adverse impact on the hospital's assessment in the future. I know that the Secretary of State has received a copy of at least some of the correspondence. One of the hon. Lady's predecessors, Sir Cyril Smith, was asked if he could intervene to ensure that we never have such a practice again.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way, as this matter involves my constituency?
  Mr. Hughes: Of course, I shall give way in a second.
  Will the Secretary of State investigate what happened? Will he ensure that that trust and all others are never again at risk because of the practice of recruiting more overseas graduates?
  994
  Given incidents such as those in Rochdale and Sheffield, will he agree to allow the CRE to undertake an investigation into racism in the health service? Will he bring to the House also the result of a further inquiry into how we can hold the royal colleges to account, because they tell the health service what to do with no accountability to Parliament or to the NHS? Some hospitals have been closed because the royal colleges have said that there was no suitable training. It is time that those professional organisations were held democratically accountable, because they have significant authority throughout the country.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: I should have liked the courtesy that the hon. Gentleman asked of the Government Front-Bench team. He raised an issue with which I have been dealing. He waded in, I am sure with utter sincerity, but with political opportunism, which I have got to know well locally. If he cares so much about the health service in Rochdale, he should advise his colleagues that, rather than scaring old people during a council by-election by saying that the council was shutting a hospital, they should acknowledge the investment of £28 million in a new hospital, £15 million in a health action zone, and £27 million in new money for new services.
  I have taken this case up with the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Surgeons. If the hon. Gentleman had cared to ask me about it, we could have fought together, because I agree with him about the problem of the Royal College of Surgeons and its intervention in the Bury and Rochdale health authority.
  Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady's comments speak for themselves.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important to distinguish between overseas doctors and UK graduates from black and ethnic minorities? It is completely unacceptable for UK doctors from black and ethnic minorities not to have exactly the same treatment as white UK graduates. There may be issues that affect overseas doctors, whether they are black or white. For those of us who care about race relations in the NHS, it is more helpful if we are clear on precisely what we are talking about. Moreover, as soon as the Overseas Doctors Association changes its name, the better.
  Mr. Hughes: The right hon. Lady is right to make the point that there are two different issues. However, it is clear from the correspondence that it is as wrong to discriminate against somebody because they graduated from an overseas university as it is to discriminate on the basis that someone who graduated from a university in this country is a member of an ethnic minority community. The issue—which caused great offence—concerned discrimination, and a suggestion that the Rochdale trust might not be funded if it did not reduce the number of people whom it appointed from overseas universities. That cannot be acceptable. I hope that the Secretary of State will make that clear, and that he will deal with the person who said that that was appropriate policy.
  The Government's surprising endorsement of the private finance initiative—contrary to all their arguments when in opposition—is not finding favour either within

  995
  the NHS or, significantly, outside. It is no good pretending that there is a further £8 million for investment in the NHS when £1.5 million of that is new money and the rest is entirely arrived at by the selling of assets.
  A letter that the Secretary of State may have seen—accompanying a BMA press release of 16 July—stated that, in Edinburgh, the Scottish Office had confirmed that the Government had rejected greater bed numbers for the PFI flagship hospital as not affordable. It is entirely on the basis of cost that PFI schemes are now being approved or not. I challenge the Government to make it clear where, if anywhere, a PFI scheme has resulted in more beds and more resources than previously, as opposed—as has happened in every case so far—to fewer beds and fewer resources.
  The Liberal Democrats are clear that not just the public demand, but the need of the patients requires that a greater share of our national wealth is dedicated to national health. It is surprising to us that the Labour Government have never made that commitment. They have made it for education, but they have been silent on health. Some of the pressures that the NHS is under, some of the lack of morale among NHS staff and some of the failures set out in the motion could be addressed if the Government were brave enough to say that, to have a decent health service for the next century, rather than funding it just a bit more every year, we have to give it a significant boost in funding, so that we as a country spend on the health service what the country believes that it needs.
  We look forward to the Secretary of State saying something like that, but two and a quarter years have passed and nothing has yet come from his lips.
  5.2 pm
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's announcement on meningitis. As the representative of a constituency where there have been fatalities through this terrible problem, I know that his announcement will be widely welcomed. I know how anxious many parents are in my area and elsewhere about this problem.
  I have had some difficulty in understanding the Conservative party's tactics over the past few hours. I was in the Chamber at 2 o'clock this morning on either the eighth or ninth totally pointless Division. I do not understand the purpose of such an exercise, where there is no debate. All that appears to be happening is that we are wasting huge amounts of public money in keeping in this place large numbers of people—the staff—who could be better off at home in their beds, preparing for the following day's work.
  I do not understand those tactics, and I do not understand the tactics of the Tory motion which I read at 9.30 am—after half a night's sleep. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Thank you for that sympathetic response. In drawing attention to the comparative health policies of the previous Conservative Government and the new Labour Government, the motion draws attention to the paucity of the Conservatives' thinking on health care.
  I listened carefully to the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who has now left the Chamber. I apologise for referring to him when he is not here, but it is not my fault that he has left the
  996
  Chamber. He did not propose one policy of any type to deal with the concerns that he expressed. Today's official Opposition motion suggests not one idea of what they would do to address those issues if they were in government.
  I was disappointed also with the speech of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—for whom I have some respect; he has at least some knowledge of health issues, and some belief in what he says—as he was unable to offer any real policies on what he would do were he Secretary of State for Health.
  The official Opposition's motion on health is the thinnest motion that I can remember debating in any of the numerous such debates that I have attended in my mere 13 years in this place. Their motion is petty, superficial and only a token attempt to imply that they have some interest in the concept of collective health care—which they have opposed since voting against establishment of the national health service in 1946.
  The issue of collective health care highlights the ideological division between the Conservative party and the rest of the nation—the decent-thinking people who believe in collectivised health care, and who believe that we should have a system ensuring that those who are ill are appropriately cared for by the state.
  For the Tories, health is essentially a matter for the individual, and a marketable commodity. I have listened carefully to the debate, to detect whether any contradictions are emerging in the Tories' policy commitments of the past two years on shifting patients into the private sector—which is the one health policy that they have proposed in that time.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has made a very clear commitment that the next Conservative Government will increase, year on year, in real terms, spending on the national health service. That is the clearest possible policy commitment, and the clearest possible indication of the Conservative party's commitment to the NHS.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: That does not square with the Tories' attack on the Chancellor of the Exchequer for diverting resources into the national health service. The shadow Chancellor attacked Labour for delivering £21 billion to the NHS.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) has also not dealt with my key point. If he has attended our health debates, he will have heard the various statements that have been made. On a number of occasions in the Chamber, I have debated the private sector issue with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—who now shadows the Home Secretary—and she has quite categorically stated her belief that, to deal with what she perceives as a crisis in the national health service, we have to make greater use of the private sector and ensure that more NHS patients are sent to the private sector.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald has, however, never been able to deal with the rather fundamental point about the source of private sector staff. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge knows as well as I do that private sector staff come entirely from

  997
  the national health service—which trains people, many of whom we lose to the private sector. Therefore, if the Tories are pushing staff into the private sector, they are further denuding the NHS of staff. It is also nonsense for the Tories to express concern about junior doctors' hours and consultants' work loads. I should like briefly to deal with the previous Government's record.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No; I have given way once already.
  We should consider what the previous Government's 18 years in office meant to people in my constituency and to people across the country. The previous Government introduced the internal market—and I served on the Bill that introduced it. I also remember the House's debates on that Bill. Nevertheless, whatever one's views on the internal market itself, the philosophy underlying it plunged the NHS into cut-throat competition. The idea behind the internal market was to encourage hospitals to compete against hospitals, and doctors against doctors.
  The philosophy behind the internal market was fundamentally opposed to that of the national health service—which I had thought that almost everyone believed in. Over the years, even Conservatives in my area—but certainly not the previous Government—subscribed to the NHS philosophy.
  On fundholding, I have provided facts, figures, names and addresses of my constituents who had been told that, as they were not patients of general practitioner fundholders, they could not gain access to certain hospital treatments in my area. That is on the record; the names of the people are known. I am not making this up. There was a two-tier system in my area.
  Mr. Illsley: The Sheffield hospitals made no bones about it; when the previous Government were in power, they made a public statement that they would not accept patients whose funding might run out as they were not from fundholding practices.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: The two-tier system was a fact of life, an inevitable consequence of the move to fundholding. The Conservatives cannot deny that, and they were not unduly worried about it, because in a market there are winners and losers, and they were more concerned about the winners.
  My work background was in local authority social services, so it affected me personally when the Tory Government drove a wedge between the national health service and social services. The present Government are trying to repair the damage, and get the two back together.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the announcement about the royal commission, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge, who is on the Opposition Front Bench today, had the brass neck to ask what the Government intended to do about the long-term care crisis. That crisis was entirely created by the Tory Government, who withdrew long-term NHS care from old people and, at the same time, shoved public money into the privatisation of community care. The massive expansion of private care and nursing homes created the crisis.
  When I think about the people in my constituency and elsewhere, what particularly concerns me is the fact that that was a gross betrayal of the generation of people who
  998
  delivered the national health service. They had paid tax and national insurance into the system all their lives, in the belief that when they needed care, they would get it free from the national health service, yet when they did need it, it had gone. They had to pay all over again for what they had already paid for throughout their lives.
  For the Tories, public health is a politically inconvenient non-issue. It does their case no good to talk about inequalities in health, because then we get into the real politics and the real reasons why there are winners and losers. From their point of view, it is inconvenient to address such issues.
  The Tories also shelved the Black report. One of the most crucial reports on public health this century was allowed to gather dust, although it contained so many significant proposals that could have been acted upon in the early 1980s. Disgracefully, those were ignored.
  The Tory party made no attempt to curb smoking, either, because of its relations with the tobacco industry. The tobacco companies provided its poster sites free in 1992, and the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), a former Secretary of State for Health, is openly connected with the tobacco industry.
  The Tories' business connections are important. I know where they are coming from, and I know why they cannot address the problem of smoking—but thousands of people have died needlessly as a result of the 18 years in which they did nothing about people misusing tobacco in a way that affected their health, their children's health and the health of generations to come.
  My area was drastically affected by the Tories' economic policies, too. Some of my hon. Friends from nearby areas are here today, and they, too, saw thousands of people kicked out of the coal industry and the industries connected with it. Twenty thousand people were sent down the road in my area, and that was a public health issue, too—one that was totally ignored by the Conservative Government.
  In the short time that I have left, I shall contrast that record with what I believe are some of the key achievements of the Labour Government in the past two and a quarter years. There are three key elements that I believe are especially important. First, the abolition of the internal market is perhaps the most important step forward concerning the NHS that the Government have made. It represents a fundamental redirection of the service from competition back to co-operation, and to people working together to deliver a service that provides the best possible care for patients. The move from fundholding practices to primary care groups has put primary care back in the front line, where Nye Bevan envisaged it in the 1940s.
  I welcome the idea of walk-in centres, especially as one of the first 19 of them is in Wakefield. I realise that there are debates about whether those centres represent an appropriate way forward, but there will be monitoring of their success or otherwise. The centre in Wakefield is targeted towards certain groups, such as middle-aged men, who tend not to go to see their doctors, and I welcome the accessibility that that will offer such people.
  I also especially welcome the reacquaintance of the national health service with social services. The two disciplines are shaking hands again in a way that did not happen under the Tories. The winter pressures initiative was a great success, on which I hope that the Government will build. My hon. Friend the Minister of State knows

  999
  that I favour going a good deal further, but I welcome the steps taken so far, and especially the public health White Paper that tackles health inequalities.
  I also welcome the commitment of various Departments to the assessment of the health implications of Government policies. That makes a crucial connection between health and wider economic and industrial policies. The previous Government gave no thought to that at all.
  The motion before the House today shows that the Conservatives have given up on health as an issue. Neither in the motion nor in the opening speech have they offered any concrete proposals. The warning in the Maples memorandum to keep out of health appears to hold sway in the Conservative party.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: I take issue with my hon. Friend about the Opposition's tactics. I disagree with his contention that they have no tactics; their aim is to frighten people. Talking down the health service by saying how much worse it is becoming brings down the morale of doctors and nurses, and diverts attention from the good work that those people do. The result is lower morale and frightened people believing that the service is worse than it really is. As a doctor in the health service, I do not recognise the description of it given by Conservative Members.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. People who are frightened of the health service will go to the private sector, which is what the Tories want.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I have already spoken for longer than I intended.
  Perhaps Conservative Members might care to look at the report about private medical care by the Select Committee on Health, which will be published tomorrow. They want to push people into the private sector, but I hope that they will draw some conclusions from the report's investigations.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Hinchliffe: No, I said that I intended to conclude.
  The Tories have given up on health. I never thought that I would miss their previous spokesman, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, but I do. What she lacked in knowledge of the health service she made up for in bluster when she banged around at the Dispatch Box. I miss her already, and this is only the first debate since her departure. She was good entertainment, and livened up debates such as this, even if there was not a lot of content in what she said.
  I know that many issues remain to be resolved, and that many challenges remain for the Government to deal with. However, I believe that the Government have started to establish some firm foundations and are addressing the fundamental problems. Whatever happens in next week's
  1000
  reshuffle, I think that the team leading the Department has made a pretty good start in the past two years. I am sure that we can build on that in the years to come.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has followed the pattern of many Labour Members by devoting most of his contribution to a speech that he could have made at the last general election. In the two years since then, I have debated most of the matters that he raised, so I shall not go over them all again.
  The hon. Gentleman went back as far as the early 1980s, when he referred to the difference of opinion about the Black committee report. The Labour party turned to the left at that time, and it has accused Conservative Members of wishing to privatise the national health service ever since. That accusation often dominated the debate, and it is still being used today, by the hon. Gentleman and by the Secretary of State. However, the record over more than a decade of the previous Conservative Government shows that we had no such intention.
  We have no such intention now, and my own commitment to the national health service is beyond doubt. The debate should be about making the health service better, rather than about exchanging empty slogans.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: If what the right hon. and learned Gentleman says is true, what was the purpose of giving financial incentives to elderly people to insure themselves for private medical care? Was it not the Tory party's intention to move towards private medical care?
  Mr. Clarke: Many people in private insurance found that, when they reached an age at which they were likely to make a demand on that insurance, there was a risk that the premiums would rise. The aim of the incentive was to ensure that those who chose private insurance when they were of working age would not have to give it up when they were most likely to make a claim. That perfectly defensible policy reduced the demands on the national health service. We otherwise concentrated on improving the national health service—paid for out of general taxation and free at the point of treatment—and I remain committed to improving that service.
  The Secretary of State also devoted much of his time to his old election speech. I shall not go over all that he said, but I will attack his lack of policies. I wish the Secretary of State no personal ill will as he and I get on well and he has always been amiable and straightforward in our countless debates on policy on many subjects. I understand his much-publicised desire not to drink from the poisoned chalice by becoming Labour's candidate for mayor of London. But if he is moved, I shall not mind; as an Opposition Back Bencher, I am indifferent to who the Secretary of State is. What matters is that he or she has a coherent policy for a vital service. I have criticised the Secretary of State for having no such overall strategy, and he has merely reinforced that criticism today.
  The Secretary of State has made a welcome statement on meningitis vaccines, but I have previously criticised the Government, and will do so again, for putting presentation where strategy should be. A stream of press

  1001
  releases and initiatives flows towards us. Often, the initiatives have already been reannounced, but they have to be reannounced yet again. Many are entirely beside the point when placed against the day-to-day problems confronting those responsible for delivering health care on the ground.
  In the most striking recent example, the Secretary of State, as usual when he is under pressure for failing to deliver what he promised at the general election, grabbed for the headlines. He published targets for health standards well into the next century. I do not want to be accused of being against his worthy objectives, which included careful calculations to show that many lives would be saved if the targets were ever delivered. However, he produced not a scintilla of evidence of anything new being done to deliver them. He offered us, instead of policy today, desirable ambitions that he said would be delivered in a decade or more, long after the Government have gone. All that was intended to divert attention from pressing problems now all over the country.
  Today's statement was welcome, but the Government's advisers ought to raise the Secretary of State's standards. On a bad news day, his diversion of attention was blatant. He began with a worthwhile statement on meningitis protection, but was unable to answer our complaints and allegations about the state of the NHS. In addition to his usual election address on the deficiencies of the Conservative party's performance on the health service, he reminded me of the Wilsonian speech-making process of using a stream of statistics to hold together the best bits of the press releases, while coming to no particular conclusion on the future.
  I congratulate the Conservative Front Bench team on raising this debate, because the Government are failing to deliver on the expectations that they raised by setting specific targets—some of them unwise—at the last election. Service to our constituents is deteriorating, and the volume of complaints about the inability of the NHS to meet its obligations is growing.
  Dr. Stoate: I entirely agree with the right hon. and learned Gentleman on one point. We need debates of substance on matters of policy. Why, then, when this should be an adult, grown-up debate about the running of the health service, is there no shred of policy in the Conservative motion? I should welcome a debate on policy, but there is none before us. The Conservatives offer only a stream of criticisms and no suggestions on how to improve the health service.
  Mr. Clarke: I promise the hon. Gentleman that, by the conclusion of my speech, I shall be giving welcome advice to the Secretary of State and making suggestions on how he can move from here to make worthwhile progress towards the ambitions that he holds out for us as targets for the next century. He will not attain them if he continues to cause the damage to the service that he has in two years so far.
  I have spoken in health debates before because I am so concerned about the health service. It is one of the weakest areas of performance by the Government. I could choose many others, but with the health service, they are at the greatest risk of getting into more and more political trouble as reality confronts their presentation of what they are doing.
  1002
  I shall begin by briefly putting points that I have made before about why the Government are getting it so wrong and why we are worried about a crisis in the health service that appears to be looming even in the summer, when demands are not the greatest. I most fear a winter crisis after our experience of last winter. There are some clear reasons why the Government have got themselves into this position.
  First, the Government have got the money for the NHS wrong. I am the first to admit that the problem of the health service is not only money. I often said that to Opposition spokesmen when I was in government myself. However, the Labour Government made a serious mistake in the first two years by imposing on the NHS two of the stiffest years that it has ever had. They used to justify that with the misleading claim that they were imposing Conservative spending plans. They know perfectly well that that is not sustainable. We never stuck to the second and third-year figures in our Red Books for the health service. We always had annual spending rounds, and we revised the spending targets in the light of the experience of the previous year. Everyone who works in the health service knows that it is a long time since it has had two such tough years.
  As the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) rightly said, the amount of debt being incurred throughout the service is enormous. All the great claims for how well the service is going sit ill alongside the serious financial crisis that rising demand and rising expectations have forced on health authorities, which have had two very severe years. As, to be fair, the Liberals warned us that they would, the Government hope that, in the run-up to the next election, they will be able to put more money into the health service to raise the feelgood factor in the next three years.
  The Government have found a misleading and original way of presenting wholly unexceptional figures for those next three years. They are going back to the normal increases in spending roughly attained for most of the past 10 or 15 years. Those increases will not be good enough. The Government have locked themselves in for three years. They have said that they will not reopen the figures or review them in the light of each year's experience. I shall be surprised if they manage to stick to that.
  The only good claim that the Government can make on resources is that they have a massive hospital-building programme. I cannot forbear to point out that that is entirely the result of the flow-through from the private finance initiative, which we initiated. The Labour Government inherited a great flow of schemes. The Labour party slowed up progress when we were in office, because its then spokesman kept opposing the PFI and saying that a Labour Government would scrap it, which made it more difficult to conclude the deals. I wish the hospital-building programme well. It is the one piece of good news on resources that the health service has.
  To move on to policy, the Government are not distributing money properly throughout the service across the country. Staff, patients and the public read about the figures, but they know perfectly well that they have not got the money in local budgets. A great deal is being held back centrally for presentational purposes. The modernisation fund will be used to fund today's announcement. It is just one little pot of money kept safely under the Secretary of State's lock and key in London to feed the flow of popular announcements over

  1003
  the next three years. The one that we had today was, I suspect, fairly modest in cost and was a perfectly sensible choice of priorities. However, in some initiatives, the Government are obviously pursuing the presentational impact of going for some spectacular area for which the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State can announce that money is now available.
  Meanwhile, at local level, people do not have at their disposal to tackle priorities at their discretion the money that they are constantly described as having. Their priorities are being distorted, for example, by the meaningless waiting list targets, which are not being achieved and should never have been set in the first place. Cutting waiting lists is not the best objective to set the health service. In addition, ever-increasing bureaucracy and strangling of local initiative will inhibit the ability of people to deliver the service. That is my indictment of where we are headed and of why things are going wrong. We have been short of money; now we are not distributing it properly and we are not allowing people to use it properly on local priorities. That is evident everywhere and the problem will get worse.
  Both sides of the House are committed to the NHS, but when we come to defend it, we discover that it is a hard taskmaster; it requires especially high competence, a rigorous choice of priorities and absolute clarity about what is at the disposal of the people who have to make decisions at the sharp end. Demand always rises inexorably, and has itself to be addressed by those responsible for the health service. The choice of priorities should be clinical and never political; it should certainly never be purely presentational.
  The Secretary of State is taking some curious steps. Comments have already been made about his appointments and the right hon. Gentleman gave a curious and slightly tangential explanation. I realise that he is no longer in the Chamber, but I must make it clear that I have no personal complaint to make against him on appointments. I recommended one appointment, which the Secretary of State made—despite the fact that I made it clear that the person was a supporter not of the Labour party, but of the Conservative party.
  Apart from the political complexion of the appointments, the Secretary of State does not satisfy me that he appoints on merit, or for the special qualities required for the huge, demanding and stressful task of managing a health authority or an NHS trust. He misunderstands the nature of the appointments that he makes. When I was Secretary of State for Health, I did not make political appointments. I had rows with some of my Back-Bench Members because I refused to make the political appointments that they wanted. I appointed, or re-appointed, at least two ex-Labour Members of Parliament. I might even have appointed people who were Members of Parliament at the time, if they had had the time to combine the job—it is a pretty full-time one—with being a Member of Parliament.
  However, I did appoint a much higher proportion of business men; that got me accused of political bias. I appointed professional people and people with managerial experience of running a large organisation that posed difficult challenges outside. It was said that many of those people were Tories. Indeed, in the good days for our party, it was probably true that a large number of business
  1004
  men were Tories, but that was not the reason for their appointment. It is no good removing people from NHS posts, as the Secretary of State does, because they are business men and because the quota of business men is too large.
  Of course, people with professional, managerial and other skills can be found in local government, but it is a mistake to believe that one should appoint to those key management tasks a whole lot of elected, local representatives of one's party—elected for their democratic and political skills. The appointments are much more akin to non-executive appointments to large, complex organisations; people are needed who have the substance to sit alongside the executives, and who can share the responsibility for multi-million budgets and for agonising ethical and priority choices. They have to hold the executives to account and assist them in discharging their duties. Those huge lists of local authority or other Labour party activists and worthies completely miss the point.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: It may be easier for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to answer my question now that he is in opposition than it would have been when he was in office. Does he agree that it is now sensible that we should move away from such appointments being entirely the responsibility of the Secretary of State of the day? They should be dealt with by a cross-party or all-party process and should be much less political appointments—as Neill has recommended for other public offices.
  Mr. Clarke: I am a straightforward chap and I think that it is a pity that Secretaries of State cannot handle those matters. I fear that appointment-making will be taken over by quangos of the great and the good. I am not sure whether all the rules that have been introduced on public appointments have improved the quality of those appointments—all that results is a great paper chase and some curious appraisal methods. With great respect to the officials, more people tend to be appointed whom the officials know and less people whom the Ministers know. That is not an automatic advance. If it is any consolation to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey, when I was at the Home Office, I once made a senior appointment of a Social Democrat who had lost his seat. It should be possible to have clear guidance and the Secretary of State should be held to account. We try to hold him to account, but he offers us a rather unconvincing explanation of the ridiculous total of Labour party activists that he has appointed all over the place.
  Even more serious are the bureaucracy, the constraints and the changes that are being imposed on the ground, largely to satisfy the Government's claims that they are reversing the Conservative reforms. I believe that those changes will inhibit the delivery of the service, and the aspect about which I feel most strongly is fundholding. I totally reject the slogan used by the hon. Member for Wakefield that the NHS was made a two-tier service. The whole idea of fundholding was to give incentives to GPs, who act as gatekeepers to the service, to raise the quality of service that they provide to their patients. We discovered that some could do that better than others, but it is no good turning around and saying that the whole system is unfair because some people cannot manage it and make a mess of it, so everything has to return to the level it was before.

  1005
  I come now to what I trust will be the most eloquent part of my speech, in which I quote a letter I received from a doctor. The letter was entirely unsolicited, although I have expressed strong views on fundholding. I shall not name the doctor, who is a GP in my constituency; I have no idea what his political allegiance is. By chance, he summed up in his letter my fears about fundholding. He writes:
  "It is clear that the end of fundholding means that our patients must return to the unacceptably, and in my view, dangerously long waiting times for both inpatient and outpatient appointments. So much for the 'levelling up' process proposed by the government.
  In addition to the above concerns, it is not at all clear that the Practice based services such as Physiotherapy, counselling and venepuncturist will be available in the future. Despite strenuous efforts on our part, Nottingham Health can not or will not give us any idea what the future holds for these services. I suspect that through a process of vacillation and procrastination they will wither on the vine …
  The innovation and local flexibility that fundholding brought to General Practice is being stifled by the plethora of administrative structures, PCGs, TCPs, Trusts etc. The only result of all this reorganisation has been to introduce yet more bureaucratic layers, costing money which could be available for patient care.
  You might be interested to discover that the approximate cost of each PCG"—
  primary care group—
  "of which there are six in Nottingham, is £250,000—not a penny of which has been spent on patient care—and the complaint was that fundholding was expensive!"
  I could go on and give other details of the threats to his practice that that doctor fears. Almost every doctor in my constituency was in a fundholding practice by the time the Conservatives left office. Many of them fought the system fiercely when it was first proposed, but discovered the benefits of it and now regret its loss.
  One of the great strengths of the NHS is the primary care service, provided by the family doctor who knows at first hand the needs of his patients. The duty of the family doctor is to act as a gatekeeper to access to NHS services, such as hospital care and community care services in his locality, and to get his patients the best possible access for the public money available for their care. That is being threatened by the crisis in local services. I could give a plethora of examples from the rising number of submissions made to me—that the number is rising may be chance, but I think not—of people whom the service fails when they find they want it.
  The hospital service is also breaking down. The waiting list initiative is being used shamelessly to distort the length of waiting lists. People are removed from waiting lists for reasons that are administrative and have nothing to do with their clinical need. I have examples of people who need a hip replacement being told that they will have to wait 16 months before they can have a first interview with a consultant, because they only go on to the waiting list figures after the first interview and their waiting time thereafter is thus shortened. I have also found that our health authority has stopped allowing GPs to refer out of area because waiting times are shorter elsewhere, which is one of the flexibilities that the previous system
  1006
  permitted. All that tells of a steady deterioration in what can be done on the ground, and the prospect of a stream of public announcements and initiatives is no substitute.
  Dr. Stoate: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Clarke: No, because I shall answer the point the hon. Gentleman made about what should now be done.
  Fortunately, the Government have not reversed the previous NHS reforms. They have kept the purchaser-provider divide. The NHS now has management information that was not at the disposal of anyone before the reforms were made. I used to compare the old unreformed national health service with the Indian state railways: no one was apparently in charge of anything and the system worked only because everyone knew that they had to do roughly what they had done the year before, while hoping that they did not run out of money before the year's end. We now have an altogether better system which is capable of being controlled.
  We must release from the centre the great bulk of unallocated money and stop introducing central initiatives. The walk-in health centres sound like a good idea—although they will probably stimulate extra demand, which is a great misfortune. However, they are not a first priority when we consider the strains on the service and they run the risk of diverting resources from other areas. Local priorities will differ somewhat from place to place; that is why we have a postal list variation. Sometimes variations are inevitable and sometimes they should be addressed—especially when big items, such as beta interferon treatment for multiple sclerosis, are involved. People should be allowed to say that, because waiting times are quite good in their region, they want to tackle other areas of the health service.
  Money should be distributed and responsibility should be returned to the authorities, the trusts, the doctors in the GP practices, the senior clinicians in the hospitals and trusts and the community services. Health policy must be redrawn on the basis that responsibility for the day-to-day handling of health service demands should be delegated as far as possible to those on the front line in the local hospitals and GP practices. The Secretary of State's job is to hold local service providers accountable centrally for their performance and to ensure that he has in place people who are competent to use the millions of pounds at their disposal for the best purposes.
  There is no thread of policy of that kind running through the Government's activities. The Secretary of State delivered a worthwhile statement on meningitis today and, in a fortnight's time, there will be another statement. By autumn, the press will happily report on its front pages stories that we have heard before. I am sure that I have heard the nurse consultant salaries announcement several times—with slight alterations on each occasion. Statements are no substitute for guiding the health service.
  It is foolish to believe that increased spending will solve all the problems. The Government must conduct an annual spending review. It is no good accusing the Opposition of attacking health spending. The Government have been far too generous across the field in Whitehall, but I have never heard anyone attack the Government's health spending. My guess is that, despite what they say,

  1007
  the Government will have to allocate more money to health next year. They should face up to their responsibilities, conduct a proper spending review and save money elsewhere in government in order to afford increased health expenditure.
  At present, we have drift and no policy. We are halfway through this Parliament and the problems are piling up—and they threaten to get worse, winter by winter. I have listened to this debate and I still have no sense of the Government's direction. The Labour party is at home and content fighting the last election, but it is totally out of its depth when it comes to taking decisions about the most demanding public service of all.
  5.43 pm
  Mr. Eric Illsley: I welcome the Secretary of State's statement about meningitis. I, too, would have liked a separate statement about that issue as I wanted to question my right hon. Friend about the age ranges for which the vaccine will be available. When my hon. Friend the Minister of State winds up the debate, perhaps he will confirm whether the vaccine will be made available to students in halls of residence throughout the country where meningitis has been a problem.
  I agreed wholeheartedly with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)— except his remarks about the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). I agreed with my hon. Friend's views about policy, so I shall confine my remarks mainly to constituency points.
  Before I do so, however, I want to take issue with the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who refused to accept that the introduction of fundholding resulted in a two-tier system. A few years ago, under the previous Government, the Central Sheffield University Hospitals NHS trust told all GPs in the South Yorkshire area, "We shall not accept any patients who are not from fundholding practices." When I took that up with the trust, it said that the reason for its decision was that fundholding practices' patients came with the money up front, whereas health authority patients did not, and the trust's perilous state at the time—it was, among other things, 9 per cent. over budget—meant that it could not afford to take anyone who did not come with the money in their hand, as it were.
  Before I move on to my constituency points, I want also to deal with rationing, which is mentioned in the Opposition motion. As other hon. Members have pointed out, that motion, which claims that the system is deteriorating, is remarkably poor. Rationing existed under the previous Government to a large degree, but previous Secretaries of State refused to admit that.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman believe that rationing exists under the present Government?
  Mr. Illsley: I believe that rationing has existed in the national health service since it was formed. It is obvious that if there is an increasing demand for services and an increasing number of people want access to the system, the strains on the system will lead to some form of rationing. I disagree with the Opposition's accusation that
  1008
  we refuse to accept that rationing is happening. In government, they refused to accept that there was rationing and simply turned their back on the question.
  Consultants in my area had to hope that GPs would prescribe to their patients the drugs that they wanted to prescribe because hospital trusts would not allow consultants to prescribe those drugs from the hospital's budget. I can quote chapter and verse on that matter because for many years my daughter was prescribed an expensive drug simply because we have a good, sympathetic general practitioner.
  Some of the comments of Conservative Members about bureaucracy beggar belief. The previous Government introduced bureaucracy into the national health service by increasing management to the point where a previous Secretary of State had to remove 3 per cent. of the management staff who had been introduced because they cost too much.
  There have been improvements in the national health service under this Government. For a start, there is the extra funding that is mentioned in the Prime Minister's amendment. That is a clear example of Labour's commitment to the NHS.
  On funding, Barnsley health authority in my area has traditionally been the lowest-funded health authority in the country. We have been at the bottom of the list for a long time. Similarly, we were at the bottom of the list for the revenue support grant. When we queried our status with the previous Government, we received the scientific response, "Someone has to be at the bottom of the list, so why can't it be you?" There was no explanation of why the funding formula always discriminated against us when we had, and still have, some of the worst health indicators in the country.
  I am pleased to say that under this Government my health authority received a funding increase of 7.85 per cent. this year, which is one of the highest increases for any health authority. That is very welcome. However, we still have considerable problems, one or two of which I shall outline, and we are still one of the lowest-funded health authorities.
  Some colleagues and I recently attended a meeting with the Trent area health authorities and were shown a presentation in which almost every slide or indicator from the Trent region placed my health authority in the worst position and revealed problems with, among other things, coronary care and so on.
  Mr. Jeff Ennis: Mortality rates.
  Mr. Illsley: I shall deal with those in a moment.
  Every indicator that is highlighted by health authorities in the Trent region points to our authority being the worst, yet our funding does not allow us to tackle the problems.
  Traditionally, my area has high levels of disability. It is a former coal mining area—sadly, the previous Government decided to close the mines—and we have a legacy of problems from such heavy industry. There is a high incidence of disability, coronary disease, stroke and cancer, most of which relate to poor life style, diet, and so forth as a result of living in a poor and economically disadvantaged area. This Government have recognised that: they have introduced health action zones and I am

  1009
  pleased to say that South Yorkshire is one such zone. The incidence of heart disease and stroke in particular will be dealt with, I hope, and we will see an improvement.
  The standard mortality ratio in the Barnsley health authority area is the worst in the country. Apart from the incidence of heart disease, stroke and so on, I am not sure why, but it is a cause for concern. When the figure is broken down by ward, the difference between the highest and lowest is very small. In other words, no area covered by Barnsley health authority is good or bad; the figure is simply bad throughout. That needs to be tackled. I hope that the regional health authority and my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the matter for the future because in an area that has a history of heavy industry and which wants to regenerate and improve itself economically, such figures are not conducive to people settling.
  Another recent indicator that caused concern is that for the prescription of anti-depressants, where again—and I am not sure why—our area is the worst in the country. I do not know whether it is simply a question of GPs prescribing such drugs to get people out of their surgeries, but it should be addressed. I was encouraged recently to hear that the new GP-led primary care group has appointed a GP from within the group to tackle the issue among GPs themselves. That GP can go to the worst offenders and find out why they are prescribing so many anti-depressants and whether their practices—either previous fundholding or single-handed GP practices—are up to scratch. The history of prescribing in my area may not be as good as it should be. Now that we have a PCG, we are able to address that.
  For some reason, the highest number of deaths—albeit a low number—from breast cancer occurs in my area. Neither the health authority nor Trent executive region can identify the reason why—nobody knows. Some time ago, I went to the opening of the breast cancer unit in Barnsley district general hospital. It is a superb facility—nicely decorated and situated, and established to make patients feel comfortable and to encourage them to come forward with breast cancer problems and related issues. The unit is excellent, but no one can explain why we have the highest rate of deaths from breast cancer. Nobody has been able to identify whether it is because people are not coming forward early enough or at all.
  There is a shortage of GPs in our area. Several are due to retire in the not-too-distant future, but we are not attracting people to replace them, so we may soon have a crisis in such provision. Also, for some reason, we have a large number of single-handed general practices. In fact, the primary care group GP who represents them is responsible for 148,000 patients in the Barnsley area, which appears to be a very high number. Perhaps that too ought to be addressed.
  In Barnsley, waiting lists for two types of treatment are far too long. People must wait three years to see a consultant orthodontist. All concerned have acknowledged that, but no one appears to be doing anything about it. I would welcome the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on whether the matter can be addressed.
  Second only to one or two areas in the north-east and Northern Ireland, Barnsley has the highest rate of coronary heart disease in the country, yet patients must wait up to nine months for an angiogram. In one case,
  1010
  which was referred to me recently and is a cause for concern, a man aged 38 was required to wait nine months. He decided to obtain the angiogram privately, at quite some cost, only to find that he needed quadruple heart bypass surgery. He is fearful that, had he not taken the option of private treatment, he might not still be alive.
  I welcome the private finance initiative to build new hospitals. The right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe referred to the PFI hospital programme, which he apparently started but never got off the ground—he never managed to get the buildings up and running. The PFI in Barnsley is very small: about £1 million to refurbish hospital kitchens. However, the privatisation of all kitchen area staff and of housekeeping on the wards appears to be coming in on the back of it, to the point where the only health service staff on the wards of Barnsley district general hospital will be nurses, and everyone else—from the bed to the door—will be contracted in from private companies. That is a great cause for concern.
  I welcome the Government's amendment and totally oppose the Opposition motion. I welcome all the initiatives that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is taking and hope that some of the points that I have raised about my constituency will be taken on board.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must inform the House that many hon. Members are still seeking to catch my eye. Unless speeches are considerably shorter, several of them will be disappointed.
  5.58 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his announcement concerning meningitis, which is very good news. I congratulate all those associated with the initiative.
  It is with a sense of enormous sadness that I have watched the decline in the standards of health care provision in Britain since the Labour Government and the Secretary of State took control in 1997. I believe in a national health service and in the magnificent work of our doctors, nurses and other health professionals in the face of huge difficulties that have been generated by this Labour Government's policies.
  My principal interest is in primary care. I have watched with pride over 14 years the innovative developments in practices in my constituency which have improved the quality and efficiency of their services.
  I fully endorse the points that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made about fundholding. I watched with pleasure as clinics were established by fundholders in local surgeries to provide convenient local and cost-effective care for the local population. They developed day-surgery clinics, cutting waiting times for surgical procedures. They employed medical professionals such as counsellors to reduce the demands on the mental health services. Since 1997, I have seen those clinics systematically destroyed as a result of the Government's reforms.
  The Government seem to spurn innovation and entrepreneurialism. They seem to be working to the lowest common denominator in medicine. They fail to

  1011
  realise that all developments in medicine have always depended on the introduction of ideas in individual pioneering units, rolled out to all for the greater good. The current primary care reforms, corralling and coercing doctors into arbitrary groups and forcing them to work to confusing agendas in disparate environments, deride and destroy the progress that Conservative Governments for so long fostered and nurtured. Those groups, often working to impossibly tight budgets, are being forced to close those clinics and services as a niggardly cost-cutting exercise. The result is less good, less convenient services.
  The doctors are being forced to act as Government hit-men, rationing services while the Secretary of State denies that rationing even exists. Indeed, he is setting up the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to intervene in the clinical care provided by doctors by imposing dubious guidelines and applying professional and financial pressures to force the withholding of some types of care. The Secretary of State has certainly caused chaos with Viagra, leaving practitioners unsure how to manage the often serious symptoms for which it is available.
  The service will deteriorate further as other new drugs, possibly with life-saving actions, are allocated to patients arbitrarily by a Minister who seems more interested in named diseases and financial constraints than in the distress and morbidity resulting from the illnesses from which patients suffer.
  I watch with sorrow as the primary care groups take clinicians out of their surgeries to try to manage the unmanageable. Half a million consultations a month are stolen from the system by their absence to attend committees. Half a million patients a month are deprived of their own doctor and are forced either to wait or to obtain medical advice from other practitioners in whom they may not have as much confidence.
  I watch with sorrow as primary care is fragmented by this gung-ho Government, who are introducing NHS Direct and walk-in centres without proper evaluation, putting dogmatism before realism. Why can the royal colleges, the British Medical Association and the profession as a whole all see what the Government fail to see—that these new and gimmicky services will fuel demand, diluting care and consuming enormous financial resources? Worse, to use the words of Dr. John Chisholm, the BMA's general practice committee chairman,
  "the Government could casually destroy or weaken our model of general practice."
  Dr. Brand: We may be getting slightly carried away by dogma. Does the hon. Lady accept that single-practice fundholding was extremely costly on doctors' time, as they had to negotiate with every clinical department of every hospital with which they negotiated? Does she agree that the setting up of consortiums of fundholders was a great improvement? There is no reason why primary care groups cannot carry forward that effectiveness. It is up to the ex-fundholders to get stuck in to the new system and make it work instead of slagging it off.
  Mrs. Roe: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but the doctors to whom I have spoken feel that the freedom and flexibility that they had as fundholders gave a much better
  1012
  opportunity for appropriate patient care and certainly provided the adequate service that they felt was important within the national health service.
  I am saddened to see the British Medical Association so concerned by the Labour Government's changes. Last week in Belfast, Dr. Ian Bogle, BMA council chairman, made an unprecedented attack on the Prime Minister. He pointed out that morale in the health service had never been so low. He offered mock congratulations to the Prime Minister on managing to alienate the whole medical profession. He attacked the Prime Minister's personal style of "spin and grin".
  In my constituency, I have never had so many complaints. It is surrounded by deterioration in local hospital services. My constituents have access to three hospitals—the Chase Farm hospital in Enfield to the south, the Queen Elizabeth II hospital in Welwyn Garden City to the west and the Princess Alexandra hospital in Harlow to the east. All are faced with downgrading, closures and service reductions born out of financial stringencies and staff shortages. Up to 50 beds will go at the Princess Alexandra; the Queen Elizabeth II faces a merger with the Lister hospital at Stevenage with the loss of some of its key services; and the Chase Farm hospital has already been merged with Barnet general and, I believe, now faces a declining future.
  Many of my constituents are infuriated by a Government who claim to be bountiful while cutting and cutting service after service. In the past 24 hours, I have received several tragic letters from constituents. One was about a frail, elderly and sick lady suffering an appallingly long wait in hospital with nursing and medical shortages, defective equipment and not even any refreshments.
  I am hugely concerned about the future security of my local breast disease service, threatened with relocation in an inappropriate merger with another hospital.
  Another constituent, a frail, elderly gentleman, experienced a five-and-a-half hour wait for an ambulance to take him home, resulting in his not arriving until late at night, long after his carer had left. If it had not been for the good will of the carer, who returned to help him to bed, he might have had to face a night in his wheelchair.
  The Government have ridden roughshod over the health professions, imposing change of dubious benefit and doubtful efficacy. The real success, the jewel in the crown, are the health professionals, who have risen to meet this folly with dedication and vigour, challenging the steady deterioration in service with ever more commitment in time and energy.
  I do not believe that this can go on. The Government must realise that they cannot expect dedicated health professionals to bail out unworkable and nonsensical policies. They must remove the coercion to join primary care groups. If they are so good, why are they compulsory? They should reconsider the roll-out of NHS Direct and walk-in centres until proper evaluations have been carried out and the results have been submitted to public scrutiny, and they must realise that GPs cannot subsidise in time and money the management of our vital service. Only then will our NHS start to recover from the ill-conceived and chaotic policies of this Labour Government.
  6.8 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: No one seems to have a good word to say for the national health service these days, so it behoves me, as one of the very few medically qualified Members of the House who still does a certain amount of practice, to answer some of the points that have been raised.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is the hon. Gentleman the Minister?
  Dr. Stoate: In answer to the right hon. Lady's question from a sedentary position, I do have the right to answer the debate, even though I am not winding up for the Government. I still feel that I have arguments to make in answer to points that Labour Members and Opposition Members have raised in the debate so far.
  Dr. Brand rose—
  Dr. Stoate: I shall give way in a minute.
  In the interests of grown-up debate I decided to look back over the past 20 years, at my experience as a doctor, to see what I could glean from my experience in the health service. During the past 20 years, the health service has changed dramatically. There have been vast improvements all round. Social conditions for most people in this country have to a certain extent improved. Nowadays most people have telephones and many have cars. Most people can now get to the premises where their general practitioners and the primary care professionals work.
  The role of the general practitioner has also changed dramatically over the past 20 years. Most people can come to much better equipped surgeries, where a far wider range of facilities is available. More can be done for them in primary care, without their having to be passed on to the secondary sector.
  Dr. Brand: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he not surprised that the Government amendment
  "congratulates the staff on providing … the fairest and most efficient healthcare system in the world",
  and that we no longer speak of the best health care system in the world? Can he explain how we can go back to being comparable with the best—at present we are second or even third-rate in our outcomes—without putting in extra resources?
  Dr. Stoate: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution, although I do not agree with him. I believe that ours is still one of the best health services in the world. We have one of the most dedicated services available. We have notes that go from cradle to grave. We have a commitment to patients that is unsurpassed in most countries, which still envy us. For example, many people still come to visit the Royal College of General Practitioners, of which I am a fellow, to find out how British general practice can be rolled out into other parts of the world. I still take part to some extent in the college activities, and professors from foreign countries come over frequently to find out how British general practice can be used in their own countries for the benefit of their own people.
  1014
  I simply do not recognise the idea that British general practice and the British national health service have slipped in their position in the world. I still believe that it is an excellent service, with much to offer people in Britain.
  General practice has improved markedly over the past few years. That has not just happened recently. It has been going on over a long period. I shall surprise Opposition Members by saying that I do not believe that the service has become wonderful over the past two years having been dreadful before. I take a rather more grown-up approach and say that improvements have happened gradually, over a long period—and yes, some of those improvements have been due to the Conservatives. To a certain extent, I pay tribute to what the previous Government did.
  Much of the debate this afternoon has centred on fundholding. Yes, there are aspects of fundholding that did a great deal of good. There was considerable innovation, and many entrepreneurial ideas came from certain general practitioners who were able to run with the ideas and introduce genuine change and improvements for patients in their surgeries. However, there was a problem, which the Opposition have never grasped and to which they have never owned up.
  Every improvement that some GPs were able to glean for their patients was at the expense of other GPs who were unable to do so. The fact remained that if money was being top-sliced to be given to fundholders, less was left for the commissioning groups of other GPs who did not have those advantages. There was indeed a two-tier service. For every innovation from which some GPs benefited, others lost out. As someone who has been a GP for a long time—a non-fundholding GP—I felt that keenly in some aspects of patient care. I felt that on many occasions my patients were missing out, because of the activities of fundholders.
  Many aspects of fundholding worked, but the problem was that it was unfair. Opposition Members like to speak about free choice and the right of people, including doctors, to make decisions for themselves. I agree with that, but there is a fundamental difference between my view of the world and theirs. In their view, choice and freedom must be right at any cost. In my view, choice and freedom are right only in so far as they do not impinge on the choice and freedom of others. Choice is good, but not at the expense of others. Fundholding undoubtedly reduced the choice of others.
  Opposition Members look quizzical, so I shall give a simple example relating to economies of scale. If a fundholder top-sliced the budget for the family practitioners service, as it was then, that left far less money for the non-fundholding GPs. That meant that they were far less able to negotiate bulk contracts with their local providers. They got a worse service and the money ran out sooner. The money was not available for GPs in the non-fundholding practices to make the best of things for their practices.
  Although some good things came out of fundholding, I believe that overall it created inequality, unfairness and a two-tier service.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. If, as he says, fundholding created a two-tier system and there were advantages to fundholding, would it not

  1015
  have been logical to move everyone up to the top tier, not to drag everyone downwards by restricting freedom, as primary care groups have done?
  Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, but I cannot agree with it. If, as I believe and as many surveys have shown, fundholders were getting a greater proportion of the resources, those advantages would be lost if all GPs became fundholders, because they could not all have more than their share of resources. The only way that fundholding could turn out to be a great success was by reducing the resources available to non-fundholders.
  Surely the way forward in that case is to amalgamate fundholding with non-fundholding to produce the best of all worlds. I shall give an example to Opposition Members, who may not believe me. In my constituency, Dartford, more than 100 GPs, fundholders and non-fundholders working together, formed a primary care pilot. About 70 of them were fundholders and 30 were non-fundholders. They voluntarily gave up that status to work together as 100 GPs. They reduced bureaucracy and achieved much better economies of scale and improvements in services.
  Those GPs acted as a model for primary care groups. Now that they have become a primary care group, they are a year ahead of most other GPs and are providing genuine and sustained improvements in service for their patients. They have taken the best of fundholding and rolled those benefits out for all patients and all GPs in the community. They formed a primary care group, precisely as the Government intend, to reduce the inequality that was apparent under the previous system.
  We have taken the best and ensured that it is available to all. Of course I accept some of the criticisms from some of my GP colleagues who say that things have happened very fast, that they are not sure what is happening and that there are gaps in service. Some PCGs have obviously been faster and more organised than others, and some are falling behind. However, that is more a matter of things settling down over time and the new service bedding in, rather than a fundamental problem with the service.
  I genuinely believe that in a year's time, primary care groups will prove to be the best thing that we could have done under the circumstances. They will provide the maximum improvements for all patients in the community, not just for the favoured few. That is surely what is needed to improve health care for people in Britain.
  It is right for this debate to take place and for the House to examine how the health service is working, but it is not right to table motions that run the health service down and frighten people into believing that the health service is getting worse, when it clearly is not. We should be talking up the best of the health service, improving aspects in which improvement is still needed, and most of all building on the successes of the past and ensuring that they benefit everyone.
  I pay tribute to the enormous number of doctors, nurses and other health professionals who work extremely hard, who show such dedication, and who work long hours, sometimes at thankless tasks. We should pay tribute to
  1016
  those people, instead of making them look as though they are running a second-rate service of which no one wants to be part. That is not the case.
  I have sat through the debate this afternoon and listened to the comments, and I do not recognise the health service that many hon. Members profess to know all about. I still work in the health service to a certain extent and I shall give Opposition Members three examples of patients whom I have seen in the past few weeks.
  We talk about priorities and about whether people get the service that they want, when they need it. I saw a lady with breast cancer. It was in quite an advanced state. I picked up the phone and spoke to a surgeon. He said, "I am still here. How quickly can she get to see me?" She was seen that very morning. That is not a bad service.
  I saw a patient recently who had come back from Thailand with a nasty tropical illness which clearly needed investigation. I picked up the phone and arranged for him to be seen by a consultant the same day. He was dealt with immediately with no problem and no queues.
  I saw a patient a few weeks ago who was suffering from post-natal depression. I sent a fax to my local psychiatric hospital asking whether she could be seen as soon as convenient. I got a phone call from the consultant the same day, asking me to track the patient down so that she could be seen the same afternoon in the consultant's clinic. That is not a bad service.
  The health service can still deliver the best. For every example that Opposition Members can list in which things have gone wrong, I can give examples in which things have gone very right indeed. We should pay tribute to the health service and talk it up, instead of talking it down. It is the best that we have, and I do not believe that the Opposition have any ideas about how the system that we have introduced could be improved on.
  6.20 pm
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Like the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), I can give three examples of what has happened to patients—a gentleman, Mr. Roger Humphreys, admitted to the Royal Surrey county hospital on Sunday lunchtime but not admitted to a ward until Monday evening; a lady, whom I shall not name, with cancer who was left in the accident and emergency department for more than 10 hours; and a young man, a schizophrenic, who should have been seen by either a social worker or a psychiatric nurse as he had just burned his parents' house to the ground—all suffering from the Government's blight on the home counties.
  Undoubtedly, matters in South-West Surrey are worse than ever before. I have had more letters than ever before. The waiting lists are up. When I went to the Department of Health, I took the view that a one-year wait was too long to be acceptable. At that time, there were 270,000 one-year waiters. When I left, there were 30,000. When this Government came to power, there were still 30,000; there are now 48,000. How many more examples do the Government want of the fact that the rhetoric, the spin and the trivial nature of their approach to the health service are not delivering?
  For the first six months, time and again every Minister said of the previous Government, "We keep our promises; they broke theirs." We have not heard that trite claim today, because it is so blatantly not being delivered.

  1017
  The Government were going to reduce waiting lists. As we know, that promise is costly—the Government are not delivering, and that promise is distorting priorities.
  The Government have attacked managers. They have now reached the stage where managers apparently have to be appointed by the Secretary of State. Breaking all precedents, the chief executive of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has to be appointed by the Government. I hope that the First Division Association will make its voice heard about that.
  The Government are opposed to postcode prescribing. I take the view of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) that postcode prescribing may not be desirable, but the alternative is centralisation, lack of innovation and the lowest common denominator. We see old Labour at work more in the health service than in any other area.
  Professor Le Grand of the London School of Economics health unit—I declare an interest as a governor of LSE—has described how the third way has been adopted across the social agenda by the Labour party, but not in health. I urge the Government to look more pragmatically at the NHS, to have more of a partnership approach and to stop being so politically driven, because these endless irrelevant initiatives are irritating the professionals more and more and creating quite unrealistic expectations among patients.
  Walk-in centres and NHS Direct are not bad ideas, but they are centralising. They are taking power to Ministers at exactly the time when, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe said, we should be devolving power down to the levels closest to the patients and the professionals.
  Today, we had a welcome announcement on meningitis C. I declare an interest, which appears in the Register of Members' Interests, because I work with Wyeth, which has been closely associated with that initiative. Despite all the rhetoric about health action zones and inequalities, let us consider what the previous Government delivered—please can this Government do better?
  Let us take the example of MMR immunisation. In 1989–90 in west Birmingham, among the worst areas in the country, only 49 per cent. of children were immunised. Two years later, as a result of the changes put in place by the Conservative Government—rewarding general practitioners for immunisation, against which the Labour party voted—that figure had risen to 82 per cent. In Newham, again an area of great deprivation, the party which Labour always said did not care about inequalities was responsible for an increase in the number of children immunised from 50 per cent. in 1989 to 81 per cent. in 1991.
  I urge the Government to take more seriously the delivery of results. Health care is not about initiatives; it is about implementation and the follow through. That is why I am so appalled by what is happening on junior doctors' hours. I was the Minister who signed the new deal. I was also the Secretary of State who signed up to the targets in the "Health of the Nation" White Paper. I hope that in "Our Healthier Nation", with many similar targets in many similar areas, the Government will deliver. The Government would gain more respect if they left party politics aside—they do not need it with such a big majority—quietened down and delivered.
  1018
  All these trivial initiatives take the time and energy of senior managers, Ministers and others at a time when, with more humility and pragmatism, they should be asking what the NHS can deliver. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) put the rationing issue well and truly on the agenda. The worry is that unless the Government are more truthful—this is why I so welcome the appointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—they will always give way to the articulate greedy as opposed to the inarticulate needy. The challenge will be the unfashionable causes and the inarticulate groups. The Government should say, "We cannot deliver everything for everybody."
  Let us have some realism, integrity and honesty. The danger that the Government are storing up for themselves is that they will end up exactly like the previous Labour Government—expectations were massive, and the disillusionment and disappointment with the implementation was so great that people started to take industrial action and patients suffered.
  We have had a welcome announcement but, please, now, two years into office, will the Government calm down and put the patients and the professionals, not the politicians, in the driving seat?
  6.25 pm
  Sir Raymond Whitney: My right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) speaks with great knowledge and understanding of the health service and makes an extremely valid case. By nature, I am an optimist and I came here today thinking that, perhaps, for the first time in 53 years, we could have a sensible political debate on how to provide health services in Britain. I thought that because, after 26 months of the realities of office, I hoped that the Labour party might, as my right hon. Friend suggests, face up to the problems that we all share in providing a proper health service for Britain, but that was not to be.
  The reason that we have not had a sensible debate for 53 years is the myths that surround what happened in 1946. Sure enough, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) tried to resurrect those myths this afternoon. The fact is that all three major parties in Britain were, for many years before the health service was created, totally in favour of a health service which was comprehensive, universal and free at the point of delivery. There was great unanimity on that throughout the war, culminating in the 1944 White Paper introduced by a Conservative Minister. That White Paper was strongly endorsed by the Labour party at its Blackpool conference in October 1944.
  The only difference—it was a significant difference—was that the majority of the Labour party, led in particular by the then Lord President of the Council, Mr. Herbert Morrison, the grandfather of the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson)—and who, in the light of the problems that we have had since, would say that he was wrong?—said that we needed not the centralised and over-bureaucratic structure which Aneurin Bevan eventually put through the House, but a much more devolved structure with local autonomy and a great deal

  1019
  more freedom from bureaucracy. Let us therefore be clear that we should not be fobbed off with the myths that we have heard this afternoon, and have had—
  Mr. Hinchliffe rose—
  Sir Raymond Whitney: No, sorry; no chance at all.
  We have had those myths for 53 years. For 53 years, Health Ministers have had the same challenges. I was a junior Health Minister for a short time and, like every other Minister, junior or senior, I accepted the basic framework of the health service with the two overriding essentials of universal care free at the point of delivery and the need to get as much money as possible out of the Treasury and spend it as wisely as one can. Governments of both complexions have tried that. The previous Conservative Government had a great record. We had a 74 per cent. increase in expenditure in real terms, an 86 per cent. increase in hospital treatments, and we doubled the number of hip replacements. We can all swap such statistics.
  We should concentrate on the hospital sector. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) spoke about general practitioners. I accept that the level of GP provision in Britain is something of which we should be proud, but we should not be proud of the hospital problem, particularly the waiting times and all the ancillary services.
  The Conservative Government tried hard with their massive increase in spending over 18 years. We produced a long list of improvements. We have now had two and a bit years of the Labour Government. In many ways, they have gone backwards. The previous Labour Government's record was appalling. Nurses' pay fell in real terms by 3 per cent. in one year, the hospital building programme was cut by a third, and doctors said that the health service was on the point of collapse. They are saying that again. I utter these words with care, but does not that suggest that the NHS is not the envy of the world? If it was, it would have been copied elsewhere.
  The New Zealanders established a national health service for a short time and then walked away from it. The Swedes had something similar for a while, but they do not have such a service any more. There must be lessons that we can learn from other countries and it is about time that we, as responsible politicians, faced up to our responsibilities and accepted that reality. Instead, we always hear flannel from Labour spokesmen, and the Secretary of State gave us a prime example of that this afternoon.
  Let us look to other countries. Of course they have great problems, but I am sure that there are things to learn from them. I believe that we have to go back to where Herbert Morrison was when he lost his battle with Aneurin Bevan 53 years ago, and look for a much higher degree of local autonomy and less of the centralisation that the Labour party by instinct enjoys so much.
  We also have to look at additional sources of funding. We all know that money is not everything in respect of health care, but it is crucial. The latest figures available for per capita health spending in Britain are given in American dollars, which is usually the case with statistics. We spend $1,300 compared with $4,000 spent in the United States. I would not dream of suggesting that as an
  1020
  example, but we should look at our sister countries—the other advanced industrial countries such as Germany and France—where average per capita spending is $2,000. That is a difference of $700 per person.
  Laura Moffatt: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Raymond Whitney: I am sorry, but I cannot.
  With such a difference in spending, no wonder we have these problems. We should therefore open our minds and tell ourselves that the health service will not be safe in the hands of Labour or any other party unless we consider new solutions.
  6.32 pm
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I fear that only a few minutes remain, and one of my hon. Friends—
  Dr. Julian Lewis: Two.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: Two of my hon. Friends wish to make further comment. I am relieved from discharging some of my duty, however, because the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) followed in thought, if not word by word, exactly what I have in mind.
  Members of my family work in the national health service, and I have great admiration for such people and for the achievements of the NHS. I have no wish to scrap it but, like my hon. Friend, I have to recognise that no other country has copied us. The representatives of nation after nation have visited this country and rejected our solution, but they have suggested that there are ways of topping up public expenditure. They believe that that can be achieved through friendly societies and insurance, and we can do that in this country. A whole raft of measures has made it possible for a better service to be delivered in continental countries, with which we should compare this country.
  In my judgment, it is disgraceful that, instead of recognising that, we indulge in the sort of political rhetoric that so often destroys the ability of the House to give some lead to the Government and the public and to help to explain to them why change is necessary. By doing that, we do a disservice to those who work in the health service. They suffer from some of the same frustrations as us and they do not want the health service to be destroyed, but we will not give them a pointer to ways in which the health service can be improved if we do not recognise that alternative sources of finance and training would enable them to discharge their duties more effectively.
  I am not referring to creeping privatisation or anything of that kind, but I am concerned that we will lead people to ever declining standards of practice if we go on blindly assuming that we can continue to have a health service free at the point of demand and subsidised almost exclusively by the taxpayer.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I am increasingly angry about the style and lack of substance of Her Majesty's Government. Frankly, they should be

  1021
  absolutely ashamed of the way in which they have let the British people down by mismanaging the national health service since 1 May 1997.
  Mr. Eric Martlew: Basildon!
  Mr. Amess: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman shouts the name of my former constituency. Yesterday, I visited a friend who is seriously ill in hospital and that gentleman has everything to thank the hospital for in respect of the treatment that he has received. This might take the smile off the hon. Gentleman's face: he might be interested to know that the staff who work at that particular hospital—
  Mr. Martlew: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Amess: We have only five minutes to go, and if I gave way I should be abusing the procedures of the House.
  Every hon. Member should thank the women and men who work in the NHS for the wonderful work that they do on behalf of our constituents. Many of us have relatives and friends whose lives have been saved by them. For example, the gentleman who runs my office has had two heart bypass operations and he is thankful for the skill of the surgeon concerned.
  For 18 years, the Labour party politicised the health service. Day in, day out, it tried to blame the Conservative party for everything that was reported by the newspapers, but it is interesting that it is now a little bit uncomfortable with the headlines. This week, a leader in The Times headed "Patients and Patience" said:
  "In health reforms outcomes are what matter".
  A headline in the Daily Mail, which the Labour party does not like, says:
  "At 103, Amy King had a right to expect exemplary treatment when taken to hospital. Instead, she was left weeping on a trolley for 28 hours, just another victim of our crumbling health service".
  Day in, day out and week in, week out, headlines that are clearly criticising the Government appear in the newspapers.
  It has sickened me to listen to Labour party apologists during this debate on an Opposition motion, which I believe has already been abused by combining it with a statement. Labour Members say, "What has been reported since 1 May 1997 is all wrong." The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and others were not Members of the House in previous Parliaments, but we all remember Jennifer's ear and all that. I believe that Labour Members should be absolutely ashamed of the way that they politicised the health service for 18 years.
  Who thinks that the Labour party is doing a good job? Labour MPs do, but the professionals and the people who work in the health service know that the Labour party has let them down. Last week, I had the privilege to meet representatives of the Royal College of Nursing, which has said:
  "The NHS is facing its worst nursing shortage in 25 years. The RCN revealed in January 1999 that there are now up to 13,000 full-time nursing vacancies".
  1022
  Local medical committees in Essex have passed two motions. One said that the conference had
  "no confidence in the present government's handling of the National Health Service"
  and
  deplores the fragmentation of the structure of primary care delivery in the UK".
  Another motion was passed, also saying that
  "conference has no confidence in this present government's handling of the National Health Service."
  We have already heard what the British Medical Association has had to say. Labour MPs quoted what it had to say for 18 years—it was their greatest comforter—but it has turned against the Labour party. I am not sure whether the Liberal party still supports it; we shall find out when it elects its new leader in the middle of August. Now that it has turned against Labour Members, they do not want to know about it. As far as I am concerned, no one is satisfied with the NHS reforms except Labour Members. Those of us who sat through 77 hours of Standing Committee sittings on the Health Act 1999 know at first hand what those reforms amount to.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Amess: No. We know what those reforms amount to and the Minister of State, who was a member of that Committee, was responsible for overseeing a complete shambles. On Report, Labour Members had no idea what new clause 18 meant, and we did not have a satisfactory debate on the health service.
  On 1 May 1997, the Labour party said, "Vote Labour and you will save the national health service." It should have said, "Vote Labour and you will have to save the national health service." The two people whom I blame for the mismanagement of affairs since 1 May 1997 are none other than the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Health. The sooner the pair of them go, the better.
  6.40 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: I begin by expressing our support for the Secretary of State's statement on meningitis vaccination, which builds on the immunisation programme that was at the heart of the previous Government's public health programme. It is extremely good news for all of us, especially those with small children.
  We had the familiar speech from the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). Many of us have heard it before, and I do not intend to address it point by point. However, it was interesting that he attacked the previous Government on their record on the funding of long-term care. I noticed that he did not ask his Front-Bench colleagues when they were going to respond to the recommendations of the royal commission on the long-term care of the elderly. I suspect that the answer is that they will not respond, and that we shall discover that that is just one of the many promises made in opposition that the Government have now broken.
  I am extremely grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for nailing the hon. Member for Wakefield and the Secretary of State for once again making the cheap and unfounded slur that

  1023
  the Tory party wants to privatise the NHS. That is their only response to health debates these days. It is untrue: the Government know it, and it is unworthy of them to keep repeating it.
  I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Barnsley, Central (Mr. Illsley) acknowledges that rationing exists in the NHS. I look forward to hearing from the Minister whether his hon. Friend has got it right, or whether he has a pager defect.
  I am also grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) for her eloquent exposé the weaknesses and pitfalls of the Government's primary care reform agenda, and to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley), who drew attention to the problems of areas that are not among the Government's most favoured.
  The focus of the debate is on the gap between the NHS that we were promised by the Government at the last general election and the NHS that is being delivered to us. It is about the deception that was practised on the British people by the party that posed as the saviour of our national health service, and about the betrayal of NHS staff, many of whom—of all political persuasions—placed their trust in the Government in May 1997. If the Secretary of State has achieved one thing unequivocally, it is, as the chairman of the BMA said, the alienation of the whole medical profession in just two years.
  The Government are obsessed with style over substance. They believe that saying it is doing it, and they put politics before patients.
  Lorna Fitzsimons: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hammond: No, I shall not give way, because there is no time left in the debate.
  No one doubts the Government's desire to achieve a better national health service, but wishful thinking is no substitute for policy competence. Spin doctors cannot deliver pain relief, and they cannot cure patients. Patients who are on waiting lists or waiting to get on those lists, or who cannot get the drugs that they need to prolong their lives or to relieve their pain, know that the Government have failed to deliver the better health service that they promised them at the general election. Their families, neighbours and friends know that.
  The Government are presiding over an unprecedentedly centralised national health service. It is an NHS in crisis: clinical priorities are subordinated to political targets, and the nursing shortage is at its worst level for 25 years. We now have a year-round winter crisis, fewer beds; routine, same-day cancellations of operations; rising total waiting lists; and more people waiting longer for their treatment. The morale of the medical profession is at an all-time low, and we have creeping rationing of drugs and treatment across the system and across the country. The worst thing is that the Government deny that all that is happening. They will not address the issues because they do not even acknowledge them.
  The contrast between the reality and the expectations that were deliberately, recklessly and irresponsibly raised by Labour's rhetoric at the last election could not be greater, and is already beginning to haunt the Secretary of State. I wish that I could say that that applies to the
  1024
  Secretary of State for Health alone, but it does not, because this admixture of deception, betrayal and incompetence is a common theme throughout the Government. It applies to taxation, transport, education, environment, welfare reform and law and order.
  The Secretary of State is also not alone in being responsible for the problems of the NHS. His colleagues on the Government Front Bench have helped him with those. The working time directive has added £100 million to his problems. The extra pension contributions that are required have added another £0.5 billion. The minimum wage, higher taxes on fuel and social chapter costs have also compounded his problems.
  However, the Secretary of State alone is personally responsible for impaling himself on his ludicrous assertion that there is no rationing in the NHS, thus singlehandedly stifling the most important debate that we need to have about the future of our national health service.
  We are discussing the promises that the Government made and the promises that they have broken. They promised to cut waiting lists by 100,000 as a first step by saving £100 million on NHS red tape. How have they done on that? According to their own figures, they have spent almost £1 billion on the waiting list initiative. They have not cut red tape; they have increased it. People in the NHS tell us that they are drowning in policy initiatives, targets, circulars and executive letters. After spending all that money, the Government have utterly failed even to achieve the target of a 100,000 reduction. Two years on, the figure is only 40,000 lower than it was in May 1997, and that is if we accept the Government's figures at face value and take no account of the additional 200,000 people who are waiting to see a specialist to have the chance and the privilege of getting on the Secretary of State's waiting list for treatment.
  The Government have done no better on waiting times. As my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, they have not achieved equality of treatment across the country. In opposition, they explicitly recognised the dangers of upheaval in the service, yet they have introduced wholesale change, which the BMA has called "frightening".
  The Government have abolished GP fundholding, and have created a levelling down of expectations in primary care. They betrayed the nurses in their first year of office by staging the nurses's pay claim, which did irreparable damage to morale in the nursing profession. [Interruption.] The Secretary of State snickers. He has recently introduced an expensive initiative to lure nurses back to the profession. He has told us how many people have made inquiries, but we do not know how many people have rejoined the NHS. The Government's amendment says 3,800, but the Secretary of State may be interested to know that the Minister of State, in a written answer to me just last week, gave the figure of 1,223, so there must be more than one spin doctor working in the Department of Health giving us two separate answers.
  The Secretary of State should beware. The last time, the electorate judged the Labour party on what it said it would do for our national health service. The next time, they will judge it on what it has achieved, not on what it says.
  More immediately relevant to the Secretary of State is that others may be judging him on what he has achieved in the NHS. Perhaps, somewhere in Downing street, the

  1025
  Secretary of State's own end-of-term report—prepared by some faceless wonder—is gathering dust. The salient achievements that that report will list are: the alienation of the entire medical profession in just two years; the largest fall in public confidence rating of any Government Department since May 1997; and a failure to deliver on a single key pledge, despite a cynical manipulation of the system in an attempt to achieve that.
  The Government will be judged on their competence to address the problems in the NHS, and not just on the sincerity of their aspirations for it. On that measure—competence—the sad but inevitable conclusion is that the Government have failed. The Secretary of State has failed, and Britain's health service is getting worse under Labour.
  6.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): It is quite clear from the debate that there is a difference between the Government and the Conservative party, but equally it is clear how the Tory party has changed. For years, the saving grace of the Conservative party—as it presided over the break-up and decline of the NHS—was that, at least, it felt that it should claim that the NHS was safe in its hands. We have seen in the past year, first under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), and now under the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), that the Conservatives have dropped that pretence.
  It was explicit in the speeches by the hon. Member for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) and by the right hon. Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) that the NHS would not be safe in the hands of the Conservative party, and that will be on the record.
  Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: The hon. Gentleman has no right to say that. The suggestions that I have made about the need for extra topping-up from the private sector have been proposed by the Fabian Society and others, including Front-Bench spokesmen. That does not signal the break-up of the NHS.
  Mr. Denham: The story now is that, in the view of the Conservative party, the NHS cannot be saved. The aim of what we have heard today has been to undermine, to demoralise, and to persuade people to abandon the NHS for the private alternative. Some Opposition Members seem to be under the impression that private health insurance works by giving money to patients. We should explain to them that it works the other way round.
  We were elected as a Government to modernise the health service. The people knew at the last election, as they still know, that we were the only party which had faith in the future of the NHS. We said that it would take 10 years to modernise the NHS—we said that when we published the White Paper, and it will. However, the right start has been made in every part of the NHS.
  The NHS depends on its staff. We need more staff, who are better trained and fairly rewarded, and that is what we are doing. Already, more people want to go into careers in nursing. More than 31,000 people have applied for pre-registration nursing and midwifery training this year, compared with just over 18,000 last year. The recruitment campaign that we launched after this year's pay award has brought more than 1,200 trained nurses who had left the
  1026
  NHS back on to the wards in just five months, with more than 2,500 more in the process of returning. We are determined to tackle violence and harassment, and we will promote family-friendly employment to ensure that those nurses will want to stay in the NHS.
  We implemented the pay review body awards for doctors and nurses for this year in full and without staging—for the first time in five years. There will be more doctors. The comprehensive spending review will allow the appointment of up to 15,000 extra nurses and 7,000 extra doctors. Some 2,200 more doctors joined the NHS in our first year, and there are more than 90,000 doctors for the first time in the history of the NHS.
  I say to the hon. Member for Woodspring that I did not understand—I hope that I did not misinterpret—his comments about overseas doctors. A quarter of doctors in the NHS are overseas doctors today—about the same proportion as under the Conservative Government. His attack on the role of overseas doctors in the NHS will have alarmed many people in the House, and I hope that he will soon take the opportunity to make it clear what he meant.
  Let me also point out to the hon. Gentleman that there is no evidence that the hours worked by junior doctors have risen. He should know that we agreed with the junior doctors to improve the conditions for the new deal on rest and other aspects, not the working hours, and that has led to an increased number of posts that do not comply with the "new" new deal. That is because we want tougher standards for junior doctors. I can assure the House, as we have on many occasions, that the hours worked by junior doctors have fallen since we came to office, and we will make sure that they continue to fall.
  We have increased the number of nurse-training places. More than 1,500 extra pre-registration nurses will go into training in the next year, and we are on track to create an extra 6,000 training places by 2002. We are putting in an extra 1,000 medical school places for doctors. We are making sure that NHS staff will be properly trained and properly rewarded.
  The NHS is changing, and all change can be disconcerting for some. However, right across the NHS there is a new leadership, which shares the Government's faith in the NHS and our vision, and which wants to make it work. We have abolished the internal market, which means that we will be able to put about £1 billion saved from bureaucracy back into patient care in this Parliament.
  The managers have managed. With the doctors, nurses and other staff, they have delivered the biggest-ever fall in waiting lists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) said, in 481 primary care groups, doctors and nurses are now in the driving seat, taking the responsibility for shaping the new NHS at local level. Some 170 primary care groups have expressed interest in becoming primary care trusts. Some 91 primary care groups, grass-roots GPs and GP co-operatives have applied to run the first NHS walk-in centres.
  Primary care groups, and particularly GP co-operatives, are working closely with NHS Direct to bring about the new nurse-led helpline, and to bring services closer to patients. Over 400 doctors now work in personal medical service pilot schemes, and many hundreds more wish to do so.

  1027
  Those people are taking part not because anyone told them to, but because they want to. They can see that the changes that we have introduced will be better for their patients and better for the services that they want to offer. The Royal College of Nursing described our new nursing strategy as a breakthrough document. There will be better careers and wider roles for nurses, and already we are training 23,500 nurses to take on the responsibility of nurse prescribing.
  Doctors, nurses and other health professionals are developing new roles in the new NHS, building on the best of what is already there and tackling new needs in new ways. We have started the modernisation of the NHS and we will see it through. We promised to tackle waiting lists, and we are doing so. When we came into office, waiting lists were at record levels and rising. Now, waiting lists are falling and, as waiting lists fall, waiting times will fall.
  In 1992, when the Conservative Government launched the patients charter, they said that no one should wait for more than two years. A bit later, they said that no one should wait for more than 18 months. However, they never achieved that target—not for one month in any year did they achieve the waiting target that they set themselves. In England, for the past nine months in a row, no one has been reported as waiting for more than 18 months.
  We should all like waiting lists to be shorter; but for some conditions, waiting lists must be shorter. Therefore, we set out to ensure that, from April, any woman with suspected breast cancer needing urgent treatment is seen by a specialist within two weeks. In 2000, we want to extend that to cover all cancer conditions.
  Across key health problems—such as coronary heart disease, mental health and the needs of older people—national service frameworks will state the service standards that we want the national health service to provide to everyone, everywhere—not with local, postcode prescribing—
  Mr. Hammond: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Government's amendment states quite clearly that 3,800 nurses have returned to the NHS "so far this year". In his speech, the Minister has just confirmed that the real number is 1,233—as he has confirmed to me in a written answer—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Perhaps I can help the hon. Gentleman by saying that that is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Denham: An awful lot more nurses have returned to nursing under the current Government than under the previous one. Moreover, the amendment mentions nurses "returning" to the national health service. Nurses are returning to the national health service because they, like Labour Members, have confidence in the future of the national health service. If there is one lesson to be learned from this debate, it is that we have a choice not between the new and old
  1028
  NHS, but between the new NHS, represented by the Government, and no NHS, represented by Conservative Members.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I completely understand why you said what you did a few moments ago, but the 3,800 figure appears on today's Order Paper. Therefore, the House is being given—inadvertently, I trust—misleading information on which to vote. Surely that is a point that you can address, sir.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is a matter not for the occupant of the Chair, but for hon. Members in deciding how to vote on the motion.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 169, Noes 327.

  Division No. 260]

  [7.1 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Day, Stephen

  Allan, Richard

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Amess, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Duncan, Alan

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Evans, Nigel

  Baker, Norman

  Faber, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ballard, Jackie

  Fallon, Michael

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bercow, John

  Flight, Howard

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Blunt, Crispin

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Boswell, Tim

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brake, Tom

  Fraser, Christopher

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Gale, Roger

  Brazier, Julian

  Garnier, Edward

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gibb, Nick

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Burns, Simon

  Gorrie, Donald

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Gray, James

  Cash, William

  Green, Damian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Greenway, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Chidgey, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Chope, Christopher

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clappison, James

  Hammond, Philip

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hancock, Mike

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Collins, Tim

  Harvey, Nick

  Colvin, Michael

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heath, David (Somerton &Frome)

  Cotter, Brian

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Horam, John

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Hunter, Andrew

  1029

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Shepherd, Richard

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

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

  Keetch, Paul

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Key, Robert

  Soames, Nicholas

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Spring, Richard

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lansley, Andrew

  Steen, Anthony

  Leigh, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Lidington, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Syms, Robert

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Loughton, Tim

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Townend, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tyler, Paul

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maples, John

  Viggers, Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Walter, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wardle, Charles

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Moore, Michael

  Webb, Steve

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  Norman, Archie

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Oaten, Mark

  Whittingdale, John

  Öpik, Lembit

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Page, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Paice, James

  Willetts, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Willis, Phil

  Prior, David

  Wilshire, David

  Randall John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Rendel, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Ainger, Nick

  Benton, Joe

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'tryNE)

  Best, Harold

  Alexander, Douglas

  Betts, Clive

  Allen, Graham

  Blackman, Liz

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Ashton, Joe

  Borrow, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Banks, Tony

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barron, Kevin

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Battle, John

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Browne, Desmond

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Burden, Richard

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Burgon, Colin

  1030

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Flynn, Paul

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cann, Jamie

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foulkes, George

  Casale, Roger

  Fyfe, Maria

  Caton, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chaytor, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gerrard, Neil

  Clapham, Michael

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cohen, Harry

  Grocott, Bruce

  Coleman, Iain

  Grogan, John

  Colman, Tony

  Gunnell, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Hain, Peter

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hanson, David

  Cox, Tom

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cranston, Ross

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Crausby, David

  Healey, John

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Heppell, John

  Cummings, John

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hill, Keith

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hoey, Kate

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hood, Jimmy

  Darvill, Keith

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Hope, Phil

  Davidson, Ian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Denham, John

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dobbin, Jim

  Hurst, Alan

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Hutton, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Doran, Frank

  Illsley, Eric

  Dowd, Jim

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Drew, David

  Jenkins, Brian

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Edwards, Huw

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ennis, Jeff

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Etherington, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Fisher, Mark

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  1031

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Mudie, George

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Mullin, Chris

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Khabra, Piara S

  Norris, Dan

  Kidney, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Laxton, Bob

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Lepper, David

  Pearson, Ian

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pendry, Tom

  Levitt, Tom

  Pickthall, Colin

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Pike, Peter L

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Plaskitt, James

  Linton, Martin

  Pollard, Kerry

  Lock, David

  Pond, Chris

  McAllion, John

  Pope, Greg

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Pound, Stephen

  McCabe, Steve

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Primarolo, Dawn

  McDonnell, John

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Purchase, Ken

  McIsaac, Shona

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Rapson, Syd

  McNamara, Kevin

  Raynsford, Nick

  McNulty, Tony

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  MacShane, Denis

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  McWalter, Tony

  McWilliam, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Mallaber, Judy

  Rooker, Jeff

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Rooney, Terry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Roy, Frank

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Ruane, Chris

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Salter, Martin

  Martlew, Eric

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Meale, Alan

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Merron, Gillian

  Sawford, Phil

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mitchell, Austin

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Moffatt, Laura

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Singh, Marsha

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Skinner, Dennis

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  1032

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Snape, Peter

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Soley, Clive

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Spellar, John

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Vaz, Keith

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Stevenson, George

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  White, Brian

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stott, Roger

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wilson, Brian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Winnick, David

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wise, Audrey

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Worthington, Tony

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Wray, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Timms, Stephen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mr. David Clelland and

  Toutig Don

  Mr. Mike Hall.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added,put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the action the Government has taken to turn around the National Health Service by finding £21 billion extra funds for the coming three years, starting building work on 13 new hospitals, modernising every Accident and Emergency Department that needs it, abolishing the unfair and divisive system of fundholding and replacing it with Primary Care Groups putting doctors and nurses in the driving seat, cutting waiting lists, ending 18 month waiting in the NHS, creating the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and National Service Frameworks to promote quality treatment, delivering the biggest real terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years, publishing the most comprehensive strategy ever produced for improving the status, training, pay and job opportunities for Britain's half a million nurses, midwives and health visitors, with 3,800 nurses returning to the NHS so far this year and 2,200 additional doctors in the Government's first year of office; further welcomes the 450,000 more waiting list operations carried out last year plus the 142,000 extra emergency cases treated, and half a million more outpatient cases dealt with; and congratulates the staff on providing record results in what remains the fairest and most efficient healthcare system in the world.

Energy Tax
[Relevant documents: The Ninth Report of Session 1998–99 from the Trade and Industry Committee on the Impact on Industry of the Climate Change Levy, HC 678.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.14 pm
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: I beg to move,
That this House notes that the proposed energy tax represents a huge transfer of cash from manufacturing and energy intensive industries to the public and service sectors; threatens to drive large energy users out of the United Kingdom altogether and is a badly targeted and inefficient way of reducing CO2 emissions; believes this is another stealth tax on industry and notes the Government has increased the Landfill Tax without applying the revenue to offsetting cuts in National Insurance Contributions as was done by the last Conservative Government; and calls on the Government to consult on alternative ways of meeting Britain's international commitments to counter global warming and to withdraw this damaging threat to industry.
The subject of the debate is familiar; it is Labour's addiction to new taxes. The House knows that before the election the Prime Minister promised not to raise taxes, but that he and his Government have broken that promise repeatedly in every Budget since then.
The Government talk of supporting the family, but they tax the family. They talk about encouraging savings, but they tax savings. They talk of encouraging competitiveness in industry, while regulating industry and taxing it. Halfway through this Parliament, British industry already faces £30 billion in extra taxation over the lifetime of the Parliament. That is not my figure but that of the British Chambers of Commerce.
Now the Government plan another new tax—an energy tax, which was announced this year, will be enacted in next year's Finance Bill, and will come into effect in 2001. It is designed to raise an extra £1,750 million a year—a figure recorded in the Red Book.
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to the shadow Minister for giving way at this early stage. Does he accept that the proposal is revenue neutral, because all the money raised will be given back in cuts in national insurance contributions?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Later I shall deal specifically with the untested assertion that the tax is in some sense revenue neutral. It is anything but revenue neutral for the companies and sectors that pay it.
The Government are building on what they have already done to the British haulage industry, which faces annual escalating rises in diesel duty. The rise amounts to 12 per cent. for this year alone. The haulage industry has been made uncompetitive in the single market, and to the extent that it can pass on its costs to British industry as a whole, it has made the rest of British industry uncompetitive too.
All those increases in diesel taxes and other taxes are being made behind an environmental smoke screen, but the real reason is to raise revenue. Not content with what they have already done, the Government plan to raise
1034
another extra £1.75 billion. They claim that that is revenue neutral, because they will cut employers' national insurance contributions by an equivalent amount.
Ms Joan Walley: The right hon. Gentleman talks about a smoke screen, but does he agree that we desperately need an international agreement to deal with carbon dioxide emissions and global warming? Does he not realise how important it is to ensure that the United Kingdom plays a leading part in that?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: It may be news to the hon. Lady, but there already is an international agreement; it was signed at Kyoto. What she wants has already been done. Those are binding legal commitments, and the Conservatives agree that we must meet our international commitments. Later in my speech I shall explain how we will do that.
First, however, I shall deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) about the so-called revenue neutrality. No one believes in that. Let us consider what the Government have already done in terms of other environmental taxes. An instance would be the landfill tax introduced by the previous Conservative Government. We applied all the revenue—a smaller sum but substantial nevertheless—to an offsetting cut in national insurance contributions. The then Labour Opposition supported us.
What happened when Labour took office? The Labour Government put up the tax on landfill from £7 to £10 a tonne. Not a penny is going back to industry in offsetting cuts. Moreover, they have announced a new tax escalator. The landfill tax will now go up every year for the next five years, but none of that extra revenue will be returned to industry. The Government will have more than doubled that tax, and none of the revenue will be recycled.
Mr. David Chaytor: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No; I want to ask the Economic Secretary a question, as she will answer the debate. Will she confirm now that all the revenue, now and in the future, will be used to cut employers' national insurance contributions? Such a simple question demands a simple answer.
The Economic Secretary's silence is very eloquent, and we are entitled to draw one conclusion from it—that the Government will do to the energy tax what they did to the landfill tax. They will introduce it at a lower rate, and then they will put it up, forgetting all their promises and waffle about tax neutrality. That is the Government's game, and we are now forewarned.
However, even if we accept that the revenue will be applied to an offsetting cut, the proposed tax represents a massive transfer of cash from the manufacturing and energy-using sectors of the economy to the service sector, and to the public sector in particular. The public sector alone will benefit to the tune of about £150 million a year, even if it takes no action to cut energy bills.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the report from Cambridge Econometrics, published on 6 July? It states that the

1035
climate change levy will create more jobs and save more CO2 than the Government predict, and that new energy-saving devices will help manufacturing industry in the long term, by creating jobs and making them more efficient.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That prediction takes no account of job losses in industries hit by the levy, nor of the jobs that will be exported as firms migrate away from the United Kingdom to avoid the levy.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Is my right hon. Friend aware that agriculture—and especially the protected horticultural sector, which recycles all its carbon dioxide—will be disproportionately hard hit by this perfidious tax?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: My hon. Friend is right. Many sectors and industries will be badly hit, and I shall give some more detail about one in particular. Sir Brian Moffatt, the chairman of British Steel, estimates that that company will pay a net £220 million a year under this tax. He says that British Steel will be forced
"to close plants here which will be replaced by inefficient plants in other parts of the world."
That answers the point raised by the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mrs. Campbell). If efficient British plants are replaced by inefficient plants in other parts of the world without environmental control, the global atmosphere will suffer and British industry will be grievously hurt.
Mr. Llew Smith: I represent a steel community. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why British Steel is bleating about the financial costs of the energy tax when recently it was able to return about £700 million to shareholders? It has also been making people redundant and throwing them on the scrap heap, in an area of Wales with one of the highest levels of unemployment.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman would have welcomed the renaissance in steel making plants since privatisation and the other industrial reforms introduced by the previous Government. It is a British success story. However, the British Steel chairman should know something about the industry. His point was that that renaissance is being put at risk because of a badly targeted and ill considered tax that will drive plants overseas.
Mr. Denis MacShane: I hope to be able to make some points about steel if I catch your eye later, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the right hon. Gentleman will be aware that he is describing the worst case. Last week, one of British Steel's most senior executives came to the House and talked about a tax of £55 million. The eventual level that is set may be higher or lower, but the right hon. Gentleman must use accurate and honest figures, not the worst-case projection.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman admits that the industry will be damaged. We are now talking merely about the extent of that damage.
1036
The chairman of British Gas might have got it slightly wrong, but the impact on investment and employment in an important British industry will be devastating.
Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way, and too generous with the Government. The Government say that the tax will be revenue neutral, but as jobs in the chemical and steel industries go overseas, so will their tax-raising potential. To pay for the offset, the tax on energy-using industries will therefore have to be increased. Will not the result be that we will lose the jobs, but that the carbon dioxide will be created in other countries rather than here?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: That is an interesting point. The Government are committed to raising a certain sum. If the tax is rendered impossible to collect due to migration overseas by businesses—if they in effect evade the tax—there will be an extra burden on the firms that remain. When the Select Committee on Trade and Industry quizzed the Economic Secretary, she was unable to "offer any clear guidance" on the point. Perhaps this debate will get some hard answers to hard questions, such as that posed by my hon. Friend.
I have spoken about steel, but I shall now move to aluminium. There is an Alcan plant in the constituency of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Alcan is a very responsible company that recycles most of its product and already derives more than a quarter of its energy needs from hydro sources. However, the price of its product is set internationally on the London Metal Exchange. It can do nothing about that. Therefore, the extra costs being loaded on Alcan by the Government have to be met by the company, through lower production, employment and investment. There is a real threat that such an internationally owned company will seek to invest and expand abroad, rather than in the United Kingdom.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: No, I must make progress.
Other sectors will be in trouble too. The whole chemical industry is threatened, and firms involved with paper, cement, horticulture, sugar and farming will all pay far more in tax than they will ever receive back in national insurance contribution cuts. All those firms will be rendered uncompetitive. I am grateful that those and other points were drawn out in the Select Committee report published earlier this week.
It is a most useful report. The Select Committee has a Labour majority but the report is unanimous, and could not be more clear about the threat. It states that the tax
"could prove a blunt instrument which does considerable damage to sectors of the British economy already struggling to maintain their competitiveness."
In the same chapter, the report states that the north-west of the country could lose £500 million in tax paid by those industries and that all that money will go from north to south.
That is a bizarre form of industrial support. The Labour Government long since gave up representing the interests of manufacturing industry, but surely even they can see that it is bizarre that the north-west of England, one of the

1037
United Kingdom's poorer regions, should pay £500 million that will go to support service industries, and the public sector, in places such as the south-east.
Mr. John Bercow: With regard to my right hon. Friend's references to the north-west, is he aware that the debate is graced by the presence of a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry who also represents a constituency in the north-west? I refer to the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle), who, I feel sure, will wish to catch the Speaker's eye in order to reinforce my right hon. Friend's powerful arguments.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I shall stay specially to hear the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) speak. I hope that he will not resile from a report published only yesterday with his signature on it. We all look forward to hearing from him.
It is not only heavy industry that will suffer. Rural England will be hit—again. Calor Gas—an essential supplier of energy to remote rural areas, small businesses, caravan parks, horticulture and agriculture—observes that gas is to be taxed for the first time, but its competitor fuel, oil, will not. That will induce a switch from gas towards oil, which is both bad for the environment and contrary to the Government's transport policy, for which duty on gas is being cut to persuade people to switch away from oil.
Northern Ireland's economy is sensitive and vulnerable, but the Financial Times has reported:
"Energy tax threatens N Ireland plans for gas link".
Taxing gas—making it relatively less competitive—puts at risk the proposed pipeline between Belfast and Dublin. That is an odd way in which to support the peace process. The Northern Irish economy is being made less competitive as people are encouraged to switch from gas to less environmentally benign oil.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I do not. I have given way generously and should like to make an important point.
An additional muddle is that the proposals do not even try to tax carbon. The Government want to reduce carbon dioxide emissions, but electricity from sources that produce no carbon dioxide, such as nuclear plants, will be taxed at the same rate as electricity derived from coal or oil. There is no incentive to switch from a source of energy that produces CO2 to one that does not. That runs contrary to Lord Marshall's report, and to the recommendations of the Select Committee. I risk embarrassing the hon. Member for Chorley, but the report states, on page xxiv:
"There would appear to be some confusion within Government about the extent to which the Climate Change Levy could and should reflect the carbon content of fuels … We recommend that the Government seek ways to link the Levy, at least broadly, to the carbon content of fuels."
Will the Minister clear up the confusion? If the Government aim to reduce production of carbon dioxide, why do they not tax carbon instead of energy in general?
1038
The whole botch of proposals is illustrated by the case of Britannia Zinc, a smelter in Avonmouth. Many of my constituents work at the competitive plant, which operates on thin margins in an international business. Unavoidably, it uses a great deal of energy. It is a matter of physics, not politics, that certain chemical reactions cannot occur unless a lot of energy is used. The firm calculates that it will pay 20 times more in tax than it will receive back in national insurance contribution reductions. The plant is foreign-owned, and it has a sister plant in Germany. The parent company says that tax in Germany is capped at a much lower level, intended to protect industries vulnerable to international competition.
The Government will rebate the levy by only 50 per cent., and only selected, privileged industries deemed fully energy efficient will receive it. That is wholly inadequate. No matter how efficient Britannia Zinc and many other plants become, they will have to pay large sums, and that will make them uncompetitive in world markets. Will the Minister promise that such companies will be exempted—or substantially exempted—from the tax? There is great uncertainty in the market about the Government's proposals, which are already jeopardising the inward investment on which the UK depends. Will the Minister put it beyond doubt that the Government will take no action to prejudice the position of highly vulnerable international industries?
Ms Walley: The right hon. Gentleman is spreading needless alarm. Under the Government's proposals, opportunities exist for negotiated agreements with energy-intensive users. We seek consensus with industry. How can the right hon. Gentleman ignore that?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: The hon. Lady is quite wrong. The 50 per cent. levy means that no matter how efficient companies are, they will pay 50 per cent. of the tax. They cannot reduce energy consumption below a given technical level. Anyone making chlorine must pass an electric current through a solution: there is no other way to do it. No matter how efficient anyone is, an irreducible minimum of energy must be used. The Government are telling firms that they must pay the levy, no matter how efficient they are. That will drive chlorine production out of the UK.
Mr. Paul Keetch: The right hon. Gentleman is right. The third largest employer in my constituency, Special Metals Wiggins, employs 1,000 people to produce specialist nickel alloys. The firm shares many of the concerns that the right hon. Gentleman has raised. The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) may wish to know that a small specialist company that talks to another may end up disclosing to its competitors large amounts of its business. In specialist areas, such as high-intensity metal production, the tax will cost jobs. For Special Metals Wiggins—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has had long enough for his intervention.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Although the main impact of the tax will be more direct, the associated disclosure of information to competitors and use of management time will undermine British industry.

1039
A further lunacy requires our attention. Britannia Zinc wants to cut carbon dioxide emissions by installing a gas-fired electricity generating station. The company has applied to do so, but the Government have placed a moratorium on such stations. The Government threaten the company with a tax but, at the same time, they stop the company making required cuts in carbon dioxide emissions. There can be no better example of how Government policies pull in opposite directions. The Government must sort out some of the mad paradoxes and contradictions at the heart of their policy. We have a tax-driven policy that is clumsy and counterproductive. We need a policy to deal with the specifics of global warming in a way that does no damage, or as little damage as possible to our competitive position.
The Conservative party fully understands the dangers of global warming. We will meet our international commitments. We have always done so. When Lady Thatcher was Prime Minister she was the first to recognise the importance of the issue. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) was Prime Minister, he went to Rio to negotiate and sign the international agreement to stabilise CO2 emissions. We met that commitment. Most other countries did not, but the United Kingdom did. We knew that one could do that only if one worked with industry and listened to the alternatives to taxation.
Many industries are willing and anxious to play their part. The Chemical Industries Association has already obtained an agreement with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions which commits the industry to improving its energy efficiency by 20 per cent. up to 2005. If such agreements fail, that will be the time when penalties may be appropriate, but it is not right to impose a tax even if companies meet targets and become as efficient as is technically possible.
Emissions trading was one of the options proposed by the Marshall committee. A cut in CO2 would be required from an industry or sector and firms able to make larger cuts would be able to sell them to firms unable or unwilling to make the same reductions. The result would be that the specified, targeted, definite overall reduction in CO2 would take place in the most cost-efficient way. It is a market solution and it does least damage to industry. It works in the United States, where there is emissions trading for sulphur. BP Amoco in Britain already uses it within its own plants. It is anxious to talk to the Government about it. The Conservative party supports it, but again the Government are dithering.
The Select Committee from which I have already quoted said:
"The Government has sent out mixed messages".
How can the Government expect industry to get its act together when the Government cannot decide whether they will introduce a tax, emissions trading or a mixture of both? The only clear message coming out of the Government at the minute is that if they face any problem, they reach for the tax lever.
Mr. Damian Green: My right hon. Friend has pointed out the perverse effects of the Government's actions, which are more to do with raising tax than controlling emissions, which we all want to do. Does he
1040
agree that the game is given away by the fact that, of the money that the Government intend to raise from the climate change levy, a derisory amount will be reinvested in renewable and sustainable energy sources, showing that they are not serious about reducing emissions, but are very serious about raising money from British industry?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Absolutely. It is a token amount. About 4 per cent. of the yield is to be allocated to renewable energy and other types of environmentally benign energy production. That is an inadequate response.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: Forgive me, I wish to conclude on this point.
What we know after we have been through all the fog of uncertainty around the Government's policy is that they have come up with a tax-driven solution. That tax is badly thought out, badly targeted, damaging, anti-competitive, wrong and we will oppose it.
7.44 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
'notes that there is now compelling evidence that climate change needs to be tackled, that there is therefore a need for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that the United Kingdom has a legally-binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the Kyoto Protocol; welcomes the recommendations of Lord Marshall on the case for a climate change levy; further welcomes the measures taken by the Government to help British business, including cutting corporation tax rates to their lowest ever level; welcomes the Government's decision to pre-announce the introduction of the climate change levy by two years to give time for further consultation on its design; and supports the Government's determination to work with industry and other parties to ensure that it meets its environmental objectives whilst safeguarding Britain's international competitiveness.'
Before I turn to the substance of the matter, I should like to apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and through you to the House. The debate has come, as all right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, in the middle of a particularly busy week, and I am afraid that I have prior engagements that I have not been able to abandon completely so I will not be able to fulfil the normal courtesies of the House and be present for the winding-up speeches. My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will respond fully to the debate and I look forward to reading the record of what I am sure will be an extremely interesting occasion.
The debate is about climate change and what we do about it. There is increasing evidence that it is happening. As the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions report on indicators of climate change notes, in England, four of the five warmest years in the 340-year record have occurred in the last decade. We have certainly all noticed that in recent days.
We cannot doubt that climate change is the result of human activity. What industrial development since the 18th century has created, sustainable development on the

1041
dawn of the 21st century must start to put right. In the words of the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry published yesterday:
"The question is how, not whether, greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced."
I am sure that I shall not be alone tonight in referring to the Select Committee's useful report. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) has already referred to it. I take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) and other members of the Committee for their contribution to the debate.
The United Kingdom has a legally binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, set under the Kyoto protocol, of a 12.5 per cent. reduction on 1990 levels on a basket of six greenhouse gases by the period 2008–12.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Lady have any plans to deal with the other five greenhouse gases? The matter for debate this evening, of course, merely affects CO2.
Ms Hewitt: Of course we have plans, but I shall focus on CO2 emissions, which is the main greenhouse gas. We have discussed them, especially in relation to road transport, to deal, for instance, with emissions of sulphur.
Dr. Peter Brand: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hewitt: No. I wish to make this point.
Meeting the Kyoto target is the beginning, not the end of the process. As Lord Marshall put it in his report:
"The commitments made at Kyoto are only the beginning if we are really going to tackle the problem of climate change.…Whatever programme the Government designs will need to look beyond the current round of targets and provide long-term, continuing, incentives to reduce emissions."
That is why we committed ourselves in the manifesto on which we were elected to a 20 per cent. reduction in CO2 emissions by 2010.
Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for the urgency with which she saw my steel workers. May I tell her of the concerns also held by my cement and paper-mill workers? Having heard the fulmination of the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), does she intend to include in her speech the remarkable way in which she plans to consult across industry and is already receiving deputations? Surely, with two years to go, we can see a done-deal for the industry.
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend, who has made an extremely important point and, more broadly, a constructive contribution to the debate.
Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hewitt: No. I will make a little more progress.
The United Kingdom is not alone in having to meet the targets set under the Kyoto protocol. On current projections, most overseas countries will have to introduce new measures in one form or another if they are to meet those targets. In many cases, the targets set for
1042
those countries are even more stringent than ours. That is why since 1990, seven European countries have introduced carbon or energy taxes. The Italian Government recently announced plans for a new CO2 tax.
Mr. Swayne: Why is the Minister introducing a tax that will penalise protected horticulture, which recycles its CO2? Why does she not introduce a tax that provides an incentive to reduce CO2 emissions?
Ms Hewitt: I thought that the hon. Gentleman would ask about protected horticulture; we shall consider that matter in the course of our consultations. If he will be a little more patient, I shall come to the detailed way in which we are considering the design of the levy.
I want to stress that all sectors of the economy must play their part in meeting those targets. In respect of transport, of course, the previous Government introduced the road fuel duty escalator, which we have maintained. In the domestic sector, we have made it clear—unlike the previous Government—that we will not introduce new taxes on the domestic use of fuel power.
Mr. Dominic Grieve rose—
Ms Hewitt: Let me finish my point before I give way. To introduce new taxes would only add to the appalling problem of fuel poverty that we inherited from the previous Government—some 5 million families and elderly people who cannot afford to heat their homes properly. I shall now give way to the hon. Gentleman, who presumably supported VAT on fuel.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Lady might recall from her appearance before the Environmental Audit Committee that I may well be broadly supportive of her on some of the issues that she has raised. On domestic carbon dioxide emissions, does she agree that simply to say that nothing more can be done because of fuel poverty ignores the fact that growth is greatest in the domestic sector, whereas the reductions have been greatest in the manufacturing sector? Are we not in danger of missing the targets that we should be addressing?
Ms Hewitt: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. Of course, we must tackle fuel poverty; we shall do that by expanding the home energy efficiency scheme, by revising building regulations and by working with our European partners to ensure that we have high-efficiency products in the domestic sector—backed up by mandatory labelling and minimum legal standards. As I said, every sector must play its part, but, because of fuel poverty, taxation is not an appropriate policy weapon for the domestic sector.
Mr. Green: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr. Stephen Dorrell: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hewitt: I should like to make a little more progress before I give way again.

1043
Business needs to play its part. My hon. Friends and I welcome the lead already taken by many British companies in helping to cut greenhouse gas emissions. There has been a 65 per cent. improvement in energy efficiency in the aluminium sector since 1990.
Mr. Beith: The hon. Lady mentioned the contribution of the aluminium industry. Will she take account of the overall environmental record of that industry—especially its recycling capacity and the energy saving that it has already undertaken? Will she take seriously the suggestions made by the industry so that the design of the tax can take account of the industry's special problems?
Ms Hewitt: That is precisely what we are doing. I have recently held valuable discussions with representatives of Alcan and of the aluminium sector. That is one reason why I specifically mentioned the industry.
In the public sector, we have set a target for energy efficiency throughout the Government estate of a 20 per cent. improvement on 1990 levels by March 2000. All of that—and much more—is welcome.
Mr. Dorrell: The Minister has placed considerable stress on the importance of every sector making a contribution to reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Is it not extraordinary that the Government should continue their moratorium on gas-fired power stations—the single effect of which is to create an incentive for the electricity-generating sector to shift back towards higher carbon dioxide emissions?
Ms Hewitt: The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. There is no moratorium on gas-fired power stations; every application is considered on its merits—[Interruption.] I am delighted to say that a large number of applications have been accepted for the use of gas in combined heat and power plants. That is the most efficient way of using gas for the production of energy.
Mr. Robathan: Is the hon. Lady aware that the combined heat and power industry is extremely concerned that there has not yet been any reassurance that it will be exempt from the energy tax? Indeed, it would fly in the face of everything if CHP and renewable energy were not exempt from the energy tax.
Ms Hewitt: In the consultation document, we specifically stated that we wanted to consider the right way to treat combined heat and power within the climate change levy. That is what we are doing.
The welcome improvements that have been made by many—not all—British companies are not the end of the issue. Much more can and must be done. As Lord Marshall stated,
"there remains scope even in energy intensive industries for energy savings and emissions reductions which are relatively cost-effective."
He continued:
"many business representatives acknowledged that their industries were by no means at the technological frontier on energy efficiency."
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the hon. Lady cut through some of the subterfuge that will, no doubt, continue throughout
1044
the debate? Will she admit that the only logical, sensible way forward would be to cut carbon emissions, and that the reason the Government will not do so is because that would cut the amount of coal burnt in this country compared with other fuels? That is why she has been sent to the Dispatch Box with such a weak case.
Ms Hewitt: I am sorry that Conservative Members regard as frivolous or as a subterfuge a serious response to this serious issue. I suspect that that reflects the way that they behaved when they were in government.
The climate change levy—as spelled out in the consultation document—needs to be primarily based on energy because, for the reasons that I have given, this is a downstream, not an upstream, tax. Given the electricity pool arrangements, it is not possible for any business user to tell how much of his electricity comes from a particular source—whether it be coal, gas or a renewable source. The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) simply reveals the fact that he does not understand the electricity pool arrangements.
The prices paid by industry for gas and electricity have tumbled in recent years. Between 1990 and 1998, average industrial—[Interruption.] Conservative Members might not want to hear the facts, but it is important to understand them. Average industrial gas and electricity prices—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have hon. Members shouting at the Minister. The Minister must be heard.
Ms Hewitt: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Average industrial gas and electricity prices fell by 44 per cent. and 24 per cent. respectively in real terms.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Does the hon. Lady accept that her argument about the pool does not stand up to examination? Why not exempt companies that either sign contracts for, or themselves install, dedicated capacity based on lower carbon emission generation, or non-carbon emission generation—such as renewables?
Ms Hewitt: That is not how the electricity pool works at present. I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman seriously suggests that the rate of the climate change levy should vary every half hour according to the marginal supplier into the pool. However, of course we are considering the whole issue—
Mr. Davies rose—
Ms Hewitt: Let me finish with the hon. Gentleman's previous intervention.
We are considering how the review of electricity trading arrangements and the possibility, after that review, of the establishment of contracts for green trading arrangements should be treated in the climate change levy. I shall give way once more to the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), but then I must make some progress.
Mr. Davies: I think that the hon. Lady does not understand how the pool system works. It is perfectly possible for industry to sign contracts for supply outside

1045
the pool—to sign contracts with a dedicated supplier or to install its own capacity. Why does she not exempt from her levy the type of capacity that is delivered outside the pool, based on low carbon or non-carbon emission generation?
Ms Hewitt: The previous Administration left us a mess in respect of the electricity pool. We are sorting it out.
The right hon. Member for Wells referred to the DTI Select Committee. I refer him to another part of its report, which stresses:
"Because of lower international oil prices, the price reductions stemming in part from liberalisation and competition, and the fall in the Fossil Fuel Levy on electricity, taxes upon energy might need to rise rather than fall."
As the report rightly stressed, no single measure can solve the problem: regulation alone is not enough; and economic instruments alone are not enough. Voluntary measures, regulation, emissions trading and taxation all have a role to play. That is why, following Lord Marshall's report, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced, in March, our intention to introduce the climate change levy on the business use of energy.
My right hon. Friend stressed, as I do this evening, that the climate change levy is not a revenue-raising device: it will be revenue neutral for business as a whole. He also stressed that it is not an across-the-board tax, because energy-intensive sectors must have and will have different treatment. As we said at the time of the Budget, the levy will be designed in a way that protects the competitiveness of United Kingdom firms. The scale and rates of the climate change levy will, of course, be a matter for my right hon. Friend's Budget next year, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Alyn and Deeside (Mr. Jones) indicated, we continue to consult with business and industry on the design of the levy—for example, on the treatment of renewables and combined heat and power, the appropriate treatment of electricity used in electrolysis, the best way of recycling the revenues and how to deliver extra help to small firms to become more energy efficient.
Following Lord Marshall's recommendation, we are negotiating with energy-intensive industries on the extent to which they can achieve further energy efficiency through binding agreements, in return for significant reductions in the levy. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions and his colleagues at his Department are leading those negotiations, and I am glad to say that they are proving to be positive and constructive. Next week, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Industry, I shall meet representatives of those sectors to hear directly from them. We have asked those industries to make proposals on agreements.
As I have repeatedly stressed, the figures quoted in the consultation document are purely illustrative: no decisions have yet been made on the detailed design of the levy. On all those matters we have an open mind. We are listening to industry, we are working with industry, and we shall make our decisions on the basis of what is good for the environment and what is good for competitiveness. It has been suggested by, among others, the right hon. Member for Wells that the climate change levy will destroy competitiveness. That is nonsense. When we published
1046
our statement of intent on environmental taxation, we specifically stated that care must be taken to consider the implications for international competitiveness.
We will not sacrifice the competitiveness of our industry to our environmental goals—it would be madness to do so. Climate change knows no boundaries, so if industry were to move elsewhere and the greenhouse gases simply came from a different country, we would have damaged our jobs without protecting our children and grandchildren. However, nor will we sacrifice the environment to our competitiveness goals—it would be madness to do that, and industry is not asking us to do so. Industry is as committed as we are to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and to working with us to make the climate change levy work effectively.
Dr. Brand: The Economic Secretary refers to greenhouse gases, but does she recognise that the glasshouse industry makes an enormous contribution to reducing carbon dioxide? Will any thought be given to granting carbon dioxide reduction tax credits to those industries that need to use carbon dioxide to produce oxygen, as well as useful by-products such as tomatoes on the Isle of Wight?
Ms Hewitt: That is precisely the sort of issue that we are considering in the negotiations and consultation with industry.
Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my hon. Friend agree that the big question tonight is how the Opposition would fulfil their Kyoto obligations, given that, on the one hand, they are doing a U-turn on the fuel duty escalator on consumer consumption and, on the other hand, they will not support any sort of industrial levy, even one produced in consultation with industry? Would they not simply raise VAT on fuel? Is that not really what the debate is about?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right—he makes the very point that I was about to come to. The Opposition's motion calls for
"alternative ways of meeting Britain's international commitments".
It has been made clear that their true intention is to raise VAT on fuel to 17.5 per cent., which policy was voted for by the Leader of the Opposition, the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury and every right hon. and hon. Member whose name appears above the motion. That is the Conservatives' real purpose and policy. Every pensioner in this country knows that, under a Conservative Government, VAT on fuel would rise to 17.5 per cent.
Mr. Grieve: Will the Economic Secretary give way?
Ms Hewitt: No—I have been extremely generous in giving way.
In the modern economy, a cleaner environment and a more competitive industry go hand in hand. Getting the design of the climate change levy right is not only about minimising a possible competitive disadvantage, but about maximising the competitive advantage that comes from giving all our businesses effective incentives to develop and market the cleanest products and processes.
Mr. Peter Brooke: In the context of the argument that the

1047
Economic Secretary is currently developing, why is our public sector research into energy-saving issues so comparatively low by international standards?
Ms Hewitt: I have great respect for the right hon. Gentleman, but I draw his attention to the fact that the energy technology support unit, which advises the Government on energy efficiency, includes world-class scientists whose expertise is renowned. They are playing an important part in the negotiations and they have stressed, both to Lord Marshall and to the Government, the scope for significant further savings, even within the energy-intensive sectors.
The development of trading schemes for emissions permits offers us a new competitive opportunity. We see emissions trading as part of the long-term solution to reducing emissions in the United Kingdom. That is why we are working closely with representatives from the Confederation of British Industry and from many companies on the design of a domestic emissions trading scheme. By developing such a scheme now, we can learn valuable lessons ahead of the international trading scheme envisaged under the Kyoto protocol, which we expect to be in place by 2008.
As I have said repeatedly, emissions trading is one of the ways in which energy-intensive sectors can choose to meet their targets. However, as Lord Marshall pointed out, emissions trading is unlikely ever to cover the majority of small and medium-sized enterprises in the UK or firms in the commercial sector, which together account for about 60 per cent. of the total greenhouse gas emissions from business. Therefore, emissions trading and the climate change levy are complementary measures, and the Select Committee on Trade and Industry specifically endorsed that conclusion.
Mr. Green: Will the Economic Secretary give way?
Ms Hewitt: No—I have been generous in taking interventions.
"It is vital to protect the air we breathe. We are determined to rid our air of the pollution which endangers human health and the environment. From climate change to waste collection, from the ozone layer to the protection of birds, the search for sustainable development is unremitting. It will require a change in life style for all of us, as we learn to live fuller lives without jeopardising our children's future or their opportunities to use the world's resources."
That is the Conservative party's green manifesto, on which the right hon. Member for Wells and his right hon. and hon. Friends stood for election only two years ago. They stood on those principles two years ago, but mock them as motherhood and apple pie tonight. They have abandoned every principle in favour of the extremism and cynical opportunism to which we have become accustomed from the modern Conservative party. They were right two years ago and they are wrong now. It is my hope that, even now, they will admit their errors, abandon that extremism, and join with my right hon. and hon. Friends in voting for the Government's amendment.
8.8 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I draw the House's attention to the amendment standing in my name and the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which sets out clearly the Liberal Democrats' views.
1048
We broadly welcome the climate change levy that the Government have proposed—at least, we welcome the principle, but we have some reservations about the details. We welcome it because, as the Economic Secretary said, and as I believe the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) acknowledged, the problem of climate change and climate degeneration is a real one and one that has to be tackled both nationally and internationally with appropriate policies. The Liberal Democrats believe that the Government must set targets and implement policies that will tackle it. Listening to the right hon. Member for Wells, it was easy to conclude that the Conservatives have missed the point. It is clear that they oppose several aspects of the levy, but it is extremely unclear how they expect the United Kingdom to meet its treaty obligations if nothing is done with the climate levy.
Mr. Grieve: Let us put aside the motherhood and apple pie aspect of this issue. We can try to achieve the Kyoto targets principally because the transfer from coal to gas for electricity generation makes the targets feasible, even if we do nothing else. I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge that we must do much more, but that is the true situation.
Mr. Stunell: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that we should do nothing else to achieve the Kyoto targets or whether he is making another point.
Lord Marshall and the integrated pollution prevention and control directive have said that we must work towards achieving much tougher carbon reduction targets beyond 2010 both nationally and internationally. If we approach the current exercise as a way of just about reaching the target and we then plateau and make no further changes, we will be making a mistake that will ultimately damage the competitiveness of United Kingdom industry far more than any of the proposed changes that are currently on the table.
I draw the attention of the House to the comments of the Energy Saving Trust, which was established by the previous Conservative Government. It has pointed out that the assessed cost of climate change—or climate degeneration—is about 170 ecu per tonne of carbon emitted. It points out that the cost of the levy is lower than the cost of allowing climate change to continue unhindered. We welcome the measure because we believe that the target must be met and because we believe that there are opportunities, as well as problems, in responding to the change.
The report of the Trade and Industry Committee is somewhat disappointing in that it does not appear to recognise some of the opportunities that international competitors are already exploiting in developing new technologies and renewable energy sources. That is what is happening in the real world.
Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman referred to "new technologies". Is he suggesting that British Steel is not at the technological forefront of steel production? It has minimised the amounts of energy required to produce every tonne of steel.
Mr. Stunell: I welcome that intervention because it gives me the opportunity to draw the hon. Gentleman's attention to our amendment. It is absolutely vital that,

1049
when a sector is engaged in international trade, the measures put in place are appropriate and do not render United Kingdom industry uncompetitive. I was encouraged by the Minister's comments on that subject, but I draw her attention to the remarks of the Select Committee, which said that the Government appear to be including in that category almost every complainant and lobby group they can find. By including other sectors, one is in danger of diluting the necessary protection for those sectors genuinely engaged in international trade which might be at risk
As regards the use of energy by industry and commerce, although the major users consume a significant amount of energy, they constitute only 30 to 40 per cent. of total energy consumption. The majority of energy used in the industrial and commercial sectors is consumed not by major energy producers but by those running small workshops, by small businesses and the service sector—some 1.4 million businesses in this country, which are not major energy users by any stretch of the imagination.
Conservative Front-Bench Members have indulged in a certain amount of exaggeration and hype—I hesitate to suggest that such a thing would happen in this place. However, the price of gas for industrial and commercial firms has fallen by 46 per cent. in the past 10 years and the price of electricity has fallen by 22 per cent. Even if the levy were introduced at what I understand—if the Minister is to be taken seriously—are described as "illustrative rates", it would increase those prices by less than a third. There is a certain level of hysteria which we must keep under close control.
Mr. MacShane: If the index is 100 for United Kingdom electricity and energy prices for steel, what is the price of energy electricity in Germany, France or in any other major European competitor country?
Mr. Stunell: That is an interesting point. I draw the attention of the House to a logical conclusion of the Conservatives' argument: there should be a level playing field for energy taxation across the world. Six—perhaps seven—European Union countries are moving to introduce, or have introduced, either a carbon tax or an energy tax. I was prompted to intervene on the right hon. Member for Wells to ask whether he was, rather unusually, arguing in support of an EU-wide tax system in order to ensure that the United Kingdom does not lose its competitive advantage. However, the right hon. Gentleman drew back from that logical consequence.
Mr. Tim Loughton: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that all but one of the EU countries that is contemplating introducing, or has introduced, energy taxes have taxed carbon content? All but one of those countries have introduced large rebates for high-intensity users, including 100 per cent. rebates for steel producers in Belgium and Luxembourg. That is a very different kettle of fish from what is on offer here.
Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman points to the extremely important difference between an energy tax and a carbon tax. The Liberal Democrats believe that we should base our levy regime on the carbon content of fuel. The hon. Gentleman also points out that we should ensure that exemptions take account of the competitive environment—and I have made that point myself.
1050
We welcome the levy in principle because it will reduce carbon emissions to some extent. It will help to slow down the rate of climate degradation and will perhaps direct investment into green technologies. However, we have some major reservations. Perhaps the most important of those is the one to which the hon. Gentleman referred: the levy does not discriminate between carbon-based and non-carbon-based fuels. That means that the environment for renewables will become increasingly difficult.
I was impressed to see a press notice from the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets—I suppose we should call it Ofgem—which stated that it will reduce the rate of the fossil fuel levy in England and Wales from 1 October and that
"The reduction follows a slow-down in the expected rate of commissioning schemes approved at the last rate setting exercise."
In other words, renewables are already finding the going tough. For example, an aluminium smelter that would otherwise be able to draw on renewable fuel to bypass the levy will be unable to do so. The incentive to invest in renewables will be cut as much as the incentive to invest in carbon-based energy sources.
A second criticism is the levy's lack of transparency. The Inland Revenue has published a consultation document. We are surely not short of consultation documents. We could have a refuelling and recycling exercise with that paperwork alone. The Inland Revenue's document recommended against showing the energy levy on the bills that consumers receive, so they will not know that they are paying it. There are built into the proposals serious disincentives for the business sector to make changes that would improve efficiency.
Businesses face a situation in which their prices are down; in which the marginal, invisible cost of the levy will not appear on their bill; and in which the grant that will be recycled from that to provide an incentive to them to improve their efficiency is trivial. The tax will raise £1.75 billion, and only £50 million will be recycled to improve the efficiency of businesses. That is less than £40 per firm per year, which will never provide an incentive for small firms to reinvest to get rid of inefficient plant or to reduce heat loss from their buildings.
We have reservations also about the shotgun approach for major energy users. The debate has already covered that point. We strongly believe that adapting to the Kyoto targets, and beyond to the further reductions in carbon use, can and should be a job-promoting transition, not a job-destroying one.
Mr. Loughton: Why, in the Liberal Democrats' amendment to the motion, is there no mention of the hon. Gentleman's article in The Parliamentary Monitor, in which he says that the levy should be
"introduced at a modest level, but with a very clear signal that it will be raised progressively year-on-year."?
Will he now confirm that the Liberal Democrats' policy is to have an energy tax escalator, as he stated in black and white a few days ago?
Mr. Stunell: My article does not appear in the amendment, first, because I am too modest, and secondly, because the amendment would have been too long. I am very happy to talk about the future direction in which the tax should go, although I am not sure that that is the point that the Conservatives are making. If you will permit me,

1051
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will take the argument a little further. If we have to tackle climate change not only by a one-step change by 2010, but by further steps in 2020, 2030 and 2040, it is absolutely clear that we will have to use market forces and fiscal measures to effect change more quickly.
I repeat that the amount of money being recycled to business to promote that efficiency is far too small. The Government should clarify how they will support investment by industry in increased efficiency and the promotion of renewable sources of energy. What moves are they prepared to fund to ensure that the switch to renewables takes place?
Finally, the House needs to remember that the debate is not about getting through to the next general election, or even reaching 2010 with our treaty obligations intact. It is about putting in place industrial, fiscal and market-friendly policies that will ensure that we cut pollution, reverse climate degradation, create jobs and wealth and improve the nation's quality of life. Sadly, the debate so far has produced, on the one side, a very timid response, and on the other, a complete and ostrich-like avoidance of the fundamental issues facing the House and the planet.
8.24 pm
Mr. Peter Snape: It is always a pleasure to be lectured by the Liberal Democrats about what we should do. Motherhood and apple pie are second nature to them, and dispensing them is what they are here for. A good dollop of both does the House no harm. Personally I find the apple pie a bit sickening, although I have listened to such talk for many years.
At least the Government are consulting on their proposals for the climate change levy. It would be remiss of me not to point out that there are, to say the least, misgivings about the likely proposals among industrialists in the west midlands, part of which I represent. I shall come to the detail of those misgivings in a moment, but first I must say to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary that she will have to tell us exactly what a revenue-neutral tax is. I have been in the House for a long time—too long, perhaps, in the opinion of some—but that is a creature that I have never yet come across in my 25 years here. It is a one-legged fish, a Loch Ness monster or a mythical figure.
Mr. Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Snape: I cannot be interrupted while I am talking about mythical figures. The revenue-neutral tax is a very odd creature. The best brains in the Treasury have been putting together a tax that is revenue neutral, but the very words are contradictory. This is the first such tax that will have emerged from the Treasury if it proves to be truly revenue neutral
Mr. Grieve: On the assumption that taxation that is raised is not used to line Ministers' own pockets—one rather hopes, and I am prepared to accept, in the context of this House, that that does not happen—there is in fact no such thing as revenue-neutral taxation. As with any
1052
other tax, the money will be taken from some people for the benefit of others. Some businesses will suffer and other businesses will get the benefit.
Mr. Snape: I suspect that this is the last time that the hon. Gentleman and I will agree this evening, but I am similarly inclined to think that revenue neutral is an unnatural description for any tax levied by the Treasury. If it turns out to be revenue neutral in the truest sense, it will be a first. I cannot speak for Ministers in the previous Government, but I am sure that Ministers in this Government will not seek to line their pockets in the manner that the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
I want to ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary a couple of questions about the impact on companies such as British Steel of possible proposals in next year's Budget. I find the Conservative party's expressions of concern hypocritical—I speak collectively, Mr. Deputy Speaker—if only because those of us who were around in the 1980s saw the damage that the Conservatives' policies did to companies such as British Steel. We witnessed the decimation of the steel industry, particularly in the west midlands, south Wales and Scotland, which was regarded as being part of the Thatcherite pattern that was prevalent at the time. Conservative Members' present expressions of great concern strike me as a deathbed repentance.
Is it true, as British Steel says, that it is likely to come off worse than its rivals in the system of rebates under the climate change levy? The company's view is that the most that it can hope for is a 50 per cent. rebate, whereas elsewhere in Europe the rebates will be between 60 and 100 per cent. If British Steel is right, it is, as the company says, unfair that it has, by voluntary means, cut its greenhouse gas emissions by 6 per cent. since 1990, but those reductions will not be taken into account for the purposes of any rebate under the climate change levy. That would obviously render British Steel pretty uncompetitive compared with, for example, the Dutch and the Germans.
British Steel makes a genuine point. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) implied in his intervention on the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), energy costs for British industry are already higher than for other European countries such as Holland and Germany. To load additional costs—if that is what is likely to happen—on British Steel is, to say the least, likely to be retty damaging to its competitiveness.
Of course, it is not only the bigger companies that are fearful of the likely impact of the climate change levy on their profitability. I have in my constituency a company called Sandwell Castings Ltd., which employs 200 people. It was part of a large group and would undoubtedly, like many similar companies, have gone to the wall had it remained so. It was bought out by its management some years ago, led by the then managing director, who is now sadly deceased, Mr. Alan Wilson, who worked very hard to turn around the company's prospects. Although he has died, the company still regards itself—understandably—as successful and is anxious to continue in business for years to come.
The sales and marketing director wrote to me last month about what he calls "an energy tax". It is all very well calling this measure a climate change levy, but it is a little like the poll tax being called the community charge. A climate change levy will be seen and described

1053
as an energy tax and there will be no point in Ministers sending out directives instructing people to call it by its proper name. The sales and marketing director said:
"We are now faced with an ENERGY TAX which I understand will add 12 per cent. on our melting costs. At this company we are using the very latest technology to melt aluminium but the imposition of this tax compromises the existence of companies such as ours and the 200 people we employ.
My request is simple, please make sure your colleagues, many of whom I believe have never been in a foundry, understand the implications of this tax because at this rate Mr. Blair will not have the credentials to sit at the G7"—
the G8—
"table as an industrial nation."
Those are some of the fears expressed locally.
I wrote back to try to allay the fears of Mr. Green, the sales and marketing director. He sent me a further letter, breaking down the likely impact, in his opinion, of the climate change levy on his company. He envisages a total increase—obviously, melting aluminium is a particularly energy-intensive business—in costs of more than £72,000, and a 14.4 per cent. increase in fuel costs.
Against that we must set the proposed 0.5 per cent. reduction in the company's national insurance charges under the—I have to keep checking the phraseology—revenue-neutral tax, which amounts to a fraction over £17,000. The company believes that that will leave it worse off to the tune of £55,723. That is a precise figure for the imposition of a tax, the details of which have not yet been published, although I think that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will get my drift. These are the genuine concerns of a company that has been successful. It was saved from the brink of closure but now very much fears that its future will be imperiled unless the climate change levy is handled differently from the way it is rumoured.
I have one suggestion on the levy, however it is introduced. The House will know—as a former railwayman, I have bored hon. Members for many years with such sagas—how I think that the railway can better compete in various areas. Since rail generates less than 25 per cent. of the CO2 emissions produced by road transport, what about a rebate on the climate change levy proportional to the amount of additional freight that companies move by rail instead of by road? I hope that that constitutes at least one constructive suggestion in my speech which the Minister will be able to take on board.
As I said, I welcome the opportunity to express some of the fears of industry, both large and small, about the impact of the climate change levy on profitability. I know that it is the Government's avowed intention to ensure that no legislation has an adverse effect on the profitability of companies such as British Steel, or smaller ones, like Sandwell Castings Ltd. During the consultative period, I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will take on board the very genuine fears that exist. If she wants, I will send her a copy of the letters to which I have referred so that she can see for herself just how concerned such companies are about the future.
I have been in this House too long to make threats. I spent too long sitting on the Opposition Benches waiting for a Labour Government—nearly 20 years—to make threats, but if legislation appears in the way in which companies such as Sandwell Castings very much fear, I shall be unable to support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in its introduction. That is how serious it is.
1054
I appreciate the necessity to do something. I have said that Liberal Members—who, as usual, want to be all things to all people—are in favour of the climate change levy but not, please God, in their constituencies, affecting companies that they represent. I hope that I do not fall into the same category when I say that there is a problem throughout the west midlands, which was decimated by the policies of the previous Government. Any proposals that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor makes in his Budget should take account of the needs of British industry in general and west midlands industry in particular.
8.35 pm
Mr. Tony Baldry: I am a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which yesterday published a unanimous report on the impact on industry of the climate change levy. The Register of Members' Interests shows that I have a declared interest in the cement and construction industries.
Given the scope of the levy, there is hardly anyone involved in United Kingdom industry who will not be affected by it. The Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union convenor at British Aluminium Extrusions in Banbury has written to me, reminding me that British Aluminium employs just over 400 people in Banbury. He says—remember that this is a union convenor:
"The net extra cost of energy to this company will be £507,000"—"
just over half a million pounds—
"(net of a £40,000 NIC Contribution reduction) per year at the full rate of the Levy … companies like ours in manufacturing will be net payers while service industries will benefit.
Even at the reduced rate allowed for companies under IPPC"—
integrated pollution prevention and control—
"in exchange for a negotiated agreement to reduce energy consumption, the Levy will be a crippling extra burden. If the Government takes this money in extra taxation, our company will not be able to invest in the new equipment required to enable us to fulfil the requirements of a negotiated agreement.
The Levy will hinder our competitiveness against companies in Europe and beyond … Unless the workings of this Levy are changed fundamentally from those put forward in the Consultation Paper, the UK will lose jobs, the Treasury will lose the tax revenues from employment, the country's balance of payments will suffer and global warming will get worse and not better."
That is in an industry that the Economic Secretary only a short while ago said had produced a 65 per cent. increase in energy efficiency in recent years. Therefore, it is not surprising that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has found widespread concerns about the levy throughout the west midlands. Those concerns are obviously mirrored in industry throughout the United Kingdom, as became apparent in the evidence that the Select Committee received.
In June 1998, the UK accepted a legally binding 12.5 per cent. reduction target of greenhouse gas emissions as part of the European Union effort in reaching the Kyoto target. I do not believe that there is any dispute in any part of the House that the UK must meet its Kyoto target for reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The question is how, not whether, greenhouse gas emissions can be reduced.
Shortly after the Government were elected, the Treasury issued a statement of intent on "environmental taxation", which said that the Treasury would seek to ensure, among

1055
other things, that environmental taxes would have acceptable distributional impacts and take account of the implications of those taxes for the international competitiveness of UK business.
The climate change levy, as proposed, fails both those tests resoundingly. It fails to have an acceptable distributional impact—its distributional impact is obviously very unfair—and it clearly has a substantial adverse implication for the competitiveness of UK business.
Lord Marshall's task force concluded:
"there probably is a role for a tax if businesses of all sizes and sectors are to contribute to improved energy efficiency and to help meet the UK emission targets".
There is no quarrel with his conclusion, but in terms of design, the task force concluded, among other things, that any levy should give special treatment to energy-intensive industries and recycle revenues in full to business, including by means of a fund geared to promote energy efficiency. Again, the proposed levy fails both those tests. It does not give special treatment to energy-intensive industries, and the revenues will not be recycled—indeed, the Treasury will take almost all the benefit of them for other purposes.
This is a levy on manufacturing industry that can only damage UK industrial competitiveness. A crude method of recycling revenues has been chosen that has nothing to do with energy efficiency. It simply transfers resources from manufacturing industry to the service and public sectors.
That is not surprising. The more the present proposals are examined, the clearer it becomes that the Treasury's principal policy objective is not to meet the Kyoto target, but to use the target as a means of raising money to cut national insurance contributions by 0.5 per cent. The Treasury clearly sees the levy as an opportunity for a significant reduction in employers' national insurance contributions in the next Budget. However, that will be at the expense of UK jobs, UK businesses and UK investment, particularly in manufacturing, where we cannot afford to lose industrial competitiveness.
In evidence to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, the Electricity Association argued that the levy will, crazily, have the effect of
"limiting the resource to pay for capital investment in energy efficiency."
Moreover, most of the industries that stand to be hardest hit because they are substantial users of electricity have over recent years, for sound commercial reasons, tried to ensure that they are as energy efficient as possible. An energy levy will not make them more energy efficient; it will simply be a tax on manufacturing industry.
I have in my constituency Kraft Jacobs Suchard, manufacturer of Maxwell House, which employs 1,200 people in Banbury. The firm writes:
"In 1990 and 1993 substantial investment was made to install Combined Heat and Power (CHP) units, achieving a 27 per cent. saving in fossil fuel and a corresponding reduction of approximately 16,000 tonnes per year of CO2 emission."
Clobbering a company like Maxwell House will not make it more energy efficient; it will simply cause it to lose international competitiveness with other companies elsewhere in Europe.
1056
It is therefore little surprise that the Select Committee on Trade and Industry in a report published yesterday—the House should be reminded that that was a unanimous report of a Committee that has a substantial Labour majority—states:
"We have been disturbed by the unprecedented scale of the reaction to the Government's proposal. We share the view expressed by several witnesses that, without appropriate modifications and exemptions, the Levy could prove a blunt instrument which does considerable damage to sectors of the British economy already struggling to maintain their profitability".
The report continues:
"It is imperative that the Levy makes special provisions for energy intensive industries, such as to minimise any damage to their international competitiveness".
In opening the debate, the Economic Secretary sought to give the impression, as most Ministers do at this time, that concerns could be allayed because the Government were consulting. I am glad that the Government are consulting. One of the concerns of witnesses who appeared before the Select Committee was that in their view the Government had not consulted sufficiently. The test for the Government is not how the levy is perceived by industry now, but how it will be perceived at the time of the Chancellor's next Budget.
I hope that those on the Treasury Benches will take note of the Select Committee's findings, having heard all the evidence not just from manufacturing industry and others but from proponents of the levy, of the concern that it may do considerable damage to sectors of British industry. We said:
"we are concerned about the investment implications of the uncertainty about the rates of Levy which will apply to many major UK manufacturing industries".
Although we found that
"the Levy would be a powerful symbol, both domestically and internationally, of the UK's commitment to its Kyoto obligations, this should not detract from the need to ensure that the details of the Levy are fair to UK industry."
I very much hope that the Government in general and the Treasury in particular will give careful consideration to the Select Committee's report. It is a proportionate report based on evidence taken directly from representatives of those most concerned. It does not seek to make party political points and its conclusions are fairly based on the evidence.
The Government, of course, have sought to spin the levy on the basis that it will in some way be revenue neutral, that somehow it will be all swings and roundabouts. But even in this regard the Select Committee found that it
"received the distinct impression that there was considerable confusion over the meaning of the phrase 'revenue neutral', and that some witnesses had wrongly assumed that it was intended to convey the impression that no firm or sector would lose out as a result of the introduction of the Levy."
I suspect that that is exactly what the Government did hope would be conveyed, and that was confirmed by the way in which the Economic Secretary opened the debate this evening. She sought to give the impression that the levy would in some way be revenue neutral, but as the Select Committee found, the phrase is not even an accurate description of the levy's effect on public finances since there will be a net saving in public expenditure due to the public sector's reduced liability for national insurance contributions. None of that should be surprising

1057
because, in truth, the Treasury sees the levy not as a contribution to combating climate change but as a contribution to the Consolidated Fund.
However, the greatest irony of the Government's proposal is that it fails to discriminate between energy sources according to their carbon content. Under the proposal, electricity generated from renewables, nuclear fuel, coal and gas will all attract the same rate of levy, and that is somewhat bizarre. Clearly, a carbon tax that hits carbon-rich fuels will give energy users an incentive to switch to using fuel with a lower carbon content. But, again, there is inconsistency in the Government's proposals, as the Select Committee found. It said:
"There is a tension between the Government's desire to protect the coal industry and the need to cut back carbon dioxide emissions which, at least partly, explains the reluctance to link the taxation of energy use to carbon content of fuels."
The simple fact is that the present proposal on the levy meets neither the public criteria set out by the Treasury for environmental taxes, nor those set out for an energy levy by Lord Marshall's task force. It comprehensively fails on all those criteria. The energy tax is just another stealth tax. It does little to help the environment but will inflict injury on UK manufacturing industry and will undermine the United Kingdom's international competitiveness.
The Government need to rethink the climate change levy comprehensively, and they must do so.
8.49 pm
Mr. Bob Laxton: The climate change levy is noble in intent. If we do not take action now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, not only will future generations pay the price in the form of the consequent environmental damage but actions postponed will be necessarily more painful and burdensome than if we were to take them today.
Lord Marshall's report fashioned an economic instrument which sought to batten down the use of energy and its resultant carbon dioxide output. We must consider whether that instrument as currently fashioned is carefully calibrated or a bludgeon.
I suggest that a climate change levy that made British industry uncompetitive—and perhaps destroyed jobs and the capacity to create wealth—would not be very sensible; nor would it make any sense if it seriously distorted the British economy. Labour Members have traditionally championed the cause of manufacturing industry as the foundation of wealth creation, but I am concerned that this economic instrument may result in the large-scale transfer of resources from manufacturing to the public sector and, of course, the service sector.
Devising a system of incentives and, for that matter, disincentives that encouraged people to switch between fuels so that less polluting fuels are given a boost over more polluting fuels should not be beyond our capabilities. Lord Marshall has acknowledged that the economic instrument that he devised does not achieve that, and the Trade and Industry Committee, of which I am a member, was even confronted with evidence of some glaring anomalies in respect of the proposed levy. They could have had the perverse effect of encouraging the use of mineral oils over the less polluting liquid petroleum gas in rural areas and encouraging the switching of electricity generation from the relatively benign alternative of
1058
gas-fired plant to the less friendly alternative of oil-fired plant. They are not marks of the well designed tax without undesirable side effects that Lord Marshall was commissioned to outline.
We need a careful rethink, not a simple, knee-jerk reaction, which is what we have seen from the Opposition. After all, if they had taken timely action when they were in government, we would not be facing such difficult choices. Other countries seem to have struck a better balance, and perhaps our Government should look more closely at some of the mechanisms that have been planned or put in place by them.
Mr. Snape: I have to tell my hon. Friend that he is being less than fair to Conservative Members. They not only signed up to Kyoto but applied the fuel tax escalator year on year. The fact that they are seeking to rat on that now is entirely predictable. At least they made an effort at that time, but in their present guise of a pretty ineffective Opposition, they deny their past
Mr. Laxton: I agree with my hon. Friend; Conservative Members give the appearance of being 40-faced on this issue.
I have received correspondence from a company that operates close to my constituency of Derby, North. Accordis is a Dutch-owned international company, and I well know that it is facing some difficult market conditions. Although it may not be too well known—certainly not in the Derby area—it took over from Courtaulds. I have no reason or ability to check its figures, but I shall repeat what it has said for the benefit of the House. It calculates that, at the highest rate, the levy would cost it nearly £7.4 million in the United Kingdom and nearly £3.2 million at the Spondon site. Clearly and understandably, there is concern that the Dutch owners may consider switching production outside the United Kingdom. I certainly hope that that is not the case, and the Government are consulting on that issue.
Hon. Members will see from the Select Committee report that we have called for the Government to work closely with industry to achieve energy efficiency gains, but changing behaviour does not necessarily have to be all stick and no carrot. Most of the negotiations between the Government and energy-intensive industries, as I understand them, have revolved around credits for anticipating future lower use of energy, but we have the opportunity to be more creative here.
The Government are consulting on this tax. I believe that we should consider three points. First, we should recognise moves towards the use of less polluting fuels as well as the use of less energy. We should remove entirely any perverse incentives implicit in this levy as currently designed that encourage the opposite.
Secondly, there should be recognition, by some means or other, of industries that have recently invested to improve their record, so that they are not disadvantaged compared with industries that have cynically delayed such investment. There was some suggestion of that in the evidence given to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry.
Thirdly, there should be credits available for those who reduce their output of greenhouse gases, which are far more damaging than carbon dioxide in their environmental effects. The Iceland supermarket chain is

1059
re-equipping its refrigeration with environmentally benign hydrocarbons and is moving away from hydrofluorocarbons which, when they leak, are more than 2,000 times more environmentally burdensome than carbon dioxide. Why not let Iceland and other supermarkets chains that are fearful of the levy see the upside as well as the down?
The Select Committee on Trade and Industry was anxious that the levy should not damage sectors of the economy that are already struggling to maintain their profitability. Surely the purpose of the levy should be to make life better for all of us, not appreciably worse. As with all sound Government policy, its effects should be proportionate and considered.
8.56 pm
Mr. Tim Loughton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. I am a member of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, and I have had a longstanding interest in green taxes and carbon tax, but what is on offer today is not a carbon tax. Let us dispense with all the spin. The climate change levy is nothing more than an energy tax, and that is rightly the title of the debate. It is a tax by stealth, another red herring of a green tax, and a masterful piece of political presentation by the Government.
Worse still, the proposals are indiscriminate and unfocused. As Labour Members have said, no allowance is made for businesses that have already heavily invested in energy efficiency, or for more environmentally friendly energy such as combined heat and power and liquid petroleum gas. This is a downstream tax with no regard to the carbon content of the production method used. It prompts the question whether a genuine carbon tax was ruled out because of the powerful vested interests in the coal industry.
In energy-intensive industries, energy is a raw material for the production processes. It is integral to those industries, which will be hit particularly hard. Industries will be constrained from switching to more environmentally friendly gas by the Government's moratorium on gas-fired power stations. The Economic Secretary to the Treasury had the audacity to suggest that there is no moratorium on gas-fired power stations. I fought long and hard to get such a power station built in my constituency in the teeth of opposition from the Government, so she cannot tell me the opposite.
This tax represents a massive cross-subsidy from manufacturing to service industries. One of the biggest beneficiaries will be the Government, as a major employer in the service industry. Contrary to what the Economic Secretary said, the proposals contain no safeguards to preserve competitiveness, which is not the case in the many European countries that have differing forms of energy tax. Despite all the Government's reassurances about the rebate on national insurance, it is highly arbitrary, and we have had no undertakings on how long the NI rebate will last. Is it a one-off? Will energy tax rates change in the future, while the rates of NI rebate, if they remain, stay static? My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) referred to the landfill tax, and the fact that the Government have been raking in more cash without recycling any of it, contrary
1060
to the previous Government's intention when they introduced the tax in the first place. Can we expect from the Government, as we patently can from the Liberal Democrats, an energy tax escalator? I am sure that that would be just as counterproductive to the environment as the road fuel duty escalator is proving to be.
Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend will recollect the criticism of the Conservatives' change in stance on the fuel escalator. However, is not it the case that the Labour Government have ratcheted up the fuel escalator vastly higher than the Conservatives ever did? Furthermore, is not evidence emerging that, however well intentioned the tax may have been, its impact on road haulage is minimal and its impact on competitiveness considerable?
Mr. Loughton: That point is well made. The Government have turned out to be past masters at escalating the escalators. Where companies and industries have no alternative, that must impact on their competitiveness, with resulting losses of jobs and profits to this country.
The Government set up the commission under Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge, but they seem to be ignoring his words. In his report, he said that any measures must be subject to careful design to protect the competitiveness of British industry and maximise the environmental benefit; any tax must be designed in a way that protects the competitiveness of British industry; the design of any tax should ensure that combined heat and power is not disadvantaged; and revenues should be recycled in full to business, with at least some of the revenues channelled into schemes aimed directly at promoting energy efficiency and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On all counts, these proposals fail dismally, and they must be radically overhauled. That is despite the warm words from Treasury Ministers in support of Lord Marshall's report.
The Government have not thought this one through, as the words of the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry suggest. The figures do not add up, and this is another example of an unlevel playing field. The Government claim that the measure is intended to raise &1.75 billion, but, on the anticipated rates of 0.21p per kWh for coal and gas and 0.6p for electricity, it will raise over &2.1 billion if it is applied evenly to all companies.
It was a bold measure by the UK Government to sign up to a 12.5 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions as our target by 2010. It was particularly bold when one considers that the average for our European neighbours was just 8 per cent. It was an even bolder measure for the Government to claim a 20 per cent. reduction in their manifesto, which may turn out to have been foolhardy.
Of those six or seven European countries which have some form of energy tax, all but one reflect a carbon content—which this proposal does not. Every one grants special treatment to some parts of industry—as much as 100 per cent. relief for the steel manufacturers of Belgium, France, Luxembourg and Spain.
We have signed up to a 12.5 per cent. reduction in greenhouse gases, so that we will have 87.5 per cent of our 1990 emissions by 2010. However, some EU countries will have a licence to increase their greenhouse

1061
gas emissions by 2010. The target for Greece will be 125 per cent. of its 1990 levels; for Portugal, 127 per cent.; and for Spain, 115 per cent. France will be level, at 100 per cent—that is, no reduction on its 1990 levels.
Mr. Grieve: Is it not the case that, in France, there is no belief in climate change and global warming at an official level?
Mr. Loughton: That is another story, and a much higher proportion of electricity comes from nuclear power in France—something that Labour Members would not countenance.
There is a licence to pollute more in the case of greenhouse gases for the countries to which I referred because they do not have the incentive to decrease. Yet we are being saddled with one of the heaviest decreases. We support that, but it should be acknowledged that the UK had one of the best records of decreasing carbon dioxide emissions between 1990 and 1995, under the Conservative Government. In many cases, therefore, our European partners have far greater leeway than we do. Nevertheless, the Government expect British industry to bear the full brunt, the effect of which on industry will be quite catastrophic.
As for end users, CO2 emissions from industry comprise about 27 per cent. of the overall target, whereas domestic emissions are 28 per cent., and road transport 22 per cent. However, by source, iron, steel and other industrial combustion and production processes account for only 17 per cent. of CO2 emissions, as against power stations—which are by far the largest source of such emissions—at 28 per cent.
As we have heard, the Department of Trade and Industry is having to update its 10-year-old figures on energy use by United Kingdom industry sector to identify which firms and plant are energy intensive. Therefore, the Government are largely struggling in the dark on which sectors will be hit hardest—yet, they want to bulldoze ahead with their proposals.
The energy tax has universally been given the cold shoulder by industry. The head of the Confederation of British Industry has said:
"We do not believe that an energy tax levy is the most cost-effective way of encouraging business to make carbon reductions and are extremely concerned as to the likely impact of the current proposals on UK global competitiveness."
I entirely agree.
The most damning response has perhaps come from the British iron and steel industry, which exports 50 per cent. of its production to 200 different countries around the world. It is a fiercely competitive business. The chairman of British Steel said:
"Making it impossible for us to operate our plants profitably is not a sensible policy. Forcing us to close plants here which will be replaced by inefficient plants in other parts of the world is the height of NIMBY nonsense.
There is no need for an energy tax. We can meet the Government's environmental goals without it."
Steel—even on the very rough figures provide by the Government—will be the biggest loser of all the industrial sectors. The fact is that &238 million in tax will be taken from the sector, but only £5 million will be rebated to it in national insurance. If we take the hints of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) that there will
1062
be a generous 50 per cent. rebate of energy tax, we reach the figure of £119 million—which will still be more than 20 times what steel receives in national insurance rebate. Even his own figure of £55 million in energy tax would be more than 10 times what the industry will receive in rebate.
Not only the iron and steel industries but the chemicals industry will be hit by the tax. That industry will pay £175 million in tax, but receive only £25 million in national insurance rebate. Paper will pay £60 million, but get back £2.5 million. Cement will pay £40 million, to get back £600,000. Aluminium will pay £30 million, to get back £1.6 million—and so it goes, on and on. So much for revenue neutrality in any of those sectors.
Water will be another victim. It will spend £36 million, but receive back only £3 million in national insurance rebate. Surely that must impact on the industry's water quality improvement schemes.
The tax's effect on the steel industry will be ironic, as the industry has been one of the greatest proponents of improving energy efficiency. In the past 25 years, the amount of energy needed to produce a tonne of steel has decreased by 40 per cent., and the amount of CO2 involved in the process has been halved. British Steel has been a pioneer in producing lighter steels that are most cost-effective and efficient in car production, so that production requires less energy. British Steel, with other intensive users, has invested greatly in energy efficiency.
Other European Union countries ensure a zero net effect for their steel industry. In Germany, the energy tax is equivalent to only 4p per tonne of steel. The Government's proposals, implemented at the full rate, will be the equivalent of £6.70 per tonne of steel—whereas the average in Europe is only 40p.
After closures—because of sheer competitiveness and foreign competition—in the steel industry, British Steel was a big contributor in recycling jobs into new industries. With the tax, British Steel will of course lose out to foreign competitors. Even more damaging, however, is the fact that 40 per cent. of the world's steel is made in countries that are not covered by the Kyoto agreements.
Last year, for the first time, Europe became a net importer of steel. Last year, steel imports from non-Kyoto-covered countries increased by 113 per cent, and such imports into the United Kingdom alone increased by 60 per cent.
The Government do not seem to realise that, as of the end of June, 84 countries had signed up to Kyoto. However, the figure does not include countries such as South Korea, India, Turkey, South Africa, Hungary, Singapore or Taiwan, many of which have burgeoning iron and steel industries that are simply slavering at the lips to pick up business that will be lost by the United Kingdom if the Government's proposed energy tax is levied. China may, on the face of it, have signed up to Kyoto, but how many people here genuinely believe that it will stick to the strict limits? There will be a big redistribution of funds within the steel industry, from Wales and the north to London and the south-east, where the service industry jobs are.

1063
My right hon. Friend the Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said what a highly global industry the aluminium industry was, and described how it had introduced significant measures to reduce energy use since 1990.
Dr. Brian Iddon: Has the hon. Gentleman carried out an analysis of the effects of the tax proposed by Lord Marshall compared with those of a carbon tax? How would a carbon tax damage the steel industry less? That is what he claims, and his entire speech is based on such comparisons, so may we have the analysis, please?
Mr. Loughton: The iron and steel industry, like many other industries, has set up alternative forms of fuel, such as combined heat and power, and renewables. Under the blanket measures proposed, it would have no capacity to diversify into more environmentally friendly forms of energy. The hon. Gentleman, who served on the same Committee as me, knows that perfectly well.
I shall not go into detail about the aluminium industry. The tax will also affect material producers and the sugar industry, in particular British Sugar, which has been in the forefront of promoting investment in combined heat and power, on which it has spent a great deal of money. It now faces unfair competition—for example, from Germany, which has a 100 per cent. rebate for its domestic industry.
Retailing, too, will be affected. The British Retail Consortium said:
"This tax is a blunt instrument. It will not meet the Government's targets under the Kyoto protocol to reduce carbon emissions, as it is targeted at energy consumption rather than carbon emissions. Neither will it encourage suppliers to switch to green sources of electricity."
I could also mention water, farming, food and drink, chemicals and many other sectors, including many smaller businesses. What the Government say about small businesses is another red herring in their proposals. The CBI report identifies many small industries that will lose considerably by the proposals. It gives the examples of a west midlands castings manufacturer that will pay £13,000 and get back only £230 in reduced national insurance contributions, and a Welsh mould maker that will pay £2,000 in tax and get back only £70. The tax will affect all areas of business and industry.
I shall not go into the details of the report by the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, because my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) has told us about it in great detail.
The liquid petroleum gas industry is highly environmentally friendly, so it is ironic that the tax will worsen environmental conditions in the United Kingdom by encouraging LPG users to switch to more polluting, less efficient fuels. Calor estimates that the price of LPG will have to rise by 10 to 15 per cent., whereas hydrocarbon oils will not be affected because they are already subject to excise duty.
That is ironic because, in the Budget, the Government rightly made much play of reducing excise duty on road fuel gases by 29 per cent., recognising that they produce
1064
less carbon dioxide, benzene, and sulphur dioxide, and fewer particulates. Yet now the industry concerned will be clobbered by the blunt instrument of the energy tax.
I could also talk about renewables, but my hon. Friends have already mentioned those.
The energy tax represents an enormous missed opportunity, especially as it means that we shall not be forging ahead with emission permit trading systems, as Lord Marshall suggested in his report. Such a system would exert much stricter control over CO2 emissions, with less cost to industry. The United States, Canada, Norway and Australia already have such systems. In the Sydney futures market, a facility has been set up for trading pollution emission permits, and that suggests enormous opportunities for the City of London, which could take on that challenge and set up such a system rapidly.
BP Amoco has its own internal emissions trading system, and PowerGen and British Gas have endorsed the idea. Trading permits between countries would go some way towards reducing the likelihood of distortions emerging in national economies as emissions are reduced, and costs and patterns of energy use change.
The Marshall report highlights the attractions of the scheme but, for some reason, the Government do not seem to want to take it on. Ironically, however, they have recognised the scheme's attractions by backing plans being drawn up by 24 large companies and six business organisations for an emissions trading system.
The Government have set up a steering committee under Rodney Chase, deputy chief executive of BP Amoco, which will report in October, but the proposals contain no agreement about whether companies taking part in the schemes will still face the full rigours of the energy tax. The Government's inaction represents an amazing lost opportunity to arrange the voluntary agreements that have been set up in the chemical and steel industries, and by energy users.
The Government compound that lost opportunity by sticking with the gas moratorium, even though the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) has admitted that the switch to gas and nuclear made a major contribution to the fall in CO2 emissions in the 1980s and 1990s.
It is also a scandal that a Government who have talked about hypothecation—as the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions has done so proudly—should propose to recycle into energy efficiency programmes only £50 million, or less than 4 per cent. of the revenues from the tax. The amount recycled is much greater on the continent: for example, about 20 per cent. of the take from Austria's energy tax is recycled. The Under-Secretary told the Select Committee on Environmental Audit that the amount was as much as could be "squeezed" out the Treasury.
The recycled tax revenue could be put to so many uses, such as promoting home energy grants and tackling the problem of fuel poverty. It could also be used for house energy efficiency schemes, renewable subsidies, or even for handing our energy-saving light bulbs. All those represent more missed opportunities. Above all, however, the Government have missed an opportunity to introduce a genuine carbon tax and establish the UK at the forefront of the establishment of a new permit trading system.

1065
The Government have a word to say to the following people: wise users of energy, who have voluntarily invested millions of pounds in more efficient and therefore more environmentally friendly energy use and who intend to continue that investment; those who have switched to cleaner forms of energy, such as combined heat and power or liquid petroleum gas; those who have made internal arrangements to help achieve Kyoto targets; those who have supported the Government's warm words on greenhouse gas emissions; those who operate in an industry facing intense competition from overseas companies not subject to such rigorous energy tax applications; and those who operate in countries that have not signed up to Kyoto. That word is, tough. Those people will have to bear the full brunt of the energy tax, or a reduced amount that is still woefully inadequate.
The watchword must be flexibility. Forcing industry into rigid frameworks will impact on costs and competitiveness. We need a mix of taxes and tax reliefs, of emissions permits trading, and a culture change by domestic and business users. The energy tax proposed by the Government is far too rigid. It is a blunt instrument, disguised in a green wrapper. Ultimately, the main beneficiary of the extra revenue to the Exchequer will be the Government who, as a major employer, will also benefit from the reduction in national insurance payments in service industries.
The revenue-neutral tag will ring hollow in the steel, chemical, paper, cement, aluminium industries, and in many others. One environmental economist has said that it will be close to useless, except as a revenue-raising instrument. As such, it is a major disappointment to those of us who want a comprehensive approach, involving genuine and practical environmental taxation and incentive measures.
9.18 pm
Mr. Denis MacShane: I have an amazingly long speech, which I shall throw away to allow other hon. Members to contribute. However, I shall make a short declaration of interest, in that my constituency of Rotherham, in which steel has been made for some 300 years, has in it Europe's most advanced engineering steel plant. I am proud to say that I work closely with the industry, and with the Iron and Steel Trades Confederation, the main union.
The debate will have served some purpose. We have heard some remarkably lightweight speeches about heavy industry from Conservative Members, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary will take on board many of the comments that have been made.
To announce a tax and then discuss it for a full year is a remarkable fiscal innovation. No doubt my hon. Friend feels that she is getting all the pain and little of the gain, but I pay tribute to her and to my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for their willingness to receive delegations and to speak either privately or formally. I am not necessarily the Treasury's biggest fan but they exemplify the new Labour listening Treasury, and I hope that some of the points made will be taken on board.
We need not take lessons from the Conservatives, whose main interest in manufacturing lies in manufacturing offshore tax havens to secure the flow of funds into the sleaze bag at central office. When in Government, the
1066
Tories destroyed 150,000 jobs a year, and no Conservative Member from the asset companies and the financial sector could makes the same speeches in Rotherham as they give to the House.
My constituents were most offended by the article written by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) in The Parliamentary Monitor. He suggested that those concerned about the tax represented dinosaur interests, but manufacturing is sick and tired of being patronised by Liberal Democrats, Greens and the City boys from the Conservative party. Manufacturing is sick of being told that it represents the past; it is in fact the internationally traded competitive sector of our economy, and the men who work in manufacturing, from top management to new recruits, deserve much more time and attention than the Conservative party has given them over the past 20 years.
I find some of the language used in the debate disagreeable. There is an idea that we tax "bads" and give tax relief to "goods". We cannot moralise about taxation in that way. Manufacturing, particularly the steel sector, is full of good men who make good products. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) read us the British Steel handout, and I agree with it. If anything, it needs to be reinforced, because manufacturing trades competitively in international markets.
The biggest hit taken by the British steel sector in recent years will not come from the tax. The forced rise in the pound engineered by the previous Conservative Government during their last year in office put the pound up from DM2.17 in May 1996 to DM2.70 in May 1997. The pound has been stuck ever since at that rate, which ripped the guts out of British steel's profitability. The export-killing pound inherited by the Government has caused much damage. The utter hostility of the Conservatives to Europe reinforces it, although the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) is strongly pro-euro and pro-European and will doubtless set out minds at rest in his summing up of the debate.
I wish t hat our steel plants would paint themselves bright green. They are among the most ecologically minded sections of our heavy industry. They recycle 2 million cars a year and contribute massively to ensuring that British manufacturing is strongly committed to recycling. When compared with other sources of CO2 emissions, industry since 1991 has reduced its energy input by 12.5 per cent. By comparison, since 1980—roughly during the 18 years of Conservative rule—road transport increased by 50 per cent. The Conservatives failed to tackle the problems.
Europe has much more integrated policies, and the contempt and indifference of Conservative Governments towards action to reduce energy sources and CO2 emissions has left us with problems to clear up. When measured by the usage of end-users, the iron and steel sector's reduction per million tonnes of CO2 energy since 1988 is about 12.5 per cent. while that of road transport has risen by 50 per cent. There has been a 150 per cent. increase in the use of diesel fuel since 1985. Let us name the bads in our economy, and let us accept that the steel industry can reasonably be defined as a good.
I shall not go through the figures that I have already presented to the Treasury. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham listed some of them. Let us be clear that the Treasury has been a little fox in the chicken

1067
coop and over-alarmed and over-excited the industry. The figures quoted are indicative or illustrative. I am not sure what that means, but I have to say bluntly to my hon. Friend the Minister that they have alarmed many in the manufacturing sector and especially the steel industry.
We do not know what the final figures will be. I appeal to the Government in the continuing negotiations—months of negotiations and consultation that lie ahead—to practice joined-up government and combine the Treasury with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Department of Trade and Industry. Such a troika could work together so that when the final rate is set, and it will be set, it is set on the basis of consultation.
What needs to be done? I suggest a few simple measures. We need to focus on negotiated agreements based on reduction targets for different sectors. We need, not just revenue-neutral taxes, but fiscal neutrality. There is genuine concern about a cross-subsidy from the north to the south; from Labour heartlands to the asset management boys in the City; from steel to Whitehall Ministries. We need full transparency in pricing. That is a huge problem. We have the highest energy prices for industry. They have come down since 1990, but they started at such a high level as a result of the inefficient, racketeering way in which energy was privatised by the Conservative party.
Mr. Stunell: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. MacShane: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I want to finish. We need to permit trading to encourage more flexible market responses to energy reduction.
We also need to look at the broader EU approach. It was fascinating to hear the manic Europhobes in the Conservative party speaking up for Europe and citing European examples of support for industry through fairer taxation.
We need to involve our social partners in reducing emissions. The trade union movement is deeply concerned about the matter. It does not have a vote in the House, but it has a voice and I believe that it will make it heard.
We also need far more research into CO2 reduction policies. Only a couple of years ago British Steel was making £2 billion profit and this year alone it has transferred £700 million to shareholders, including a cheque for £450 million that has gone across the Atlantic because only American investors have invested in British Steel. Money could be found for a private-public research institute to examine CO2 reduction policies. We need much stronger public engagement from the manufacturing sector, the Confederation of British Industry, and the United Kingdom Steel Association. They should enter into a dialogue with the green lobby and people campaigning on environmental reduction policies.
The way forward is partnership, consultation and dialogue, not dispute. I congratulate the Opposition parties on tabling the motion and the amendment. Although the language of some Tory Members has been adversarial, long-winded and pompous, this is part of the new listening, sharing, consulting Government whom the people of Britain voted in and will confirm in the Eddisbury by-election on Thursday.
9.29 pm
Mr. Dominic Grieve: The speech of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) was an example of casuistry. He moved from one position to another in the course of a few minutes. It defies emulation and I shall not attempt to follow it.
This is a non-partisan issue. It is quite apparent that all major parties in the House believe in the motherhood and apple pie idea of trying to improve the environment and tackling global warming. The only difference between the Government and the Opposition is that the Opposition know that the reality of motherhood in government is that one often has sleepless nights and the apple pie gets spilt on the floor. On the other hand, the Liberal Democrats—not having experienced motherhood in government for about the past 60 years—have no sense of realism when it comes to policy decisions and the problems of implementation.
As a Member of the Environmental Audit Committee, I have always turned what I hope is a constructive eye and ear to all the ideas on tackling global warming and to the evidence that I have heard during the past two years. When the measure was first floated before the Committee, it seemed to have some attractive features. It might succeed in constructing a taxation system whereby, although people would be taxed more on their energy costs, they would immediately be offered compensation through the reduction of their national insurance charges. That would leave them with the superficial possibility of having reduced national insurance charges, while cutting down their electricity and energy consumption to make themselves more efficient, thereby improving their profits.
However, when one considers the detail of the ratio between the amount of energy used and the number of employees, the problem is apparent: the figures do not add up. The measure is a good idea, but when one examines it closely, it does not work. As a result of this fiscal adjustment, vast amounts of money will be siphoned off from manufacturing industries—heaven knows that they have had a rough enough time in a competitive world environment, whether under this or the previous Government—and will go to public service industries, which are not wealth producers in this country. The proposed measure simply does not add up.
I am quite happy to hear Ministers' constructive suggestions—now and in the future—as to how adjustments might be made or exemptions granted. However, I have considered the measure and spoken to those in my constituency who will be the worst affected. In Taplow, there is a paper-mill, which already suffers enormous economic difficulties; after my recent visit to the mill, I am satisfied that it will become completely uneconomic. However hard the business tries, it is a major energy consumer and it will become uneconomic if the proposals are implemented.
I do not want to take up too much of the House's time; I hope that there will be time for other hon. Members to speak. However, the Economic Secretary to the Treasury rightly asked Opposition Members for their proposals. The problem is that, although we all believe in motherhood and apple pie, when it comes down to the detail and the reality, none of us is able to produce valid proposals.
I have some suggestions that may be more important than the wholly counterproductive proposals for an energy tax. First, we should face the fact that there is an

1069
exponential growth in the domestic use of energy—whether it be in our homes or the motor car. That is a major political challenge—because the individuals are voters. We must address that challenge.
In relation to the point about VAT on fuel, I am most conscious of the problem of fuel poverty and that we must address it. I accept that it is a long-running national scandal. However, the problem can be solved in ways other than merely reducing the VAT rate, and refusing to contemplate its increase for most of the population, who are able to afford to pay it. The reduction in VAT was a counterproductive move and the Conservative Government made a considerable mistake by taking that route.
The whole culture in this country needs to be re-examined. What is the point in having a policy of telling people that they should save energy domestically, when all they have to do is go out for a drive to see that motorway lighting provided by the Government and road lighting generally provided by local authorities is in continuous growth, apparently for safety reasons? That contrasts with policies in Scandinavia: in Denmark, I noted with interest that, to make the point of energy saving, every second street light in Copenhagen is switched off. Those might be small things, but they add up. What is necessary energy use and what is unnecessary—if not decorative, something that we can do without?
Until we start to address those questions, we will never set in motion the culture change that will ultimately sweep through the whole issue of global warming: just as people will change their habits domestically, so they will insist that every possible cost-saving and energy-saving device should be used in their business environment. Unfortunately, we are failing to do that. I have to tell the Financial Secretary that the climate change levy—no doubt, a well-intentioned idea when it came off the drawing board—is in danger of becoming a nightmare. I hope that the Government will think again and start to consider carefully ways in which we can tackle an extremely difficult issue in a more constructive way.
Destroying our wealth-producing industries will not stop global warming. As the Government themselves have pointed out, it is our nation's ability to produce wealth that enables us to find the funds to introduce the measures we need to tackle global warming.
9.36 pm
Mr. Alan W. Williams: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) for allowing me time to say a few words in this debate.
I am pleased that the Government have taken strong action to curb the problem of global warming in signing up, not to a 12.5 per cent., but to a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010. In that context and to achieve that target, energy taxes have a legitimate role to play.
Since the oil price collapse in 1986, energy prices have been relatively low in historical terms. Since 1990, electricity prices have dropped by 22 per cent. and gas prices by 46 per cent. It is against that background that the climate change is to be introduced, and the indicative figures that I have seen for the tax are a good deal lower than those price decreases.
1070
The clear intention is that the levy should be revenue neutral, which means that there will be both those who gain and those who lose in the national insurance contribution cuts. Not surprisingly, in tonight's debate, attention has focused on the losers, but in the economy as a whole the result will be a gain of 14,000 jobs and there will be some protection for energy-intensive industries.
The total revenue to be raised from the tax is £1.75 billion and the amount of carbon emissions saved will be 1.5 million tonnes. That is £1,000 per tonne of carbon saved, so the tax is rather inefficient. Although I have always supported carbon taxes and the general concept of an energy tax, £1,000 for every tonne of carbon saved is a high price to pay.
Think of fuel prices: the world price for coal is about £30 a tonne and energy prices generally are well below £100 a tonne, so to pay £1,000 for a company to save one tonne of carbon is a high price. I should prefer the £1.75 billion to be reinvested in conservation measures and renewables. In that way, far more than 1.5 million tonnes of carbon emissions could be saved.
I am pleased that there is to be a limited opportunity for emissions trading. I would like to see emissions trading in the form of carbon absorption. Part of the revenue could have been used to provide an incentive to plant woodlands because that will be an important way of limiting carbon emissions internationally.
9.40 pm
Mr. Quentin Davies: I begin by reminding the House of my interests—which are listed in the Register of Members' interests—as a director of SGE, and an adviser to NatWest Global Financial Markets and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. As far as I can surmise, those three organisations are likely to be net beneficiaries of the Government's proposal. However, as hon. Members will learn in a moment, that does not influence my views about the Government's plans in any way.
Before I turn to the substance of the matter, I should comment about something that must be more important even than this proposal. There is continual evidence of the attitude of Labour Front-Bench Members towards this place, which can be charitably described as one of levity. The Economic Secretary, who introduced the debate, told the House that she had something better to do than remain in the Chamber at the end of the debate. Unless she had received a summons from Buckingham palace, whatever activity she preferred to staying here to listen to a debate that she had launched was more important than her duties in the House. There is something seriously wrong with the hon. Lady's priorities.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, but I had hoped that he would show rather more courtesy. At the beginning of the debate, my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary explained that she had unbreakable commitments and, therefore, would be unable to stay for the winding-up speeches. She also explained that I would respond to the debate. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would receive her remarks in the spirit in which they were intended.
Mr. Davies: I am afraid that the Minister makes the matter even worse because she proves that the hon. Lady's

1071
conduct was not just the aberration of an individual, but is endorsed by the entire Front-Bench team. No commitment should be unbreakable when compared with Ministers' accountability to the House. Ministers should treat this place with courtesy. Parliamentary democracy can survive only on that basis. If the Economic Secretary does not know that, she had better rethink her priorities.
This was a very bad debate for the Government because, once again, not a single Labour Back Bencher had a good word to say about their policies. We even had the amusing spectacle—
Mr. MacShane rose—
Mr. Davies: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall deal with the point that I know he wants to make. We witnessed the amusing spectacle of the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane), who is normally so meticulous—I have tried to use a flattering term—in supporting whatever happens to be the ministerial line of the moment, agonising publicly about this subject. He spoke of the steel industry's alarm at the proposed levy and said that the trade union movement was deeply concerned. His speech was very revealing from that point of view. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) actually suggested that he might not be able to support the Government in the Division Lobby on the levy. Similar reservations were expressed by the hon. Members for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) and for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams).
We heard a powerful speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and a well informed speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry). He is a member of the Trade and Industry Select Committee, and he pointed out that the Government's proposals do not meet the criteria set out in the Treasury's initial document—which is a pretty damning revelation. My hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) demonstrated a masterly grasp of the detail of the subject.
The first thing that must be said about the Government's proposals is that they reflect the incompetence that is rapidly becoming the hallmark of this Government. The first prerequisite of a competent policy is that it should be rational. It should reward, and thereby encourage, desired behaviour and sanction undesired behaviour. This policy fails that ultimate test of competence. The energy tax proposals do not reward those who have made efforts to reduce the carbon content in the energy used in their processes.
In the energy-intensive sector, the tax will have a particularly brutal effect, because companies in that sector that have made a great effort—as many of them have—to reduce their energy use will now find themselves disadvantaged. Competitors who have made no such effort and who therefore have greater scope for reducing energy use will have an advantage in the negotiations for a rebate on the levy which will now be held with the Government. That is unjust, but is also irrational and utterly incompetent.
1072
Even more seriously, the proposals provide absolutely no incentive for industry or commerce to switch to sources of energy that produce less carbon. The opposite is the case because, with typical inconsistency and, once again, incompetence, the Government have introduced what is, for all practical intents and purposes, a moratorium on the building of new combined cycle gas-fired power stations which generate about a quarter of the carbon that coal-fired stations produce for a given kilowatt of generation. So it is impossible for firms to switch to a form of hydrocarbon generation that produces less carbon even if they want to do so. The Government's proposals offer no reward for industries that decide to move in that direction.
Most extraordinary of all, there is absolutely no recognition of those who might want to invest in energy that does not generate any carbon at all. That is a missed opportunity. The Government had an opportunity to change the economics of electricity generation in this country to create a new basis for people to invest in renewables or nuclear generation, which does not emit any carbon at all. Not only has that opportunity been missed, but people who invest in such energy sources or are prepared to sign contracts to use those sources receive no recognition in the proposals. They will be made to look like fools if they follow that line. The whole basis on which we might have addressed the need to reduce global warming has been obliterated before we have started. That is massive incompetence.
The charge does not even end with incompetence because the country now faces a set of extremely destructive policies. They are set out in the report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which was published yesterday. That report is very clear. It said that
"the Teesside Chemical Initiative estimated that, if applied in full, the Levy would cost Teesside chemical firms £37.3 million per annum, causing up to 1,000 job losses".
The report also said that the Energy Intensive Users Group estimated that even if there is a 50 per cent. reduction in the levy, as many as 28,000 jobs might be lost in energy-intensive firms. The report went on to say that
"the Aluminium Federation estimated that the aluminium industry would incur a net cost of £38 million as a result of the Levy, leading to the closure of four primary aluminium smelters and 4,000 job losses."
The Country Landowners Association has said:
"Intensive horticultural operations, which are major contributors to the balance of payments, may be put out of business."
Of course, those businesses do not, on a net basis, emit any carbon dioxide. The prospect of damage goes on.
The Government's incompetence will lead to the loss of people's employment, the shattering of individuals' prospects and the displacement of industry. And that is not the end of it. The proposals are also fraudulent. They have been sold to the House and the public as revenue neutral, but as we have discovered during the debate, they are not revenue neutral for individual firms, sectors or regions. They represent an enormous levy on the north and the midlands in favour of the south-east.
Most of all, the proposal is not revenue neutral because the public sector will be a net gainer. I understand that local authorities alone will gain some £250 million net. What is a levy that is so recycled that the public sector is

1073
a net gainer and the private sector a net loser? The answer is, by definition, a tax. Here we have another way of taking money out of the private sector and giving it surreptitiously to the public sector. We have uncovered yet one more stealth tax in the Labour Government's catalogue. They ought to be ashamed of the policy, and even more ashamed of the way in which they are trying to disguise it from the British public and from Parliament, which they treat with such derision.
9.50 pm
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): That was an extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies). It was yet another example of the understated way in which he makes his case. He would have better spent his time being present for the entire debate, as I have been, rather than just making his ridiculous remarks at the end of it. In the short time remaining to me, I shall deal, as he should have done, with the remarks that have been made on both sides of the House. I think that that is what the House expects from a winding-up speech.
The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) said that heavy industry already had an incentive to be energy efficient. As Lord Marshall noted, the best evidence available of possible achievements comes from the energy technology support unit. Its work suggests that there is scope for further improvements in energy efficiency across industry.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats on these issues, said that, according to the consultative document, the levy will not be shown on bills. That is clearly not so. We are consulting on several design issues, including whether to show the levy on bills. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) rightly said, the Liberal Democrats must decide once and for all whether they are in favour of this measure. Once again, they talk big on the environment, but when it comes to supporting constructive Government proposals, they are found wanting.
The hon. Member for Hazel Grove asked why renewables could not be exempt. As he will know if he has considered the matter carefully, we have not ruled that out. We have proposed that some of the revenue raised will be used to provide additional support for renewable sources of energy. He said that the £50 million for energy efficiency was not enough, yet the present budget for the energy efficiency best practice programme is about £15 million a year. We are, therefore, proposing a considerable step up, and it would be nice if, for once, the hon. Gentleman gave us some credit for it.
Mr. Stunell: Will the Financial Secretary give way?
Mrs. Roche: No, I do not have time.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East asked me to take into account the situation in his constituency. We shall of course consider in great detail what he says to us. If he will send me the details of the
1074
example that he gave, we will consider them carefully. He asked what revenue neutral means. We have said right from the beginning that the levy will entail no increase in the burden of tax on business as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Wells mentioned the 50 per cent. figure, but did not say that it is purely illustrative. He paid no heed to that whatever.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory: There is one figure that is not illustrative, because it is in the Government arithmetic, which is that this tax will raise £1.75 billion a year. If the Minister starts making concessions, as she is now hinting, or if other companies exempt themselves from the tax by moving abroad, how will she obtain that extra revenue from other companies?
Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Gentleman has a cheek. We have set out—
Mr. Francis Maude: She has no idea what the answer is.
Mrs. Roche: The right hon. Gentleman asked a question and, if the shadow Chancellor will give me the opportunity instead of heckling from a sedentary position, I will give him the reply. We set out the figure. We have made it absolutely clear right from the start that we would consult. As my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) has said, it is unprecedented for a Government to allow that period of consultation, and we shall ensure that it takes place.
I tell my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East that we would be happy to receive any suggestions for the design of the levy that would increase its environmental effectiveness while protecting competitiveness. [Interruption.] The Members on the Opposition Front Bench continue to chatter throughout this. I would have thought that they would have been interested in hearing about the competitiveness of British industry, but they obviously are not.
The hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), a member of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, mentioned the cut in national insurance. I remind him that it was the Government of whom he was a member who introduced a cut in NICs, when introducing the landfill tax in 1996. Yet again, the Opposition are suffering from collective amnesia.
The hon. Member for Banbury also said that the levy was badly targeted and inefficient. The design very closely follows Lord Marshall's recommendations and, as my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary has said, many other countries believe that carbon or energy taxes have a role to play in helping to meet the climate change targets.
My hon. Friend the Member for Derby, North (Mr. Laxton) mentioned mineral oils. Mineral oils are subject to excise duty, and the Budget announced phased increases in gas oil and fuel oil duties.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) drew attention to what is happening with regard to the electricity pool. We shall take the review of the electricity pool trading arrangements into account in designing the levy, and the Government, unlike the previous Conservative Government, will clean up the situation that was left for us and deal with it.

1075
The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) seemed to be saying, "Yes, something needs to be done, but what can we do?" He seemed to suggest that we return to the discredited system of the Conservatives' imposition of VAT on fuel. We know what they did and what it did to fuel poverty—and the hon. Gentleman wants to return to that. The Conservatives generally are still wedded to that.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Carmarthen and Dinefwr (Mr. Williams) rightly mentioned energy incentives. We shall look at those.
In Conservative Members, we see a party that, when it was in government, spoke big on the environment, but did nothing about it, and which turns its views in opposition. The Leader of the Opposition said:
"We must protect our environment for future generations and strike a balance with the needs of the economy and society's demands for goods and services".
Now the Conservatives change their mind. Conservative Members all stood on a manifesto that said:
"we will continue to use the tax system and other incentives to encourage the use of vehicles and fuel which do not pollute the environment. And, we will continue to explore policies based on the principle of polluter pays".
It is rich. They say one thing to the country when they are seeking votes and another in the House.
Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 346.

Division No. 261]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Amess, David

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Day, Stephen

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Duncan, Alan

Baldry, Tony

Duncan Smith, Iain

Beggs, Roy

Evans, Nigel

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Faber, David

Bercow, John

Fabricant, Michael

Beresford, Sir Paul

Fallon, Michael

Blunt, Crispin

Filght, Howard

Body, Sir Richard

Forsythe, Clifford

Boswell, Tim

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Fox, Dr Liam

Brazier, Julian

Fraser, Christopher

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Gale, Roger

Browning, Mrs Angela

Garnier, Edward

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gibb, Nick

Burns, Simon

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Gray, James

Chope, Christopher

Green, Damian

Clappison, James

Greenway, John

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Grieve, Dominic

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Collins, Tim

Hague, Rt Hon William

Colvin, Michael

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Cran, James

Hammond, Philip

Curry, Rt Hon David

Hawkins, Nick

1076

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Robathan, Andrew

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Horam, John

St Aubyn, Nick

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hunter, Andrew

Shepherd, Richard

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Jenkin, Bernard

Soames, Nicholas

Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Spring, Richard

Key, Robert

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Steen, Anthony

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Streeter, Gary

Lansley, Andrew

Swayne, Desmond

Leigh, Edward

Syms, Robert

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lidington, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Loughton, Tim

Townend, John

Luff, Peter

Tredinnick, David

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Trend, Michael

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Tyrie, Andrew

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Viggers, Peter

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Walter, Robert

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Wardle, Charles

Waterson, Nigel

McLoughlin, Patrick

Wells, Bowen

Malins, Humfrey

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Maples, John

Whittingdale, John

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

May, Mrs Theresa

Willetts, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Wilshire, David

Norman, Archie

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Ottaway, Richard

Yeo, Tim

Page, Richard

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Paice, James

Pickles, Eric

Tellers for the Ayes:

Randall, John

Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Browne, Desmond

Ainger, Nick

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Buck, Ms Karen

Alexander, Douglas

Burden, Richard

Allan, Richard

Burgon, Colin

Allen, Graham

Butler, Mrs Christine

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ashton, Joe

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Atkins, Charlotte

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Baker, Norman

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ballard, Jackie

Cann, Jamie

Banks, Tony

Caplin, Ivor

Barron, Kevin

Casale, Roger

Battle, John

Caton, Martin

Bayley, Hugh

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Beard, Nigel

Chaytor, David

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Chidgey, David

Begg, Miss Anne

Chisholm, Malcolm

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clapham, Michael

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Bennett, Andrew F

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Benton, Joe

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Best, Harold

Clelland, David

Betts, Clive

Clwyd, Ann

Blackman, Liz

Coffey, Ms Ann

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Cohen, Harry

Boateng, Paul

Coleman, Iain

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Colman, Tony

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Connarty, Michael

Brake, Tom

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Brand, Dr Peter

Corbett, Robin

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Corbyn, Jeremy

1077

Cousins, Jim

Hesford, Stephen

Cox, Tom

Hill, Keith

Cranston, Ross

Hinchliffe, David

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hoey, Kate

Cummings, John

Hood, Jimmy

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Dalyell, Tam

Howells, Dr Kim

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Hoyle, Lindsay

Darvill, Keith

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Hutton, John

Davidson, Ian

Iddon, Dr Brian

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Illsley, Eric

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jenkins, Brian

Dismore, Andrew

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Donohoe, Brian H

Doran, Frank

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Dowd, Jim

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Drew, David

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Drown, Ms Julia

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Edwards, Huw

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Efford, Clive

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Keeble, Ms Sally

Ennis, Jeff

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Etherington, Bill

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Fearn, Ronnie

Keetch, Paul

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Kemp, Fraser

Fisher, Mark

Khabra, Piara S

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Kidney, David

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Kilfoyle, Peter

Flint, Caroline

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Flynn, Paul

Kirkwood, Archy

Follett, Barbara

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Foster, Don (Bath)

Laxton, Bob

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Lepper, David

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Leslie, Christopher

Foulkes, George

Levitt, Tom

Fyfe, Maria

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Galloway, George

Linton, Martin

Gapes, Mike

Lock, David

Gardiner, Barry

McAllion, John

George, Andrew (St Ives)

McAvoy, Thomas

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McCabe, Steve

Gerrard, Neil

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Gibson, Dr Ian

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Macdonald, Calum

Godsiff, Roger

McDonnell, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McIsaac, Shona

Gorrie, Donald

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McNamara, Kevin

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McNulty, Tony

Grocott, Bruce

MacShane, Denis

Grogan, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gunnell, John

McWalter, Tony

Hain, Peter

McWilliam, John

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mallaber, Judy

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Hancock, Mike

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Harris, Dr Evan

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Harvey, Nick

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Martlew, Eric

Healey, John

Meale, Alan

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Merron, Gillian

Heppell, John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

1078

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Singh, Marsha

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Skinner, Dennis

Mitchell, Austin

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Moffatt, Laura

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Moore, Michael

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Moran, Ms Margaret

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

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

Morley, Elliot

Snape, Peter

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Soley, Clive

Mudie, George

Spellar, John

Mullin, Chris

Squire, Ms Rachel

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Steinberg, Gerry

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Stevenson, George

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Norris, Dan

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Oaten, Mark

Stinchcombe, Paul

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Stoate, Dr Howard

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Stott, Roger

O'Hara, Eddie

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Olner, Bill

Stringer, Graham

Öpik, Lembit

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Stunell, Andrew

Palmer, Dr Nick

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pearson, Ian

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pendry, Tom

Pickthall, Colin

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Pike, Peter L

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Plaskitt, James

Temple-Morris, Peter

Pollard, Kerry

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Pond, Chris

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Pope, Greg

Timms, Stephen

Pound, Stephen

Tipping, Paddy

Powell, Sir Raymond

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Touhig, Don

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Trickett, Jon

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Primarolo Dawn

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Prosser Gwyn

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Purchase, Ken

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Tyler, Paul

Rapson, Syd

Vaz Keith

Raynsford, Nick

Vis, Dr Rudi

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Walley, Ms Joan

Rendel, David

Ward, Ms Claire

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Wareing, Robert N

Webb, Steve

White, Brian

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Wicks, Malcolm

Rooker, Jeff

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Rooney, Terry

Rowlands, Ted

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Roy, Frank

Willis, Phil

Ruane, Chris

Wills, Michael

Ruddock, Joan

Wilson, Brian

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Winnick, David

Salter, Martin

Wise, Audrey

Sanders, Adrian

Worthington, Tony

Sarwar, Mohammad

Wray, James

Savidge, Malcolm

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Sawford, Phil

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Sedgemore, Brian

Wyatt, Derek

Sheerman, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Tellers for the Noes:

Shipley, Ms Debra

Mr. David Hanson and

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Jane Kennedy.

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 311, Noes 162.

Division No. 262]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Davidson, Ian

Ainger, Nick

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Alexander, Douglas

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Allen, Graham

Dean, Mrs Janet

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Dismore, Andrew

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Donohoe, Brian H

Ashton, Joe

Doran, Frank

Atkins, Charlotte

Dowd, Jim

Banks, Tony

Drew, David

Barron, Kevin

Drown, Ms Julia

Battle, John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bayley, Hugh

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Beard, Nigel

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Edwards, Huw

Begg, Miss Anne

Efford, Clive

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Ennis, Jeff

Bennett, Andrew F

Etherington, Bill

Benton, Joe

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Best, Harold

Fisher, Mark

Betts, Clive

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Blackman, Liz

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Flint, Caroline

Boateng, Paul

Flynn, Paul

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Follett, Barbara

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Browne, Desmond

Foulkes, George

Buck, Ms Karen

Fyfe, Maria

Burden, Richard

Galloway, George

Burgon, Colin

Gapes, Mike

Butler, Mrs Christine

Gardiner, Barry

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Godsiff, Roger

Cann, Jamie

Golding, Mrs Llin

Caplin, Ivor

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Casale, Roger

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Caton, Martin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chaytor, David

Grocott, Bruce

Chisholm, Malcolm

Grogan, John

Clapham, Michael

Gunnell, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hain, Peter

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clelland, David

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clwyd, Ann

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Coffey, Ms Ann

Healey, John

Cohen, Harry

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Coleman, Iain

Heppell, John

Colman, Tony

Hesford, Stephen

Connarty, Michael

Hill, Keith

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Corbett, Robin

Hoey, Kate

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hood, Jimmy

Cousins, Jim

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cox, Tom

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cranston, Ross

Howells, Dr Kim

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cummings, John

Hutton, John

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Illsley, Eric

Dalyell, Tam

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Darvill, Keith

Jenkins, Brian

1080

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatflield)

Pearson, Ian

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Pollard, Kerry

Pond, Chris

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pope, Greg

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Primarolo, Dawn

Kemp, Fraser

Prosser, Gwyn

Khabra, Piara S

Purchase, Ken

Kidney, David

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rapson, Syd

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Raynsford, Nick

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Laxton, Bob

Lepper, David

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Leslie, Christopher

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Levitt, Tom

Rooker, Jeff

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Rooney, Terry

Linton, Martin

Rowlands, Ted

Lock, David

Roy, Frank

McAllion, John

Ruane, Chris

McAvoy, Thomas

Ruddock, Joan

McCabe, Steve

Salter, Martin

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Sarwar, Mohammad

McDonagh, Siobhain

Savidge, Malcolm

Macdonald, Calum

Sawford, Phil

McDonnell, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sheerman, Barry

McIsaac, Shona

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Singh, Marsha

McNamara, Kevin

Skinner, Dennis

McNulty, Tony

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

MacShane, Denis

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

McWilliam, John

Snape, Peter

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Soley, Clive

Mallaber, Judy

Spellar, John

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Squire, Ms Rachel

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Steinberg, Gerry

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stevenson, George

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Martlew, Eric

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Meale, Alan

Stinchcombe, Paul

Merron, Gillian

Stoate, Dr Howard

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stott, Roger

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Mitchell, Austin

Stringer, Graham

Moffatt, Laura

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Moran, Ms Margaret

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Morley, Elliot

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Mudie, George

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mullin, Chris

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Timms, Stephen

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Tipping, Paddy

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Touhig, Don

Norris, Dan

Trickett, Jon

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

O'Hara, Eddie

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Olner, Bill

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Vaz, Keith

Palmer, Dr Nick

Vis, Dr Rudi

1081

Walley, Ms Joan

Winnick, David

Ward, Ms Claire

Wise, Audrey

Wareing, Robert N

Worthington, Tony

White, Brian

Wray, James

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Wicks, Malcolm

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Wyatt, Derek

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Wills, Michael

Mr. David Hanson and

Wilson, Brian

Jane Kennedy.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Allan, Richard

Gorrie, Donald

Amess, David

Gray, James

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Green, Damian

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Greenway, John

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Grieve, Dominic

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Baker, Norman

Hague, Rt Hon William

Baldry, Tony

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Ballard, Jackie

Hammond, Philip

Beggs, Roy

Hancock, Mike

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Harris, Dr Evan

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Harvey, Nick

Bercow, John

Hawkins, Nick

Beresford, Sir Paul

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Blunt, Crispin

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Boswell, Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Hunter, Andrew

Brake, Tom

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Brand, Dr Peter

Jenkin, Bernard

Brazier, Julian

Keetch, Paul

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Key, Robert

Browning, Mrs Angela

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Kirkwood, Archy

Burnett, John

Lansley, Andrew

Burns, Simon

Leigh, Edward

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Lidington, David

Chidgey, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Chope, Christopher

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Clappison, James

Loughton, Tim

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushctiffe)

Luff, Peter

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Collins, Tim

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Colvin, Michael

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Cran, James

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Curry, Rt Hon David

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Malins, Humfrey

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Maples, John

Day, Stephen

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Donaldson, Jeffrey

May, Mrs Theresa

Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Duncan, Alan

Moore, Michael

Duncan Smith, Iain

Nicholls, Patrick

Evans, Nigel

Norman, Archie

Faber, David

Oaten, Mark

Fabricant, Michael

Öpik, Lembit

Fallon, Michael

Ottaway, Richard

Fearn, Ronnie

Page, Richard

Right, Howard

Paice, James

Forsythe, Clifford

Pickles, Eric

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Randall, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Rendel, David

Fraser, Christopher

Robathan, Andrew

Gale, Roger

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Garnier, Edward

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

St Aubyn, Nick

Gibb, Nick

Sanders, Adrian

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Sayeed, Jonathan

1082

Shepherd, Richard

Tyler, Paul

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Tyrie, Andrew

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

Viggers, Peter

Soames, Nicholas

Walter, Robert

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Wardle, Charles

Spring, Richard

Waterson, Nigel

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Webb, Steve

Steen, Anthony

Wells, Bowen

Streeter, Gary

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Stunell, Andrew

Whittingdale, John

Swayne, Desmond

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Syms, Robert

Wilkinson, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Willetts, David

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Willis, Phil

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Yeo, Tim

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Townend, John

Tellers for the Noes:

Tredinnick, David

Mrs. Jacqui Lait and

Trend, Michael

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House notes that there is now compelling evidence that climate change needs to be tackled, that there is therefore a need for action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and that the United Kingdom has a legally-binding target for reducing greenhouse gas emissions set under the Kyoto Protocol; welcomes the recommendations of Lord Marshall on the case for a climate change levy; further welcomes the measures taken by the Government to help British business, including cutting corporation tax rates to their lowest ever level; welcomes the Government's decision to pre-announce the introduction of the climate change levy by two years to give time for further consultation on its design; and supports the Government's determination to work with industry and other parties to ensure that it meets its environmental objectives whilst safeguarding Britain's international competitiveness.

Energy Tax
  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

  PROPOSAL TO EXTEND THE WORKING TIME DIRECTIVE TO EXCLUDED SECTORS
  That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13526/98, the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 18th May 1999 and the unnumbered Explanatory Memorandum submitted by the Department of Trade and Industry on 21st June 1999, all on the extension of the Working Time Directive to excluded sectors; supports the Government's view that the proposal agreed by Member States at the Social Affairs Council on 25th May will ensure that workers who were previously excluded will now enjoy the benefit of working time protection; and agrees that all workers should have the right to minimum standards in the workplace and that the extension of the working time directive to the excluded sectors supports the Government's aim of promoting family friendly employment.—[Mr. Dowd.]
  The House divided: Ayes 302, Noes 156.

  Division No. 263]

  [10.25 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Allen, Graham

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Ainger, Nick

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashton, Joe

  Alexander, Douglas

  Atkins, Charlotte

  1083

  Banks, Tony

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Edwards, Huw

  Battle, John

  Efford, Clive

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Beard, Nigel

  Ennis, Jeff

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Etherington, Bill

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Fisher, Mark

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Benton, Joe

  Flint, Caroline

  Best, Harold

  Flynn, Paul

  Betts, Clive

  Follett, Barbara

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Foulkes, George

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Galloway, George

  Browne, Desmond

  Gapes, Mike

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Burden, Richard

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Gunnell, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Chaytor, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Clapham, Michael

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Healey, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cohen, Harry

  Hoey, Kate

  Coleman, Iain

  Hood, Jimmy

  Colman, Tony

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Connarty, Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cox, Tom

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cummings, John

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Darvill, Keith

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drew, David

  Khabra, Piara S

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Kidney, David

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  1084

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Laxton, Bob

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lepper, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rooney, Terry

  Levitt, Tom

  Rowlands, Ted

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Ruane, Chris

  Linton, Martin

  Ruddock, Joan

  Lock, David

  Salter, Martin

  McAllion, John

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McCabe, Steve

  Sawford, Phil

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sheerman, Barry

  Macdonald, Calum

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  McDonnell, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Singh, Marsha

  McIsaac, Shona

  Skinner, Dennis

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McNulty, Tony

  Snape, Peter

  MacShane, Denis

  Soley, Clive

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Spellar, John

  McWalter, Tony

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McWilliam, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stevenson, George

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Martlew, Eric

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Meale, Alan

  Stringer, Graham

  Merron, Gillian

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Moriey Elliot

  Timms, Stephen

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Mudie, George

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Touhig, Don

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Norris, Dan

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Olner, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Wareing, Robert N

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  White, Brian

  Pendry, Tom

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pike, Peter L

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Pollard, Kerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Pond, Chris

  Wills, Michael

  Pope, Greg

  Winnick, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Wise, Audrey

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Worthington, Tony

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Wray, James

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Wyatt, Derek

  Purchase, Ken

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Rapson, Syd

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Jane Kennedy.

  1085

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Mian, Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Amess, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Keetch, Paul

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Key, Robert

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Baker, Norman

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Baldry, Tony

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ballard, Jackie

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Beggs, Roy

  Lansley, Andrew

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Leigh, Edward

  Bercow, John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Lidington, David

  Blunt, Crispin

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Loughton, Tim

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Luff, Peter

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Brazier, Julian

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Burnett, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Burns, Simon

  Maples, John

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Chidgey, David

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Chope, Christopher

  Moore, Michael

  Clappison, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Norman, Archie

  Oaten, Mark

  Collins, Tim

  Öpik, Lembit

  Colvin, Michael

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cran, James

  Page, Richard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Paice, James

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Pickles, Eric

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Randall, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Day, Stephen

  Rendel, David

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Robathan, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Duncan, Alan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Evans, Nigel

  Sanders, Adrian

  Fabricant, Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Shepherd, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Forsythe, Clifford

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

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Spring, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Steen, Anthony

  Garnier, Edward

  Streeter, Gary

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Gibb, Nick

  Swayne, Desmond

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Syms, Robert

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gorrie, Donald

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Gray, James

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Green, Damian

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Greenway, John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Grieve, Dominic

  Townend, John

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Trend, Michael

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Tyler, Paul

  Hammond, Philip

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hancock, Mike

  Viggers, Peter

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Walter, Robert

  Harvey, Nick

  Wardle, Charles

  Hawkins, Nick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Wells, Bowen

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  1086

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Yeo, Tim

  Wilkinson, John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willetts, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Willis, Phil

  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown

  Wilshire, David

  and

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. John M. Taylor.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

DEREGULATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With the leave of the House, I shall put the Questions on motions 4 and 5 together.
Hon. Members: No.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: In that case, I shall put them separately.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

MILLENNIUM LICENSING
That the draft Deregulation (Millennium Licensing) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 5th July 1999, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 7.

Division No. 264]

[10.39 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Ainger, Nick

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Alexander, Douglas

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Allan, Richard

Cann, Jamie

Allen, Graham

Caplin, Ivor

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Casale, Roger

Ashton, Joe

Caton, Martin

Atkins, Charlotte

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Baker, Norman

Chaytor, David

Ballard, Jackie

Chidgey, David

Banks, Tony

Chisholm, Malcolm

Barron, Kevin

Clapham, Michael

Battle, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Bayley, Hugh

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Beard, Nigel

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Clelland, David

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Clwyd, Ann

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Cohen, Harry

Benton, Joe

Coleman, Iain

Best, Harold

Colman, Tony

Betts, Clive

Connarty, Michael

Blackman, Liz

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Boateng, Paul

Corbett, Robin

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Corbyn, Jeremy

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cousins, Jim

Brand, Dr Peter

Cox, Tom

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Cranston, Ross

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Browne, Desmond

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Cummings, John

Buck, Ms Karen

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Burden, Richard

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Burgon, Colin

Dalyell, Tam

Butler, Mrs Christine

Darvill, Keith

1087

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Donohoe, Brian H

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Doran, Frank

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dowd, Jim

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Drew, David

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Drown, Ms Julia

Keetch, Paul

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Khabra, Piara S

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kidney, David

Efford, Clive

Kilfoyle, Peter

Ellman, Mrs Louise

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Ennis, Jeff

Kirkwood, Archy

Etherington, Bill

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Fearn, Ronnie

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Laxton, Bob

Fisher, Mark

Lepper, David

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Leslie, Christopher

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Levitt, Tom

Flint, Caroline

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Flynn, Paul

Linton, Martin

Follett, Barbara

Lock, David

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

McAllion, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

McAvoy, Thomas

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McCabe, Steve

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Foulkes, George

McDonagh, Siobhain

Fyfe, Maria

Macdonald, Calum

Gapes, Mike

McDonnell, John

Gardiner, Barry

McGuire, Mrs Anne

George, Andrew (St Ives)

McIsaac, Shona

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Gerrard, Neil

Mackinlay, Andrew

Gibson, Dr Ian

McNamara, Kevin

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McNulty, Tony

Godsiff, Roger

MacShane, Denis

Golding, Mrs Llin

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McWalter, Tony

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McWilliam, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mallaber, Judy

Grogan, John

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hancock, Mike

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Martlew, Eric

Harris, Dr Evan

Meale, Alan

Harvey, Nick

Merron, Gillian

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Healey, John

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Mitchell, Austin

Heppell, John

Moffatt, Laura

Hesford, Stephen

Moore, Michael

Hill, Keith

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hoey, Kate

Morley, Elliot

Hood, Jimmy

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Mudie, George

Howells, Dr Kim

Mullin, Chris

Hoyle, Lindsay

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Hutton, John

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Iddon, Dr Brian

Norris, Dan

Illsley, Eric

Oaten, Mark

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jenkins, Brian

O'Hara, Eddie

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Olner, Bill

Öpik, Lembit

1088

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pearson, Ian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pendry, Tom

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pickthall, Colin

Stott, Roger

Pike, Peter L

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Plaskitt, James

Stringer, Graham

Pollard, Kerry

Stunell, Andrew

Pond, Chris

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pope, Greg

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pound, Stephen

Powell, Sir Raymond

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Primarolo, Dawn

Temple-Morris, Peter

Prosser, Gwyn

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Purchase, Ken

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Timms, Stephen

Rapson, Syd

Tipping, Paddy

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Rendel, David

Touhig, Don

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Trickett, Jon

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Rooker, Jeff

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rooney, Terry

Tyler, Paul

Rowlands, Ted

Vaz, Keith

Ruane, Chris

Vis, Dr Rudi

Ruddock, Joan

Walley, Ms Joan

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Ward, Ms Claire

Sanders, Adrian

Wareing, Robert N

Sarwar, Mohammad

White, Brian

Savidge, Malcolm

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Sawford, Phil

Wicks, Malcolm

Sedgemore, Brian

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Sheerman, Barry

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Willis, Phil

Singh, Marsha

Wills, Michael

Skinner, Dennis

Wilson, Brian

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Winnick, David

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Wise, Audrey

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Worthington, Tony

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

Wray, James

Snape, Peter

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Soley, Clive

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Spellar, John

Wyatt, Derek

Squire, Ms Rachel

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Tellers for the Ayes:

Steinberg, Gerry

Mr. David Hanson and

Stevenson, George

Jane Kennedy.

NOES

Beggs, Roy

Swayne, Desmond

Blunt, Crispin

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Tellers for the Noes:

Forsythe, Clifford

Mr. Douglas Hogg and

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Mr. Edward Leigh.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 18(1)(a) (Consideration of draft deregulation orders),

CASINOS
That the draft Deregulation (Casinos) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 5th July 1999, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]
The House divided: Ayes 304, Noes 12.

Division No. 265]

[10.50 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Ainger, Nick

Davidson, Ian

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Alexander, Douglas

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Allan, Richard

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Allen, Graham

Dean, Mrs Janet

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Dismore, Andrew

Ashton, Joe

Donohoe, Brian H

Atkins, Charlotte

Doran, Frank

Ballard, Jackie

Dowd, Jim

Banks, Tony

Drew, David

Barron, Kevin

Drown, Ms Julia

Battle, John

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Bayley, Hugh

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Beard, Nigel

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Efford, Clive

Begg, Miss Anne

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Ennis, Jeff

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Etherington, Bill

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Fearn, Ronnie

Benton, Joe

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Best, Harold

Fisher, Mark

Betts, Clive

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Blackman, Liz

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Boateng, Paul

Flint, Caroline

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Flynn, Paul

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Follett, Barbara

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Browne, Desmond

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Buck, Ms Karen

Foulkes, George

Burden, Richard

Fyfe, Maria

Burgon, Colin

Gapes, Mike

Butler, Mrs Christine

Gardiner, Barry

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gerrard, Neil

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Cann, Jamie

Godsiff, Roger

Caplin, Ivor

Golding, Mrs Llin

Casale, Roger

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Caton, Martin

Gorrie, Donald

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Chaytor, David

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clapham, Michael

Grogan, John

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hancock, Mike

Clelland, David

Hanson, David

Clwyd, Ann

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Coffey, Ms Ann

Harris, Dr Evan

Cohen, Harry

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Coleman, Iain

Healey, John

Colman, Tony

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Connarty, Michael

Heppell, John

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hesford, Stephen

Corbett, Robin

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Corbyn, Jeremy

Hoey, Kate

Cousins, Jim

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cox, Tom

Howells, Dr Kim

Cranston, Ross

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hutton, John

Cummings, John

Iddon, Dr Brian

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Illsley, Eric

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Jenkins, Brian

Dalyell, Tam

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Darvill, Keith

1090

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Pike, Peter L

Plaskitt, James

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pollard, Kerry

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pond, Chris

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Pope, Greg

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pound, Stephen

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Keetch, Paul

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kemp, Fraser

Prosser, Gwyn

Khabra, Piara S

Purchase, Ken

Kidney, David

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Kilfoyle, Peter

Rapson, Syd

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Rooker, Jeff

Laxton, Bob

Rooney, Terry

Lepper, David

Rowlands, Ted

Leslie, Christopher

Ruane, Chris

Levitt, Tom

Ruddock, Joan

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Linton, Martin

Sanders, Adrian

Lock, David

Sarwar, Mohammad

McAllion, John

Savidge, Malcolm

McAvoy, Thomas

Sawford, Phil

McCabe, Steve

Sedgemore, Brian

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Sheerman, Barry

McDonagh, Siobhain

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McDonnell, John

Singh, Marsha

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Skinner, Dennis

McIsaac, Shona

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Mackinlay, Andrew

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

McNamara, Kevin

Snape, Peter

McNulty, Tony

Soley, Clive

MacShane, Denis

Spellar, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Squire, Ms Rachel

McWalter, Tony

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

McWilliam, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Stevenson, George

Mallaber, Judy

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Stott, Roger

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Martlew, Eric

Stringer, Graham

Meale, Alan

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Merron, Gillian

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Mitchell, Austin

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Moffatt, Laura

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Moore, Michael

Temple-Morris, Peter

Moran, Ms Margaret

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Morley, Elliot

Tipping, Paddy

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Mudie, George

Touhig, Don

Mullin, Chris

Trickett, Jon

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Norris, Dan

Vaz, Keith

Oaten, Mark

Vis, Dr Rudi

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Walley, Ms Joan

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Wareing, Robert N

O'Hara, Eddie

White, Brian

Olner, Bill

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Öpik, Lembit

Wicks, Malcolm

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Palmer, Dr Nick

1091

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Willis, Phil

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Wills, Michael

Wyatt, Derek

Winnick, David

Wise, Audrey

Tellers for the Ayes:

Worthington, Tony

Mr. Keith Hill and

Wray, James

Jane Kennedy.

NOES

Baker, Norman

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Beggs, Roy

Rendel, David

Chidgey, David

Stunell, Andrew

Donaldson, Jeffrey

Swayne, Desmond

Forsythe, Clifford

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Tellers for the Noes:

Kirkwood, Archy

Mr. Douglas Hogg and

Leigh, Edward

Mr. Eric Forth.

Question accordingly agreed to.

PETITION

  Crawley Hospital
  11 pm
  Laura Moffatt: I wish to present a petition organised by my local newspaper, the Crawley Observer, which is signed by some 4,000 of my constituents who are extremely worried about the reconfiguration of hospital services in Crawley. Residents are extremely worried that, if services are reorganised and removed from the town, it will be to the detriment of Crawley.
  The petition states:
  The Petition of the Crawley Observer and residents of Crawley Declares that we oppose plans to downgrade Crawley Hospital.
  The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for Health to do all in his power to ensure that Crawley Hospital retains its casualty department, maternity ward, children's ward and intensive care unit.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  National Curriculum (Sustainable Development)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
  11.1 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: I am exceptionally grateful to have the opportunity of raising this subject at a topical time in the development of the national curriculum. The only interests I have to declare are membership of my local wildlife trust and my local Country Landowners Association committee. I have no links, either direct or indirect, with any genetically modified food company—indeed, I have serious concerns about the sustainability of GM technology in the British environment.
  I have a number of constituents who take a close interest in the environment and sustainable farming. I am particularly grateful to Dr. Stephen Martin whose close involvement with many environmental initiatives and organisations—and specifically with the World Wide Fund for Nature—inspired me to seek this debate.
  It was a meeting with the WWF, organised by Dr. Martin, that persuaded me that this was an important issue, and that organisation has been very helpful in preparing me for tonight's debate. I am particularly grateful to another Martin, Peter Martin—I am assured that he is no relation to Stephen—who is head of education at WWF, for his patient guidance and advice. I have also received the views of two other organisations for which I have a high regard: the wildlife trusts and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds.
  I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but when I was young my dreams were regularly of a nuclear holocaust. That dreadful mushroom cloud soared into the sky of my nightmares on too many restless nights. I am glad to say that my nightmares are now more mundane, but my waking fear is very real. It is about the consequences for our environment if we do not approach it with greater respect and understanding. That, in turn, could have huge consequences for the welfare of billions of human beings on this planet.
  I do not know about you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but sometimes I despair as I watch the contempt shown by too many of our fellow citizens for the environment in which they live. Litter, graffiti and waste seem to characterise our urban lives. The countryside is defaced by thoughtless fly tipping, and, even worse, it faces more serious threats from agricultural polices that force farmers into behaviour that many of them dislike intensely.
  Recycling may have caught the imagination of some, but how much fossil fuel has been used making special journeys to take small quantities of bottles, cans and newspapers to recycling facilities? How much energy and how many chemicals are then used to do the recycling?
  If I may be allowed to make a slightly partisan comment in an essentially non-partisan speech, I believe that the Government are guilty of some muddled thinking on this subject. They are trying to use the mask of sustainability to justify what are actually only simple tax increases. Look at the proposed pesticides tax, for example. However—I see the way that you are looking at me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—that is a matter for another debate.

  1093
  Our understanding of sustainability is still very limited and that is why this debate is so important. Sustainability is a new buzzword, often twisted to suit the argument of whoever is using it at the time. That is why children must be taught to think critically about what it means. Our world has to work out how to meet present human needs and improve the quality of life without diminishing the Earth's capacity to provide for the needs of future generations. That is what I mean by sustainability.
  I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not one who believes that education is the answer to all our problems. I am intensely reluctant to dump on teachers all the problems of our society at the end of the second millennium. Problems such as declining democratic participation rates, teenage pregnancies, loss of basic social skills and increased vandalism and crime all seem capable of solution, according to many, simply if teachers educate pupils about those matters in our schools. That is profoundly wrong. Teachers are there to do many things, but above all their purpose is to teach the academic subjects, to inspire young people to wider horizons and to develop their skills, wherever they lie.
  Teachers are not there to solve the whole kaleidoscope of problems that confront modern Britain. If they are asked to spread themselves too thinly, their attention will be diverted from their real tasks as teachers, but—this is a big but—there are some things, essentially factual in nature or lying beyond any reasonable expectations of pupils' parents or guardians, that can best be taught in schools rather than in families. Among those is the importance of education for sustainable development.
  The 1992 Rio conference concluded that
  "education is critical for promoting sustainable development and improving the capacity of the people to address sustainable issues."
  Since then a lot has happened under Conservative and Labour Governments, but there is still a serious gap between official endorsement and practical educational policy. Now, the review of the national curriculum for England gives us a unique opportunity to put that right. The consultation closes this Friday and the final curriculum documents will be sent to schools this autumn. The revised curriculum will become statutory from September 2000.
  One of the key recommendations of the sustainable development education panel, which was set up by the Government, was that
  "sustainable development be identified within the aims and purposes of the revised curriculum".
  It is only fair to say that the Government have met that objective in their proposals, and it has been strongly welcomed by the environmental movement. I associate myself with that welcome.
  In the Secretary of State's introductory comments to "The review of the national curriculum in England, the Secretary of State's Proposals", he says:
  "Each subject makes a distinctive contribution to pupils' learning and development…History, geography and science give an essential understanding of our place in the modem world, including the importance of sustainability".
  On page 5 of the other main document, "The Consultation Materials", we read that the school curriculum should develop pupils'
  "awareness, understanding and respect for the environments in which they live, and secure their commitment to sustainable development at a personal, local, national and global level."
  1094
  The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds has told me that it views that statement as the most important breakthrough for education for sustainable development for over a decade.
  There is, therefore, much that is encouraging, but warm words and good intentions must translate into concrete reality if they are to mean anything. Those decisions will be set in concrete very soon. They will not, I hope, be revisited for many years, so they must be got right now.
  For geography, those decisions have certainly been made correctly. In that section of "The Consultation Materials", the distinctive contribution, programmes of study and attainment targets all fully address geography's role as a key deliverer of sustainable development education. Concepts such as global citizenship, environmental change and values and attitudes are all well represented. I congratulate the Department on that and hope that when the Minister winds up, he will be able to confirm that that will remain the case in the final curriculum.
  Elsewhere, however, all is not quite so rosy. As I have already made clear, increased prescription and increased work loads for teachers are not the answer and they are not necessary. A few small changes here and there in most of the other subjects would make all the difference. They would ensure that teaching effort is well used to further the cause of sustainable development without adding to teachers' burdens or even introducing new subjects into the curriculum.
  Let us consider science. That is specifically and rightly identified by the Secretary of State as providing essential understanding of the importance of sustainability, but, incredibly, no reference to sustainability is made in the distinctive contribution or in the attainment targets of the proposals for the national curriculum. The programmes of study include content that is important for sustainable development education, but without proper detail.
  Those deficiencies need to be remedied, and the easiest way to do so would be to add a suitable phrase to the distinctive contribution and to flesh out the programmes of study a little. To take one example at random, at key stage 4, it is suggested that pupils be taught
  "the basic principles of cloning and genetic engineering",
  but there is no mention of the environmental and ethical implications. A little more thought about the detail would bring great dividends.
  History is another subject that is specifically mentioned in the Secretary of State's proposals as providing "essential understanding" of the "importance of sustainability". However, no reference to sustainable development is made in the "distinctive contribution" section for history; nor is there direct reference to it in the programmes of study or attainment targets. That is despite the fact that many of the programmes could easily be directed towards a better understanding of the complex links between society, the economy and the environment. Those deficiencies could easily be remedied with just a few words, but what a difference those few words would make.

  1095
  Most of the other subjects provide many opportunities for elements of sustainable development education to be fully implemented. For example, the "distinctive contribution" section for different subjects says:
  "Information and Communication technology. An essential part
  of ICT capability is being discriminating about information and the ways in which it may be used, and making informed judgments about when and how to apply aspects of ICT to achieve maximum benefit. Pupils also develop understanding of the implications of ICT for working life and society". How easily that could be expanded to explore our interdependence in a shrinking world. How easily it could offer children first-hand experience of other societies, economies and their environments.
  Design and technology, we are told,
  "contributes to the school curriculum by preparing all young people to participate in a rapidly changing technological world. It enables them to understand how to think and intervene creatively to improve the world, combining their knowledge with understanding of aesthetics and function."
  There is no mention anywhere of how to choose materials for their sustainability. Cost, durability and appearance are all rightly mentioned, but not sustainability. Again, one word could make a great difference.
  In art and design, we are told that pupils
  "learn how to become actively involved in shaping environments, making informed, aesthetic choices and practical decisions which enrich their personal and public lives".
  That is absolutely right, but when it comes to shaping environments, sustainability is a vital dimension. Again, there is no mention of it in the detail—that is easily put right.
  There are similar opportunities in other subjects as diverse as English and mathematics. Unless there are powerful statements of the importance of sustainable development education, and unless the vital role that all subjects can play in its delivery is both endorsed and explained, sometimes the implicit and at other times the potential opportunities are in danger of being overlooked.
  There are other concerns, too. One is the limited reference made to education for sustainable development in the non-statutory guidelines for personal, social and health education and the complete lack of any mention of it in the recommendations for teaching citizenship. Education for sustainable development seems to be added as an afterthought, with no introductory preamble that identifies it as one of the key global concerns of the 21st century.
  I know that the Minister understands the importance of education for sustainable development. He knows about the likely impact of climate change on the British coastline, the consequences of household growth for new housing locations, the implications of ozone depletion, public concern about genetically modified organisms, the worldwide concern about fresh water supplies, and so on. The apparently limited profile given to the importance of education in addressing major national and international concerns is ironic given the commitment of the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to achieving sustainable development, and the growing number of large corporations that are making major and very public commitments to such development.
  1096
  Among those large organisations are the Government themselves. In the very good document, "A Better Quality of Life—A strategy for sustainable development for the UK", the Prime Minister says:
  "That is why sustainable development is such an important part of this Government's programme. We must ensure that our economy
  thrives, so we can deliver the schools and hospitals we want, the jobs we need, and provide opportunities for all. But we must ensure that economic growth contributes to our quality of life, rather than degrading it. And that we can all share in the benefits.
  Talking about sustainable development is not enough. We have to know what it is, to see how our policies are working on the ground. We must hold ourselves to account—as a government, but also as a country. Because the only way in which we will succeed is if we all play our part".
  It is difficult to argue with that, although it is disappointing that there is only very passing reference in the document to the role of education in achieving sustainable development. I would have hoped—this is intended as friendly criticism—that the Department for Education and Employment would register its commitment to sustainable development education with a little more conviction.
  Non-statutory guidelines should be produced to explain how education for sustainable development can be integrated across the curriculum, identifying the unique contribution that each subject, including citizenship, can play. That would not add to teachers' or pupils' burdens, as it would provide focus and purpose for and—often, for young people—relevance to much of what is already being taught.
  The panel for education for sustainable development made several specific recommendations in its first report. It discussed the curriculum issues that I have largely been talking about this evening. It talked about the need to monitor outcomes of education for sustainable development and to give governing bodies specific responsibility in that area. It talked about giving Ofsted the duty to evaluate education for sustainable development in its inspection framework. Finally, it said that education for sustainable development should be incorporated into all initial teacher training, continuing professional development and governor training, and that local education authorities should give encouragement and support to schools to conduct all their activities sustainably.
  You can see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that getting the curriculum right is not enough in itself, but it will be a big step in the right direction. Other issues will also need to be addressed. The Minister, when he winds up the debate, can do more for the environment and for posterity in his speech tonight than many of us could ever dream of. I hope that he will do that.
  In school terms, the report on the Government so far must be, "Pleasing progress overall, but I had hoped to see just a little more commitment in certain subject areas." I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I hope that next term's report can be a little less guarded.
  11.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) on securing the debate. He laid down quite a

  1097
  challenge in his final remarks. When he was talking about our muddled thinking, I found it entertaining that he described his interests as being a member of the Country Landowners Association and the wildlife trust in his constituency. Some might say that there was an element of muddle in some of those issues, too, when they came around the corner.
  I strongly believe, as do the Government, in educating children about sustainable development. It needs to be at the core of the education system. That is why we established the sustainable development education panel, which has worked very hard and produced a stimulating, wide-ranging first annual report, covering all phases of education and training and all types of informal learning.
  I take the opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the panel, which was chaired by Sir Geoffrey Holland, the former permanent secretary at the Department for Education and Employment, who knows these issues fully and with whom I and my colleagues have discussed the recommendations in very great detail. We are working with the panel and consulting on the recommendations for education and training. I am placing copies of the report in the Library for the reference of all Members.
  The panel defined sustainable development in the following way:
  "Education for sustainable development is about the learning needed to maintain and improve our quality of life and the quality of life for generations to come. It is about equipping individuals, communities, groups, businesses and government to live and act sustainably; as well as giving them an understanding of the environmental, social and economic issues involved. It is about preparing for the world in which we will live in the next century, and making sure that we are not found wanting"—
  or learning in, through or about our environment, our society and our economy, with the specific aim of leaving the planet as we would wish to find it, or better. I think that that is a fine definition, and it is one with which the Government entirely associate themselves. That thinking has informed all our consideration on the future of the national curriculum.
  As the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire said, the national curriculum is under review at present. The aims of the review are clear. They are: increased flexibility and reduced prescription in the curriculum, giving teachers more scope to use their professional discretion; a full and rounded entitlement to learning for all pupils; continued emphasis on literacy and numeracy; further opportunities for work-related learning in schools; and helping young people to develop a fuller understanding of their role and responsibilities as citizens in a modern democracy.
  In accordance with those aims, we have listened to the representations by the sustainable development education panel to raise the profile of sustainable development in the school curriculum, and that has informed our proposals for the national curriculum. Only today, I read the response to that consultation from the Council for Environmental Education. I shall take the opportunity to place on record what the council said about that approach. It said:
  "Education plays a significant part in the UK's Sustainable Development Strategy, and quality of life issues, including social exclusion, have a significant impact on the ability of schools to raise standards of achievement. The Council for Environmental Education is particularly pleased that this is reinforced within the Secretary of State's proposals … for the revised national curriculum in England. The Council for Environmental Education welcomes the
  1098
  Government's acknowledgment in recent policy documents and reports that education and sustainable development are interdependent."
  The council is right, and I very much appreciate its statement to the effect that we have risen to the challenge in the curriculum that we have proposed.
  I shall provide a number of examples, some of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned, of specific proposals in the national curriculum through which we have sought to take into account the issues of sustainability.
  First and foremost, the science curriculum teaches children that actions have consequences, and that some of those consequences are irreversible. That is one of the keys to understanding sustainable development. It is at the core of the science curriculum and runs through all the key stages. From five to 16, pupils must study a theme on living things in their environment which draws out those points.
  At key stage 3, for ages 11 to 14, the curriculum requires pupils to learn how living things and the environment can be protected in a way that is consistent with the demands of society, and to learn about the distinction between renewable and non-renewable resources—a key concept in the idea of sustainability. At key stage 4, for ages 14 to 16, pupils must be taught about the impact of human activity on the environment and its relation to social and economic factors, and about energy efficiency and the environmental implications of generating energy.
  Those are all important aspects of the science curriculum in the consultation in which we are currently engaged, and put sustainable development at the core of the education system.
  Mr. Luff: The Minister has rightly quoted from the response of the Council for Environmental Education. He has just dealt with science. It is worth putting on record that the CEE also states in its response:
  "Both single and double science are weak, particularly at key stage 1 and 2, and need further strengthening, particularly with reference to biodiversity and interdependence."
  I hope that that does not contradict what the Minister is saying but fleshes it out.
  Mr. Clarke: That does not contradict my comments at all. The consultation on the national curriculum in which we are engaged is a genuine consultation. We welcome not only the contribution of the hon. Gentleman this evening but the comments of a wide range of organisations, which will help to improve particular aspects of the national curriculum. I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want those remarks, valid as they are, to detract from the thrust of the CEE's view that, for the first time in history, the Government have taken seriously the challenge of putting sustainable development at the core of the national curriculum.
  That is true of the geography curriculum too, where environmental change and sustainable development are introduced at all key stages, including key stage 1 for ages five to seven. In geography, we highlight the importance of sustainable development through additional references to the use of resources and the effect on the environment. We make it an explicit requirement to explore the idea of sustainable development and how it relates to changes in places and environments, and to consider the implications of sustainable living.

  1099
  Similarly in design and technology, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, pupils must reflect on and evaluate ideas from a variety of perspectives, including use, production and marketing, and environmental, cultural and aesthetic considerations. Those ideas are at the core of a sustainable approach to design and technology. In planning, children are encouraged to consider moral, economic, social, cultural and environmental issues.
  I maintain that, for the first time in these subjects, we have a concept of sustainable development which is at the core of the curriculum that our children in every school in Britain will learn. That raises to a different plane from what has gone before the extent to which we are addressing and considering such issues.
  The major change is the introduction of a framework for personal, social and health education and citizenship. I should put it on record that unlike the rest of the curriculum, which is to be implemented from September 2000, these changes will come into effect from September 2002, should Parliament agree to the orders later this year.
  The two key frameworks for PSHE and citizenship provide ample and profound opportunities to consider sustainability issues through learning about the world as a global community, the rights and responsibilities of consumers, employers and employees, and the challenges of global interdependence and responsibility. Pupils will learn about what improves and what harms their local environment, different ways to look after it and the impact of economic choices on the environment.
  We are acknowledging in a way that has never been done before that our children are growing up in a world that is so interdependent and changing so rapidly in so many profound and different ways that they will be seriously disadvantaged if they cannot grasp, control and direct the future of the world. That means understanding it from the perspective of sustainability, as the hon. Gentleman highlighted in his speech.
  Those ideas—the relationship between the individual, the environment and society—are at the core of our ideas for PSHE and citizenship. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will support the statutory instruments when they are laid before the House later this year. There has been some dissent among Conservative Members. However, the far-seeing Conservative Members who served on the panel dealing with the statutory instruments are strongly in favour of the development. I am confident that the Opposition will support them when they come before the House. Having heard the hon. Gentleman's speech, I know that we shall be able to rely on his support.
  We can genuinely say that our proposal places sustainable development at the core of the national curriculum and the education of our children for our future. The consultation is genuine and, when it closes, we shall consider the precise considerations that are put forward, including those made by the hon. Gentleman this evening. In the light of those, we may make various small modifications to aspects of the curriculum. What will not change is our determination that sustainable development shall be at the heart of our national curriculum, because that is at the heart of the future of the whole of our population and that of the world.
  1100
  Other programmes complement the national curriculum and affect the way in which people operate in schools. For example, we seek to focus on travel to school—safe routes to school and all the issues around that, which ensure that children, from an early age, think how their own conduct in travelling to school can have an impact on the environment.
  We have signed up to the international global learning and observations to benefit the environment programme and implemented it in England. The programme links sustainable development to the state-of-the-art technology of satellite imaging and the internet, precisely to bring these issues graphically home.
  We have funded the Going For Green campaign, the Tidy Britain group and the eco-schools programme, and we are encouraging schools throughout the United Kingdom to improve the impact that they have on the local environment through activities involving children, teachers, governors and the local community.
  In September, I will be launching the green code for schools, a CD-ROM developed by Going for Green to communicate the Government's "Are You Doing Your Bit?" campaign to schools, which is imaginative and effective, has been put together in partnership with teachers and is designed to absorb and involve pupils directly in green issues. At the same time, I shall write to head teachers, to stress our aim to support the sustainable development content of the national curriculum through the green code programme.
  Earlier this year, I, with my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and Madam Speaker, participated in the Children's Parliament on the environment, a positive initiative which Madam Speaker strongly supported, and which allowed young children to put their views about sustainability on the agenda. I commend to the hon. Gentleman, if he has not yet seen it, the action plan that emerged from that, the Government's response and the Hansard of their debate and Select Committee produced by Her Majesty's Stationery Office—whose headquarters is in my constituency—which I shall place in the Library.
  Those debates show how passionate young children are about the world in which they are growing up, how keen they are to learn about how the environment, economy and society all link together in affecting our quality of life and the quality of life of people throughout the world, and how keen children are that the decisions that we make now mean that the world that they inherit as adults is in a fit state for them. They are also keen that they should have the skills and knowledge that they need to make decisions in all aspects of their lives that contribute to sustainable development.
  I conclude by reinforcing the Government's determination to place sustainable development at the core of the national curriculum because it is so important to the future. Yet again, I reaffirm our readiness to listen to helpful contributions such as those made by the hon. Gentleman. I also reaffirm that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating as the curriculum rolls out. We have a massive programme for developing resources to pay for high-quality teacher training and a much wider range of resource materials. That will help teachers to help schools address those issues in a positive and constructive way.

  1101
  We very much appreciate not only the contribution made by the sustainable development education panel but the work done by organisations such as the Council for Environmental Education and a large range of positive and committed organisations—for example, the World Wide Fund for Nature, which the hon. Gentleman mentioned—that are totally committed to turning these ideas into reality. I urge them not to sit back and leave
  1102
  the Government to do the work in the national curriculum, because the way in which it develops will depend on the commitment of all those people and organisations to making those ideas real. It has been a pleasure to respond to the debate and reassure the House of our commitment to those ambitions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at half-past Eleven o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Bicycle Allowance
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members have claimed a bicycle allowance since its introduction. [91271]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Four hon. Members have claimed the bicycle allowance since its introduction.

  Hon. Members' Cars
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council how many hon. Members' cars were registered as being within each engine size capacity for which records are held in(a) May 1998 and (b) May 1999. [91272]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The information requested is not held as at May 1998 and May 1999 and could be produced only at disproportionate cost by an extensive clerical exercise.

  The relevant details as at 31 March are available:

  Engine capacity

  March 1998

  March 1999

  Up to 1300cc

  109

  92

  1301cc to 2300cc

  519

  530

  2301cc and above

  324

  292

  Disabled Access
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Chairman of the Accommodation and Works Committee what plans there are further to improve disabled access to the Palace of Westminster. [91776]

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 9 March 1998,Official Report, column 37. If the hon. Member has a specific proposal for any further improvement, the Director of Works would be pleased to consider it.

TREASURY

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he had made of the effect of paying a benefit directly through the pay-packet as a tax credit on incentives and behaviour. [90146]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: No benefits are currently paid as tax credits. The Government have, however, already announced that the new Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons Tax Credit will be paid through the pay packet from April 2000. This will demonstrate the link between reward and work, encourage take-up, and improve work incentives.

  VAT
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to lay the Value Added Tax (Sport, Sports Competitions and Physical Education) Order 1999; and if he will make a statement. [92280]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government laid the Order today. It will come into effect on 1 January 2000 and stop VAT avoidance by profit-making sports clubs, by laying down conditions for exemption from VAT which any non-profit making club can satisfy.

  Royal Mint
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what are the performance targets for the Royal Mint for 1999–2000. [92281]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have set the Royal Mint the target of achieving a rate of return on average net assets of 14.6 per cent. for 1999–2000 which is an increase over the target of 14.3 per cent. set for 1998–99.

  The Royal Mint's other performance targets have also been tightened. The new targets are for:
  96 per cent. of accepted orders from UK banks and the Post Office for UK circulating coin to be delivered within 11 working days;
  95 per cent. of UK collector coin orders from individual UK customers to be delivered within 25 days;
  97 per cent. of medals orders to be delivered by the agreed delivery date;
  99.7 per cent. of collector products accepted by individual UK customers.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91892]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 116.

  Gold Sales
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's policy relating to gold sales; and if he will estimate the job losses there(a) have been and (b) will be in third world countries which produce gold, with particular reference to South Africa. [91879]

  Ms Hewitt
  As they will be spread out over a number of years, UK gold sales will be modest in the context of the world gold market. The 125 tonnes to be sold this year amounts to around 5 per cent. of estimated annual mining supply and less than a tenth of 1 per cent. of IMF estimates of above ground stocks of gold. Sales on this scale are unlikely to have a significant sustained impact on the price of gold.

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the cost of reducing NI contributions by 0.5 per cent. [91648]
  457
  Dawn Primarolo
  Reducing the National Insurance Contributions rates for employees, the self-employed and employers by 0.5 per cent. would cost about £2.9 billion in 2000–01.

  Data Series
  Jackie Ballard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what new data series separated by gender, race, disability and age have been commissioned by his Department since June 1997. [90826]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Treasury has not commissioned any new internal data series separated by gender, race, disability and age since June 1997. However, the Department has long-established procedures for routinely monitoring staff in post numbers and the outcome of recruitment, promotion and appraisal exercises by gender and race. In addition, an Equality Audit of the posting, appraisal and promotion procedures, by gender and race, will be undertaken later this year.

  HM Customs and Excise has not carried out any national internal surveys, but several surveys have been carried out locally. Customs is also considering carrying out a national survey in the near future.

  The Inland Revenue has not completed a full Departmental internal staff survey separated by gender, race, disability and age since June 1997. However, a full Departmental survey is currently being issued to everyone in the Department. The survey will concentrate on human resource issues such as training and development, motivation, equality and impressions of the Revenue as an employer. Survey respondents are invited to state their sex, ethnicity, if they have a disability as defined by the Disability Discrimination Act, their age and if they work part-time or full-time. Key results of the survey will be made available to everyone in the Department.

  A disability survey will be taken forward later this year. As part of the survey everyone in the Department will be asked to state if they have any disabilities and the nature of those disabilities.

  The Revenue routinely monitors issues such as performance management results and staff in posts by band (grade) separated by gender, race, disability, part-time and full-time and since 1998, by age. The Revenue is in the process of monitoring vacancy filling by gender, race, disability, part-time and full-time and age.

  National Savings monitors its external recruitment to ensure there are no biases, but has carried out no internal surveys since June 1997 on gender, race, disability or age.

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) routinely collects information from all applicants for jobs on gender, race and disability. Information about age is collected from those who take up posts. Internally it publishes annual information about performance marks by gender, ethnic origin and disability.

  In June of this year, all ONS staff were asked to complete a questionnaire about disability. The results of this are being analysed at present. At the same time, staff who had not previously declared their ethnic origin were asked to do so.

  District Banks
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has had from (i) consumer organisations and (ii) organisations representing(a) the elderly, (b) the disabled and (c) the visually impaired, regarding the closure and automation of district banks in (1) rural and (2) urban communities; and what responses he has made. [91695]

  Ms Hewitt
  Representations have been received from a number of organisations concerned about consumer interests. The Treasury's Policy Action Team's Report on "Access to Financial Service" is likely to be published in the autumn.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Grants
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for what reasons the software to carry out financial assessments for student grant applications has not been supplied to local education authorities to date. [92090]

  Mr. Mudie
  The three software companies used by most local education authorities have released the final version of their software to those LEAs. Those authorities are now finalising financial assessments for students who applied by the established deadlines so that they will receive cheques at the start of their courses. The remaining LEAs have their own in-house software provision or manual systems.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what guidance his Department has issued to students who do not receive their grant by the first day of term. [92089]

  Mr. Mudie
  None. We expect all students who have applied to the required timetable to receive cheques on the first day of their course, and are making plans to ensure that even very late applicants receive a payment upon arrival at their universities and colleges.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment under what circumstances students are entitled to apply for compensation in relation to delays in the processing of their applications for a grant. [92093]

  Mr. Mudie
  There are arrangements for students to make complaints if they are not satisfied with the processing of their applications for student support. However, we expect all students who have applied to the required timetable to receive cheques on the first day of their course, and are making plans to ensure that late applicants also receive a payment upon arrival at their universities and colleges.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local education authorities are expected to complete assessments for student grants using the new systems, in accordance with his Department's timetable. [92091]
  459
  Mr. Mudie
  We expect that all local education authorities will complete processing applications from students who submitted their forms by the required timetable, and that cheques will be issued to those students at the start of their courses.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the number of local education authorities which will have completed the processing of applications for student grants before the start of the university term. [92092]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department is monitoring closely the progress being made by local education authorities. We expect that they will all complete processing applications from students who submitted their forms by the required timetable, and that cheques will be issued to those students at the start of their courses.

  Holocaust Remembrance Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in the proposed Government committee on Holocaust Remembrance Day. [92160]

  Mr. Mudie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department on 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 400.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, indicating when they were disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c)(ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [90678]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: Of the non-departmental public bodies (NDPBs) in existence on 1 May 1997:

  (a) the NDPB that has been simply disbanded is the Supported Employment Consultative Group, in June 1998 as intended. The Centre for Information on Language Teaching and Research continues in operation but, following constitutional change, has been de-classified as an NDPB;

  (b) the Funding Agency for Schools has ceased funding activities, and will be disbanded in the autumn of this year;

  (c)(i) the functions of the disbanded National Advisory Council for the Employment of People with Disabilities have been transferred to the National Disability Council. The National Council for Vocational Qualifications and the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority have been merged to
  460
  form the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority. The Race Relations Employment Advisory Group has been disbanded and replaced by the Race Relations Education and Employment Forum;

  (c)(ii) no functions have been transferred to a democratically elected body;

  (d) the Education Assets Board has been renamed as the Education Transfer Council and the National Council for Educational Technology has been renamed as the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency;

  (e) unchanged NDPBs not mentioned above are the Construction Industry Training Board, the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board, the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Further Education Funding Council, the Higher Education Funding Council for England, Investors in People UK, Remploy Ltd., Student Loans Company, Teacher Training Agency, Registered Inspectors Appeals Tribunal, Special Educational Needs Tribunal, School Teachers Review Body now classified under this Department.

  New NDPB established since 1 may 1997 are; the Disability Rights Task Force, New Deal Task Force, Skills Task Force.

  The Department is responsible for 21 NDPBs.

  The Government are committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to a minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective. Many of the NDPBs established since 1 May are essential in helping the Government deliver their Manifesto commitments.

  Class Sizes
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many children aged five to seven years in(a) Bath and North-East Somerset and (b) South Gloucestershire were in classes of 30 or fewer in each year from 1992 to date. [91155]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the table.

  The Government have pledged to reduce infant class sizes so that no 5, 6 or 7-year-old is in an infant class of more than 30 pupils. The number of infants in classes larger than 30 has already been reduced by some 130,000 between January 1998 and January 1999.

  Numbers of pupils in key stage 1 classes of 30 pupils or less taught by one teacher in maintained primary schools in Bath and North East Somerset and South Gloucestershire local education authority areas: January 1996–99 (provisional)

  Bath and North East Somerset classes of size

  South Gloucestershire classes of size

  1–30

  all

  1–30

  all

  1996

  3,689

  4,789

  5,460

  8,821

  1997

  4,025

  4,977

  5,279

  9,031

  1998

  4,118

  5,329

  5,931

  9,322

  19991

  4,163

  5,182

  8,050

  9,452

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Experimental Science Teaching
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what discussions he has had with the Minister for Science on the experimental
  461
  teaching of (a) biology, (b) chemistry, (c) physics, (d) environmental sciences and (e) other sciences in the past two years. [91280]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend and the Minister for Science meet from time to time to discuss a variety of issues of mutual interest.

  Drive For Youth Programme
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment which departments funded the Drive For Youth programme in the past four years; what were the reasons for this investment; what amount of public funds was allocated to this in each year; and if he will make a statement. [90300]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 8 July 1999]: Drive For Youth is a registered charity. Government funding is through payment for services provided through contracts for the delivery of training courses for New Deal and other clients by the Employment Service, TECs, LECs and other bodies. Many of these contracts are concluded at local level, and information is not held centrally, so full details could be ascertained only at disproportionate cost.

  School year

  Board area

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Belfast

  Nursery school/units

  2,637

  2,689

  2,767

  Reception places

  92

  92

  92

  Funded places in voluntary and private pre-school education centres

  267

  465

  622

  North Eastern

  Nursery school/units

  1,813

  2,307

  2,879

  Reception places

  389

  389

  389

  Funded places in voluntary and private pre-school education centres

  421

  720

  908

  South Eastern

  Nursery school/units

  1,678

  2,172

  2,536

  Reception places

  475

  475

  475

  Funded places in voluntary and private pre-school education centres

  291

  443

  747

  Southern

  Nursery school/units

  1,720

  2,136

  2,630

  Reception places

  946

  946

  946

  Funded places in voluntary and private pre-school education centres

  378

  400

  543

  Western

  Nursery school/units

  1,446

  1,992

  2,512

  Reception places

  619

  619

  619

  Funded places in voluntary and private pre-school education centres

  514

  629

  647

  Total

  13,686

  16,474

  19,312

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many kilometres have been travelled on her Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets her Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by her Department's employees; and if she will make a statement. [91028]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: The information on business travel is not collected in the form

  National Childcare Strategy
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list by LEA the number of additional out-of-school child care places created under the National Childcare Strategy. [88187]

  Ms Hodge
  Details of new child care places created under the National Childcare Strategy in 1998–99 are set out in tables, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Pre-school Provision
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make a statement setting out for each education and library board, the numbers of children in September 1998 and 1999 and the projected numbers for September 2000, placed in(a) nursery schools and units and (b) in other pre-school provision. [90737]

  Mr. McFall
  The numbers of children in free pre-school education provision in the 1998–99 school year and projected numbers for the 1999–2000 and 2000–01 school years are set out in the table. All figures for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 are estimates.

  requested and therefore cannot be provided. As published in the Integrated Transport White Paper in July 1998, the Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings and main buildings occupied by Executive Agencies should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  Northern Ireland Departments are working to complete plans covering all headquarters and main buildings and they are developing plans for all other key buildings in line with the targets set out in the White Paper, and consideration is being given to measures to reduce single-occupancy car use by employees.

  Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she expects to receive the fifth report of the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside; and if she will make a statement. [91254]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I expect to receive the fifth report from the Council for Nature Conservation and the Countryside before the end of 1999.

  Paramilitary Violence
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 the number of crimes attributed to paramilitary organisations committed in Northern Ireland. [91435]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: Statistics for crimes attributed to paramilitary organisations are collated under the headings in the following tables which show the number of incidents recorded as being of paramilitary style during the years (a)(b) 1998 and (c) 1999 to 15 July 1999.

  Crimes attributed to paramilitary organizations

  Deaths

  Shootings

  Bombings

  1997

  22

  225

  78

  1998

  55

  211

  127

  1999 (to 15 July)

  6

  74

  54

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks

  Shootings

  Assaults

  1997

  72

  156

  1998

  72

  144

  1999 (to 15 July)

  46

  89

  Notes:

  1. Figures may be subject to minor amendment.

  2. Figures cannot be attributed to specific paramilitary groupings.

  3. The above may not be exhaustive as there may be some offences, e.g. armed robbery, which may be linked to paramilitary groups but they have been recorded under the category of offence and it is not possible to be more specific.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list for(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999 the number of (i) punishment beatings and (ii) punishment shootings which took place in Northern Ireland, indicating how many in each category were committed by (1) Loyalist and (2) Republican groups. [91436]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: The table shows the number of casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks over the last three years.

  Casualties as a result of paramilitary style attacks

  Shootings

  Assaults

  Year

  Loyalist

  Republican

  Loyalist

  Republican

  1997

  46

  26

  78

  78

  1998

  34

  38

  89

  55

  19991

  25

  21

  56

  33

  1 Up to-incl. 11 July

  Note:

  1999 figures are provisional

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many individuals her Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91897]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As at 30 June 1999 the information on the Northern Ireland Civil Service (including its Agencies) participating as employers in the New Deal is as follows:

  Northern Ireland Civil Service

  New Deal 'starts' since programme began

  Number

  Age 18–24

  21

  25 and over

  12

  Total

  33

  I would also refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 25 May 1999, Official Report, column 116.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many kilometres have been travelled on his Department's business in each of the last three years broken down by(a) foot, (b) bike, (c) bus, (d) train, (e) tram, (f) light-rail, (g) plane, (h) motorbike, (i) car, (j) taxi, (k) river-taxi and (l) other modes of transport; what plans and targets his Department has to reduce the kilometres travelled by private transport by his Department's employees; and if he will make a statement. [91019]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: The information on business travel is not collected in the form requested and therefore cannot be provided. As published in the Integrated Transport White Paper in July 1998, the Government have set a target that all Government Department headquarters buildings occupied by Executive Agencies and Government Offices for the Regions should have green transport plans by March 1999 and all other key buildings by March 2000.

  We have completed a green transport plan covering all our headquarters and main buildings. Being located in central London, this Department is already well placed for staff commuting, with virtually all staff using public transport. Proposals therefore concentrate on discouraging business travel by private car by reviewing mileage rates, encouraging cycling, converting official vehicles to use cleaner fuels and reducing deliveries.

  Lilleshall National Sports Centre
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what investment is planned in Lilleshall National Sports Centre to improve standards among British sports people. [91508]
  465
  Mr. Banks
  Lilleshall National Sports Centre will be the part of the UK Sports Institute Network Centre serving the West Midlands. The Centre has a wide range of a sports specific and generic training facilities which include up to date gymnastics training facilities, natural and artificial turf pitches and indoor training halls.

  The key services of sports science and medicine will be co-ordinated by the Lilleshall Sports Injury and Human Performance Centre, supported by Staffordshire and Worcester Institutes of Higher Education; Birmingham University will play a crucial role in both service and facility provision. A network of Sports Medicine practitioners will be established to provide primary care services and formal links will be established with hospitals to provide essential secondary and tertiary care for athletes.

  Other sites will be incorporated into the regional network to complement the services available at Lilleshall and extend the range of sports available in the region.

  The sports expected to be included within the West Midlands Network are:

  archery

  athletics

  cricket

  football

  golf

  gymnastics

  hockey

  netball

  squash

  equestrian.

  Around 200 elite, international and national athletes currently living in the west midlands will be able to use the services available.

  Press Officer
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish the criteria applied to the recruitment of his Department's new press officer; how many applicants there were for this post; how many were shortlisted; how this post was advertised; who was on the selection panel; and what salary this post carries. [91948]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: In selecting the Head of News for my Department in summer 1998 the following criteria were used: people management, resource management, ability to inspire confidence, ability to communicate with impact, ability to add value to decisions, and knowledge of the system. Thirty two candidates applied of which seven were shortlisted for interview, and five were actually interviewed. The post was advertised in The Guardian.

  The selection panel comprised two members of the Management Board of the Department, a senior representative of the Government Information and Communication Service and a Civil Service Commissioner.

  The post carries a salary in the range of £36,517 to £56,198.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  MOD Police
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints have been received by the Police Complaints Authority against the Ministry of Defence Police in each year since they were granted statutory constabulary powers. [92165]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand from the Police Complaints Authority that the number of complaints dealt with in respect of the Ministry of Defence Police since 1987 when they were granted statutory constabulary powers is as set out in the table:

  Year

  Number of complaints

  1987

  22

  1988

  93

  1989

  86

  1990

  225

  1991

  143

  1992

  75

  1993

  46

  1994–951

  58

  1995–96

  75

  1996–97

  44

  1997–98

  53

  1998–99

  47

  1 Statistics have been kept on a financial year basis from 1994

  Criminal Records Agency
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his planned timetable for the establishment of the Criminal Records Agency. [91988]

  Mr. Boateng
  I am reviewing the timetable for the implementation of the Criminal Records Bureau and will inform the House of the results when it returns after the recess.

  UK Passport Agency
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment was made of the required level of staff which would be needed following introduction of the new information technology systems by the UK Passport Agency; if he will publish a summary of the Agency's report on staffing requirements; and if he will make a statement. [90686]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have placed a summary of the business case for Private Sector Involvement in the Issue of the British Passport, produced by the UK Passport Agency in July 1997, in the Library. Paragraph 49 gives an estimate of Agency staffing levels under the chosen option as 930 permanent staff equivalents. This was based on demand estimated at an average 4 million services a year across the 10 year period of the contracts.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the forecast number of passport applications to be made in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999; what was the actual number of applications in 1998; what is the current estimate of the number of applications for 1999; and if he will make a statement. [90591]
  467
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK Passport Agency forecasts the number of passport applications on the basis of financial years. The forecasts published in the Agency's 1998–2001 Corporate Plan were 4.5 million in 1998–99 and 5.0 million in 1999–2000.

  During the year, the Agency revised its 1998–99 forecasts upwards from 4.5 million to 4.9 million to allow for a greater take up of children's passports than its statistical model forecast. In the event, the actual intake for 1998–99 was 4.8 million.

  The Agency continues to analyse the impact on its forecast for 1999–2000 of its recent operational problems and the measures implemented as a result.

  On available information, the Agency's latest forecast for 1999–2000 is for 5.2 million applications which again makes greater allowance for the effect of the child policy against the modelled 5.0 million.

  Young Offenders Institution Feltham
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions he and other Ministers in his Department have met the governor and senior management responsible for Her Majesty's Young Offenders Institution Feltham since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [90580]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Ministers have visited Feltham Young Offender Institution on three occasions since May 1997 when they would have met the governor and staff. I visited Feltham in July 1997 and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary visited on 13 February 1998. My hon. Friend, the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), in his capacity as Minister of State, Home Office, visited Feltham on 6 April 1998.

  In addition, I met the governor on 26 May 1999 and the Minister for prisons and probation, Lord Williams, met the governor on 23 June 1999. Lord Williams has had meetings with the area manager on six occasions since February and the Home Secretary has met the area manager twice. Central records of attendance at office meetings are not available prior to this year.

  These meetings were in addition to the regular meetings my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for prisons, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams and until July 1998, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), held with the Director General.

  Wormwood Scrubs
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions he and other Ministers in his Department have met the governor and senior management responsible for HMP Wormwood Scrubs since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [90579]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Since May 1997, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), the then Minister for prisons and probation, visited Wormwood Scrubs prison at night on 13 July 1998 when she would have met the governor and staff.
  468
  The current Minister for prisons and probation, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams, has met the governor on two occasions on 14 April and 22 June 1999. My right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams, has also had meetings with the area manager on six occasions since February and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met the area manager twice. Central records of attendance at office meetings are not available prior to this year.

  These meetings were in addition to the regular meetings my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Minister with responsibility for prisons, my right hon. and noble Friend Lord Williams and until July 1998, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West, held with the Director General.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the actions his Department has taken in respect of each of the recommendations made by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on Her Majesty's Prison Wormwood Scrubs in March 1997. [90970]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I have arranged for a copy of the action plan drawn up in response to the Chief Inspector of Prison's recommendations, contained in his 1996 inspection report, to be placed in the Library.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Somalia
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she intends to take to improve the situation in Somalia with regard to(a) food, (b) seeds and (c) health assistance. [91296]

  Clare Short
  To date, we have committed £590,000 to emergency needs, including support for UNICEF's supplementary feeding programmes in the Bardera region; Action Contre le Faim's (ACF) emergency nutritional intervention in the Gedo and Bakool regions; and World Vision's primary health care project in Juba. We are currently considering providing support for the African Medical and Research Foundation to improve the health of internally displaced people in Luuq Town, South West Somalia, which will complement ACF's activities. In addition, the EC have provided 10,899 metric tonnes of food.

  We are closely monitoring the situation and will continue to respond to needs as they arise.

  Water
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects supported by her Department for the provision of potable water. [91722]

  Clare Short
  The White Paper on International Development makes clear that fresh water resources are essential for sustaining life, development and the environment. Access to potable water, sanitation and hygiene education is vital to poor people's health and well-being. We ensure that our support for the provision of potable water is integrated with improved sanitation and hygiene education. With the increasing
  469
  demands on limited fresh water resources, we are also working to ensure that water resources are managed in an integrated and sustainable way.

  We are increasing commitments on water supply and sanitation projects. In all, we funded approximately 175 projects in 1998–99. Expenditure was £11 million on rural water supply and sanitation and £16 million on urban water supply and sanitation. In total, we spent £45 million in the water sector, including water resources management. Of this 52 per cent. was in Africa (notably, Ghana, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Kenya, Lesotho, Uganda and Tanzania); 39 per cent. in Asia (India, Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan, China) and the remaining 9 per cent. was spread between South America, Middle East and Eastern Europe.

  Small Grants Budget
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the small grants budget; and if she will make a statement. [91713]

  Clare Short
  The overall objectives set out in the Government's White Paper on International Development apply to the Small Grants Scheme which finances projects generally costing a few thousand pounds. Reports are considered on a country by country basis each year, and compliance with administrative and financial requirements is monitored by my Internal Audit Department.

  Sudan
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures she is taking to support the work of the World Food Programme in the Sudan. [92153]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The British Government committed £14.1 million through the World Food Programme (WFP) last year. This year, the situation is much improved. We have made available £5 million and have asked the UN Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), who are co-ordinating the UN system's humanitarian response in Sudan, to let us have their priorities, including those of WFP, for the use of this money.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimate the Commonwealth Development Corporation has made of the number of employees at(a) the (i) Abosso gold and (ii) Satellite gold fields in Ghana and (b) the East Africa gold mines in Tanzania. [92151]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Abosso gold and satellite gold fields in Ghana have, respectively, around 400 and 330 employees. The East Africa gold mines in Tanzania, where work is still in the exploration stage, has about 40 employees.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the current portfolio of Commonwealth Development Corporation investments together with the estimates of their current value and annual income. [92149]
  470
  Mr. Foulkes
  The Commonwealth Development Corporation's (CDC) Report and Accounts for 1998 list all the enterprises in which CDC had debt or equity investments at 31 December 1998.

  Information on the value and annual income of individual investments is commercially sensitive. In total, the cost of CDC's investments before provisions, as published in the Report and Accounts for 1998, was £1,520.6 million. Provisions of £319.2 million bring the net portfolio at cost less provision down to £1,201.4 million. These figures take no accounts of surpluses in value over cost on any of CDC's equity investments as CDC's accounts are based on the historic cost convention. However, as part of the process of moving towards valuation accounting, CDC valued its equity portfolio as at 31 December 1998 in accordance with the British Venture Capital Association guidelines and this showed an unrealised surplus in valuation of £99 million.

  The group revenue account confirmed portfolio loan investment income of £105.0 million and portfolio equity investment income of £31.5 million, giving an annual investment income for 1998 at £136.5 million.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the firms which have provided advice to her Department on the Commonwealth Development Corporation and the public-private partnership process together with the fees paid to those advisers to date. [92150]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We have received advice on preparation of the Commonwealth Development Corporation (CDC) public private partnership from Credit Suisse First Boston (and before their merger, BZW) Allen and Overy, and PricewaterhouseCoopers. Information on fees paid to individual companies while work is in progress is commercially sensitive. In total, costs to the Department for financial and legal advice in preparation of the CDC public private partnership (including costs of advice from the Treasury Solicitors Department) totalled £1.6 million as at 30 June 1999.

  Bangladesh
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to provide(a) loans and (b) other assistance to help (i) electrification and (ii) other projects in Bangladesh; what matters she discussed with the Bangladesh Prime Minister during his recent visit; and if she will make a statement. [91760]

  Clare Short
  Our development assistance for Bangladesh is provided on grant terms. We have given considerable support in the past to the Dhaka Electricity Supply Authority; however, we have no plans to make further investment until the high level of system losses has been tackled. Technical assistance has been offered on this issue. A new project has recently been agreed which aims to facilitate public/private partnerships. This will help in the power sector among others. This technical assistance will be geared primarily towards the establishment of appropriate legal and regulatory frameworks and the development, marketing and tendering of projects suitable for private sector participation.
  471
  We have a substantial development programme in Bangladesh, spending more than £65 million in 1998–99 on development projects, and on relief and rehabilitation activities following the floods of 1998. The programme has a strong emphasis on poverty reduction, in particular on primary health and education services, and help for sustainable livelihoods for the poor. Discussion with the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina, focused on how to assist her Government's plans to improve public service management and target the needs of the poor.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Indonesia
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many export licences have been(a) requested, (b) granted and (c) revoked for arms to Indonesia since May 1997; and how many Hawk Fighter bombers were covered by these licences. [91215]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: Further to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) on 2 July 1999, Official Report, columns 313–14, concerning licences issued between 2 May 1997 and 18 June 1999 for the export of military equipment to Indonesia; none of these licences covered the export of Hawk aircraft.

  Open Individual Export Licences (OIELs) routinely cover exports to a number of countries. Any country initially specified on an OIEL application but not included as a permitted destination on the licence is not recorded on the Export Control Organisation's computer databases. Accordingly, the number of applications for OIELs covering exports to any particular country could be established only by manual examination of the paper records of all of the applications made in the period, which would entail disproportionate cost.

  Between 2 May 1997 and 18 June 1999, 114 applications were received for Standard Individual Export Licences (SIELs) covering the export to consignees or end-users in Indonesia of goods subject to export control by being listed in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Export of Goods (Control) Order 1994, the so-called Military List. None of these applications covered Hawk aircraft. In the same period, no Standard or Open Individual Export Licences covering such exports were revoked.

  Milk Marque
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what factors underlay the time taken to publish the report of the Competition Commission on Milk Marque. [91312]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State explained the position to the House. He said:"It was not an easy decision, as it is not usual to disagree with a clear recommendation from the MMC. It is one reason why the report took longer to publish than I would have liked; I understand the concerns expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members this afternoon and by the farming community, particularly the dairy farmers, about the delay in its publication. I wanted to publish the report as soon as possible and I have done that. I would have liked it to be sooner, but I wanted to make sure
  472
  when it was published and I had put on record my decision that all avenues had been properly investigated."—[Official Report, 7 July 1999, column 1091.

  Tidal Energy
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the size of community which would be served by a 100 MW tidal energy power plant. [91647]

  Mr. Battle
  A 100 MW tidal energy barrage might be expected to produce electricity equivalent to the annual consumption of 40,000 to 50,000 domestic customers assuming a capacity factor for the plant in the range 0.2 to 0.3 and average sales of 4,300 kWh/yr to domestic customers. While feasibility studies for such plants have been conducted in the UK no project is known to be in early prospect.

  Edmonton Incinerator
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) of 12 July 1999,Official Report, column 43, on the Edmonton incinerator, when he expects to announce his decision; and if he will make a statement. [91785]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is still awaiting the formal views of the London Borough of Enfield, the relevant planning authority. Until the views of the relevant planning authority are known it is too early to say when a decision on the application will be taken.

  BP Alaskan Pipeline
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to BP concerning the safety and maintenance of the Alaskan pipeline; and if he will make a statement. [91423]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 July 1999]: There have been no representations made; the safety and maintenance of the Alaskan pipeline are matters for the State Government and relevant local authorities of Alaska to pursue directly with BP. As a matter of general policy, the UK Government would always encourage conformity to the highest standards.

  Textphones
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer of 12 July 1999,Official Report, column 42, concerning public textphones, for what reasons BT' s plans have been superseded; and how many public textphones he estimates will be in service in 2000. [91946]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: BT' s plans for public textphone provision are a matter for the company and for Oftel. I understand, however, that usage of the existing public textphones has been disappointingly low.

  It would be premature at this stage to estimate actual provision in 2000, which may be affected by a number of factors including use of existing public textphones, and any new measures which the Government decide to introduce.

  BNFL
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the stockbrokers consulted by KPMG as part of their work preparing the report into the Public Private Partnership Options for BNFL. [92059]

  Mr. Battle
  In carrying out their work, KPMG relied on views expressed in confidence by four leading stockbrokers in the belief that those views would remain private to Government. It would be a breach of that confidence to identify them now.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will publish in full the KPMG report into the Public Private Partnership Options for BNFL. [92056]

  Mr. Battle
  A summary of KPMG's report containing all its key points has been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The full report constitutes advice to Ministers and contains commercially sensitive information, so it will not be published.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the reasons for selling a minority stake in BNFL, rather than a majority stake. [92057]

  Mr. Battle
  The Atomic Energy Act 1971, which set up BNFL, provides for the sale of up to 49 per cent. of the business. This would enable a Public Private Partnership to be introduced into the company, thereby bringing private sector skills and capital to bear on its commercial decisions.

  Bribery Convention
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans Her Majesty's Government have to inform United Kingdom companies of the OECD Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions. [92122]

  Mr. Wilson
  Negotiation of the OECD Convention was concluded during December 1997. Since then, officials have been informing UK companies of its scope. The scope of the Convention was accommodated within existing UK legislation. Therefore, there are no new obligations for UK companies.

  Shipbuilding (Credit)
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what changes he proposes to make to the Home Shipbuilding Credit Guarantee Scheme. [92465]

  Mr. Byers
  I am pleased to announce today some significant improvements in Government supported shipbuilding finance under the Home Shipbuilding Credit Guarantee Scheme.

  I am delighted to say that these improvements are one of the early outcomes of the Shipbuilding Forum, which I established last summer, to bring together all the major Industry, union and Government representatives to examine ways of improving the competitiveness of the shipbuilding sector. The Government are actively contributing to these outcomes. I believe that these
  474
  improvements, recommended by the Shipbuilding Forum, will put the UK Scheme on a par with the best finance schemes among our EU competitors.

  The Scheme, which currently offers soft credit financing support in pounds sterling and at fixed interest rates to help UK yards win new shipbuilding orders, will now be extended to offer support for loans in US dollars and euros and to provide DTI guarantees in support of loans at floating as well as fixed rates. It is moreover our aim that the Scheme should be more flexible in its operation and to this end loans under the Scheme will be considered in a combination of the permitted currencies. The Scheme will also guarantee loans for periods up to 12 years (previously eight and half years) for mobile offshore installations, including floating production storage and offloading vessels.

  Floating rate loans will be of particular assistance as it allows shipowners to take advantage of the current low interest rates and make the Scheme more competitive and attractive to all.

  Loans in US dollars recognises that shipbuilding is an international business and that the US dollar is the most widely used currency for financing the building of ships. It will bring our UK Scheme in line with other similar EU competitor schemes which already offer loans in US dollars as will the extension to loans in euros.

  I am certain that these new financing arrangements, which the Industry have called for, will help strengthen the hand of the UK shipbuilding sector. The Government will continue to give the Industry every encouragement to improve its competitiveness and I look forward to working with the Shipbuilding Forum to ensure that we continue to achieve this aim.

DEFENCE

  Military Personnel (Cyprus)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many British military personnel stationed in Cyprus have been charged with drug offences in each of the last three years. [90821]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  No British military personnel stationed in Cyprus have been charged with drug-related offences during the last three years. However, seven Service personnel were administratively discharged in 1997, having failed a compulsory Drug Test (CDT). Since then there have been no CDT failures. Nearly 6,000 people have been tested over the three year period.

  Chemical Weapons Convention
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 30 June 1999,Official Report, column 157, on the Chemical Weapons Convention, under what circumstances depleted uranium may be defined as a chemical weapon for the purposes of the Chemical Weapons Convention. [91763]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The use of depleted uranium ammunition is not prohibited under any international agreement, including the Geneva Convention, and there are no circumstances under which such ammunition may be defined as a chemical weapon. Article II of the
  475
  Chemical Weapons Convention includes definition of chemical weapons as munitions and devices specifically designed to cause death or other harm through the toxic properties of the chemicals specified. Depleted uranium ammunition is designed to penetrate Main Battle Tank armour, or when used in the Royal Navy's Vulcan Phalanx close-in-weapons-system to penetrate incoming missiles, and so is not defined as a chemical weapon.

  Trident
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on preparation for the refurbishment that will be required for Trident early in the next decade. [91565]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Work to provide upgraded refitting and refuelling facilities at Devonport for Trident submarines is progressing to plan in preparation for the first refit early next century.

  Suez Medals
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what account he took, in reaching decisions about Suez Canal Zone medals, of Cabinet minute CAB 128 (1951) in the Public Record Office for 29 November 1951. [92041]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Minute in question had no bearing on my decision on the claim for a campaign award for operations in the Canal Zone of Egypt in the period 1951–54. It relates solely to the implications of a declaration of Active Service for the control of civilian labour. The matter of Active Service is not the deciding factor as to whether or not any such campaign award is made.

  Nuclear Weapons (Space)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what steps he has taken to discourage the deployment of nuclear armaments in space. [91693]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The deployment of nuclear armaments in space is prohibited by the 1967 Outer Space Treaty. All the Nuclear Weapon States, and the four states yet to accede to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as non-nuclear-weapon status, Cuba, India, Israel, Pakistan, are members of the Outer Space Treaty.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will publish a list of all those official documents of the last Administration which have been seen by(a) him, (b) other Ministers in his Department, (c) special advisers in his Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in his Department. [92184]

  The Attorney-General
  A large number of official documents were generated during the period of the previous Administration, many of which were published or put in the public domain. Since May 1997, the Law Officers Departments have been guided by the convention governing access to the papers of a previous 476
  Administration, as set out in the then Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980, Official Report, columns 305–07.

  Documents recording the advice given by the Law Officers (the Attorney-General and Solicitor General) are, by convention, made available to the Law Officers and other Ministers of succeeding Administrations in the interest of continuity of legal advice. By convention, the content of Law Officers' advice and the fact that it has been sought is not disclosed outside government. These conventions are referred to in Paragraphs 22 and 24 of Ministerial Code (published by the Cabinet Office in July 1997).

HEALTH

  Multiple Sclerosis
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to issue a new health service circular in respect of multiple sclerosis. [89850]

  Mr. Denham
  In April we sent advance copies of a draft health service circular on beta-interferon to the MS Society and drug manufacturers. The draft circular was withdrawn as soon as it became clear that the circular had not been interpreted as we had intended. We plan to consult the MS Society, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical profession and health authorities on a revised draft circular. The revised draft circular will make it clear that it relates to the use of beta-interferon for secondary progressive multiple sclerosis, and that existing guidance on the use of beta-interferon for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis [EL(95)97] continues to apply.

  Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 7 July 1999,Official Report, column 566, how many students the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service placed onto courses in (a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99. [90964]

  Mr. Denham
  The Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service does not place students onto courses. It provides a centralised service processing all applications from individuals seeking entry to pre-registration nursing and midwifery diploma programmes. Applications that meet the entry requirements are passed to higher education institutions. Each institution decides whether or not to accept students in accordance with their own recruitment processes.

  Each applicant can submit up to and including four applications for different higher education institutions. The number of applicants/applications that the Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service passed to higher education institutions is shown in the table.

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Applicants

  18,296

  31,577

  Applications

  45,414

  85,535

  Source:

  The Nursing and Midwifery Admissions Service

  Dentistry
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to ensure that dental students on qualification are offered incentives to set up practices in areas of greatest dental need. [90779]

  Mr. Denham
  Dental graduates who wish to become principals in general dental practice have to undergo a period of vocational training comprising placement at an approved practice and attendance at a locally organised training course. The Committee on Vocational Training collaborates with health authorities on the organisation and funding of the courses and seeks to ensure that they are accessible from most parts of the country. We will explore with the Committee whether greater priority should be given to areas with shortages of NHS dentists.

  Incontinence Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), 20 May 1999,Official Report, column 427, concerning continence services, what assessment he has made of the extent of compliance with guidance HSG (92) 50 and HSG (95) 8. [91947]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: Since Health Service Guidance (95)8 was issued in February 1995 National Health Service Executive Regional Offices have regularly monitored the implementation of local policies and eligibility criteria for continuing care. The most recent progress report was issued in 1997 (Executive Letter (97/62/CI97(24)). This report suggested that there should be three main areas where health and local authorities should target activity—the development of joint investment plans, the development of recuperation and rehabilitation services and multi-disciplinary assessment.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the level of expenditure by the NHS on incontinence services in each of the last five years. [91944]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: Information on continence services is not collected centrally and no such estimates have been made. Local health authorities are responsible for commissioning continence services to meet the needs of their local population. The National Health Service Executive is reviewing continence service policy and plans to issue updated guidance shortly.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to issue updated guidance on continence services. [91945]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: Updated guidance is being developed in the light of the current review of continence policy services. We hope to issue this shortly.

  Beta-interferon
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the clinical guidelines on the use of beta-interferon recently published by the Association of British Neurologists. [91851]
  478
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: The Association of British Neurologists (ABN) acknowledge the evidence that the efficacy of beta-interferon is only partial, moderate and not curative, and that their guidelines do not address issues of cost effectiveness.

  The Department is likely to ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) for advice on the place of beta-interferon among the range of interventions and services available for multiple sclerosis sufferers. NICE would be expected to look at all relevant sources of evidence, which would naturally include the ABN guidelines.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Lake District Traffic
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he is taking to reduce traffic in the Lake District. [90375]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government are funding the Lake District transport package to promote the use of public transport. Cumbria County Council was allocated £957.384 for 1998–99 in Rural Bus Services Grant. It has also been allocated the same amount for 1999–2000. It is important for the local economy that sustainable tourism is encouraged. The Government believe that integrated transport, with attractive public transport options, is the key to managing unacceptable car growth.

  Great Leighs Bypass
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the criteria used to reject the Essex County Council local highway authority's 1999–2000 bid for capital funding for the Great Leighs bypass; and if he will make a statement. [90542]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 12 July 1999]: In the 1999–2000 local transport capital settlement, this Department was able to accept only five local transport major schemes. These included innovative public transport schemes where early acceptance was needed to lever in substantial financial contributions from other sources, the urgent replacement of a bridge on a vital route, and a regeneration scheme linked to a coalfields area.

  Home Building
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new homes were built(a) on brownfield, (b) greenfield sites and (c) in total in the United Kingdom in 1998. [91319]

  Mr. Raynsford
  It is provisionally estimated from data provided by local authorities and the National House-Building Council that 179,000 dwellings were completed in the UK during 1998. Information on the numbers of houses built on "brownfield" and "greenfield" sites is not available from this source.
  479
  Information on the proportion of new homes built on previously developed land in England is available from the Department's Land Use Change Statistics. The latest figures show that, in 1996, 56 per cent. of new dwellings were built on previously developed land (including new dwellings provided from the conversion of existing buildings, which account for 3 percentage points), and 44 per cent. were built on land that was not previously developed.

  Figures for Scotland and Wales are matters for the respective Assemblies.

  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new houses were built on(a) greenfield sites and (b) brownfield sites in Lancashire in 1998. [91399]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information on numbers of houses built on "brownfield" and "greenfield" sites is not available. Information on the proportion of new homes built on previously developed land is available for Government Office Regions, but not for counties. Latest figures from the Department's Land Use Change Statistics show that, in 1994, 57 per cent. of new dwellings were built on previously developed land in the North West, and 43 per cent. were built on land that was not previously developed. These figures exclude new dwellings provided from conversion of existing buildings, for which reliable information is not available below national level.

  Cycle Routes
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance he has issued for highways engineers on developing cycling facilities as part of trunk road schemes. [91292]

  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. David Lock, dated 20 July 1999:
  The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Glenda Jackson, has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question, about incorporating cycling facilities as part of trunk road schemes.
  Guidance on developing cycling facilities as part of trunk road schemes is incorporated across the sixteen volumes of the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges. In addition, Local Transport Notes and Traffic Advisory Leaflets, designed for use on local roads, also provide valuable guidance for some trunk road schemes. All documents are available in the House of Commons Library. Highway engineers are aware of the need to provide for crossings of trunk roads by the National Cycle Network.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Abandoned Homes
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of homes in England that have been abandoned by their owners; and if he will make a statement. [91401]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This information is not collected centrally; however, the Government are committed to sustainable home ownership. Everyone with a mortgage 480
  or applying for a mortgage should consider carefully how they would cope if they experienced a drop in income. We are working with the mortgage lending and insurance industries to bring about better mortgage payment protection insurance, and encouraging lenders to provide more mortgages with flexible repayment arrangements.

  We expect local authorities in their housing strategies, to take into account any problems of abandonment in their area, particularly in areas of low demand, where there may be a surplus of housing.

  As part of the work of Social Exclusion Unit's report on neighbourhood renewal, a Policy Action Team was set up to look at the scale and spread of the problems of low demand and unpopular housing. Their work is being informed by a large scale research project commissioned by DETR in order to identify the causes and strategies for tackling low demand. The Policy Action Team will be reporting later this year.

  Private Hire Vehicles
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 18 January 1999,Official Report, column 304, on private hire vehicles, what progress has been made in respect of restoring the position which existed prior to the decision in the case in the Queen's Bench Division between C. Benson and Copeland Borough Council concerning the personal use of a private hire vehicle by the spouse of the licence holder. [91295]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The representations on the consultation on options for broadening the eligibility to drive licensed private hire vehicles raised complex legal issues. Once they have been resolved, I will make an announcement.

  Home Shopping
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research his Department has commissioned to assess the longer-term implications of home shopping for planning and transport services. [91447]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As I stated in my reply to my hon. Friend on 13 April 1999,Official Report, column 54, we will commission research into the long-term implications of home shopping on our integrated transport policy in general and for planning and transport services in particular. The study will also cover environmental impacts and will be commissioned later this year.

  Cleaner Vehicles Task Force
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conclusions the Cleaner Vehicles Task Force has arrived at concerning ways of reducing the environmental impact of new vehicles and improving the emissions performance of vehicles in use. [91446]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force is publishing its first report today.

  The Task Force has developed recommendations that are both practical and cost-effective for reducing the

  481
  environmental impact of new vehicles and improving the emissions performance of vehicles in use. The recommendations aim to:

  Inform consumers through:
  better information on fuel consumption, emissions and noise;
  a clear vehicle label showing environmental information;
  the promotion of improved maintenance and better driving styles;
  encouraging regular emission testing at minimal cost in standard vehicle servicing;
  increased low-cost emission testing facilities, and developing self-testing for emissions; and
  effective on-board driver information systems to give data on emissions.

  Improve enforcement by:
  developing road-side emission testing to target the worst polluters effectively;
  improving the MOT emissions test; and
  developing low emission zones, to improve air quality in urban areas.

  Promote technological solutions by:
  encouraging retrofitting for existing vehicles;
  promoting alternative fuels and the infrastructure to supply them; and
  supporting research and development into alternative fuel sources, new power sources and other technologies.

  Support fleet operators by:
  developing a greener fleet certification scheme;
  encouraging the adoption of voluntary targets;
  and providing best practice guidance.

  A copy of the Task Force's full report has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Wembley Stadium (Transport Infrastructure)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the funding arrangements for planned transport infrastructure improvements for Wembley Stadium. [91497]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We are awaiting Brent Council's borough interim transport plan submission due at the end of July. We expect this to include their transport proposals for Wembley Stadium and funding bids.

  Red Routes
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has decided to designate(a) Vauxhall Bridge Road and (b) Belgrave Road as red routes. [91504]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Both Vauxhall Bridge Road and Belgrave Road were designated as red routes in 1992 in the London Priority Route Order 1992 (SI 1992/1372).

  River Severn
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) Government Departments and (b) agencies which have statutory responsibility for the safety of the public on public highways adjacent to the River Severn in the Wyre Forest District Council area against dangers that can arise from the river. [91580]
  482
  Mr. Meale
  The Environment Agency has powers to undertake flood defence works on designated main rivers, including the River Severn and is also responsible for flood warning dissemination in England and Wales. MAFF have policy responsibility for flood defence in England. The National Assembly for Wales has equivalent powers for Wales.

  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what advice(a) his Department and (b) agencies responsible to his Department have issued for promoting and ensuring the safety of the public using the River Severn in the Wyre Forest District Council area; [91578]

  (2) which (a) Government Departments and (b) agencies have statutory responsibility for promoting and ensuring the safety of the public using the River Severn in the Wyre Forest District Council area. [91579]

  Mr. Meale
  Neither the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions or any of its agencies has statutory responsibilities for promoting and ensuring the safety of the public using the River Severn. The Environment Agency has, however, produced general leaflets on the dangers that rivers can present.

  Kapton Wiring
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to investigate the safety issues relating to Kapton wiring in planes; and if he will make a statement. [91541]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Civil Aviation Authority has no evidence that the use of Kapton wiring in civil aircraft is a safety issue. There has been only one case recorded on the Authority's occurrence database since 1979 where investigations have shown that a breakdown of Kapton wiring may have contributed to an incident (which was not an accident), and that was subsequently found to be the result of a manufacturing fault.

  The use of Kapton wiring in aircraft manufacture and maintenance is decreasing as new, improved products have become available.

  Construction Industry (Safety)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards the setting up of elected safety representatives and safety committees within the construction industry. [91717]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 25 January 1999,Official Report, columns 34–35.

  Public Transport (Passenger Behaviour)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to make it a criminal offence to put feet on seats in public transport. [91550]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The regulation of passengers' behaviour on trains is already provided for in legislation which gives railway companies the right to make byelaws. The existing railway byelaws and London Transport byelaws make it a criminal offence for any person to wilfully soil or deface any furniture on a train, and this
  483
  would normally catch behaviour such as placing feet on a seat. The train operating companies and London Transport are also in the process of making new byelaws, and have submitted them to the Secretary of State for approval. These include a provision that no person shall soil any part of the railway.

  With regard to buses or coaches, the Public Service Vehicle (Conduct of Drivers, Inspectors, Conductors and Passengers) Regulations 1990 give drivers the power to remove passengers from their vehicle if they are causing a nuisance or intentionally interfering with any equipment fitted to the vehicle. These powers would be sufficient to deal with the problem of passengers putting their feet on bus or coach seats.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many individuals his Department has recruited under the New Deal for Young People. [91889]

  Mr. Meale
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minster for the Cabinet Office to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) on 25 May 1999,Official Report, column 116. However, the current number of individuals recruited under the New Deal is eight 18–24 years olds.

  Countryside Traffic Strategies
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will instruct the Government regional offices to hold seminars to assist the dissemination of best practice among local authorities in the production of countryside traffic strategies. [91799]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Government Offices have been working closely with Local Authorities in the preparation of local transport plans (LTPs). Provisional LTPs are to be submitted later this month and we are currently considering the most effective way of disseminating the "best practice" which emerges.

  The Countryside Commission, now the Countryside Agency, published, in 1997, an advisory booklet entitled "Rural Traffic: Getting it Right" which provides general advice on developing traffic strategies for rural areas. Further advice on good practice will be issued once the results of the studies carried out by the Countryside Agency's Countryside Traffic Measures Group are available. Officials from my Department are participating in these studies.

  Sellafield
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what action he is taking to prevent nuclear contamination to the area surrounding BNFL's reprocessing plant at Sellafield; [91596]

  (2) what studies he has commissioned to determine the effect nuclear wastes from Sellafield have had on the public (a) generally and (b) in Coventry. [91597]

  Mr. Meale
  Radioactive discharges must be authorised by the Environment Agency under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. When considering an application 484
  for authorisation, the Environment Agency must be satisfied that the possible radiation dose to those members of the public at greatest risk will not exceed levels prescribed by the Government. In addition, the operators must show that the exposure will be as low as reasonably achievable, taking into account economic and social factors.

  Radioactive discharges and their effect on the environment are monitored by the nuclear industry under the terms of their disposal authorisations. The Environment Agency and MAFF monitor radioactivity in the environment and in foodstuffs. The Environment Agency conducts monitoring of drinking water, rain water and air quality on behalf of my Department, in addition to the monitoring it undertakes in support of its regulatory functions under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993. The results of this monitoring are regularly published in "Radioactivity in the Environment" by the Environment Agency and in "Radioactivity in Food and the Environment" by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency. Also the National Radiological Protection Board (NRPB) publishes regular reviews "Radiation Exposure of the UK Population".

  The latest edition of NRPB's "Radiation Exposure of the UK Population", published in 1993, estimated the average annual doses to the UK population from all sources of ionising radiation as 2,600 micro Sieverts. Of this 0.4 micro Sieverts was estimated to come from discharges of radioactive waste, the majority of which emanates from Sellafield. In a summary publication in 1996, "Living with Radiation", the average dose remained the same but the contribution from discharges had fallen to 0.2 micro Sieverts.

  I am not aware of any reason why the effect on the public in Coventry should be different from the effect on the public generally.

  Central Railways
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what contacts there have been between Ministers in his Department and representatives of or advisers to Central Railways; [91991]

  (2) what contacts there have been between officials in his Department and representatives of or advisers to Central Railways. [91990]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This reply covers the period since 1 May 1997. No central record is kept of such contacts but I am aware that representatives of Central Railways have kept my officials informed, by way of meetings and correspondence, of their preparation of a scheme for a railway freight line between Liverpool and the Channel Tunnel. I understand that the last meeting took place last October. All contacts by my officials are without prejudice to consideration of any scheme that may eventually be submitted under the Transport and Works Act 1992. Central Railways have also written to Ministers in this Department enclosing an information brochure about the scheme. I am not aware, however, of any meetings between Ministers in my Department and representatives of Central Railways about the scheme.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when the letter from the hon. Member for Thurrock to the Minister for London and Construction relating to the Minister's planned visit to Poland was received in the Department; to whom it was circulated; and for what purposes it was circulated to persons other than the Minister; [91977]

  (2) if the letter from the hon. Member for Thurrock to the Minister for London and Construction concerning the Minister's visit to Poland was brought to the Minister's attention prior to his discussion with the hon. Member for Thurrock on 13 July; [91980]

  (3) for what reasons the letter sent by the hon. Member for Thurrock to the Minister for London and Construction prior to the Minister's visit to Poland, concerning that visit, was not brought to the Minister's attention; [91979]

  (4) what the circumstances were in which his Department's response to the letter from the hon. Member for Thurrock concerning the visit of the Minister for London and Construction to Poland was mislaid; and if he will make a statement. [91978]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have now replied to the faxed letter received by the Department on 8 June. The letter was copied to the official in the Department who was dealing with the organisation of the visit to Poland for his information. However, as a result of an administrative error the letter was not brought to my attention until 15 July. I have asked officials to review procedures to ensure that no similar error occurs again.

  Brown-field Targets
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is taking to achieve the Government's target of 60 per cent. of

  Performance figures for 1998–99 and targets for 1999–2000 for the disposal of Government empty homes

  Home Office

  DETR

  MOD

  Total stock at 1 April 1998

  3,189

  2,473

  64,238

  Total stock at 1 April 1999

  2,550

  1,901

  62,420

  Total empty stock at 1 April 1998

  217

  692

  13,225

  Total empty stock at 1 April 1999

  259

  480

  13,568

  Target for percentage empty at 1 April 1999

  Less than 5 per cent.

  Less than 18 per cent.

  To dispose of 1,200 empty homes

  Achievement against target

  10.2 per cent.

  25 per cent.

  Disposal of 1,323 empty homes

  Target for empty at 1 April 2000

  Less than 5 per cent.

  Less than 18 per cent.

  To dispose of 2,018 empty homes

  Target for percentage habitable homes empty for more than 6 months at 1 April 1999

  Less than 1 per cent.

  Less than 7 per cent.

  —

  Achievement against target

  2.7 per cent.

  4.5 per cent.

  —

  Target for percentage habitable homes empty for more than 6 months at 1 April 2000

  Less than 1 per cent.

  Less than 3 per cent.

  —

  Action being taken to dispose of habitable homes empty for more than 6 months

  1—

  2—

  3—

  1 Forty-four retained on security grounds or for use by Prison Chaplains. Thirteen on the market, 9 reallocated, 2 held to accommodate a decant from two blocks of flats that are to be sold with vacant possession, 1 being occupied temporarily for a police operation, 1 being used temporarily to house recruits during refurbishment of Peel Centre Residential blocks.

  2 ½ of all vacant properties are in the process of being sold. Clearer guidance being issued on demolition, selling and refurbishing options. Addressing with vigour the performance of agents (who manage of ⅔ HA stock).

  3 The Defence Housing Executive's Chief Executive is committed to reducing the total number of void properties and has set a publicly accountable target to reduce voids by 13 per cent. by 31 March 2002.

  486
  additional housing to be built on previously developed land; what assessment he has made of Urban Task Force's prediction of the percentage which will be achieved by 2021; and if he will make a statement. [92066]

  Mr. Caborn
  A range of measures which will help deliver the Government's 60 per cent. target have already been set out in revised Planning Policy Guidance on Housing (PPG3), on which my Department has recently consulted. The Government are still considering the report of the Urban Task Force and their response will be set out in due course in the Urban and Rural White Papers.

  Empty Government Homes
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department, the Home Office and the Ministry of Defence are taking to reduce the number of empty Government-owned homes. [92321]

  Ms Armstrong
  We are determined to reduce the number of empty Government homes, and today I have published revised guidance for Government Departments on how best to tackle their empty properties.

  I am concerned that the figures for Government empty homes released today show a small increase. We are determined to bring these figures down.

  Our new guidance is concise, user friendly and includes examples of innovative good practice.

  I expect all Government Departments, using the revised guidance along with challenging new targets, to make a real reduction in the number of vacant properties.

  Details of achievement against targets for 1998–99, and new targets for 1999–2000 are listed in the table.

  Copies of the new guidance—"Revised Guidance on Securing the Better Use of Empty Homes"—have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Best Value
  Gillian Merron
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to set up a body to oversee inspections under the Best Value Regime. [92322]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Best Value Inspectorate Forum for England will be formally launched tomorrow. This forum will provide an opportunity for the Inspectorates involved in best value to consider strategic issues relating to the inspection of best value authorities in England and will be an effective channel of communication for the Inspectorates with central Government, local authorities and other interested parties, on best value.

  Separate arrangements are being made to oversee best value inspection in Wales.

  Environment Agency
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what arrangements are being made to appoint a chairman of the Environment Agency. [92358]

  Mr. Meacher
  The current chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord De Ramsey, has announced his intention to retire at the beginning of next year.

  I have appointed recruitment consultants to assist in identifying suitable candidates to succeed Lord De Ramsey, and the post is being advertised in the national press.

  This is a key appointment. The Environment Agency plays a central part in protecting and enhancing the environment in England and Wales. It has major responsibilities for managing and regulating the water environment, and for controlling industrial pollution and wastes. The role of chairman in determining the strategic direction of the Agency, inspiring its staff, and ensuring that it discharges its statutory duties is vital to the continued improvements in the environment which we are seeking.

  The successful candidate will need to have the skills, experience, ability and vision to lead a major public sector organisation with a budget of over £600 million per year and over 9,000 employees, and to develop a successful relationship with the wide range of bodies who have

  Illustration of costs for 400 resignations

  £

  Year

  Gross costs to be met from CC income

  Housing capital (funded by CC)

  Net costs for church

  Net housing capital (funded by CC)

  1994

  2,609,000

  5,011,000

  904,000

  5,011,000

  1995

  3,282,000

  2,094,000

  11,841,000

  1,745,000

  1996

  2,886,000

  952,000

  11,435,000

  232,000

  1997

  2,424,000

  636,000

  11,099,000

  (159,000)

  1998

  2,363,000

  399,000

  11,165,000

  (788,000)

  19991

  1,979,000

  317,000

  1,006,000

  (127,000)

  20001

  1,669,000

  231,000

  923,000

  (231,000)

  20011

  1,499,000

  137,000

  972,000

  (206,000)

  20021

  1,248,000

  36,000

  917,000

  (179,000)

  20031

  996,000

  37,000

  796,000

  (186,000)

  20041

  729,000

  0

  626,000

  (309,000)

  488
  dealings with the Agency. I welcome interest from people, from all sectors of the community, who measure up to the special and demanding requirements of this appointment.

  Trains (Safety Systems)
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the efficacy of the cup and cone safety system for passenger carriages on trains. [90763]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Health and Safety Executive has carried out tests of this safety system and is satisfied that it would significantly improve the safety of Mark 1 rolling stock.

  The Deputy Prime Minister has announced today the elimination of all Mark 1 rolling stock from the network by the end of 2004. We expect to see the bulk of such trains phased out substantially before then, but any remaining on the network after the end of 2002 will need to be safety modified in order to remain in operation until the end of 2004.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Women's Ordination
  Mr. Field
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), representing the Church Commissioners, what is the cumulative cost to date of the financial compensation package for those priests unwilling to accept women's ordination; and if he will estimate the total cumulative cost at the end of the 10 year guarantee period. [91657]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  At 31 December 1998 the cumulative gross cost, to be met from the Commissioners' income, under the terms of the Ordination of Women (Financial Provisions) Measure 1993, was £13.5 million. The Commissioners' latest estimate of the total cumulative gross cost to the end of the guaranteed period is approximately £23 million. The figure is based on our current prediction of 400 resignations by 21 February 2004, and estimates for payments up to 21 February 2014.

  Actual expenditure up to 31 December 1998 and illustrative costings based on 400 resignations are set out in the following table. It should be noted that from 1 January 1998, these costings include pension contributions towards the new funded clergy pension scheme, approximately £0.49 million in 1998.
  489

  Illustration of costs for 400 resignations

  £

  Year

  Gross costs to be met from CC income

  Housing capital (funded by CC)

  Net costs for church

  Net housing capital (funded by CC)

  20051

  488,000

  0

  440,000

  (402,000)

  20061

  334,000

  0

  314,000

  (167,000)

  20071

  178,000

  0

  171,000

  (435,000)

  20081

  115,000

  0

  113,000

  (362,000)

  20091

  98,000

  0

  97,000

  (658,000)

  20101

  42,000

  0

  42,000

  (684,000)

  20111

  31,000

  0

  31,000

  (712,000)

  20121

  25,000

  0

  25,000

  (317,000)

  20131

  19,000

  0

  19,000

  (330,000)

  Total1

  23,014,000

  9,850,000

  12,936,000

  736,000

  1 Figures are estimates

  Notes:

  1. The number of resignations shown (400) is a broad estimate based on current assumptions and knowledge of proposed resignations.

  2. Actual costs are shown for 1994 to 1998 based on resignations shown, including housing subsidy. A similar pattern of costs has been projected for future years.

  3. The figures for 1998 onwards also include pension contributions for resigning clergy paid to the Pensions Board.

  4. The figures make allowance for future increases in house prices and stipends.

  5. The net figure takes account of such variables as stipends savings (assuming at least a temporary reduction in the payroll), allowance for retirement housing provision which would otherwise have arisen on retirement, and the possibility of some people redeeming loans or leaving rented accommodation once they have obtained alternative employment.

SCOTLAND

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for(a) his Department and (b) associated bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (A) fuel types and (B) engine cubic capacities; and how many of the vehicles due for replacement by (a) his Department and (b) associated bodies listed in the National Asset Register will be replaced in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02 and will be replaced by vehicles using (1) petrol, (2) diesel, (3) natural gas, (4) electric batteries and (5) other; and how much his Department expects to spend in each year on vehicle replacements. [90798]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: My Department neither owns nor leases vehicles. Ministers use the Government Car Service which is within the responsibilities of the Cabinet Office.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, indicating when they were disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c)(ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [90794]
  490
  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Scottish Seed Potato Development Council, August 1997

  Scottish Economic Council, April 1998
  Scottish Agricultural Consultative Panel, August 1998
  Local Government Property Commission for Scotland, September 1998
  Secretary of State's Advisory Group on Sustainable Development, March 1999

  (b) The Scottish Water and Sewerage Customers Council. Provision for dissolution of this body was made in the Water Industry Act 1999.

  (c) (i) Nil.

  (c) (ii) Nil.

  (d) The Scottish Community Education Council was relaunched as Community Learning Scotland on 1 April 1999.

  (e) Bodies remaining unchanged are listed in the current edition of "Public Bodies", a copy of which is available in the Library.

  New non-departmental public bodies established since 1 May 1997:

  Scottish Further Education Funding Council

  Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission

  Scottish Childcare Board

  Scottish Advisory Committee on Distinction Awards

  Advisory Committee on Lifelong Learning Targets.

  My Department is currently responsible for two non-departmental public bodies—the Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland and the Extra Parliamentary Panel—responsibility for the remainder having been transferred to the Scottish Executive on 1 July 1999.

  The Government are committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to a minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective. Many of the new NDPBs established since 1 May are essential in helping the Government deliver their Manifesto commitments.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Welsh Language
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent representations he has received regarding the use of the Welsh language in tribunal hearings; and if he will make a statement. [91564]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have received no representations regarding the use of the Welsh language in tribunal hearings.

  Judiciary Independence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will place in the Library his paper on the Independence of the Judiciary prepared for the 22 Conference of European Ministers of Justice. [90005]

  Mr. Vaz
  A copy of the Report has been placed in the Library.

  Derbyshire Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the current timetable for the private finance initiative project for Derbyshire's magistrates courts. [91542]

  Mr. Vaz
  The current timetable is subject to change but it is expected that the Stage Two Invitation to Negotiate will be issued in August 1999. Selection of the preferred supplier is scheduled for early 2000 with contract completion by the end of the financial year 2000–01. The construction timetable will be the subject of negotiation with the preferred supplier.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will publish a list of all those official documents of the last Administration which have been seen by(a) him, (b) other Ministers in his Department, (c) special advisers in his Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in his Department. [92174]

  Mr. Vaz
  A large number of official documents were generated during the period of the previous Administration, many of which were published or put in the public domain. Since May 1997, the Department has been guided by the convention governing access to the papers of a previous Administration, as set out in the then Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980,Official Report, columns 305–07.

CABINET OFFICE

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will publish a list of all those official documents of the last Administration which have been seen by(a) him, (b) other Ministers in his Department, (c) special advisers in his Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in his Department. [92181]
  492
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  A large number of official documents were generated during the period of the previous Administration, many of which were published or put in the public domain. Since May 1997, the Department has been guided by the convention governing access to the papers of a previous Administration, as set out in the then Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980,Official Report, columns 305–07.

  Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what performance targets he has approved for the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency for 1999–2000. [92360]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have approved the following key performance targets for the Central and Telecommunications Agency (CCTA) for 1999–2000.

  1. To achieve financial breakeven on an accruals basis;

  2. To deliver CCTA services within the Voted provisions;

  3. To operate within CCTA Customer Charter at 75 per cent. level;

  4. To secure savings that will reduce cost of support services by 5 per cent,;

  5. To achieve a 3 per cent. of customer satisfaction evaluations in the top two boxes of a five box scale.

PRIME MINISTER

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will publish a list of all those official documents of the last Administration which have been seen by(a) him, (b) other Ministers in his Department, (c) special advisers in his Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in his Department. [92173]

  The Prime Minister
  A large number of official documents were generated during the period of the previous Administration, many of which were published or put in the public domain. Since May 1997, my office has been guided by the convention governing access to the papers of a previous Administration, as set out in the then Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980,Official Report, columns 305–07.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Fraud (Merseyside)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what collaborative projects his Department has undertaken with the Merseyside Police Authority to combat fraudulent activities; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of these projects. [90772]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  493
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 19 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent question asking what collaborative projects his Department has undertaken with the Merseyside Police Authority on fraudulent activities; and if he will make a statement on the outcome of these projects.
  Benefit Fraud in Merseyside is investigated by the Benefits Fraud Investigation Service (BFIS) and Benefit Agency Security Investigation Services (BASIS). Neither are engaged in collaborative projects with Merseyside Police. However, both services do work closely with Merseyside Police on individual cases as operational requirements dictate.
  Joint projects also exist to tackle abuse in known areas of benefit fraud such as investigations into taxi drivers, small businesses and the manipulation of girocheques and orderbooks. Although no specific statistics are kept on the partnerships, the fact that these operations are regular and ongoing is a testament to their level of success.
  The Benefits Agency (BA) is negotiating a National Memorandum of Understanding with the Association Of Chief Police Officers. This will improve lines of communication, clarify the responsibilities of the police and BA and provide guidelines for co-operation on operational issues.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of(a) removing the upper age limit for disability living allowance, (b) increasing the upper age limit for disability living allowance to age 70 years and (c) increasing the upper age limit for disability living allowance to age 75 years. [90706]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information requested is in the table.

  Estimated costs for 2000–01 of extending the age limit for disability living allowance

  £

  Change to the upper age limit

  Estimated programme costs

  Estimated administrative costs

  No upper age limit

  2.7 billion

  75 million

  Age 70 years

  300 million

  8.5 million

  Age 75 years

  850 million

  25 million

  Incapacity and Disablement Benefit
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the total numbers of(a) incapacity benefit claimants and (b) disablement benefit claimants in (i) Barnsley, (ii) Rotherham, (iii) Sheffield and (iv) Doncaster; and what is the age profile of the claimants in each case. [91940]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of incapacity and disablement benefit claims is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Michael Clapham, dated 19 July 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking for the total numbers and age profile of Incapacity Benefit and Disablement Benefit claimants in the Barnsley, Rotherham, Sheffield and Doncaster areas.
  494
  The information available is shown in the following tables: Figures for Incapacity Benefit for Local Authority areas are shown in the following table:

  Age group

  Barnsley

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Doncaster

  16–19

  0

  0

  0

  0

  20–24

  243

  101

  182

  162

  25–29

  465

  344

  263

  627

  30–34

  829

  404

  849

  788

  35–39

  1,132

  788

  930

  849

  40–44

  1,132

  748

  950

  1,213

  45–49

  1,900

  1,031

  1,940

  1,758

  50–54

  2,466

  1,860

  2,931

  2,183

  55–59

  3,234

  2,304

  3,133

  2,850

  60–64

  2,728

  2,385

  3,294

  3,315

  65+

  505

  485

  546

  687

  These figures are taken from a 5 per cent. scan of the benefit computer system at 30 November 1998. They are subject to a rating factor to account for missing postcodes, they may exclude a small number of cases held clerically.
  Figures for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit are not available in the format requested. Data is only available for the Yorkshire and Humber area and are shown below:

  Age group

  Yorkshire and Humber

  16–19

  18

  20–24

  154

  25–29

  540

  30–34

  856

  35–39

  1,296

  40–44

  1,759

  45–49

  1,968

  50–54

  2,855

  55–59

  2,998

  60–64

  3,404

  65–69

  3,065

  70–74

  3,487

  75–79

  2,737

  80–84

  1,071

  85 and over

  599

  Figures are based on a 10 per cent. sample of Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit at 4 April 1998 and include an adjustment for late statistical returns.
  The statistical information has been supplied by DSS (Analytical Services Division).
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Child Support
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what plans he has to reform the Child Support Act 1991; [91594]

  (2) what plans he has to encourage parents to reach amicable agreements with free help and advice provided by the Government, in the matter of child maintenance. [91595]

  Angela Eagle
  The White Paper "A new contract for welfare: Children's Rights and Parents Responsibilities" (Cm 4349) published on 1 July 1999 sets out our plans to reform the child support system. We are creating a new, customer focused, child support service that will be simple, easy to understand, and ensure that more children receive regular and reliable maintenance.
  495
  Parents not on benefit will, as now, be free to make their own arrangements without involving the Child Support Agency, where necessary using the new, simple child support rates as a guideline.

  Under the provision of Part III of the Family Law Act 1996 publicly funded mediation is available for disputes relating to children and property arising on divorce or separation. These provisions are being implemented on an area by area basis throughout England and Wales.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many Child Support Agency cases were uncleared after(a) 78 weeks and (b) 104 weeks on 31 March; [92147]

  (2) how many, and what proportion of, applications for maintenance to the Child Support Agency dating from after (a) 31 March 1997, (b) 30 September 1997 and (c) 31 March 1998 were uncleared 52 weeks later. [92148]

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

  Letter from Mrs. Faith Boardman to Mr. Frank Field, dated 20 July 1999:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary Question to the Secretary of State for Social Security about the Child Support Agency.
  The information requested in your questions is not available. Whilst the Agency maintains systems to monitor and report on performance, the specific figures you have asked for would require a scan of our computer system. This would take several weeks to arrange and deflect resources from other important development work.
  In 1998/99 the Agency had a Secretary of State's target to have no applications over 52 weeks old by 31 March 1999. All Business Units put in place operational plans that were to guide them towards the achievement of this objective.
  The introduction of automated management information systems and the subsequent exercise to check and correct the status of our cases identified that the original estimate of 225,000 backlog cases (i.e. over 52 weeks old) was considerably understated. In fact CSA cleared 324,859 cases, but did not achieve a nil backlog.
  This left 47,720 cases outstanding at 31 March 1999.
  The Agency's ability to clear all these cases was impacted by "new" cases becoming over 52 weeks old and because those cases outstanding tend to be older, more complex cases which are difficult to progress.
  The introduction of Decision Making and Appeals (DMA) in June 1999 will significantly help the Agency to maintain a normal level of work.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish a list of all those official documents of the last Administration which have been seen by(a) him, (b) other Ministers in his Department, (c) special advisers in his Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in his Department. [92171]

  Mr. Darling
  A large number of official documents were generated during the period of the previous Administration, many of which were published or put in the public domain. Since May 1997, the Department has been guided by the convention governing access to papers 496
  of a previous Administration, as set out in the then Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980, Official Report, columns 305–07.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Dressed Lamb Carcases
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what criteria are used by official veterinary surgeons employed by the Meat Hygiene Service to determine whether wool fibres on the surfaces of dressed lamb carcases, transferred during the slaughtering process, comprise unacceptable contamination; and what quantity of fibre is permitted. [88290]

  Mr. Rooker
  Official Veterinary Surgeons are required to use their professional judgment to determine whether wool fibres on the surfaces of dressed lamb carcases, transferred during the slaughtering process, comprise unacceptable contamination.

  Thames Barrier
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the design life of the Thames Barrier; and if he will make a statement. [91403]

  Mr. Morley
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 2 February 1999,Official Report, column 656. The design life of the Barrier is 60 years—i.e. to the year 2030. This design life was based on rates of sea level rise predicted in the 1970s, which were higher than those currently anticipated. With normal care and maintenance the Barrier should continue to provide London with a high level of protection from tidal flooding until at least the latter part of the next century. The Environment Agency is considering the wider long-term flood defence needs of London following consultation with interested parties.

  Flood Defences (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much has been spent by the Environment Agency on improving flood defences in Leicestershire since Easter 1998. [91313]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has a regular programme of work to maintain and improve main river watercourses in Leicestershire. Since Easter 1998, this has involved expenditure of £570,000.

  Dairy Farming
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the prospects for the dairy farming sector. [91419]

  Mr. Rooker
  Dairy farmers face challenging times as a result of reduced milk prices, increasing liberalisation of world markets, and progress on CAP reform. But the dairy farming sector's ability to respond positively to these challenges will be helped by the high level of producer expertise and commitment, favourable farm structure and ideal climate for milk production.

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances licences for the use of glufosinate or glyphosate on herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops may be granted before the completion of the farm-scale trials with herbicide-tolerant genetically modified crops in 2003. [91414]

  Mr. Rooker
  No herbicide will be approved for use with genetically modified herbicide-tolerant crops unless a thorough and specific evaluation of the possible effects on people and on the environment has identified no unacceptable risks. Moreover, until a genetically modified herbicide tolerant crop is itself legally on the market in this country I do not expect to grant an approval for use on that crop to any herbicide products containing glufosinate or glyphosate.

  Common Fisheries Policy
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) of 8 July 1999,Official Report, column 626, on the Common Fisheries Policy, if his statement on the majority of fish discarded being undersize is based upon the (a) numbers and (b) weight of discard:, and what estimate he has made of undersize discards as a percentage of total discards. [91768]

  Mr. Morley
  Sampling of discards in the North Sea in 1997 by CEFAS indicated that, by number, the majority of discarded cod, haddock and whiting were undersized fish. The actual estimates of the proportions of discarded fish, by number, that were undersized were cod 82 per cent., haddock 57 per cent. and whiting 67 per cent.

  By weight the percentages were cod 73 per cent., haddock 46 per cent. and whiting 53 per cent.

  Badgers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents there have been where his Department's field staff in the randomised badger culling trial have been(a) threatened and (b) assaulted. [91712]

  Mr. Rooker
  It would not be appropriate to release this information for operational and security reasons.

  The safety of staff is the Department's paramount concern, and we take very seriously any incident where this is put at risk. The Department is committed to supporting prosecutions in the event of damage to property or threats to, and attacks on, staff.

  The Government are committed to the field trial as an important part of their comprehensive research and control strategy to tackle TB in cattle. The strategy, including the trial, is based on the best independent scientific advice. The aim is to place future TB policy on an effective and sustainable scientific footing. Disruption of the trial risks delaying its results and so helps neither badgers nor cattle.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what reasons badger culling in the randomised culling trial has not started in the proactive area of the triplet in the Forest of Dean. [91706]
  498
  Mr. Rooker
  A range of work is being carried out in the four triplets so far identified. For operational and security reasons it would not be appropriate to give details of specific operations.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when badger culling in the Krebs Trial started in the Hartland reactive area of the North Devon triplet. [91707]

  Mr. Rooker
  The closed season for the Krebs/Bourne field trial ended on 30 April. Since then, culling has resumed in some areas. For operational and security reasons, it would not be appropriate to give details.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many new staff have been(a) sought and (b) appointed for the randomised badger culling trial; and what procedures have been established to ensure the training of new staff. [91705]

  Mr. Rooker
  Approximately 60 new staff are being appointed to work on the trial, 48 are already in post and others will start work shortly. All new staff receive comprehensive training which includes a period of supervised working alongside experienced colleagues.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many cattle were slaughtered in 1997 and 1998 after testing positive in the tuberculin skin tests; and how many were found not to be infected on post mortem and culture examination. [91711]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information for 1997 was published on page 4 of Animal Health 1997, the annual report of the Chief Veterinary Officer. A copy was placed in the Library. The report for 1998 has not yet been published.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department is conducting into cattle to cattle transmission of bovine tuberculosis. [91725]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Government are conducting a wide programme of research, based on the recommendations in the Krebs Report and advice from the Independent Scientific Group on cattle TB chaired by Professor John Bourne. Specifically on cattle to cattle transmission the recommendations were:

  (i) analysing existing information (including cattle testing data and old TB49 incident management reports) to identify risk factors;

  (ii) deploying a new epidemiological questionnaire (TB99) to provide data which will assist in improving procedures for managing TB incidents and to help determine risk factors associated with them;

  (iii) working on the development of a blood test based on gamma interferon in order to improve the detection of infected cattle;

  (iv) developing the tools for improving the identification of different strains of m bovis to provide information on source of infection and route of transmission, and for application to other cattle data; and

  (v) implementing a number of projects related to the development of a cattle vaccine that include work on the pathogenesis on infection.

  The Independent Scientific Group believes, and the Government agree, that cattle to cattle transmission,

  499
  including the pathogenesis of the disease in cattle, is an area which merits further consideration as funds become available.

  Sulphuric Acid
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food under what circumstances farmers are permitted to spray sulphuric acid on potato fields. [91733]

  Mr. Rooker
  When applied to potatoes for the purpose of desiccating haulms, sulphuric acid falls within the definition of a pesticide. Pesticides may be used only if they are approved by Ministers following assessment of their impact on human health and the environment. The use of sulphuric acid on potato crops has been approved subject to a number of restrictions and requirements, of which the main ones are:only 77 per cent. clean "sulphur burnt" sulphuric acid may be used;
  application is permitted only between 1 May and 15 November;
  the maximum dose permitted is 340 litres/hectare (800 litres per hectare for potatoes grown for canning);
  a written COSHH assessment must be made before use. Operator exposure must be controlled by means of personal protective equipment and/or engineering controls;
  application must be by operators holding a recognised certificate of competence in the use of the relevant equipment;
  at least 24 hours written notice must be provided to immediate neighbours and notices must be posted on adjacent roads and paths and kept in place for at least 96 hours after treatment. Unprotected persons must be kept out of treated areas for at least 96 hours following treatment.

  Beef Export Ban
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the EU Commission has agreed to lift the beef export ban from 1 August. [91898]

  Mr. Rooker
  The European Commission has agreed that exports of boneless UK beef produced under the Date-based Export Scheme (DBES) may start from 1 August. The Commission announced this on 14 July, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food reported it to the House in his statement of 14 July 1999,Official Report, column 405–16.

  Non-food Crops
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to promote long-term development of non-food crops; and what assessment he has made of the potential for development of non-food crops in the UK. [91589]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: We believe there is considerable potential to develop the use of non-food crops in the UK. The Ministry's Agri-Industrial Materials Branch promotes the use of crop derived raw materials at workshops and other events and through its dedicated Website. The Ministry spends around £1.1 million per annum on strategic research on non-food crops with a number of projects looking at the potential for these renewable raw materials. Most recently the Ministry's Central Science Laboratory has led an EU project on the opportunities and constraints for non-food crops and the report will be published in the autumn. We
  500
  are currently examining the scope to support the establishment of energy crops under the new Rural Development Regulation.

WALES

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish a list of all those official documents of the last Administration which have been seen by(a) him, (b) other Ministers in his Department, (c) special advisers in his Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in his Department. [92168]

  Mr. Michael
  A large number of official documents were generated during the period of the previous Administration, many of which were published or put in the public domain. Since May 1997, the Welsh Office has been guided by the convention governing access to the papers of a previous Administration as set out in the Prime Minister's reply on 24 January 1980,Official Report, columns 305–07.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  European Union
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet his European counterparts to discuss institutional reform of the European Union. [90473]

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which institutional questions are on the agenda of the next IGC; and if he will make a statement. [90490]

  Ms Quin
  The Cologne European Council on 3–4 June decided that an Inter-Governmental Conference should begin in early 2000 to prepare the Union's institutions for enlargement.

  Preparations for the IGC are now beginning. We expect the Finnish Presidency to hold meetings at both official and ministerial level in the coming months.

  EU Enlargement
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in what measures the UK has participated to assist candidate members of the EU to meet the terms of environmental directives prior to entry. [90475]

  Ms Quin
  The UK fully supports the important goal of helping all the applicant countries meet the EU's environmental standards, and we are working to achieve this through projects for the Know How Fund, through the EC's Twinning Scheme and through contributions to PHARE and other funding programmes.

  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to meet his European counterparts to discuss the enlargement of the European Union. [90479]
  501
  Ms Quin
  As I mentioned in the House earlier today, enlargement is a key priority of the Government and of the European Union. It, therefore, is a constant feature of all my contacts with my colleagues from EU member states and applicants. Our next full discussion will be at the Foreign Ministers' Informal Meeting in Finland on 4–5 September.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterparts in Pakistan and India concerning the situation in Kashmir. [90478]

  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Kashmir. [90485]

  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the United States Government on the conflict in Kashmir. [90494]

  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions the Government have had with representatives of the Indian and Pakistani Governments about the current military action over Kashmir. [90481]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer hon. Members to the answer given earlier by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough, (Fiona Mactaggart),Official Report, columns 956–57.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the current state of bilateral relations between Britain and Spain over Gibraltar. [90480]

  Ms Quin
  Our bilateral relations with Spain are generally good. We work together on a wide range of EU, NATO and other issues and want our relations to continue to improve. But we have made clear to Spain on several occasions that recent actions affecting Gibraltar, notably at the border, are unacceptable and counterproductive. We will continue to defend Gibraltar's interests while looking for ways to ease tension and increase confidence through dialogue and co-operation.

  Kosovo
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Kosovo. [90482]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  NATO'S key objectives have been achieved. There are now 33,000 KFOR troops in Kosovo, under the command of General Sir Michael Jackson. KFOR' s objective is to provide robust and even-handed support for all the citizens of Kosovo regardless of ethnic, religious or cultural background. The Secretary-General of the UN has made appointments to the key positions to the UN Mission in Kosovo whose work is underway. The UK will continue to play a leading role in support of both KFOR and UNMIK.

  POWs (Japan)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to discuss the issue of former prisoners of war with the Japanese Government. [90483]

  Mr. Hoon
  The view of successive UK and Japanese Governments is that the issue of compensation under the San Francisco Peace Treaty has been settled.

  We regularly discuss with the Japanese ways to promote reconciliation.

  UN General Assembly
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his policy is on parliamentary participation in the work of the United Nations General Assembly. [90484]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We welcome and encourage parliamentary interest in the work of the United Nations (UN) and its organs. To this end, we organise and fund an all-party visit by Members of Parliament to the UN during the General Assembly every year. This provides an opportunity for participants to exchange views with senior UN representatives and to bring their insights back to their parliamentary work in London. We also support the strengthening of the ties between the Interparliamentary Union and the UN under their 1996 Co-operation Agreement; and between the Council of Europe and the UN.

  Middle East
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the prospects for peace in the middle east. [90486]

  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the middle east peace process since the general election in Israel. [90489]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer given earlier today by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Rothwell (Mr. Gunnell),Official Report, column 960.

  Palestine National Authority
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to assist the Palestine National Authority to develop the economy in its territory. [90487]

  Mr. Hoon
  We support the Palestinian economy with a programme of bilateral aid and our contribution to EC aid programmes. We are providing £50 million in bilateral aid over the next three years. Aid projects include the development of health and infrastructure facilities, support for refugees and technical assistance for economic negotiations. Our total bilateral aid since the signature of the Oslo Accords amounts to over £122 million. In addition, we expect to contribute a further £55 million through EC aid programmes in the next five years.

  Cyprus
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will report progress on initiatives to re-unite the island of Cyprus. [90488]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier in the House today to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett),Official Report, column 966.

  UK/US Treaties
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the existing bilateral treaties between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. [90492]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  There are currently over 500 bilateral treaties with the United States, covering a wide range of subjects. One of the earliest is entitled, "Provisional Articles of Peace with the United States of America", which was signed in Paris on 30 November 1782. The most recent treaty is the "Agreement between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland on behalf of the Turks and Caicos Islands and the Government of the United States of America relating to investment incentives", which was signed in Washington on 20 April 1999. Bilateral treaties cover a diverse range of subjects including the final suppression of the African slave trade, visas, the carriage of ammunition, the use of military facilities on Ascension Island and drug trafficking.

  Western Sahara
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to meet(a) the Government of Morocco and (b) the POLISARIO to discuss the implementation of the UN Peace Plan for a Referendum in Western Sahara. [90439]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have no immediate plans to meet with either the Government of Morocco or the Polisario. However, FCO officials regularly meet with both sides to discuss the way forward in the Western Sahara.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the Government intend to take to secure the implementation of the UN Peace Plan for a Referendum in Western Sahara. [90437]

  Mr. Hoon
  We fully support the UN's efforts to hold a referendum in the Western Sahara. We keep pressure on both parties to adhere to the UN Secretary-General's deadlines both bilaterally and at the UN.

  Departmental Services
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements he has made for the provision of (i) IT support, (ii) stationery and (iii) hospitality services for his Department; and what percentage of each is contracted from outside bodies. [90569]
  504
  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 13 July 1999]: FCO provision for IT support, stationery and hospitality for the Financial Year 1999–2000 is as follows:

  IT support
  £2.12 million, which provides 24 hour IT support and network management to more than 280 overseas missions and to the FCO Departments. Contract expenditure amounts to £1.12 million or 53 per cent. The remainder covers internal costs.

  Stationery
  £1.7 million. All stationery budgets at home and overseas are devolved. A centrally negotiated call-off contract is used. All stationery is contracted out.

  Hospitality1
  £2.286 million. All catering services are contracted out though wine and equipment are provided from the Government Hospitality cellar. All overseas Hospitality Budgets are devolved to Posts. No figures are held centrally.
  1 This figure includes the expenditure by the Government Hospitality Fund which provides for State Visits, Guests of Government and functions for all Government Departments.

  Yugoslavia
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in freezing the assets of members of the Milosevic regime; and if he will make a statement. [91240]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  EC Regulation 1294/99 concerning a freeze of funds and a ban on investment in relation to the FRY was adopted on 15 June and came into force on 19 June. The Bank of England issued a notice to banks and other institutions on 22 June giving details of the Regulation. Corresponding UK Regulations came into force on 25 June. All accounts identified as belonging to individuals and companies covered by the Regulation have been blocked.

  In addition, the Government have acted upon a request from the International Criminal Tribunal on the Former Yugoslavia to freeze the assets of Milosevic and four associates in respect of whom warrants and orders of arrest were issued on 24 May.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list for(a) his Department and (b) associated bodies listed in the National Asset Register, how many vehicles are currently (i) owned and (ii) leased; if he will indicate their (1) fuel types and (2) engine cubic capacities; how many of the vehicles due for replacement by (A) his Department and (B) associated bodies listed in the National Asset Register will be replaced in (x) 1999–2000, (y) 2000–1 and (z) 2001–2 by vehicles using (al) petrol, (b2) diesel, (c3) natural gas, (d4) electric batteries and (e5) other; and how much his Department plans to spend in each year on vehicle replacements. [90691]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: 1. The FCO and associated bodies have the following owned and leased vehicles; details of the fuel type and engine capacity are included where they are known.

  2. The FCO has 1,288 vehicles overseas, of which 29 are leased.
  505
  3. 543 vehicles use petrol and 362 use diesel; the remainder are unknown as more detailed information about vehicles purchased by FCO Posts overseas is not available. In each case, the type of fuel chosen will depend on the type of vehicle required and the availability of fuel types in each country at the time of purchase. Specific details of engine cubic capacity are not known in full, but is on average 2.5 or 3.5 litres.

  4. Planning for the replacement of vehicles has now been devolved to Commands. It is disproportionate in the time available to produce the information for the purchase of vehicles for overseas Missions.

  5. The FCO' s home fleet has 45 vehicles in total, of which 32 are diesel, the remainder is petrol. The replacement programme for the next three years is as follows: 1999–2000, four vehicles; 2000–01 and 2000–02 will be dependent upon budgetary allocation.

  6. The home fleet will replace two vehicles with duel fuel and will consider this further when a decision to purchase another vehicle is made.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the non-departmental public bodies in existence on 1 May 1997 that(a) have been disbanded, indicating when they were disbanded, (b) will be disbanded in the next 12 months, (c) have had their functions transferred to (i) another non-departmental public body and (ii) a democratically elected body, (d) have been renamed but continue to perform a similar role and (e) have been unchanged; if he will indicate in (c)(ii) the relevant successor body; what new non-departmental public bodies have been established since 1 May 1997; and how many non-departmental public bodies his Department currently is responsible for. [90680]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 19 July 1999]: (a) None.

  (b) The FCO is considering with the Commonwealth Institute a plan for the Institute to become a company limited by guarantee, while remaining a charity. Both sides are working to an early resolution of outstanding issues.

  (c) (i) None.

  (c) (ii) None.

  (d) None.

  (e) The FCO is responsible for 12 non-departmental public bodies. These are:

  Executive NDPBs

  Commonwealth Institute

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission

  British Council

  Britain-Russia Centre

  Great Britain-China Centre

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy

  Advisory NDPBs
  Wilton Park Academic Council Government Hospitality Fund Advisory Committee for the Purchase of Wine Diplomatic Service Appeals Board
  506
  Tribunals

  Foreign Compensation Commission

  Intelligence Service Tribunal.

  The Government are committed to keeping the number of NDPBs to a minimum and to ensuring that those which remain are open, accountable and effective.

  Ambassadors for British Business
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the (i) agenda and (ii) purpose of the ambassadors for British Business meeting with Ministers in July 1998; who attended; what documentation was available; what briefing material was provided; and if he will list those occasions(a) when the ambassadors have met in an official capacity and (b) where they have reported back, with an estimate of the total trade agreements reached consequentially. [91840]

  Mr. Hoon
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary met 12 ambassadors for British Business in July 1998. The aim was to review progress and consider how the scheme could be developed, to hear the views of the Business ambassadors on promoting Britain's image overseas and to underline that the scheme should be used to boost inward investment as well as British business overseas. There was no formal agenda. No briefing material or documentation was provided for the Business ambassadors for the meeting.

  There is no requirement for the ambassadors for British Business to submit reports following their overseas engagements. The ambassadors for British Business are not involved in negotiating trade agreements.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those Ambassadors for British Business who also serve on other Government working groups, broken down by group. [91848]

  Mr. Hoon
  The information that is readily available is as follows:

  Sir David John

  FCO Panel 2000

  Member of Board of British Trade International

  Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge

  FCO Panel 2000

  Government Task Force on the Industrial Use of Energy

  Sir Iain Valiance

  Scottish Business Forum

  Board of Scottish Enterprise

  Lord Paul

  FCO Panel 2000

  Foreign Policy Centre Advisory Council

  Indo-British Partnership

  Adair Turner

  FCO Business Panel

  Sir David Alliance

  British Overseas Trade Group for Israel

  Sir Richard Sykes

  Central R&D Committee for the NHS

  National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education

  Council for Science and Technology

  Trade Policy Forum

  507

  Iain Dale

  FCO Business Panel

  Southern Asia Advisory Group

  British Council "BOND" scheme

  Nicholas Scheele

  Foresight Manufacturing Committee (OST)

  Sir Trevor Chinn

  Commission for Integrated Transport

  Cleaner Vehicles Task Force

  Sir Richard Greenbury

  Israel-British Business Council

  David Brown

  University for Industry Board of Directors

  Vocational Qualifications and Occupational Standards Committee

  Spectrum Management Advisory Group

  Industrial Development Advisory Board

  ITEC Skills Strategy Group

  Information Age Partnership Policy Group

  Lord Haskins

  Better Regulation Task Force

  New Deal Task Force

  Yorkshire and The Humber Regional Development Agency

  Paul Smith

  Creative Industries Task Force

  Sir Patrick Gillam

  British Business Council

  John M. Neill

  Manufacturing Panel

  Martin Sorrell

  FCO Panel 2000.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent meetings he has had with visiting Ministers from the Democratic Republic of Congo; and if he will make a statement on relations with that country. [91829]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I met the then Foreign Minister for the Democratic Republic of the Congo in December 1998, and this year have met the Ministers of Finance and Human Rights during their visits to Britain. I visited Kinshasa in February 1999 and met President Kabila and other Ministers. We enjoy normal diplomatic relations with the DRC. Britain welcomes the signature of a ceasefire agreement in Lusaka on 10 July by the DRC and other countries concerned. We stand ready with the rest of the international community to help consolidate the peace.

  Michael Ashcroft
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if Mr. Michael Ashcroft has used a diplomatic passport for entry to the United Kingdom and enjoyed diplomatic immunity within the UK in the last five years(a) when declaring himself to be an Ambassador on entry and (b) when entering not having so declared himself. [92070]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Records are not normally kept of visits to the UK by diplomatic passport holders and we have none of Mr. Ashcroft having entered the UK using a diplomatic passport. Nor do we have any record of Mr. Ashcroft having sought immunity at any time over the last five years.

  Diplomatic Passports
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what rules govern the use of overseas accredited diplomatic passports by UK nationals. [92071]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The rules governing the use of foreign diplomatic passports by UK or other nationals is a matter for the overseas issuing authority.

  British diplomatic passports are issued only to officers (and their spouses) serving overseas as accredited diplomats. They should be used only for journeys into and out of countries to which holders have been accredited.

  Holocaust Remembrance Day
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on his Department's involvement in the proposed Government committee on Holocaust Remembrance Day. [92159]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 19 July 1999,Official Report, column 400.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what forms of telecommunications in Iraq will be permitted to be restructured under the extension of the oil-for-food programme. [92157]

  Mr. Hoon
  It is for the Government of Iraq to propose projects and equipment in the telecommunications sector as in all sectors for funding under the oil-for-food programme. The UN Secretary General approved Iraq's distribution plan for the sixth phase of the programme in April, subject to the caveat that each application will require the approval of the Iraq sanctions committee. We would be prepared to consider applications for telecommunications equipment directly related to the humanitarian programme.

  Chinese Embassy, Belgrade
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the stance of the United Kingdom delegation to the UN Security Council on 14 June, with reference to the debate over the Chinese Embassy bombing in Belgrade; and what was the United Kingdom vote on the relevant resolutions. [92156]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  We understand Chinese anger and grief at NATO's accidental bombing of the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade. My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have both made clear to the Chinese Government our deep regret at this tragic event. These sentiments were underlined in the Presidential Statement of the UN Security Council, issued on 14 May. There have been no Security Council resolutions on the issue.

  International Criminal Court
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the countries
  509
  which have ratified the Rome Agreement to set up the International Criminal Court, indicating in each case the date of ratification. [92162]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Three countries have to date ratified the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Senegal (on 2 February 1999); Trinidad and Tobago (on 6 April 1999); and San Marino (on 13 May 1999).

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the legislation for British ratification of the International Criminal Court will be published. [92161]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Legislation to enable the UK to ratify the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court will be introduced as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits.

  British Council
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 12 July 1999,Official Report, column 55, what projection he has made of the estimated loss of revenue over the next three years as a result of the withdrawal of DFID contracts from the British Council. [92164]

  Mr. Hoon
  The British Council estimates that the value of DFID contracts it will implement will decline from £56.7 million in 1998–99 to £25.8 million in 2001–02, a fall of £30.9 million. The revenue will decrease form £11.0 million to £4.9 million, a reduction of £6.1 million.

  In addition, based on trends in the decline of the number of trainees, the value of the Technical Co-operation Contract will decrease from £19.4 million in 1998–99 to £6.8 million. The revenue will decrease from £3.7 million to £1.3 million, a drop of £2.4 million.

  In total revenue will decrease from £14.7 million in 1998–99 to £6.2 million, a drop of £8.5 million.

  Human Rights
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he is taking to protect the citizens of countries whose security services are guilty of crimes against them. [90799]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Various international human rights instruments, most notably the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Convention against Torture, contain provisions designed to protect individuals from abuse by public authorities, including security services. We consistently urge all Governments to ratify and implement these instruments. More generally, we are able to provide practical assistance to strengthen understanding of and respect for human rights among public officials.

  Official Documents
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish a list of all those official documents of the last Administration which have been seen by(a) him, (b) other Ministers in his
  510
  Department, (c) special advisers in his Department and (d) non-career civil servants appointed since May 1997 in his Department. [92178]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  A large number of official documents were generated during the period of the previous Administration, many of which were published or put in the public domain. Since May 1997, the Department has been guided by the convention governing access to the papers of a previous Administration, as set out in the then Prime Minister's reply to a written question on 24 January 1980,Official Report, columns 305–07.

  War Crimes Tribunals
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the total cost to date of the tribunals on(a) Rwanda and (b) the former Yugoslavia. [92163]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and the former Yugoslavia are mainly funded by assessed contributions from member states of the United Nations. The cost to date of assessed contributions is as follows:

  International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

  Year

  $ million

  1995

  2.2

  1996

  24.5

  1997

  35.7

  1998

  50.4

  International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

  Year

  $ million

  1 May 1994–31 December 1995

  35.8

  1996

  30.4

  1997

  36.4

  1998

  59.4

  In addition, the International Criminal Tribunals are also funded by ad hoc donations from member states and other contributors to the Tribunals' Trust Funds as follows:

  International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda

  Year

  $ million

  1995

  0.2

  1996

  0.8

  19971

  1.0

  1998

  2.4

  1 Estimate

  International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

  Year

  $ million

  1 May 1994–31 December 1995

  0.09

  1996

  1.7

  1997

  4.0

  1998

  4.4

  All figures are actual unless otherwise stated. The Tribunals also receive donations in-kind.

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

Lord Faulkner of Worcester
Richard Oliver Faulkner, Esquire, having been created Baron Faulkner of Worcester, of Wimbledon in the London Borough of Merton, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos and the Lord Carter.
Lord Brett
William Henry Brett, Esquire, having been created Baron Brett, of Lydd in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean and the Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe.

Japanese Prisoners of War
2.47 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester asked Her Majesty's Government:
What recent representations they have received for the award of ex gratia payments to former British prisoners of war of the Japanese during the Second World War, and what response they have made.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Gilbert): My Lords, a number of representations have been received from former British prisoners of war of the Japanese and from bodies such as the Royal British Legion. Although we understand their views on this matter, we do not believe that ex gratia payments are the appropriate way to address the needs of former prisoners of war.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, as my noble friend the Minister may know, I have an interest to declare as Honorary Parliamentary Adviser for many years to the Royal British Legion. Is my noble friend aware that, while fully appreciating that money can never compensate for inhuman cruelties, the Canadian Government recently made substantial ex gratia payments to their prisoners Of the Japanese "to repay a debt of honour"? Cannot we do as much by repaying the same debt of honour to our prisoners of the Japanese? Moreover, is not the continuing failure to conclude this matter the principal impediment now to improving trade and diplomatic relations with Japan?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I begin by paying tribute to my noble friend's diligent commitment to the interests of the Royal British Legion and ex-servicemen
804
generally; indeed, he has been extraordinarily diligent in that respect over the years. However. I cannot agree with my noble friend's last supplementary question because I do not think that we have any very serious difficulties in our trade and investment relations with the Japanese.
My noble friend prayed in aid the case of the Canadian Government who, as he rightly said, very recently agreed some ex gratia payments for their own former prisoners of war from Japanese camps. However, in point of fact, the scale of the problem faced by the Canadian Government was very much smaller than that faced by the British Government. The former Japanese prisoners of war in Canada comprise only about one in 10 of the proportion of the population with which the British Government would be faced. Unfortunately—I stress the word "unfortunately"—these matters were originally settled in the Japanese peace treaty of 1951 and the government in power in this country in 1955 accepted in an exchange of notes that the Japanese had no further duties in this respect.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, have Australia and New Zealand given ex gratia payments to their ex-prisoners of war?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I have inquired into that and I understand that they have not.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that this issue is causing grave concern to our Royal British Legion? Would he be prepared to receive a deputation to discuss this matter when he has a moment at his disposal?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I try to operate an open-door policy in my office. I should be happy to meet representatives of the Royal British Legion. Unfortunately, the matters they wish to discuss do not fall on "my end of ship" in the Ministry of Defence. I know that my colleague, the Minister of State for the Armed Forces, has been deeply engaged in these matters and is shortly to make an announcement on this subject.
Lord Weatherill: My Lords, I have an interest to declare in that I participated in the Burma campaigns and in the subsequent invasion of Malaya. One of the first things we did was to go to the prisoner of war camps in order to see what we could do to help the unfortunate men and women who had suffered such privations. As the Minister said, it is perfectly true that our relations with Japan are good. I hope that I helped to some extent by presenting the sabre which I took at the surrender in Kuala Lumpur to the Yasukuni shrine to the Japanese war dead in Tokyo. However, that is no reason why we should not compensate these brave men who suffered such privations in the prison camps. Can the Minister say what it would cost?
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, there are various estimates of cost available, but on the basis of the same degree of ex gratia payment that the Canadian Government recently announced that they were giving—they are the

805
only government of whom I know who are acting in this way with regard to former prisoners of war of the Japanese—the cost to Her Majesty's Government would be in the range of £100 million to £150 million.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I rise to speak as I have a brother-in-law who was a prisoner of war in Japan. Is my noble friend aware that the compensation he has received is £75 paid in three instalments over three years? I hope that my noble friend considers that totally inadequate to compensate for the kind of treatment these people have received. I was rather disappointed with some of my noble friend's answers. He seemed to be saying that because we have more such ex-prisoners of war than the Canadians, the Government cannot pay them something, or at least obtain something from the Japanese. Surely if my noble friend agrees with me that the treatment these people received was outrageous—as we know—he should be making some representations to obtain rather better compensation than they have received so far.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I agree entirely with my noble friend that the suffering of some prisoners of war of the Japanese—not all of them—particularly those in camps in south-east Asia, was absolutely ghastly. It tears at anyone's heartstrings to read about that even to this day. I agree very much with my noble friend Lord Morris that no financial compensation is ever adequate to compensate anyone for such treatment. I agree also with my noble friend Lord Barnett that the compensation that was agreed back in the 1950s was absolutely pathetic. However, that is what happened. The view was taken at that time by the government of the day and by the subsequent government of 1955 that it was important then not to harass the Japanese in these matters—we have to remember that the Japanese economy then was nothing like as strong as it is now—because we wanted very much to keep the Japanese on our side and in the democratic camp. There is, of course, nothing whatever to stop the Royal British Legion making representations to the Japanese Government, but it sought to pursue the matter through the Japanese courts recently and I am afraid that it got nowhere.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I declare an interest in that I am president of the Burma Star Association. That is a great privilege and honour. Is the noble Lord aware that the advice that I have given prisoners of war, both civilian and military, is that it is not the Japanese Government they should pursue but the many British governments who in my view are culpable of not looking after their prisoners of war who were involved in the battles of Asia? Other governments negotiated so much better deals for their prisoners of war than our very parsimonious British governments of the past of all parties. Is the noble Lord aware that among the veterans there is a strong feeling—I put this to the Government seriously—that in young, new Britain veterans do not count? What are this Government doing about that? I do not see many Ministers, and certainly few if any from
806
another place, taking part in veterans' affairs, looking after them and giving them some dignity in their old age. We are here because of what these veterans did.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I entirely subscribe to the final remarks of the noble Viscount; namely, that we are here because of what these veterans did. Of course we all owe them an enormous debt of gratitude. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to be able to stand at this Dispatch Box and say, "Of course they can have an ex gratia payment"; but unfortunately that is not the policy of this Government, nor of any previous government. However, I really must take issue with the noble Viscount when he says that Ministers have not taken part in veterans' affairs. Leaving aside any personal reference implied in that, all my ministerial colleagues take a great interest in veterans' affairs. I am sure that was true also of the previous government. This Government have for the first time set up a veterans' unit in the Ministry of Defence. That contradicts point blank what the noble Viscount claims.

Kosovo: Reconstruction Programme
2.57 p.m.
Lord Judd Lord Judd asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the reconstruction of Kosovo and what is their policy towards the reconstruction of Serb Yugoslavia.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the UN is co-ordinating both the emergency reconstruction and long-term reconstruction of Kosovo. We are contributing to the emergency effort through our office in Pristina and working to ensure that the reconstruction effort—in which the EC and World Bank will play a leading role—is as effective as possible. For as long as Milosevic remains in power, our policy towards Serbia is to provide only essential humanitarian assistance.
Lord Judd: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that to secure the economic, social and democratic well-being of the people of Kosovo and indeed Serb Yugoslavia will demand every bit as much financial commitment as fighting the war itself, and that so far the sums of which we talk are small by comparison? Can my noble friend give the House a specific assurance that there will be no robbing of Peter to pay Paul and no cutting back on programmes to others in order to finance the reconstruction programmes in these two countries? So far as concerns Yugoslavia, does she agree that a great deal of subtlety will be necessary so that we encourage the positive and responsible elements within Yugoslavia's society who are crucial to its future, and do not throw all the country together in a negative attitude towards the rest of the world?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, we are concerned to ensure the economic, democratic and social well-being of the region. It is for that reason that various countries and international financial institutions have come together to talk about the importance of the long-term

807
reconstruction of the region. However, it is far too soon to place a monetary element on that although of course it will be looked at in due course.
With respect to the specific assurance which my noble friend has sought as regards other DfID funded programmes, the reconstruction effort in the region will not impact on the other programmes in the DfID budget. The question of where the money will come from will be part of that long-term discussion. As to responding to positive and responsible elements within Yugoslavia, I entirely endorse my noble friend's comments.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, having won the war, it is vital that we now win the peace. Perhaps I may press the Minister a little further. Earlier this week the Economic Secretary to the Treasury announced that 500 million ecus were to be set aside from the European budget for the reconstruction of Kosovo. Today in the Guardian newspaper it is announced that that sum will come from cutting EU development aid by 10 per cent and EU humanitarian aid—which is the only source from which Serbia can get any help—by 19 per cent. In other words, it sounds very like robbing Peter to pay Paul. Can the Minister say whether the Government will take the same view as the European Parliament, which is that the reconstruction of Kosovo is so important that new money must he found, in addition to what may be scraped from other parts of the European Union budget?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, there has been a very clear commitment by the Government that the money being spent through the DfID budget on development programmes across the world will continue. There have been on-going discussions about the European Union element of that budget and how that might be spent. I shall be happy to write to the noble Baroness to clarify exactly what decisions have been made in respect of that budget. We consider that it is important to carry out a needs assessment within the region before we get to the point of making decisions about how long-term money should be allocated. There is a commitment to look at the long-term reconstruction of the region and, in particular, to work with multilateral organisations to ensure that that reconstruction happens.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, what assessment has the Minister made of the American decision to give preference in the distribution of humanitarian aid in Serbia to localities whose leaders are pursuing democratic policies? To what extent do the Government intend to encourage the democratic movement?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, it is important that we distinguish between immediate humanitarian relief to a region and the amount we identify for its long-term reconstruction. As part of our undertakings within DfID, we have always alluded to the importance of looking at governance structures within the countries with which we are dealing in terms of long-term development. Working towards ensuring openness, transparency of government and the establishment of democratic institutions is very important indeed. We have to isolate
808
the difference between the immediate humanitarian needs that we will meet and our long-term programme, which will focus on different elements.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, amid this understandable clamour for the rebuilding of Serb Yugoslavia and Kosovo, perhaps I may ask the Minister a practical question. What safeguards are being built into the provisions for the rebuilding of Serb Yugoslavia and Kosovo to protect the Albanian minority in Kosovo against the emergence of a future Milosevic in 20 or 25 years time, repeating what has gone on recently and our having to start all over again?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, this is clearly a subject which will be part of the long-term discussions to ensure political stability in the region. I do not think that anyone would want to see a repeat of what has happened in the region in the past few years. We have made every effort to ensure that the Albanian minority in Kosovo is protected as much as possible. This of course will continue. It would be impossible for me to give my noble friend the kind of guarantee that he seek. We will continue to ensure that these matters will be taken on board in terms of the political, humanitarian and social development within the region.

Nutrition
3.16 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their estimate of the level of malnutrition in the United Kingdom and what action they are taking to tackle it.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the Government's programme for monitoring nutritional status has shown that although most people are adequately nourished, there is a persistent rise in obesity. Eating a healthy and balanced diet and keeping physically active help people to maintain a healthy body weight. These messages are at the heart of the Government's health strategy.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that the Malnutrition Advisory Group of academics, hospital doctors, dieticians and members of primary care groups was set up last month because of concern that people are not aware of the nutritional status of the community? Some 15 per cent of children and up to 40 per cent of adults who are admitted to hospital are found to be suffering from malnutrition. In many cases it continues while they are in hospital and they then lose even more weight. Does the Minister think that the advisory group will influence people and make them aware of this problem?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. I take the opportunity to welcome the formation of the group. I am sure that the Department of Health, in particular, will welcome continuing dialogue with that group,

809
which is drawing attention to some very important issues. No doubt many challenges face hospitals in dealing with the problem of ensuring that people receive appropriate food in hospital. The Government are very concerned to make sure that that happens.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, how much domestic science is taught in schools? Would not it be a good idea to encourage children to cook vegetables and to eat healthily so that they do not become overweight and develop diabetes in the future?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am sure all parents would welcome that. I am glad to say that there is a programme of teaching children to cook and giving them advice about balanced and proper diets. We expect that by the end of this summer some 15,000 children will have been through that programme.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, on the issue of malnutrition in hospitals, the Minister is no doubt aware of the Nuffield Trust report which showed that there were levels of malnutrition both on entry to hospital and on exit. Will the department ask the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to issue guidelines on nutrition for hospitals?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, my understanding is that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence does not consider malnutrition to be within its remit. However, we are taking the report seriously and considering our response to it. It is quite clear that the boards of NHS trusts need to ensure that proper programmes are introduced, and that monitoring takes place, with regard to the way in which food is provided in hospitals. The Commission for Health Improvement will take hospital nutrition into account in its rolling programme of local reviews.
Lord Acton: My Lords, are there any national statistics on the number of cases of anorexia? If so, are these rising or falling?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a very important question. My understanding is that one to two young women per thousand develop anorexia. As noble Lords will know, this can cause long-term ill health and in some cases, regrettably, death. Although most mild eating disorders can be managed within primary care, people with severe disorders should be, and are, referred to specialist assessment areas, including for medical and psychiatric assessment. The broader question of young people being pre-occupied to an unhealthy extent with their weight needs to be tackled.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, the Minister has rightly drawn our attention to the importance of eating disorders and obesity. Is he aware that a significant cause of malnutrition in many parts of our society is poverty, particularly among the long-term unemployed? Are the Government aware of the work
810
that is being done by the Zaccheus Trust to establish minimum levels of food in relation to income support levels? Is he conscious that there is a problem, and are the Government determined to address it? Work is being done by many organisations, but perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention in particular to the work that is being done by Reverend Professor Nicholas Sagovsky at Newcastle University.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the matter needs to be considered in the context of the Government's efforts to provide support to poor people generally. In regard to the issue raised by the right reverend Prelate, I should be interested to learn more details. I commend the Health Education Authority's food and low income database, which provides excellent examples of projects throughout the country which are designed to enable poor people to have access to a balanced diet at affordable prices.

Assisted Places Scheme
3.11 p.m.
Baroness Blatch Baroness Blatch asked Her Majesty's Government:
In the light of criticisms of the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made by Mr Justice Kay in the High Court on 12th July, whether they will reconsider their decision to deny pupils who had secured an assisted place the right to continue that placement to the end of their secondary education.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, the court found in favour of the Secretary of State on all counts. The court ruled that the Government's policy on the duration of assisted places for primary-aged pupils is lawful, and is being applied in a consistent and fair manner. We do not, therefore, intend to change our policy.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, is the Minister aware that before the election, in November 1996, Mr Blair wrote in a letter to a parent,
"Any children already on the Assisted Places Scheme will continue to receive support until the end of their education".
and that after the election Mr. Blair wrote in a newspaper article,
"No child currently at private school under the scheme or who has already got a place has lost out. They will be able to continue their education"?
Does the Minister accept that, despite the judge being unable, in law, to overrule the Secretary of State, there is a moral obligation on the Prime Minister to honour his words by allowing children such as Heather Begbie to complete their education on the scheme?
Baroness Blackstone: No, my Lords. The article to which the noble Baroness refers was intended to be read in the context of a policy which had been very well aired and understood, and it was written long after the circular had been sent to schools with assisted places. It is a

811
great pity that the Conservative Opposition do not give a little more attention to the 93 per cent of children who are in state schools. I do not accept that a child who has had an assisted place in a primary school and then transfers to a state secondary school will be worse off. There are many good state secondary schools. I only wish that the Conservative Opposition would understand that.
Lord Tope: My Lords, does the Minister recall an assurance that she gave me during the Report stage of the Bill dealing with assisted places that any parent who accepted for their child an assisted place running through to age 13 in a free-standing preparatory school would have that place honoured through the use of the discretionary power? In view of the somewhat confused picture of what exactly is a government commitment, will the Minister give an assurance that that particular commitment has been honoured in every case?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I well recollect the noble Lord asking that question on Report. I can confirm that the Government have set up a discretionary scheme under which parents in that category may apply for the scheme to continue for their own child until the age of 13. In all cases, the Secretary of State has adhered to that commitment. Indeed, with respect to the operation of the discretionary scheme, the Government have examined some 350 applications and have agreed that a child may stay in the assisted places scheme in well over half those cases.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, does the—
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the words of the judge in the particular case in question? I quote:
"It is a sorry state of affairs when a Secretary of State has to explain away his own letters as mistaken or unclear and a statement of the Prime Minster as an incorrect representation of policy, taken out of context".
Can the Minister disagree with the judge's words?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the court did not rule that the Government had broken any promises whatsoever. The legal action taken in this case is a distraction designed to make political capital, and involves enormous expense in terms of court hearings. We should not play political games with children's lives.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the schools knew the position perfectly well, and parents had been well informed throughout the application of that policy.
Lord Ewing of Kirkford: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that it is the height of impertinence for an Opposition Front-Bencher to call in aid a court case in the judgment of which the Government were supported, when the noble Baroness who asks the Question was a member of a government who lost court case after court
812
case, costing British taxpayers many millions of pounds because of their incompetence, money which could have been spent on the education of their children?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He is absolutely right in what he says about the Conservative Opposition's appalling record in government in that respect. This policy was introduced to support lower class sizes in our primary schools. The Government have achieved those lower class sizes. We have seen them go down right across primary education, not merely in key stage one, for the first time in 10 years. That is something of which to be proud, unlike the record of noble Lords opposite who were in the previous government.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords—
Earl Russell: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Tebbit! Tebbit!
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I really think it is the Liberals' turn.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Earl Russell: My Lords, is it the Prime Minister's position that he meant it how he meant it at the time?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Prime. Minister made it perfectly clear on a number of different occasions that the assisted places scheme was to be abolished. He made it absolutely clear that we would honour a commitment that children should be able to stay in their current education until they had completed that stage. That is what the Government are doing.

Business of the House: Finance Bill
3.17 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend the Leader of House, I beg to move the Motion standing in her name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That Standing Order 44 (No two stages of a Bill to be taken on one day) be dispensed with on Friday next to allow the Finance Bill to be taken through its remaining stages that day.—(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, unusually, I wish to raise an objection to the Motion. The Finance Bill which will shortly come before this House contains a measure for tax allowances of 100 per cent in favour of small and medium business for firms in Northern Ireland. For the first time in the history of this country, the measure has been struck down by Brussels on the grounds that it infringes the tax harmonisation or fair taxation rules upon which it is insisting.

813
That raises issues of fundamental importance, particularly in view of the guarantees that we have been given that taxation remains the preserve of national legislation and is not a matter that we would under any circumstances cede to Brussels. I ask the Government to take full account of that and to make time available so that we can thoroughly discuss this fundamental issue.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am sure the House has taken careful note of what my noble friend said. He may not be aware that it is a long-standing convention of the House that the Finance Bill is always taken through all its stages on the day of Second Reading. That is usually, but not always, a Friday. The House never goes into Committee on money Bills so we will not be able to deal with it in the way the noble Lord suggests. This House has no effective power on money Bills. It has long been thought that the most convenient way for the House to deal with Finance Bills is in the way I described.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Genetically Modified Crops Bill [H.L.]
3.20 p.m.
Read a third time.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass. I do not intend to take much of your Lordships' time, but I begin by reminding noble Lords of two things I have said either at Second Reading or during the passage of the Bill. First, the Bill is not about genetically modified foods, nor food made with genetically modified products. These are already the subject of a regulatory regime which, so far as is known, works perfectly well.
What is significant in relation to the Bill is that the large food retailers and at least one of the major manufacturers of own label products, Northern Foods, are removing those ingredients from products for the time being at least. That is in response to public disquiet, however misinformed it may or may not be. It is said to be intended that that policy will continue until further positive scientific evidence is available to satisfy all but the most sceptical that there is no harm in the ingredients.
The second preliminary point I wish to make is a personal one. I am not opposed either to genetically modified crops or to the necessary testing of them. I hope that they will prove to be the boon to mankind that the developers of the products claim they will be and that the side effects in the form of the need for fewer pesticides and fewer artificial fertilisers will also be a bonus to the benefit of the environment.
814
That is why, in common with. I imagine, the whole House, I condemn unequivocally the acts perpetrated by masked hooligans in Oxfordshire last Sunday when they destroyed an experimental crop. It is only by controlled and carefully monitored testing that we shall be able to find out whether these products are safe and beneficial—or not, as the case may be. What these self-appointed people who are answerable to no one are trying to say is that they are not interested in facts but simply in imposing their point of view by force.
Just as the major food distributors have now conceded that GM foods should be safe—and they say they are sure they are—so it is also necessary that they should be seen to be safe. The Government must adopt the same attitude before licensing the commercial planting of GM crops. That is all that the Bill demands.
The Bill has grown somewhat in length from the modest single sheet I first introduced some weeks back. This is due in part to the constructive suggestions of some of my noble friends and also to the considerable advice and lobbying I have received from various quarters. I believe that as a result of the amendments introduced in Committee and on Report, the Bill is greatly strengthened and more effective.
The Government's attitude, not just towards this Bill but to the whole debate, has been curious to say the least. I wanted to make that point as we reach the stage of the Bill do now pass. The Labour Party, in opposition and in government, has never lost an opportunity to jeer and sneer at the previous administration over the BSE crisis when what the last government did was to follow the scientific advice they received—incorrect as it turned out. Now that the Labour Party is in government, it panicked into an arbitrary ban on beef on the bone, not on the basis of firm advice founded on clear evidence but because their advisers, following the time-honoured practice of covering their rear, refused to say that there was absolutely and positively not the remotest danger.
In the case of GM crops, the Government have received the advice of a committee of your Lordships' House that the utmost caution should be exercised. They have received the advice from their own think-tank, English Nature, urging caution. They have received conflicting advice from various quarters, for and against, as I mentioned in previous debates and which I shall not repeat. Despite that, the Prime Minister has arbitrarily and publicly, both in the press and in the other place, dismissed all doubts, no matter from what eminent quarter they are voiced. The suggestion is that the doubters and those who advise caution are just a lot of Luddite cranks. Naturally, his Ministers, especially with a re-shuffle imminent, tamely follow the line of the master.
The simple question which I posed previously and to which I have never had an answer is, "What's the hurry?" I can understand the hurry of the agrochemical and biotechnical companies to market the products in the development of which they have invested millions and where perhaps they want to be first in the field ahead of their competitors. But that is of absolutely no interest to the public. Even in America, with its

815
powerful farming lobby, it was only as recently as yesterday or the day before that people began waking up to the possible side-effects. They are discovering that one of their national symbols, the monarch butterfly, is being decimated by GM crops. Insect repellent products may sound very desirable, but what will the effect be on the honey bee? No one can yet say for sure.
Herbicide-resistant products may be very useful but will that help to propagate a new mutation of super weeds in the next field? No one can yet say for sure. More testing is the answer. But the Government's whole testing programme, the so-called farm-scale trials, has been thrown into disarray. That is because the number of farmers who were originally prepared to allow themselves to be used as guinea pigs and to involve their unwitting neighbours at the same time has been so reduced by desertions from the testing programme as to make it worthless from the point of view of scientific evaluation.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, argued at one stage that my Bill was "unnecessary." He later said that it was "unnecessary and inappropriate." By the time we reached the Report stage, he said that it was "unnecessary, inappropriate and OTT". The grounds he advanced for this ever-escalating—
Lord Carter: My Lords, it was "otiose".
Baroness Miller of Hendon: There you are, my Lords, I did not hear it at Report stage. The grounds the noble Lord advanced for this escalating stream of adjectival descriptions of my Bill are that the Government already have the powers to do this, that and the other. There is, however, no automatic revocation of licences, no automatic destruction of crops, no sterilisation of land and no compensation, provided by my final amendment in face of the noble Lord's earlier objection on legal grounds to a short further period of evaluation.
I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that, with the greatest possible respect, which I always use when I address him, I believe that he has missed the whole point of this Bill. The Government do indeed have the power to do some of the things I have proposed. But it is an enabling power. What the Bill does is to make it obligatory on the Government to take the action stipulated. Most of all, it obliges the Government to evaluate all the evidence, not just the self-serving evidence from parties with axes to grind. It obliges the Government to listen to representations from all appropriate interested parties and not simply to those which conform to the Government's own preconceived or preferred choices. It requires the Government to act quickly before irreversible damage is done and without waiting for the usual Whitehall ploy of setting up yet another committee and then claiming that there is no legislative time available or that there has to be the customary 40 days' delay before a statutory order can come into effect.
Finally, the Bill would oblige the Government to submit their evidence and justify their conclusions to Parliament. That is what the public want and expect. They do not want simply to be told by the Government, "We know what is good for you."
816
I have taken rather longer than I intended. I am very surprised by the attitude of the Government. This is one of the most important issues to come before your Lordships' House in recent times. The Government wanted it dealt with quickly on the nod. I took it on myself to do what the public expect this House to do.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, I was the Minister who dealt with the Bill in Committee and on Report. Unfortunately, I could not be here for Second Reading and I am very grateful to her for making good that gap in my knowledge.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
3.31 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 60 [Abolition of severe disablement allowance]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 124B:
Page 68, line 18, at end insert—
("() Those persons entitled to severe disablement allowance at the time this provision comes into force shall receive incapacity benefit in place of that allowance, and shall continue to receive incapacity benefit subject to the normal conditions other than contribution conditions.")
The noble Lord said: I am extremely grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, for the fact that the mass exodus after Questions took place at the beginning of her Third Reading speech on the Genetically Modified Crops Bill rather than my speech on the first amendment.
The first time that I ever suffered the walking out of an audience was 56 years ago when I was with Sir Donald Wolfit on an ENSA tour of "Twelfth Night", which was singularly inappropriate at the time for the troops. We played in front of the first American soldiers over here in Tidworth. On the first night, no sooner had Orsino, the noble Duke of Illyria, spoken the opening lines,
"If music be the food of love, play on",
than there was a noisy mass exodus by the American troops from the body of the hall. Only the officers were left in the front row.
Sir Donald Wolfit was deeply hurt by this and complained to the commanding officer. The following night, the house was again packed when we started the show. We played to utter silence—no laughs, no applause—from beginning to end. During the interval we wanted to know how the audience had been kept quiet and in the their place. We discovered that the military police were parading up and down the aisles of the theatre with revolvers drawn out of their holsters and the hammers cocked. I do not recommend that to the Whips in your Lordships' House, but it is food for thought.
I am well aware that Amendment No. 124B lacks subtlety. To achieve the result for which I am arguing would require rather more complex provisions, but at least what I want to do is clear. I can live with the endorsement on the Minister's brief, "technically deficient"—or something stronger—and the admonition that we shall shortly be debating whether Clause 60 should stand part of the Bill.
I am seeking to transfer those receiving severe disablement allowance to incapacity benefit when SDA is abolished. Quite a lot of those concerned will have been receiving non-contributory invalidity pension or its SDA successor since well before the age of 20 or 25, and if early recognition of incapacity is to be the prime badge of respectability under the new dispensation, they wear that badge and have worn it for many, many years. It seems unfair that they should lose out on the beneficial change that those with a shorter benefit history enjoy.
For those who secured SDA later in life as a result of time spent looking for work, bringing up a family, doing voluntary work overseas, doing very low paid work or some other reason that prevented them from acquiring a contribution record, I would argue that there is also a good reason for not perpetuating a dead benefit, but instead making a once-for-all transfer to the new all-purpose benefit.
We are not talking about people pretending to be sick or disabled and unable to work. We are talking about people who have satisfied and continue to satisfy the adjudicating authorities that they are incapable of work. For many, more incapacity benefit will mean less income support, but I have never followed the logic of the argument that anything that reduces income support payments is not worth doing. With that argument, we would have nothing but means-tested benefits and we would retreat 93 years in the history of welfare reform. For some, including some married women, there will be a substantial net gain; and I do not share the view of sick and disabled married women as at best reluctant workers who ought to rely on the earnings of their wealthy husbands. As far as I am aware, the prevalence rate for wealthy husbands among the population of disabled married women is startlingly low.
The amendment seems to provide a neat way of rounding off an important chapter in our welfare history and I hope that it might find favour with a government anxious to tidy up and move on. I beg to move.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I oppose the proposal that Clause 60 stand part of the Bill.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I can tell my noble friend that we are not debating that at the moment.
Lord Campbell of Croy: Perhaps I could speak on the amendment. It refers to,
"Those persons entitled to severe disablement allowance".
I understand that Clause 60 will abolish severe disablement allowance, but only for new claimants. I hope that the Minister will be able to confirm that those who already receive it will continue to do so. I understand that the amendment applies to people who are entitled to SDA but have not yet claimed it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, understands the intention of the amendment. My noble friend Lord Rix proposes that the entire current caseload of SDA should move over to IB. The Government's proposals are for those under the age of 20.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I was about to reach that point. The Government's proposal in Clause 60 is that SDA should disappear for new claimants. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is suggesting a transfer. I understand that, but I wanted to be sure that I understood the Government's proposals. I find the amendment commendable and if it is accepted there would be a transfer.
The proposals would leave severely disabled people aged 25 and over who cannot work in a much worse position. Abolishing the allowance would have particularly bad effects on women, because 60 per cent or more of those who are eligible for it are women and many of them have not earned enough or been able to make sufficient national insurance contributions to be able to do without it and receive other benefits. I would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the amendment, which I support in principle.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I should like to make a specific point on the amendment. It is important to see the issue in the round. The changes proposed in the Bill must be viewed as part of the package of Government measures. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, put particular emphasis on women. We must take into account all the other benefits for women that are being introduced. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will want to elaborate on them. Specifically, can the Minister assure us about the rules on IB which have been modified to include protection for former carers on invalid care allowance who are unable to pay

819
contributions in the two tax years before their claim? Some of those will be affected by the abolition of SDA. We ask for the Minister's assurance on that.
Lord Higgins: We shall shortly discuss the question of whether the severe disablement allowance should be abolished when we reach the clause stand part debate. As I understand it, what the noble Lord is proposing in his amendment is that, in the same way as severe disablement allowance is a non-means-tested, non-contributory benefit, the same procedure should apply as for those who are entitled to it at the moment and they should receive incapacity benefit on the same basis as they receive severe disablement allowance at present. This is an ingenious amendment and we look forward with interest to the Minister's reply.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The implication of the noble Lord's amendment, as I tried to suggest when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, allowed me to intervene, is that all those people currently claiming and receiving SDA—and I presume by implication all those in the future; it would otherwise be unfair—should in fact be eligible for IB. In other words, the amendment would scrap the non-contributory SDA and replace it with a contributory IB at much higher cost.
There are three main reasons behind our wish to reform SDA. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I repeat myself on the clause stand part debate. Perhaps it would have been sensible to group these matters.
The first reason is that SDA is failing to provide people disabled early in life with the full financial support that they need. SDA was designed for those who could not build up a contributions record for what became incapacity benefit or the old invalidity benefit, so there were always two parallel modes of support: the non-contributory one (for those unable to support themselves but who had no access to the labour market to build up a contributions record) and the contributory one. For those who fell through even that safety net, there was of course always income support. SDA is failing to help those people adequately. It is not giving them the financial support they need.
Secondly, SDA is certainly not helping those in greatest need. The rate of SDA (which was originally designed to be 60 per cent of IB, or the old IVB) means that 70 per cent of recipients have to claim income support on top.
Thirdly, in 1974 SDA was originality designed—as I say, the equivalent was the non-contributory invalidity pension—for those who were out of the labour market and who could never build up a contributions record. It was never designed to cover married women. That was made very clear. The 1974 document states:
"The benefit will not be designed to cover married women living with or maintained by their husbands".
Married women were included in 1977. This point relates to the questions asked by the noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Higgins, about the position of women. Since married women were included in what became SDA—they were never intended to be
820
included but that happened a few years later—there have been significant changes in the situation of women which the benefit has not recognised.
The first was that one year later the married women's reduced stamp was abolished. That reduced stamp had disqualified even those married women in work from building up an entitlement to contributory benefits. Thereafter, newly married women were required, if they were in work, to provide for themselves through paying the full stamp.
Secondly, in 1992 changes were made to the lower rate of disability living allowances. We have also this year had the changes to the lower earnings limit which, together with the minimum wage, has brought a further quarter of a million women into the contributory system. There are now as many women in work as men. Seven out of 10 married women work; eight out of 10 married men work. In terms of opportunities in the labour market, there are at least as many opportunities for women as for men.
The number of women who are acquiring a right to incapacity benefit in their own right has increased from 84,000 just 20 years ago to over half a million now. SDA was originally designed in 1974 for those who could never provide for themselves because their disability had for the most part occurred earlier in life. Married women were included in 1997.
That situation seems to have changed out of all recognition. The support that we give through SDA (at 60 per cent of IB rates) for those disabled from an early age is no longer adequate because it has to be regularly topped up by income support. The situation for married women, who are the other cohort going into SDA, has changed, with the abolition of the reduced married women's stamp, the introduction of lower levels of DLA, the increase in the number of those qualifying in their own right for incapacity benefit through the minimum wage, and the changes to the lower earnings limit.
Given that, I think that SDA no longer fulfils the purpose that it was designed to fulfil in the 1970s. Our reforms restore the principles behind it and focus on the priority—young people. I believe that women are as competent as men to earn their own rights to contributory benefits. However, we now need to protect those disabled from an early age, whether men or women, who have had no access to the labour market. Therefore, our reforms phase out SDA and allow young people disabled early in life to become entitled to IB, thus providing a significantly increased benefit rate for this group. In future, they will get IB at the same rate as people who qualify through contributory conditions and, as a result, they will gain by up to £26.40 a week. People aged under 20 who are receiving SDA when the changes are introduced will also gain as they will receive the long-term rate of IB a year later. Young people will gain substantially from our reforms, and I am glad that this has been welcomed.
However, the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, would result in all SDA recipients being transferred on to IB irrespective of age. Unlike young disabled people, many older people now receiving SDA,

821
including women, will have become disabled relatively late in life and they will have had the opportunity to work, the opportunity to contribute towards benefits, and the opportunity to insure themselves against those contingencies. In my view, awarding them all IB without requiring them to satisfy the contributory conditions is a serious breach of the contributory principle and is deeply unfair to those who have provided for themselves through the contributory condition and who are now in similar circumstances.
I should like to give the assurance for which I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, that no one receiving SDA at the point of change will be worse off as a result of our reforms. We shall ensure that existing SDA recipients receive the benefit on the same basis as now. Of course, income support, HB and CTB will all continue to be available.
It would cost over £250 million to transfer all existing SDA cases on to IB and that is a cost which I do not believe we can justify. It would cost many more millions of pounds to transfer all future SDA cases on to IB. I believe that the time has come now to discriminate within the caseload of future claimants and to say that those who have an opportunity, as women now do in the same way as men, to build up a contributions record for themselves should come within the IB framework. If they are unable to do so, they can of course be eligible—this did not exist in 1977—for income support with a disability premium, if they have a financial need but no contributions record.
Earl Russell: I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify one figure she has just given us. She referred to an extra cost of £250 million. Is that over and above the present figure or is it the figure envisaged once this Bill has become law?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is the additional cost—if we accepted the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix—of moving the existing caseload fully over to IB.
As I say, we believe it is right to focus help on those who cannot come within the contributory system and who cannot have access to work by virtue of the fact that their disability was incurred before they were of working age. Those are the groups we feel we should be helping. We believe that other people—women as well as men, equally—who have access to the labour market and who can build up contributions should be expected to do so and that the right path for them is IB. If IB is not appropriate—possibly because of their responsibility as a lone parent for caring for children—they are eligible for income support with a disability premium which can be more generous than IB.
Lord Higgins: On the point just made by the noble Baroness, and following the point made by the noble Earl, does the £250 million figure include any adjustment for income support?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not sure that it does. I think it is a gross figure that we would need to net down for income support.
822
My noble friend Lady Pitkeathley asked about carers. We recognise that people with caring responsibilities—people receiving ICA—might be unable to meet the new requirement, so carers who have been receiving ICA can use the credits that ICA brings to qualify for IB provided they have paid contributions at some point under the existing rules. Special provision will be made so that they can continue to qualify on this basis.
I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will agree that the Government are focusing on meeting the financial needs of, and offering financial security to, those younger people who, because their disability was incurred at an early age, have never had access to the labour market. For the rest of the SDA cohort, we believe that the world has changed since 1974 when the non contributory invalidity benefit was introduced. We believe that, with all the changes I have enunciated, women are able to build up their own records. Therefore, while no one on the existing SDA will be affected, in future we expect them either to come through the IB network or, alternatively, in appropriate circumstances, through income support with disability premium, which is for the most part even more generous than IB, let alone IS itself. In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rix: I am most grateful to the Minister for her very detailed response, which I shall read in tomorrow's Hansard. I am grateful to noble Lords who have asked questions or have supported me in this amendment. I should be very glad to receive an accurate net figure of the costs involved. I think that the same would apply to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and probably to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. However, in view of the impending clause stand part debate on Clause 60, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Ashley of Stoke: It is a great shame that this debate has now become muddled and muddied. In some cases answers have been given by the Minister to points not yet raised, although we are grateful to her for the trouble she has taken in trying to respond.
The problem with Clause 60 is that it will abolish SDA, which is now available to all who are, or become, too incapacitated to work but are not entitled to incapacity benefit. It has been estimated that some 16,000 people a year—10,000 of them women—will be affected. There is no doubt whatever that severe disability allowance has been one of our most successful and innovative benefits. It stems from the marvellous work of Megan du Boisson, who initiated the housewives' non contributory benefit. That was the basis for this splendid benefit. Above all, it is a safety net. It recognises needs and human rights and human dignity and it provides an income without contributions to all those disabled people who are unable to work for a whole variety of reasons and have not been able to participate in the larger national scheme.

823
A major group of SDA beneficiaries are those whose disability has always prevented them from working. I warmly welcome the Government's proposals to give those people disabled at birth or in childhood the higher rate of incapacity benefit and to extend the age limit to 24. I commend the Government on that. But many would have benefited from the SDA had it been continued. Under the Government's proposals they will get nothing in the future. The safety net will be whisked away. After the age of 24, no disabled person will receive the non-means tested benefit for incapacity unless he fulfils the contributory conditions. Other parts of the Bill now make that even more difficult.
This clause puts a black ball over several vulnerable groups of people. Who are they? Who are these losers? Who are the people who looked so hopefully to a newly elected Government supported by the massed ranks of women MPs in Parliament? As we have already heard from some speakers, the vast majority of potential SDA recipients are women. True to disgraceful tradition and history, women will suffer most—and this under a Government supported in another place by a record number of women.
Women who look after children and become disabled will suffer. There is no doubt about that. They may have worked in the past. But under the proposed new rules only if they have worked and paid national insurance contributions in one of the previous two years will they receive incapacity benefit. Frequently, the women will have worked, or be working, at low rates of pay. That is the real problem. Women make up 80 per cent of the 2.5 million employees who earn below the lower earning limit. Therefore, they cannot build a contribution record. Clearly, SDA is crucial to those on low pay. Why are they suffering?
Carers are another major group. I am glad that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, has already taken part in the debate and has spoken so cogently, as she always does. Carers will suffer under these proposals.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may—
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My noble friend can reply to me in a moment. There is a welcome exemption for some carers who claim ICA. But my noble friend knows quite well that many women do not receive ICA. They are the people who will suffer. They are the last people whom this Government should be hitting.
Another major group that will lose out are severely disabled people who have an interrupted employment pattern and hence cannot meet the new contribution conditions for incapacity benefit. At present, all these vulnerable people can fall back on SDA. In future, they will be left without an income in their own right. The Government claim that people receiving SDA can top it up with income support, so why should not everyone be put through the means test as many will end up on the same level of benefit? In effect, the Government are saying that women who have been in low paid jobs or who have been carers can have their husband or their partner provide for them. That is what the Government's policy will generally mean. There is no IS if the family income is adequate and, if the husband or partner works,
824
it generally will be. We are moving forward to an era where individual human rights are more recognised, but the Government are moving backwards towards a dependency status for disabled women. I cannot believe that my noble friend can justify that before the Committee.
This Committee stage presents us with the opportunity to explain our deep reservations. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Hollis is listening and will respond to the debate. We all respect and admire her, but the Government's policy is not infallible; nor is it set in stone. It needs to be responsive to the genuine problems of disabled people and to the views widely held in this House.
I do not propose to divide the Committee on this occasion as I want the Government to consider what has been said on all sides and to think again. But, as with earlier amendments, I shall table the same amendments at Report stage. If the Government are then unable to respond satisfactorily, I propose to divide the House.
4 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for making it possible for me to speak this early in the debate. They are aware that I am hosting this afternoon a reception in the House of Commons to mark the 25th anniversary of the Crossroads Care Attendant Scheme, which some 400 Members of Parliament and Peers are expected to attend. My noble friend Lady Hollis, with her customary understanding, also appreciates my difficulty of timing. If I have to leave the Chamber before the debate concludes I shall, of course, return as soon as possible.
When official rhetoric about it was in full flood, the boldest claim for this Bill was that, more than 50 years on, it revised and modernised Beveridge. But in truth, if Clause 60 remains in the Bill, we shall see a reversion to one of the worst features of Beveridge; namely, the denial to disabled married women, among others, of any entitlement to an income support benefit in their own right.
The fact is that Beveridge was revised and modernised by an historic decision of the last Labour government to provide a non-contributory income support benefit as of right for people who, because of severe disability, had never been able to work and pay national insurance contributions. Before that decision they were non-people in terms of statutory income support and it was the depth of public feeling about this—as my noble friend Lord Ashley recalled—that led the late Megan du Boisson and Befit Thornbury to found the Disablement Income Group in the 1960s.
In a letter, Sir Peter Large, who was DIG's parliamentary spokesman for many years, tells me today:
"Berit Thornbury is as appalled as I am by the Government's proposal in Clause 60 to abolish the Severe Disablement Allowance (SDA), which now incorporates the Housewives' Non-Contributory Invalidity Pension you introduced in 1977 when you were Minister for Disabled People".

825
He goes on to recall that prior to that date, if they had insufficient income to pay for help, husbands had to give up work to look after their disabled wives and any children they had. He predicts this will happen again if Clause 60 stays in the Bill—that a great many people will be forced from work on to welfare—and he adds:
I had thought the Government's aim was to provide work for those who can and security for those who cannot.
"You and I know what a financial disaster an accident or crippling disease can be for a family. Abolishing SDA will mean that the married woman and her husband and any children they have are reduced to poverty before the welfare state will help them.
It is a weird and cruel 'reform' that turns the clock back to 1977 and consigns disabled married women once again to being nonentities in the social security system".
Thus Sir Peter Large sees Clause 60 not as reform of Beveridge but a return to one of the ugliest features of the system that his report informed. I have seen no more withering criticism of this clause.
My noble friend Lady Hollis has spoken of those who will benefit from the changes this Bill proposes, as I too have done in previous debates. More especially I welcomed the help envisaged for 20 to 24 year-olds in full-time education. But what of the losers? Some 30 per cent of SDA claimants who are not eligible for income support will be the main losers. They include every severely disabled person whose partner works on average more than 24 hours a week.
If their partners work fewer than 24 hours, the first £15 of income will be disregarded. Any earnings above £15 will be deducted pound for pound. Also ineligible are severely disabled people if they and their partners have savings of more than £8,000. Anton Obholzer of the Citizens Advice Bureaux has been most helpful in documenting the effects of Clause 60 by reference to the cases of individual disabled people known to the CAB. I want briefly to mention just two.
A London bureau reports the case of a married woman suffering from Guillan Barrie Syndrome, multiple sclerosis and epilepsy. She is a wheelchair user and now receives £52.70 a week in severe disablement allowance. Her husband works 40 hours a week. She will thus not be entitled to income support when she loses her SDA. Nor, it appears, will she be able to claim earnings replacement benefit in her own right.
The second case, reported by a bureau in Kent, is that of a man in his early 40s who was made redundant after working and paying national insurance contributions since leaving school. To gain better qualifications he went to university for three years, took a degree and got a job. Tragically, before he could take up his appointment, he suffered severe head injuries in an accident. His years at university mean that he does not have a recent record of NI contributions. So under the proposals in the Bill he will be ineligible for incapacity benefit. Nor will he qualify for SDA because of his wife's hours of work. The CAB comments:
"The Government have stated that they want disabled people to lead a fulfilling life with dignity. The CAB believes that abolishing SDA moves away from rather than towards this goal".
826
My right honourable friend Alistair Darling, Secretary of State for Social Security, said in his "moral crusade" speech at Newham two days ago:
"Failing to embrace radical reform would let down people who look to Labour to represent their needs".
But headlong retreat from the radical reform that created a non-contributory income benefit as of right for severely disabled housewives in the 1970s will be the consequence of keeping Clause 60 in this Bill.
What kind of radical reform is it that inflicts gratuitous and unmerited further hardship in the very sad cases drawn to my attention by the CAB? And what kind of moral crusade is it that hurts them at a time when so many more fortunate people in society have never had it so good?
I support the deletion from the Bill of Clause 60.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may intervene at this stage. It is appropriate to defer to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, whose name appears at the top of the list of those noble Lords who oppose Clause 60 stand part, and also the noble Lord, Lord Morris, who, for the reasons he explained, will not be able to be here later in our proceedings today.
The effect of Clause 60 is to abolish the severe disablement allowance which is a non-means-tested and non-contributory benefit payable to people who are unable to work due to sickness or disability but who do not have the contributions necessary to claim incapacity benefit. Neither of the noble Lords to whom I have just referred is given to hyperbole, but when they use words like "disgraceful" or "weird and cruel reform" it is right that, given their record over the years in defending the interests of disabled people, we should take account of their views. However, even if that were not so, we on these Benches believe that what the Government propose here is a serious error of judgment. Indeed, it goes together with the two previous clauses which were debated very late at night the other day which restrict incapacity benefit to those who have made only recent, not long term, contributions and those who have not made their own pension provision.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that all three of these clauses are driven by the desire to reduce expenditure on social security. It is well known that both before and after the election the Prime Minister pointed out very clearly that it was the intention of the Government to reduce expenditure on social security. They have totally failed to do so. That expenditure is scheduled to rise by some £35 billion over the next three years.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lords who have also spoken in the debate have constantly stressed that it was only the intention to reduce the proportion spent on social security. That did not appear in the speeches made before the election and subsequently by the Prime Minister. But it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that these three clauses are effectively cost saving exercises. In reply, perhaps the Minister can tell us how much is expected to be saved from the social security bill if Clause 60 remains.

827
I understand from the figures quoted—no doubt the Minister can confirm them—that about 16,000 people a year, 10,000 of whom will be women, will be excluded from benefit as a result of the abolition of SDA. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, gave a number of case examples provided by the CAB of the kind of people who will lose out. It will have a particularly harsh impact on severely disabled women because 61 per cent of SDA recipients are women; and that rises to 70 per cent for older women. A number of other groups will lose severely as a result of the proposed change. Instead of entitlement as at present to a non-means-tested benefit, they will be pushed on to a means-tested benefit. This has been a constant theme of the Government since they came to office, and certainly so far as concerns this Bill. There is a move more and more towards means-tested benefit. This clause is another move in that direction.
The proposals are opposed by a number of outside bodies which are concerned about the impact that they will have. I refer to MIND, MENCAP, the Disabled Benefits Consortium, the Disability Alliance, and so on. Such a change is not in line with the broad thrust of the way in which society is developing. it seems to us a mistake. I find the arguments put forward by the Minister unconvincing.
The Government may argue that these people can end up on income support. But we all know the problems of that. We have stressed a number of times that if an individual has capital of £3,000—it is a small amount—his benefits will be reduced; and they will be eliminated if he has capital of £6,000. So we do not consider that a good argument.
Alternatively, the Government may argue that such benefit may go to households which already have adequate resources. That does not seem a reasonable argument against the background of the people who are at present entitled to severe disablement allowance.
The argument is put forward that most women now go out to work; they will be eligible for IB instead. That does not prevent the people whom I have listed, on the scale which I have enumerated, from losing out as a result of the clause.
We believe that it is a bad clause. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is right to stress that it should not be in the Bill. It is a view that we share.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: We on these Benches support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, for deletion of this clause. The Minister precisely and correctly said that severe disablement allowance was a safety net. Those who propose the removal of safety nets are either optimists or sadists. The Minister is an optimist. I like optimists, but I do not always believe what they tell me.
I shall not speculate into which of those categories the Secretary of States falls. However, I confess that I found the Secretary of State's Newham speech in this context just a little curious. There seemed a painful disjunction between the Secretary of State's rhetoric and the measures he set out to defend. He produced, as
828
government Ministers always do, a great deal of rhetoric about the creation of opportunity and getting people into work. I know that some disabled people can do all sorts of things that people would not have expected. But I do not think that the number of people on severe disablement allowance who will go into regular work is likely to be statistically significant. I shall be glad for those who do, but I doubt whether it is a principal motive of the clause.
I do not understand what opportunity is being created. especially since, as I understand it, the savings—I join with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in wanting to know the figure—are being ploughed back into the Treasury. The Secretary of State said a great deal about children growing up in poverty. Again, I do not see what help is given to children growing up in poverty by cutting severe disablement allowance. I cannot help suspecting that the Secretary of State is crusading up the wrong tree.
I turn to the Minister's optimism. We have here the same debate as we had between the Minister and her noble friend Lady Turner of Camden on the bereavement allowance. I am glad to see the Minister nod. I understand perfectly well the sort of pride which the Minister brings into her belief in equality. It does her a great deal of credit. But I also agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, that the Minister overrates the extent to which the world has changed. She believes that the degree of equality between the two genders is greater than yet it is. I have occasionally expressed in particularly sanguine moments similar optimism in political debates inside my own party, and a great many women in the party, with very good experience behind them, have told me that it is not true yet. They convince me that that is so.
The Minister might also bear this point in mind. I regret to say that she very easily thinks in the category of "they". That is a deceptive category. People are not "they". They are a miscellaneous and utterly different collection of people. That is truer in this context than in almost any other. When we consider the use that women make of the opportunities put in front of them—and I think that men equally will make use of the choices that will be put in front of them as the pattern of division of work between the genders shifts—some seize opportunities with both hands, and some have a preference to remain the traditional wife and mother. Both are their right. It is not our business to lay down one as the normal pattern and apply "they" to it.
I shall not run through the traditional list of categories of those who are disadvantaged by the contributory principle. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, covered the ground pretty thoroughly. One should perhaps say a word about those who have several part-time jobs, each of them below the lower earnings limit. That creates a great deal of difficulty.
One should say something about how much Me Government's new proposals will disadvantage students. We on these Benches are extremely grateful for the change in the kick-in date from 20 10 25. It makes a lot of difference, but not enough. People are coming to university later and later because they need

829
to save the necessary money to cover their maintenance, which their loans will not do, and in many cases to pay their tuition fees. So we quite regularly have people coming up to university without adequate contribution records at the age of 23. These 25 year-olds will not have the contribution records necessary to qualify for IB. There will be a good deal of hardship in this area. Some further thought on this is needed.
For those, and for a great many other reasons, we think that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, is right; and whenever it comes to the issue we shall be with him.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, was able to make his speech earlier than some of us contrived to do, because he is now hosting a function for carers in another part of the building. I would have been one of those attending had it not been for this Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, has made a good case and I support it in general. He went over the ground and I shall not go over it again, but I shall point to some of the main aspects of the argument.
SDA has been for people who have not been able to build up the required national insurance contribution record. Recipients are generally either people who have been disabled all their lives and have never been in the labour market or people who have become severely disabled later in life and do not have a recent national insurance contribution record. Those people, I understand, are mainly married women, and if such people were to claim in the future they would not be entitled to SDA.
Other provisions in the Bill tighten the contribution conditions for incapacity benefit—IB—so that in future severely disabled people who have been in and out of work or unemployed will be unable to qualify for IB. At present. people in that position can claim SDA, but in future SDA will not be available and that group will have only means-tested income support to fall back on, provided they do not have savings and their partner or spouse is not in work.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, mentioned Mrs Megan du Boisson. I referred to her in my Second Reading speech on this Bill. I helped her to create, in the mid 1960s, the organisation known as DIG—the Disablement Income Group—at a time when there were virtually no benefits for anybody except war disabled or those suffering industrial injuries. She was, until her untimely death, an inspiration, especially for this benefit. I am glad to be able to support the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, in general and I hope that the Government will listen carefully to what has been said in this debate.
Lord Rix: Like the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, I shall not go over the ground covered so effectively by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, and other noble Lords. However, it is worth remembering that people who are over the age of 20 when they claim SDA have to demonstrate that they are 80 per cent disabled to qualify. It is difficult to prove that one is 80 per cent disabled and, as a rule, people do
830
not slip through the net in a test of that kind. If the Government really believe that the best way to help the more severely disabled people is by abolishing the severe disablement allowance, something must replace it. That something should be more than means-tested income support.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This clause and Part IV of Schedule 13 phase out severe disablement allowance. That will mean that from the point of change, no new claims for SDA will be accepted.
I regret that the previous amendment and this clause stand part debate were not grouped together. We have already spent some time discussing our proposals for SDA, so I will not extend this debate unnecessarily. I simply want to remind the House that SDA has failed. It does not help the one group of people who cannot build up a national insurance entitlement because they become disabled before they can enter work. SDA does not protect those people properly. It does not help the poorest, it is out of date and it gives additional money to people who we no longer believe need it.
The Government propose to reform SDA. Nobody now receiving SDA will lose out, but in future younger people will gain through access to incapacity benefit—worth up to £26.40 a week more. Some 175,000 people will gain in the long term. Because of the points of concern expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, we shall ensure—by raising the age cut-off point to 25 for young people who enter higher education or training—that we give them entitlement to the new IB. I hope that we have met his points, but if he feels that we have not I shall be happy to follow it up in correspondence. The disability pressure groups asked us to raise the cut-off age from 20 to 25 for that reason.
People with the lowest incomes who will no longer qualify for SDA will see no difference in their income because, as the House knows, SDA makes no difference to 70 per cent of recipients, because they have to top it up with income support. People who will be in that situation in future will also be eligible for income support.
We should also remember that our reform of SDA is part of our wider package for disabled people. We are introducing the disabled person's tax credit, which will be much more generous and accessible than disability working allowance; doubling the child premium in the working families tax credit for a disabled child; and creating the new disability income guarantee. worth at least £128 a week for most severely disabled people under 60 receiving income support.
Overall, we are spending £2 billion more by the end of this Parliament on benefits for disabled people. As the House saw in the debate last night, we are also building on our commitment to comprehensive civil rights with the disability rights commission. We are also doing more to help people into work—because all those currently on IB were once in a job. We are investing £195 million in the new deal for disabled people; investing a further £80m in the "one" pilots; and replacing the all work test with the new personal

831
capability assessment to end the assumption that everyone on incapacity benefit can do no work whatever their skills and their human capital.
All those reforms are an essential part of our approach, but if we want to do more for the people who need help most, we have to ask how best to use our resources. That is why we are modernising disability benefits—so that they provide more help for disabled people in greatest need, as well as providing help and opportunities for disabled people who 'want to work.
I was asked about the savings that the proposals would generate. We expect from Clause 60 that the savings by year three will be £5 million a year, rising in the long term to some £60 million a year. I am assured that in the £250 million figure I gave in response to the earlier amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, income support was taken into account in the calculation of the cost of that amendment and, therefore, it was a net figure, not a gross figure.
Most of the Committee's concerns this evening have focused on the position of married women. Some 35 per cent of the existing SDA caseload are married women who were passported across from the old housewives' non-contributory invalidity benefit, introduced in 1977. The same cohort of people were taken across into SDA.
My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke said that we were whisking away the safety net from those married women in the future, but that is not true. A safety net will exist that did not exist in 1977 or in 1984, when SDA. was introduced. The addition in 1988 of the disability premium to income support is now the true safety net for people with relatively severe disability who are in financial need.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, was right. It is a generational issue, and the same arguments came up in relation to widows' benefit, incapacity benefit and SDA. The world has changed since those benefits were shaped in the early 1970s.
I repeat that the housewife's contributory benefit was introduced one year before the abolition of the reduced stamp for married women. That meant that women such as me were allowed to coast through on a reduced stamp and never build up an entitlement to JIB. That has not been the case for the past 20-odd years.
In 1988, when income support replaced supplementary benefit, a new disability premium was introduced. Seventy per cent of those on SDA already receive income support. I pay tribute to the previous administration for introducing in 1992 new lower rates for disability living allowance.
In discussing married women with a disability who have no access to any income, the missing words are disability living allowance. Eighty per cent of people on SDA access and claim disability living allowance if they have extra costs of caring which need to be financed.
Furthermore, as a result of the changes to the minimum wage and LEA, approximately 90 per cent of women who work more than 16 hours a week and 60 to 70 per cent of women who work fewer than 16 hours a week will now qualify for incapacity benefit by building up their benefit entitlement.
832
I believe that the world has changed. Perhaps I may give an example of a woman I know. She is Australian by birth and is married. She has never worked in this country and therefore has never built up a contribution record. She has no extra cost needs by virtue of her disability and therefore is not receiving DLA. Her illness is one of fatigue rather than an extra-cost illness. Her husband is a highly paid local government officer. That woman has not contributed; she has no extra costs; and a generous household income is going into the family. Why is she receiving a benefit when the money could be more appropriately spent on helping young people? I refer to young people perhaps known to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, through Mencap who, by virtue of cerebral palsy, spina bifida or the like, will never have the chance to join a labour market, will always be poor and for whom most of these savings are being recycled to help lift them.
These are choices. If money were endless, all right. None the less, in seeking to determine who needs help most we are looking at a degree of disability matched by the financial capacity to cope. We believe that people who cannot cope are those unable to build up any means of a contributory benefit by access to the labour market and who have no access to other forms of capital. In future, that group will be passported from SDA to IB. I believe that that is the right focusing of the benefit—not continuing to give it to people who have chosen not to build up a contributory record, as in the case of some married women, or who do not need access to means-tested benefit because they have sufficient finances coming into the household. I do not believe that they have the prior claim on disability benefits over young people who were disabled in their childhood and have no such access. That is the reason for Clause 60. I realise that this is a generational matter, but I hope that in the light of my explanation Members of the Committee will be able to support the Government's position.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Higgins: The Minister said that the benefit would go to people who had chosen not to build up a contribution record. Is she saying that all the people who will lose out as a result of the clause chose not to build up a contribution record; that is to say, they had a choice?
More particularly, the Minister did not refer to a government estimate showing that 116,000 people, 10,000 of them women, would be excluded from benefit as a result of the abolition of SDA. Is she saying that all those 16,000 people will receive benefit in some other way, or not?
The Minister said that the Government believe that those people have adequate resources. What is their evidence that that is the case? Presumably, the evidence is based on a statistical foundation. That statement implies that no personal benefits shall be paid to anyone without a health or means test.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: People such as myself chose to pay the reduced married women's stamp or we chose not to go to work. In some comfortably-off

833
families, the women chose not to work. That is their choice. However, if there is a choice not to work, and therefore not to build up a contribution record, unless there is financial need the state has no obligation to make good the choice from taxpayers' money. It is not necessarily right that taxpayers on a modest income of £10,000 or £12,000 a year should contribute to a non-means-tested benefit for someone whose household income may be four or five times that.
If a person has additional costs by virtue of his disability, yes, there is a commitment by society. That is precisely why 80 per cent of those on SDA are entitled to disability living allowance. However, as an income replacement—that is SDA—it is not necessarily right that society should replace an income where a household is comfortably off as opposed to the extra costs of disability, which is generated by DLA.
The point is that women have a choice now and they make good use of it. In fact, seven out of 10 married women and eight out of 10 married men work. More widows than widowers are in work. The number of women going into the labour market is the same as the number of men. Given that, if a woman chooses not to work and therefore not to build up entitlement to contributory benefit, presumably by reason of the relative affluence within the family, that is her choice. However, it is not necessary that other taxpayers on lower incomes should support that choice. If she has extra needs by virtue of her disability, DLA should meet it. Alternatively, if she is in financial need, there is income support with disability premium.
Lord Higgins: In seeking to understand the point that the Minister makes, perhaps I may put it precisely. Is she saying that all 16,000 people who are expected to be excluded from benefit will have the opportunity of building up a contribution record which will be adequate at the point where they would normally draw it and ensure that they are provided for?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In a way, that is a hypothetical question because everyone currently on benefit will be protected. I hope that one of the consequences of this and other changes will be to encourage women to build up their entitlement record. Most of them do. That is why the Chancellor, with the combination of the minimum wage and keeping the LEA floor low at £66 and beginning the contribution during the next two years at the personal tax rate of £88, is ensuring that low-paid women can continue to enjoy the kind of protection which contributory benefits offer.
The Government's policy is that, through work, people should be able to contribute to building up their national insurance record. If they cannot do that, if they cannot enter the labour market and if they have financial need, we are trying a non-means-tested benefit. However, if they have financial need and can join the labour market but are no longer so doing, they are entitled to income support with a disability premium which is at least as generous as IB.
Lord Higgins: I thought that I had put the question precisely. Let me try again. Is the Minister saying that
834
all 16,000 people—and perhaps she will confirm the figure—who will be excluded from benefit will have the choice of building up a contribution record? We understand that the benefit will not stop for people in receipt of SDA, but in future will those who are able to contribute build up an adequate contribution record in the time? Will they all have a choice, or is it the case that because of personal circumstances some people will not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know whom the noble Lord envisages. It is true that we expect that the 16,000 people who currently qualify for SDA would not, in future, so qualify. I hope that the statistics quoted by the noble Lord are correct. Everyone has the choice, as the noble Lord has had in the past, as I have had in the past and as every member of your Lordships' House has had in the past to build up contributions.
Those people who in the future will be disqualified from SDA will have had the same choice as others, no more and no less, to build up a contributions record. I misled the noble Lord. The figure is 14,000 rather than 16,000. None the less, we all have the choice to build up a contributions record.
However, I do not understand the point made by the noble Lord. That choice has remained. In the past some women have chosen not to take advantage of that choice. They have gone into work, or have not gone into work, but have not built up a contributions record and they have had a non-means-tested benefit at the expense of the rest of us. That is fine. That will continue for that cohort, but in future everyone will have the choice to build up a contributions record. If the noble Lord has some examples in mind, I may be able to help him, but at the moment I do not understand his question.
Lord Higgins: One example is a carers who is looking after someone. Will he or she have that choice?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes. I made it clear in answer to my noble friend that a carer who cares for more than 35 hours a week—for example, a full-time carer—and who would otherwise be passported from SDA, will be eligible for incapacity benefit on the existing conditions of IB. I gave that assurance to my noble friend in reply to the last question, as I am sure the noble Lord heard.
Lord Rix: Before the Minister sits down, in an earlier answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, she said that women with wealthy husbands should not be supported by people on incomes of £10,000 a year. I would have thought that income close to the minimum level of pay in this country. What amount of tax would a person on that low level of income pay that would eventually filter through to the wife of the wealthy husband?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall try to do the calculations. I do not believe it would be advisable for me to do so on my feet without knowing the circumstances of that particular family.

835
My point is this. If we were considering afresh, in today's society, how to build a structure of disability benefits, would the Committee advocate a benefit to be received by people who have chosen not to build up a contributions record—apart from those who have not had the opportunity to exercise a choice by virtue of the age at which the disability was incurred? Would noble Lords invent a benefit to be received by people who had chosen not to build up a contributions record and whose financial means were sufficiently generous within the family that they would not need a means-tested benefit? I am not sure that the Committee would consider that the first priority. I was seeking to establish that point.
Earl Russell: Perhaps I may seek to answer the Minister's question roughly in the terms in which she posed it. One needs to give a little background. First, I have much enjoyed listening to the Minister on the subject of equality. I do not mean only because she speaks extremely well, but also because her conviction that the world has changed is itself both evidence of change and a force for future change. So long as the Minister is expressing only a personal opinion, I am extremely happy to listen to her.
I become a little more uncomfortable when prescriptions are made for what will happen to other people. There are many possible choices. On the issue of choice the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, are both right. They are talking about different points. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is concerned directly about people who are in no position to obtain any work from. which they can build up a contributions record. I agree with him on that.
However, the issue here concerns the situation where one person in a couple not necessarily the woman—chooses to stay at home and accepts the domestic responsibilities. One cannot get away from the fact—as I was rudely reminded when the water started coming through my ceiling at two o'clock this morning—that someone has to deal with the matter!
I do not believe it is the business of the state to decide how those responsibilities inside a family should be apportioned. The state does not have the knowledge; it does not have the competence; and it does not have the authority. I believe, with some passion, that diversity is itself a good. I agree with the remark that my honourable friend Mr Rendel once made to me that there is no one right way to live.
When the Minister asks whether the state should support that choice, I hear what she says. I understand the reasons for her doubt, but supporting the principle of diversity is of sufficient importance to justify an answer "yes" to the question of the Minister. That "yes" is of a great deal more importance to running a state in a free country than we often stop to consider.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In no sense do I dispute the virtues of pluralism, diversity or choice. If resources are Ii rite it is not necessarily right that taxpayers' money should be used to support that choice rather than making
836
life more comfortable and secure for people who have never been able to exercise choice because their disability was incurred at birth.
Earl Russell: I hear, understand and respect what the Minister says. However, if the power of the state, and especially its financial power, is exercised to discourage diversity, granted the fact that most of us are wrong most of the time, in all quarters of the Committee, that is the greater evil.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: I do not propose to press to a Division, the Question whether Clause 60 shall stand part although I may come to a different conclusion on Report. I am grateful to my noble friend for the enormous trouble that she has taken to answer all the points that have been made.
Clause 60 agreed to.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 124C:
After Clause 60, insert the following new clause—

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill

  ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE AND DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE: INFORMATION ABOUT ENTITLEMENT
  (" .—(1) The Secretary of State shall take such steps as appears to him appropriate for the purpose of securing that persons who may be entitled to attendance allowance or disability living allowance (as the case may be) become aware that they may be entitled to that benefit.
  (2) If it appears to the Secretary of State that, on the basis of information in his possession, a person who has not made a claim for attendance allowance or disability living allowance (as the case may be) may be entitled to that benefit, he shall forthwith inform him of that fact and invite him to make a claim for it.
  (3) Where the Secretary of State is in possession of information which should have alerted him to the fact that a person might be entitled to claim attendance allowance or disability living allowance (as the case may be) but he failed to discharge his duty under subsection (2) above and that person subsequently makes a claim for the benefit concerned which is determined in his favour, he shall be entitled to payment of the benefit from the time when the information came into the possession of the Secretary of State, provided that he would have been entitled from that time but for the requirement of paragraph (a) of subsection (1) of section 1 of the Social Security Administration Act 1992 (claim necessary for entitlement).")
  The noble Lord said: I normally try to make my amendments as brief as possible, but Amendment No. 124C is longer than some. Therefore, it is virtually self-explanatory. The amendment concerns the take-up of the disabled living allowance. It seeks to suggest that the Secretary of State shall take the necessary steps to ensure that people entitled to disability living allowance or attendance allowance become aware that they are entitled to that benefit.
  I believe that the noble Baroness will confirm that the take-up of such benefits is much lower than one would like. No doubt she has the figures. It is suggested that the Secretary of State shall take steps to ensure that those concerned receive such benefit, if they are entitled to do so, on the basis of other information that the department is likely to have. The final part of the amendment suggests that if there is a determination in favour of such a person, but they were not aware of the fact at the time, the benefit should be back-dated.
  As I say, the amendment is self-explanatory. I look forward to the reply from the Minister. I beg to move.
  Lord Addington: Any amendment accompanied by a guidance note to ensure that people know about their entitlements always attracts my attention. Many problems within the system concern a lack of knowledge. People do not know what they should do, so they struggle. I suggest that that is something that should be stressed to every single agency that deals with the general public.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This new clause is intended to improve the take-up of disability living allowance and attendance allowance by making the DSS responsible for making people aware that they may be entitled to claim.
  I fully share the concern of the noble Lord. We know that there is a problem of low take-up with DLA and AA. That is confirmed by research. Of course, it is right that things are done to promote benefits when those entitled to them are not claiming them.
  The analysis suggests that a range of factors is involved, including, for example, lack of knowledge about the benefits and reluctance to claim. It is also the case that the rules of entitlement for these benefits are more difficult to understand than those for benefits like child benefit and retirement pension where take-up is nearly universal.
  Thus, we have a double problem. On the one hand, many prospective claimants misunderstand DLA and AA, resulting in as many as 40 per cent of claims being rejected. At the same time, the research available to us suggests that 40 per cent, or perhaps even more, of those potentially eligible for the benefits may not, for one reason or another, claim them. So it is important that we try to obtain a better balance.
  There is much that we do already to achieve this. In many cases the Benefits Agency staff already help people to find out about their benefits such as DLA. We particularly take steps to provide information in various formats to ensure that it is available and accessible. It is provided in a dozen languages with audio tapes, large print and Braille publications. We also provide advice for disabled people by telephone, including textphone services for people with speech or hearing problems, on several well-publicised numbers.
  We have also co-operated with other organisations whether within or outside Government, that provide benefit information and we shall continue to do so, including working closely with local authorities. Given that most local authorities have welfare rights offices, I have recently started discussions with local authority organisations to see how best we can help people to take up the benefits that they should take up as well as to encourage people to come forward and move on to the New Deal where they can. We believe it is right to seek to ensure that people know what they are entitled to claim. We believe that the "one" service, particularly for younger people, may also be a help. We are working on that.
  838
  None the less, the noble Lord asks us to shift responsibility on to the department to use the information that it holds to invite claims for benefit. That seems an attractive and obvious approach. That is more easily done, but even there we have had real difficulties in getting people on retirement pension to claim the income support to which they are entitled. We at least have a much better idea of whether they are entitled and eligible even though they are not claiming.
  The difficulty with DLA and AA, as I am sure the Committee knows, is that it is an extremely complex benefit. The DSS cannot determine in advance who may be eligible for it. Perhaps I may explain. The DLA and AA are based on a disabled person's diary and the day-to-day problems that they face in living. It is effectively self-reporting and not departmental. That is translated into the proxy of care need. Neither is there any automatic read-across from severity of disability to care need and therefore to the level of DLA. For example, a person's housing situation may mean that they cannot cope with night-time care needs. They may be living in a Victorian converted house with a downstairs toilet with the need to go up and downstairs. Someone living in a bungalow might not have such night care needs and therefore would not be entitled to the higher rate DLA but only to the middle rate.
  That is the kind of complexity with which we are dealing. We need to know a person's diary for the purposes of assessment and need. We have to turn that into a proxy for care. Only then can we assess their eligibility for entitlement. Although people may be encouraged by their GP, their local welfare rights service, or the "one" service to apply for DLA and AA, ultimately, because of the complexity of the benefit, there cannot be any automatic trawl by the Benefits Agency. It has to be initiated, so to speak, from the bottom up with our help and information.
  In the light of that explanation I hope that the noble Lord will accept that his target regarding the two benefits, DLA and AA, which have to be initiated by the disabled person, while doing our best to provide information to them, cannot be any automatic provision. They are complex benefits based on the individual's care need and therefore can only be dealt with in conjunction with the individual claimant. With that rather complicated explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Higgins: We are grateful to the noble Baroness for that explanation. It is a Catch-22 situation. The fact that it is so complicated makes it all the more difficult to ensure that people take up the benefit. We recognise that. But it seemed worthwhile raising that particular point in the course of debates on the Bill simply because the take-up rate, compared with other benefits, seems to be extremely low. We realise the reasons for that. We hope that the department will do everything possible to ensure that there is adequate publicity by way of advertisements and so forth.

  839
  As the noble Baroness rightly pointed out, in other contexts local authorities manage to get around the problem. One hopes that that will be so in the future as regards this matter. In the light of the remarks of the noble Baroness I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 61 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 125 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 125A:
  After Clause 61, insert the following new clause—

  INCOME SUPPORT FOR SEVERELY DISABLED PERSONS
  (" .—In section 135 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act, there shall be inserted after subsection (1)—
  "(1A) The applicable amounts for income support for severely disabled persons shall be made by the Secretary of State following consultation with one or more organisations whom he regards as representative of severely disabled persons.
  (1B) The sums first certified by the Secretary of State under subsection (1A) above shall be. in the case of a severely disabled person who is aged not less than 16 but less than 60, set at a level at no less than the higher level for those aged over 25 together with the maximum disability premiums available.
  (1C) After sums have first been certified under subsection (1A) above, the sums certified in each subsequent year shall be not less than the total of the sums certified in the previous year together with the amount (if any) by which it appears to the Secretary of State that the general level of prices has increased in the course of the previous year.
  (1D) In subsections (1A) and (1B) above, "severely disabled persons" means persons who are in receipt of the care component of disability living allowance at the highest rate within subsection (4)(a) of section 72 above or in receipt of severe disablement allowance."").
  The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to extend the stated weekly disability income guarantee of £128 to those under as well as those above the age of 25. The proposed new clause also seeks to redefine a severely disabled person to include not just those in receipt of the highest rate of care component for DLA, but those in receipt of the severe disability allowance.
  To be eligible for the disability income guarantee a person must be on income support, receiving the high rate of DLA care component and also be over 25 years of age. The problem is the age barrier. The Government estimate that 70 per cent. of those in receipt of SDA are also claiming means-tested income support. However, according to a reply given in Hansard in November last year, only 53,000 are getting the higher rate of care component of the DLA. Some of them will be under the age of 25. That means that there is a substantial number of severely disabled people without access to the disability income guarantee of £128 per week.
  Although Clause 59 allows the transfer of young, disabled people to a higher income incapacity benefit, about 95 per cent of current SDA claimants will not be transferred and will therefore be left on low incomes, most without access to the guaranteed disability income. Surely, this age barrier with an arbitrary line at the age of 2.5, is slightly ridiculous. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Addington, has raised some important points.
  840
  I hope that I can reassure him that the amendment is not necessary. To begin with, we already consult organisations representing disabled people. When the Prime Minister launched our welfare reform programme he promised that there would be consultation and time for discussion at every stage and we have done so. I was involved in helping to set up the Disability Benefits Forum. Even though its work has now ended following the resignation of its members, detailed work with individual members of the forum continues. It has made an important contribution to our work.
  We are already making sure that we provide benefits at a level which provide real support for disabled people. The disability income guarantee will be introduced in April 2001 and will provide extra help and security for the poorest disabled people with the highest care needs. It will provide help through income-related benefits to severely disabled adults and families with disabled children who get the highest rate care component of DLA. At the April 1998 rate it will be worth an extra £5.75 for a single adult or child and £8.30 for a couple. I mentioned the New Deal earlier and the Disability Rights Commission. Together I hope that that reassures the noble Lord that we are indeed listening to the views of disabled people.
  The noble Lord referred to the age of 25 and pressed me on that. Amendment No. 125A is intended to provide a further enhancement of benefit to severely disabled people aged under 25 and to increase the level of personal allowance to those aged 25 and over.
  As the noble Lord knows, as with JSA, which is the fulcrum benefit, in general the reason the lower rate of benefit is paid to younger people is that the majority of them live in someone else's household or share a household with other young, single people and have fewer financial responsibilities. It would be wrong for benefit levels to offer an alternative to seeking work or to training or to be an incentive to leave home or to go into independent accommodation, for example, when they can perfectly well share. We do not believe that that is a sensible use of resources.
  The reforms of SDA which we have just been debating will mean that in future young people who become disabled early in life will gain because they qualify for IB. They will gain by approximately £26.40 per week, which will be a valuable enhancement.
  A further requirement of this amendment would be to uprate benefit levels in line with prices. I can reassure the Committee that although that requirement is not on the face of the Bill, it already happens in practice. In the light of those responses, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to withdraw his amendment.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Addington: The Minister gave two answers: one was technical and the other philosophical. Technical answers should always be taken away and read carefully. The philosophical answer concerned the age barrier. We received the arbitrary line of response that the Government's terminology was focusing. But when we focus strongly on something we al ways blur the edges; we always miss something.

  841
  I am not happy about the response, but at this time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 62 [Disability living allowance]:
  [Amendment No. 125B had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Addington Lord Addington moved Amendment No. 126:
  Page 69, line 8, leave out ("5"") and insert ("3"")
  The noble Lord said: Again, with the leave of the Committee, I shall move an amendment in the name of my noble friend.
  Amendment No. 126 concerns a more straightforward issue. It seeks to make the test which is applied to decide the correct level of mobility payment available to children under the age of five because those who are less severely disabled also incur extra costs. Although the Government will probably say that those under that age are not usually regarded as living independently, if one has a four or five year-old who is deaf, it may be extremely difficult to take them, for instance, on a bus. If they cannot hear, they may run off the bus and into the road, so extra travel costs to keep them safe may be incurred.
  The provisions refer to a lower level of disability. I am always rather terrified of the idea of defining a "lower level" of disability. Extra costs may be incurred because of the necessity of using a car or a taxi because a hearing impaired child, for instance, cannot be controlled and easily given guidance. That is the nub of the matter. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 126 seeks to replicate for the lower rate mobility component what the Government are proposing to do for the higher rate; that is, to bring it down from the age of five to three. I am sure that Members of the Committee will be aware that it is not that the lower rate mobility component is a lower financial level of mobility allowance for the same group of people; it is designed to help very different people.
  The higher rate of mobility component is for people who are virtually unable to walk. It is literally concerned with physical mobility; it is for people who cannot walk easily more than a few yards. It involves the "virtually unable to walk" test. The lower rate mobility component does not involve people who have a physical incapacity to walk, but those who, when they walk, need supervision by virtue of severe learning difficulties, behavioural problems, severe mental illness or the like. So these are not, as with the care elements, a step down in severity of need; they are two different groups of people, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Addington, will be aware.
  Lord Addington: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I was trying to point out that the problems implied in that assessment of the definition often do not fit the categories which all governments have to use.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is where I was going to dissent from the noble Lord, Lord Addington.
  842
  We recognise that with the higher rate MOB, where somebody is physically unable to walk—for example, a child who has had severe cerebral palsy from the age of four—they may still need pushchairs or, with a different form of illness, oxygen cylinders and so forth. That means that to obtain any mobility the family will need personal transport.
  In the past the child at the age of five may have needed that to go school, which is why the old, higher rate mobility component started at five. We are now reducing that to three because now that is when children go into playgroups or go through the national childcare strategy into nursery school. The same does not apply to those people on the lower rate mobility component. The lower rate mobility component is intended to help people who need extra guidance or supervision as a result of their disability.
  The vast majority of children under five need constant supervision when out walking, whether or not they are disabled. That is particularly true when children are in unfamiliar places. None of us would allow a three or four year-old to run in a busy street without constant supervision. That is the difference. If a child has a physical disability and needs heavy equipment, it cannot run in the street; it has to be carried. From the age of three or four onwards it may be physically too heavy to be carried and therefore access is needed to a mobility car.
  A child with a behavioural problem needs constant supervision, but that would apply whether or not the child had a behavioural problem. That is the basis of why we are unable to accept the amendment. The analogies are not similar. The needs in lower rate mobility component for an able-bodied child and a child with this level of disability do not engender any different needs for mobility, whereas they do if the child has a severe physical disability. In the light of that explanation I hope the noble Lord will not press his amendment.
  Lord Addington: There does not seem to be much between us when it comes to the types of problem involved; it is just that we believe that children who can respond to their own name can at least let the parent know where they are. They will be easier to keep an eye on, to control and communicate with. Thus it will be easier to travel with them on a bus; one will not need to have a hand on them all the time.
  This is an argument we could debate for a long time, quoting examples of cases where people have found the situation to be extremely difficult. However, the Minister indicated that she is not prepared to accept the amendment at this time. I shall take it away and consider whether it merits further attention. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
  Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 127A:
  Page 69, line 10, at end insert—
  ("(5) In determining entitlement to the mobility component of disability living allowance, no account shall be taken of where or by what agency a person is accommodated.")
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 127A I shall speak also to Amendment No. 127E in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, and others.
  Amendment No. 127A seeks to reverse the change made in 1996 which took away or reduced the DLA mobility component for those living in NHS accommodation. That was, of course, a change made by the previous administration. But the Minister will agree that it has not been a rule adopted by her administration that they should simply accept uncritically what was done by a previous administration. With reform in the air, it seemed to be a good opportunity to look at this again.
  The 1996 change was remarkable in a number of ways. It attracted one of the largest responses ever received by the Social Security Advisory Committee—almost every representation being firmly against the change. Unsurprisingly, it attracted the opposition of the advisory committee itself. It led to debates in Parliament in which hardly anyone other than government Ministers had a good word to say for the change. Finally, it was defended by the then Ministers with what must rank as quite the lamest collection of arguments ever dredged up to defend an indefensible policy.
  We were told that people in hospital were by definition in bed and could not conceivably benefit from a mobility benefit. We were told that the beneficiaries included detained mental patients whose mobility had been restricted by due process of law. We were told that health authorities were responsible for funding any mobility required by patients and that the mobility component constituted double funding. We were told that some NHS trusts had accumulated large sums of money for long-stay patients and paying benefits would simply add to the funds without adding to the welfare of the patients.
  Mencap and other disability bodies produced real cases involving the threat of real hardship to counter all this nonsense; but we argued in vain. I hope that on this occasion we shall not argue in vain. Should the Minister's brief not be as helpful to her as she would wish, I trust that at least it will contain evidence of the actual effects of the 1996 change which governments have so far failed to produce, having so far failed to ask for that evidence.
  I should like to earth my argument in a real situation. The people who suffered from the change three years ago are not people confined to bed and unable to benefit from mobility money. If they were, they would not be eligible for the mobility component since the basic eligibility criteria would exclude them. For the most part, they are not even in anything called a hospital. Fewer than 3,000 people with learning disabilities now live in units on hospital sites; around 5,000 live in NHS community homes.
  Mary lives at No. 1 in a home staffed by an NHS trust but leased to a housing association. She gets her mobility component in full, and getting it means that she can get out and about, with someone to accompany her, doing the things she wants to do—meeting the people she wants to meet and visiting the places she wants to visit, Jean lives at No. 2, in a home not yet leased to a housing association. She gets one-third of what her next-door neighbour gets, because of the 1996 change,
  844
  and, effectively, as the household budget does not fill the gap, gets one-third of the opportunities enjoyed by her next-door neighbour, although her disability and her needs are almost identical.
  Had these same people lived, for example, in a Mencap home, as well they might, their entitlement to the mobility component and their enhanced quality of life as a result of it would never have been in question.
  When mobility allowance was introduced, those living in any form of residential setting were deliberately included because of the overwhelming evidence that they needed it at least as much as, and probably more than, those living in the community. When DLA mobility component replaced mobility allowance, the same logic was followed. But. in 1996, some misguided person decided that here was a soft target for savings, perhaps because as many as 60 per cent of those affected had no actively involved relatives to defend them, and many were not well able to speak for themselves to defend their own interests. I hope that we may see justice restored today. I beg to move.
  Lord Addington: The noble Lord, Lord Rix, has done a very thorough job on his amendment. We are at least trying to do the same thing with our Amendment No. 127E. I hope that the Government will listen to what has been said and that the Minister will have something positive to say. It does not matter where you happen to be, you are still entitled to have some basic movement; indeed, freedom of movement is something of a human right. I believe it has been argued that you could be confined to a bed. I do not remember such arguments being used. However, if they were, I agree with the noble Lord that they are pretty lame.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The effect of this amendment and Amendment No. 127E is that the mobility element of DLA should continue to be paid to people admitted into hospital, or resident in other similar institutions. However, I should make it clear that, as drafted, Amendment No. 127A would not alter the current entitlement conditions for the mobility element of DLA. Entitlement to the mobility component of DLA, is not affected by a person's accommodation but, once entitlement is established, payment is suspended after four weeks of free in-patient treatment. Nevertheless, in speaking to the amendment, the noble Lord made clear his intention that the current legislation withdrawing payment of the mobility component of DLA from hospital in-patients should be revoked.
  Withdrawal of the mobility component from hospital in-patients reflects the Government's policy of targeting help on those people with the greatest need, DLA is paid to help people meet the extra costs of disability. However, most of the needs of people in hospital, including care and basic mobility needs—I am not now talking about people who are necessarily confined to bed—are funded by the NHS, which has that responsibility. It cannot be considered best use of scarce resources to overlap with the help already available. The NHS pays for it and, in addition, people have their own personal mobility component.

  845
  Indeed, the principle of preventing duplication of public spending has always been a key factor in social security legislation. For this reason, most social security benefits are withdrawn or reduced after a period, commonly six weeks, following a person's admission into hospital. This has been a fundamental principle of the benefits system since 1948. Attendance allowance and the care component of DLA have always been withdrawn after a period in hospital. Given this fact, it is clearly difficult to justify the continuing payment of the mobility component to people, many of whom are physically immobile, or virtually so, and all of whom are receiving basic mobility costs from the NHS. Therefore, we do not think it right to restore the previous situation at an additional cost of £30 million a year, much of which would duplicate existing provision. We do not believe that that is a priority in the disability field.
  However, while the situation in respect of hospitals and other places traditionally run by the NHS is clear, the broader picture is not as straightforward as it used to be. In my view, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, was entirely correct in the description he gave. There is now a wider range of care options available through the care in the community programme than was the case even when the relevant legislation on mobility and hospitals took effect in 1996, let alone in 1948 when the concept of "half-way houses" was not part of our landscape. This has led to many people being transferred from hospital and into other accommodation in the community but still being maintained by the NHS—for example, in so-called "half-way houses" and other sheltered and residential care settings.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is correct. There are gaps in our knowledge about the needs of disabled people in such settings and about how the mobility component of DLA is spent, where it is payable in these circumstances. We think that this is an area which may well be appropriate for research, and we are examining options for what might be done, and when.
  The noble Lord asked me to outline whatever evidence we may have of the effect of the 1995–96 changes. Following representations from the disability lobby, as I said, we shall be considering commissioning research to look at the whole issue of residential care, local authority-funded care and NHS-funded establishments, including the way in which people's mobility needs are met. The noble Lord identified a range of anomalies. Because we are caring for people in the community and the legislation has not fully reflected this, we shall be examining options for research. But I must emphasise that our position on hospitals is clear in our traditional understanding of that concept. We believe it right that people in hospital settings, having all their basic needs met in line with the free provision of care and other services, the key feature of the NHS since its inception, should not retain an extra costs benefit. On this basis, I hope that noble Lords will not pursue their amendments today.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Rix: I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that most sympathetic response. Clearly, I would like to
  846
  consult my colleagues between now and the Report stage. However, on the understanding of what I now believe to be the future position and bearing in mind the fact that the Government are seeking evidence, and so on, to back up their current findings, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 62 agreed to.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 127B:
  After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—

  INCREASE OF UPPER AGE LIMIT FOR DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE
  (" . In section 75(1) of the Contributions and Benefits Act, for "65" substitute "70".")
  The noble Lord said: Currently, in order to start to receive disability living allowance, a person must satisfy the disability conditions for the allowance and make a claim before his or her 65th birthday. Those over the age of 65 can claim attendance allowance, but this does not have the mobility component and does not have a level equivalent to the lower level of care component. The amendment suggests that older disabled persons should have equal access to DLA and that there should be no upper age limit. Therefore, increasing the limit from 65 to 70 would be an important step in this direction.
  Replying to earlier debates, the Minister has stressed time and again the way in which adjustments to our social security system need to be made in the light of changing circumstances. As I have just mentioned, this particular aspect of the DLA arrangements, which the noble Baroness rightly says are very complicated, dates back as far as 1992. As far as concerns age in this context, we must take account of the transformation that has taken place since the time of Beveridge. I believe it was suggested in earlier debates that, on average, a man retiring at what was then the retirement age was likely to draw his pension for about two years or so whereas the period now would be anything up to 15 or 20 years.
  Therefore, in that context and against that background, it seems to me entirely sensible that the figure specified in this clause should be raised from 65 to 70. Indeed, on reflection, I have rather come to the view that this is altogether too modest an amendment. I am glad that I have the support of noble Lords in that respect—
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It might be better if the noble Lord does not "wing" his amendments and then seek to expand them. Indeed, he may well then commit his party to considerable future expenditure.
  Lord Higgins: I always have the Treasury aspects in mind, much as I try to deny my past. None the less I think that against the present background that is a fair point. As I understand the present position, DLA and attendance allowance are benefits to help with the extra cost of disability. That is not surprising. DLA has a care component of, I think, three different rates and a mobility component of two rates. To qualify, someone has to satisfy the disability conditions and make a claim before his or her 65th birthday. Those over 65 can claim

  847
  attendance allowance but in that case they do not receive help towards mobility or receive the lower care component level.
  A person who is already receiving DLA when he or she reaches the age of 65 continues to receive the benefit after that age. but someone who does not claim before the age of 65, even though he satisfies the conditions, cannot start to receive the allowance. This seems to me—coming to it rather afresh—a quite extraordinary situation. I am not the least bit clear why if someone has claimed before 65 he or she should receive these benefits, but if they do not claim before 65 they should not do so.
  I believe that the implications of the current rules are considerable in terms of financial benefit. This is the other side of the coin to the point which the noble Baroness made a moment or two ago in her intervention. I understand that someone aged over 65 with higher mobility needs and lower care needs could be over £50 a week worse off than someone with exactly the same health problems who happens to become disabled before 65. I understand the other side of that coin which the noble Baroness has mentioned; namely, that if we were suddenly to include everyone over 65 that would involve a considerable expense in aggregate. No doubt the noble Baroness will tell us exactly what sum is involved. However, I believe that people are rather appalled to find that they miss out on an allowance to help with disability costs simply because they do not manage to claim before they are 65. Indeed I suppose that anyone under 65 who has the slightest problems with disability should put in a claim as rapidly as possible.
  What I am really saying here is that there seems to be a substantial anomaly. That anomaly is made worse by the fact that people are living longer. Therefore I hope very much that the noble Baroness can give a sympathetic response. If the costs of the measure would be substantial, no doubt we shall have to consider how that problem might be overcome. However, the continuance of this anomaly simply on grounds of cost seems strange. The noble Baroness shakes her head. It looks as if she will be unsympathetic to the amendment but there seems to me to be a strong case for it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I support this amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, I expect that the noble Baroness will say that it would be expensive. I can see that it may be expensive and difficult to extend to people who are gradually losing their mobility through increasing age. But surely there is a case to be made for giving mobility assistance to people from 65 to 70 in some circumstances; for example, people who suffer a traumatic injury or amputation at that age. Will the noble Baroness consider certain circumstances in which she might be able to allow it?
  Baroness Pitkeathley: I wonder whether the Minister would agree with me that one of the main concerns that many of us have about DLA and attendance allowance is the complexity of claiming and the fact that so many
  848
  claims are turned down first time round. Of course this also has an impact on carers whose benefit is passported on the benefits we are discussing. Does the Minister agree that more emphasis needs to be given to encouraging people to claim before they are 65 and to making the claiming process simpler or to providing help with the claiming process? I believe that 40 per cent of claims are turned down first time round. We all know that having been rejected once, many people would be too anxious or nervous to claim again.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall deal with the final point first. On a previous amendment we discussed the very real difficulty of seeking to encourage people to increase their claims for DLA/AA. Its complexity lies in the fact that it is based on a diary of their immobility or a diary of their need for care. It has to be, so to speak, bottom up in terms of coming into the system. We are working with local authorities on this matter. As we have said before, we want people to claim the benefits to which they are entitled. If they need those benefits, they should receive them.
  I return to the amendment which would increase the upper age limit for DLA to 70 from the current age of 65, or would effectively add the mobility component to attendance allowance. I am a little puzzled by the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He should perhaps tell the Committee why his party has changed its mind on this issue. During the passage of the Disability Living Allowance and the Disability Working Allowance Bill in 1991—which I took part in, along, I think, with the noble Earl, Lord Russell—when we probed the then government's intentions on precisely this matter, the noble Lord, Lord Henley, stated that DLA was intended to direct help towards younger disabled people of working age and under who had had little or no opportunity to work and save. He said that he would not consider extending it to people over 65 as the cost would be considerable and that that was a relevant consideration in his party's eyes. Therefore I am slightly puzzled at some of the somersaults of the noble Lord as regards the position taken by the previous government a few years back.
  Lord Higgins: 1991!
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That was the position adopted by the previous administration and these points were probed at the time. The position of the then government was made clear.
  It might be useful if I relate some of the background to this matter. The higher rate mobility component has its origins in the old invalid vehicle scheme, which was introduced in 1948, although even that replaced a yet earlier scheme for disabled veterans of the Great War. One of the conditions for receipt of an invalid vehicle in 1948 was that the person should be "socially useful". By that definition those who were "socially useless" were those over retirement age. I suspect that, like me, many Members of the Committee are close to being socially useless, or are already socially useless, and would certainly not qualify for a trike.

  849
  However, the term "socially useful" highlights a fundamental principle about the mobility component of DLA, which is still as relevant today as in 1948; namely, that it was always intended to help people disabled during their working life. We believe that our priority remains to ensure that help goes to those who need it most, particularly those who have finite resources because they were disabled early in life. Extending the upper age limit for claiming DLA, as this new clause proposes, would cost almost £300 million a year extra, rising to £650 million in the long term. The reason, as the Committee will recognise, is that the vast majority of us will have mobility restrictions as we get older. It is worth reminding ourselves that 49 per cent of all disabled people are over 65. The frailties and restrictions of old age are among the factors that we all make provision for in retirement.
  By contrast, many people disabled early in life will face a lifetime of struggle to overcome limited opportunities—and will not have had a lifetime of working to build up savings—and it is at this group that the DLA/mobility component was primarily targeted. In the words of the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care,
  "The experience of disablement will have a different impact on different age groups. For the great majority of older people it is an episode, albeit a painful one, at the end of life, when family ties, employment and other life events have been experienced. Younger people must try to negotiate their lives while disabled and when the vast majority of their peers, who set the standards of normal behaviour, are able-bodied".
  Therefore it is right that a degree of priority in allocating scarce resources through extra-costs disability benefits, untaxed and paid regardless of means, should go to younger people with severe disabilities, which is why we are reducing the age from five down to three. However, that does not mean that we do not seek to help elderly people. As I say, half of all disabled people are pensioners, or, to put it another way, as pensioners grow older almost all of them have care and mobility needs. That is why we have taken immediate steps to help pensioners share in the rising prosperity of the nation with the minimum income guarantee and the winter fuel payments, on top of reducing VAT on fuel and scrapping eye test charges. That is why we also make provision for severely disabled people over the age of 65 to acquire attendance allowance, which is paid to 1.3 million people at a cost of £2.7 billion a year.
  We are also working with disabled people and their representatives to see whether we can improve on the current structure and gateways for DLA and AA. In particular, we are looking at the possibility of a system based not on care need in the kind of broad brush structure that we have at the moment but on a range of activities of managing life. This work is in its early stages but if it progresses then issues such as those raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, will certainly be taken on board.
  I believe that we have made significant progress in the two years since coming to power to ensure that people have financial security in retirement. But to extend DLA in the way proposed by the Opposition—
  850
  whatever they may have said when they were in government—does not seem to be sensible against the long-standing policy of targeting help towards those who have the greatest need over the longest period of time. In view of this, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: I am somewhat astonished by the noble Baroness's reply. I have some difficulty in understanding what winter fuel payments have to do with whether someone of the age of 66, for example, is or is not entitled to a benefit which someone of the age of 63 receives.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I said. 49 per cent of all disabled people are over pensionable age and disability increases with age. A very high proportion of pensioners over the age of 75 are disabled; that is associated with their age. Given that generality, we believe the right way to help them is to make sure that they have access to the other benefits I talked about: winter fuel allowance to help with their heating; the minimum income guarantee to help with their diet, and the like. That is the point I was seeking to establish.
  Lord Higgins: I will not pursue that point except to say that the extraordinary thing about the winter fuel payment is that it is in contrast to almost everything else the Government are doing; it is not means tested. I understand that some people have been fortunate enough to receive their winter fuel payment last week. If the noble Baroness had checked up, perhaps she would have realised that it is not a good moment to mention winter fuel payment in the middle of July.
  Be that as it may, the noble Baroness suggested that our view has changed since 1991. That may be so but, as I pointed out, the whole flow of the argument has been that people are living longer and, therefore, there is some case for raising the age limits. As to what was said in 1991—for which I was not responsible—I am probably totally inconsistent in proposing this in comparison with Mr Disraeli's views on the subject. But we should not go back too far with regard to what previous governments may have done. We would do better to look to the future.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How far back will the noble Lord take responsibility for the previous government's actions?
  Lord Higgins: I think we must look forward, not backwards.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That seems charmless of the noble Lord, given the present Government's position.
  Lord Higgins: Given some of the critical remarks made by the Treasury and Civil Service Committee for some 14 years under my chairmanship about what the previous government were doing, I, personally, feel reasonably content with all that. Be that as it may, I was slightly unnerved by the fact that the quotation from

  851
  1991 came from the noble Lord, Lord Henley. I am not quite sure whether or not his views have changed. Perhaps one should call a Division and see what happens. In his present role he may still have views on the subject.
  I heard what the noble Baroness said, particularly about the cost; £300 million is a substantial sum. I am not quite clear how that will rise to £650 million; presumably it will happen as more and more people live longer. Having said that, the situation seems to be extraordinarily anomalous. People who claim before the age of 65 will get these benefits ad infinitum, if that is the right expression; on the other hand, someone over 65, who perhaps by mistake has not claimed—we all agree it is difficult to understand DLA—will not. In particular, people who are over 65 find that they will not receive any of these benefits.
  I found the argument put forward by the noble Baroness very strange in this context. It appeared that if one was below 65, then one was in some sense more useful and should receive the benefits in order that one goes on being useful. However, if one is over 65 one does not receive the benefits unless one has claimed them before one was 65. The more I look at this matter—which I brought forward originally in the context of a rather simple, straightforward amendment—the more puzzled I become. Apart from the question of cost and to what extent one should give this priority, I become more and more puzzled as to why this particular anomaly has been allowed to continue.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Lord will agree that there is a difference between these two situations. On the one hand, we have the situation where people become disabled in their thirties and have not yet had the income to be able to afford to run a car; they are in work but, because of their disability, the only way they can continue to work is if they receive a mobility allowance that they can then translate into a Motability car; that allows them to continue to work. On the other hand, we have the situation where if a man becomes disabled at 68 or 70, he will, if he is a car driver, already have acquired his car during his working life when he was not disabled. He has acquired the car and been able to run it; he continues to run the car. I do not deny that there are always problems at the 64/65 margin, or wherever one draws the line. But there is a basic distinction between someone who has not had an opportunity to acquire a car—and without a car has to drop out of the labour market—and someone who is likely to have a car—and, thank you very much, would like some financial contribution towards it—and would continue to run the car in any case once he has passed the age of 65. That has been the basic approach.
  Lord Higgins: We are venturing into the technical area of how long cars last and whether it is better to replace them and so on. Again, I find this rather a strange debating point. It may well be that the person over 65 finds that his car has worn out or is uneconomical.
  The noble Baroness raises yet another point: whether the whole purpose of the allowance is simply to allow people to work. If I understand her correctly—she may
  852
  have been making it up as she went along—the allowance is to enable people to work until 65. If that is her argument, it stops dead at the point where the allowance goes on being provided after the age of 65. Perhaps we should be clear whether, in her view, the purpose of the mobility allowance is purely to enable people to work.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is not what I said. I was trying to explain why someone who was in work would have to drop out of the labour market without mobility allowance. If that person then continues to use the car, he may carry on working for a number of years. He may drop out of work in his fifties, or whatever, and continue to use the car. On the noble Lord's argument, we would then extract that car from him at the age of 66 because he has crossed the threshold of 65 and yet has no alternative resources, whereas somebody who becomes disabled after 65 is much more likely to have built up the resources enabling him to provide for the increasingly reduced—if I can use that phrase—mobility needs that come with old age. That is all I was saying.
  Lord Higgins: I am not at all sure that one's mobility problems decrease with old age, which is what the noble Baroness said a second ago. Perhaps that is not what she meant to say.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No.
  Lord Higgins: Clearly one's mobility gets worse with age rather than better. I am not arguing—nor does the amendment argue—that one should stop people below the age of 65 being entitled to this allowance; nor are we arguing that they should not continue to receive it after 65 if they claim it before 65. All we are saying is that there is a very clear anomaly here in that people over 65, or those who failed to claim while they were under 65, will not receive the kind of benefits that those under 65 receive.
  I may have misunderstood the noble Baroness but she seemed to be saying that the purpose of this allowance is to enable people to work. Clearly the question of mobility is much broader than that; people over 65 also need to be mobile, whether or not they are working. Of course, nowadays some may well indeed be working over the age of 65.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with the amendment, as it is Committee, perhaps I may intervene. The noble Baroness did not answer my question. I may not have phrased it very well. I can see the difficulties if a vast number of people, because of old age, have increasing mobility problems, but what about the person over 65 who has an amputation or becomes paraplegic or whatever? Is there not a case for ensuring that such people are mobile? I am thinking, for example, of the socially useful granny who suddenly becomes an amputee. As the noble Baroness said, someone who was socially useless would not qualify for the trike any more. But a large number of 65 year-olds are extremely useful socially. Even if they do not work, they are useful to

  853
  their families and in other ways. Does the noble Baroness think that there is a case for helping someone who has a traumatic injury and becomes disabled after 65?
  Lord Higgins: As we are in Committee and I do not wish to be out of order, I had better sit down at this stage and let the noble Baroness reply.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I apologise to the noble Baroness if I did not answer her point. I am sure that there is a case for helping such people, as in the examples given by the noble Lord. However, the noble Baroness gave an example of someone with a traumatic injury. What happens if someone has, for example, increasingly severe arthritis? What is the trigger point in terms of how we discriminate and distinguish between cases?
  The point about DLA, with its lower, middle and higher rate, is that we apply the idea of the care proxy. That is simple. For mobility, the higher rate mobility component has been based on the "virtually unable to walk test", which is much broader than that used by the noble Baroness. While I sympathise with the point she makes, it would be very hard to restrict decisions or to hold any such line as she has suggested. I do not deny that such a disablement would be traumatic and would totally turn someone's life over; it would be horrendous for the person. But that is equally true of the growing problems of osteo-arthritis and the like. It would be difficult to make a distinction.
  Returning to the noble Lord's point about "socially useful", it is not something that I am now endorsing. I merely thought that it would amuse your Lordships. That was the point about 1948. Clearly, the joke fell flat, because noble Lords are confident that they are so socially useful that the descriptions of 1948 do not apply any more. The point that I attempted to establish was that the original designation was that people who become disabled early in life are likely to have fewer opportunities to work. It therefore makes it far harder for them to make provision for later life. What we are talking about is a non-means-tested benefit which contributes towards the extra costs of disability.
  The noble Lord would have a point if his intention were to make the benefit means tested. But it is not. Where disability has occurred over the age of 65, the presumption is that the person will have had a normal working life, built up resources, acquired a car and some savings and be much better able to make provision for his or her mobility needs, irrespective of age, than someone who is disabled early in life, whether in work or working but not for a wage—as a carer, for example—and where help is needed to help to allow that person to meet the mobility needs for a full and socially inclusive life.
  Lord Higgins: I understand what the noble Baroness is saying. But taking the debate as a whole, her reply was unpersuasive—except in one context; namely, such provision would cost £300 million initially, and apparently £650 million later. That is always a rather
  854
  persuasive argument. Other than that, it was difficult to find any argument at all to suggest that this anomaly is not a serious one and ought to be looked at again. I shall look carefully at the noble Baroness's arguments. I may wish to return to the matter at a later stage. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment 127C:
  After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—

  QUALIFYING CONDITIONS FOR THE LOWER RATE CARE COMPONENT OF DISABILITY LIVING ALLOWANCE
  (" . In section 72(1) of the Contributions and Benefits Act, at the end of paragraph (a) there is added—

  "(iii) he is a deaf person who has difficulty communicating with strangers, or is unable to communicate with other people without prescribed technical aids and equipment, or

  (iv) he requires a special diet as may be prescribed in regulations, or

  (v) he suffers from frequent incontinence, or".").

  The noble Lord said: This is an amendment of a rather different kind. It seeks to extend the DLA lower rate care component to three groups of people who have substantial extra disability related costs but who do not need "attention" from another person in order to cope with the disability. It effectively covers three groups: deaf people with speech and lip-reading skills who do not need a substantial communication support but may need to rely on expensive technology—a growing area of help to such people; secondly, a very different group, those who need a special diet but will incur extra costs as a result; and thirdly, those who suffer from frequent incontinence and have difficulty in coping—a subject that has been debated on many previous occasions, not least in the context of value added tax. There is some case for examining whether the present scope of Section 72(1) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act is appropriate and whether it should be extended to people in that particular group. I beg to move.
  5.45 p.m.
  Earl Russell: I hope that the Minister will listen with care to the case for this amendment. These are all quite expensive conditions. The first is expensive because of the necessity of equipment. In the second case, the cost of a special diet, especially for acute sufferers from AIDS, can be considerable. Allowance is made for it at rates which were generous but have not always been uprated sufficiently rapidly for inflation. I remember once speaking to a brief on this subject which, as the result of a misprint, said that the rates were set at 1896 prices. I remember wondering whether it was perhaps not a misprint after all. I regret to say that the Official Report changed the phrase immediately to "1986 prices". The assumption was that I must have meant to say that even if I did not. Thirdly, people do not have the option of not buying incontinence pads. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned that. It is a context in which the concept of "value added" seems to have a peculiar

  855
  incongruity. I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will think again about the addition of VAT to the cost of incontinence pads. In the absence of that, which is wide of the amendment, I hope the Minister will consider the amendment seriously.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 127C would introduce specific disabilities into the conditions for entitlement to DLA. I can understand the noble Lord's motives in moving the amendment. However, I hope to persuade him that this is not the right approach: namely, to revert back essentially to a shopping list.
  Entitlement to DLA is based on a person's needs, not on their medical condition. In the case of the care component, it is based upon their care needs. That means, therefore, that two people with identical medical conditions may none the less have very different care needs according to their circumstances in terms of their home life and therefore the DLA for which they are eligible. That was the approach taken by the previous government when they created DLA. We did not dissent front it. It is a simple and effective way of giving people the help they need. A single medical condition can give rise to a whole range of possible care needs depending on the severity of the condition and the support services that are available. We want to make sure that we give people the right help based on their needs, not their condition. I return to an earlier debate: there is no easy read-across as the amendment would suggest.
  The approach taken in this amendment is different. It says essentially that a condition automatically equates with a certain rate of benefit regardless of the range of different needs that might arise from that condition. It is as though DLA had not been invented. It harks back to the days of supplementary benefit which had a multiplicity of different additions, a shopping list, in an attempt to help with extra costs in different areas. The Opposition's own assessment when in government was that that failed; and we agreed with that.
  I now turn to the conditions mentioned in the amendment, the first of which is deafness. Noble Lords will recall the judgments in the Mallinson and Halliday cases, which extended DLA to people with communication difficulties. We believe that the system provides appropriate help in such cases and we have no plans to change it. We believe that it would be wrong to give blanket entitlement to a group of people when they will all have different abilities or needs.
  Secondly, I am sure that Members of the Committee will agree that many people who have a special diet do not necessarily—although they may—have extra costs, nor would they be considered to be severely disabled. Provision is made by the NHS for certain foods to be available on prescription; for example, for gluten-free and low-protein diets. Does someone who needs a gluten-free diet come within the context of DLA? Provision is also made for certain infant feeding formulae if there is intolerance to cow's milk or for metabolic disorders. The amendment would take us back to the days of a complicated, inadequate supplementary benefit system consisting of a shopping list of particular needs to be ticked off.
  856
  Thirdly, there is incontinence. I should make it clear that this is already taken into account when assessing care needs. The Disability Handbook, which all adjudication officers use, has a specific section on dealing with the needs of people who suffer incontinence. In addition, services to help to meet the extra costs of incontinence are provided free by the NHS and include advice, treatment, supplies and equipment, laundry services and disposal of waste.
  Those who do not get DLA can get help with extra costs from other parts of the benefit system, above all from the disability premium in income-related benefits worth £21·90 a week for single people and at least £31·25 for couples. For those in work, the disabled person's tax credit and the working families' tax credit also provide extra help.
  However, I do not want to suggest that we think the DLA is perfectly designed or that we have a closed mind on where it should go. We believe that there may be ways of improving entitlement to both those benefits, including take-up, and we are looking at the possibility of using a set of activities undertaken by disabled people in managing their lives as a better means of assessing need: for example, in communicating, managing money, eating and the level of assistance required to carry out those tasks.
  Research will help to establish whether this kind of approach would be fairer and easier for people to understand and could be administered with greater consistency. We would not wish to make major changes to the conditions of entitlement to DLA without clear evidence that it would lead to a better system and until their impact on disabled people had been thoroughly tested and discussed with organisations of and for disabled people. But if we were to go down that path, we would seek to produce a system based on a wide-ranging assessment of the needs of disabled people, not one built up by complex piecemeal accretions in the way that this amendment would seek to do.
  In the light of that, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue the amendment.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her reply. I had a little difficulty in reconciling what she said with her evidence to the Social Security Select Committee. She said:
  "What DLA is about is not actually compensation for their disability—"
  and that is so—
  "it is about a meeting of the costs for which care and mobility serves as a proxy to enable them to manage their disability".
  That seemed to me consistent with the amendment. If not, perhaps the noble Baroness could explain exactly what the concept is that she has in mind.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I hoped that the noble Lord would carry on reading the Select Committee report where I sought to explain that. It was in terms of the discussion on BIP and entitlement and how errors creep into the system. I was explaining that in conjunction with disability organisations, the then government introduced the 1992 DLA. It used the need for intermittent care during the day which brought people into the lowest rate of DLA care. For example,

  857
  if someone needed help with preparing a simple meal and they were unable to do it by themselves, it was one test of need. A second was continuous care, either day or night. That qualified for the middle rate. The third rate, which is the highest, is continuous care or supervision both day and night. Those bands were chosen because if someone needed care at the lowest rate, for example, help to provide a meal, it also suggested that they had problems with locomotion, dexterity or problems with sight and hearing. There might be problems of learning or similar difficulties. It was suggested that that test was a suitable proxy for those needs. It was the same with the middle rate and higher rate care.
  That was the concept of DLA. So far it has worked fairly well. As I tried to hint, if we were to move away from that, we would have to think about a landscape approach not that different from the all-work test. We looked at movement, dexterity, visual impairment and communication ability. We added up the points and came up with a broad-brush approach. Whether that is preferable to what we now have requires discussion, research and elaborate work with the disability organisations.
  However, we do not want the broad-brush approach—which has the merits of a simple formula of assessment of care needs as a proxy for the condition of the person and their capacity to manage it—to be complicated by an add-on shopping list, which is what the amendment seeks. That seems to me the worst of all worlds.
  Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Again, we shall study what she said with care because her suggestions make a great deal of sense in the context of the basic concept; that is, unless we start afresh and enumerate everything in sight as to the reasons for a particular benefit to be received. In that context, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke moved Amendment No. 127D:
  After Clause 62, insert the following new clause—

  DEAFBLIND LINK SCHEME
  (". After section 76 of the Contributions and Benefits Act there is inserted—
  "Deafblind link scheme
  Deafblind link scheme.
  76A.—(1) A person who has a combined sight and hearing impediment which is such as to make him unable to communicate or receive information, or virtually unable to do so, without assistance is entitled to receive deafblind link vouchers.
  (2) A person is within subsection (1) if he is—

  (a) both blind and deaf,

  (b) partially blind and deaf,

  (c) partially deaf and blind, or

  (d) partially deaf and partially blind,

  and he satisfies such other conditions as may be prescribed.
  (3) A weekly rate of deafblind link vouchers shall be prescribed which is redeemable at a value at least equivalent to the highest rate of the care component of a disability living allowance.
  (4) Regulations shall provide for deafblind link vouchers—

  (a) to be issued to a person entitled to receive them at such periods as may be prescribed, and

  (b) to be redeemable by a registered provider.

  in respect of the supply of prescribed services.
  (5) In this section—
  "registered provider" means a person who provides services to persons within subsection (1) to enable them to communicate or receive information and who is for the time being listed on a register maintained by or under the direction of the Secretary of State, and
  "prescribed services" is to be construed accordingly."").
  The noble Lord said: I move this amendment in the hope that the Government will make essential provision for some of the most disabled people in our society. It is virtually impossible to visualise the effects of the combined disability of deafness and blindness. I hope my noble friend and noble Lords will make an effort so that we can address and discuss this fundamental issue.
  When I lost my hearing completely, some 30 years ago, I found that my sight naturally compensated for it. I have no doubt that similarly David Blunkett, who entered the place when he was totally blind, finds that his hearing compensates to some extent for that. But deafblind people have no compensation whatever. They are without sight and hearing, they live in a world of silence and darkness. They undoubtedly need skilled specialist assistance.
  In a survey by the organisations for deafblind people, Sense, and Deafblind United Kingdom, it was found that 77 per cent of deafblind people did not have specialist one-to-one support services. That is what they need. Forty-two per cent were virtual prisoners in their own homes.
  At present the provision is wholly inadequate. It is certainly not given as it should be, as a right to that kind of support. The aim of the amendment is to ensure that right and the beginning of proper provision for deafblind people. It is not a lot to ask and I hope my noble friend will be able to help. What we really need is a right enshrined in law to specialist one-to-one service support, and properly funded.
  The essential objective of the amendment is to provide a link scheme which is modelled on a highly successful scheme in Norway. Deafblind people would apply for vouchers worth the equivalent of the highest rate of the care component of the disability living allowance. At present that rate is £52·95, which would buy six hours of support from a specialist deafblind link worker. It is not a lot to ask, but it is the beginning of something which I hope will grow and develop in Parliament.
  There are various specialists to be employed in the link scheme who are skilled in hands-on signing, finger spelling, the deafblind manual alphabet, Braille, as well as lip-reading and clear speech. Communicator-guides visit deafblind people in their homes, helping them with telephone calls or reading them the mail or newspapers. They help with interpreting television and radio programmes, doing the shopping and helping them to take exercise, sort out bills and do voluntary work.

  859
  The second group are interpreters who transmit spoken and visual information to deafblind people in formal meetings or situations such as medical or legal consultations. They also guide deafblind people to and from those meetings and during them.
  The third group are called intervenors. What they do is to encourage children and adults who were born deafblind to access and learn about their environment and make decisions and choices.
  This is the way it would work; it is quite simple. The deafblind person could use vouchers to book support from registered service providers who would then recoup the cost from the Benefits Agency. That agency would be responsible for the financing of the scheme. The provision of such specialists would obviously relieve the isolation and depression and enable deafblind people to socialise to some extent, to learn new skills and to enjoy contact with other people.
  I must tell my noble friend that I make no bones about the fact that this is the mere beginning of a campaign to make proper provision for deafblind people. We are not asking for the millennium or the moon this afternoon, but we will be shortly.
  Those worst affected will need more than six hours a week. I hope that local authorities would supplement that minimum for those in greatest need and would seek out and identify deafblind people, register them and ensure that community care assessments included checking that they had guides, interpreters and interveners. Those requirements could be defined in regulations made under the Bill.
  The deafblind link scheme is not intended to replace other benefits or services. It is necessary to supplement disability living allowance because a deafblind person would use a link scheme to book one-to-one support for activities of their choice. That would include many things that are not normally included for the purposes of the assessment of the care component of DLA, such as help with domestic tasks, social and other activities.
  I am sure that my noble friend the Minister will consider my points carefully and will help if she possibly can. I do not pretend that the wording of the amendment is air tight and I have no doubt that some difficulties will emerge. Nevertheless, the aim of the amendment is clear. I hope that the Government will find some way of helping. I beg to move.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Addington: I have a small apology to make to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke. When we were talking about the single gateway, I suggested that advocates and people to support would be required, particularly for the deafblind. I had not seen the noble Lord's amendment at the time and I said that I did not know whether there was an amendment down.
  We use hearing and sight to help us to communicate. A very learned man once told me that that is one reason why mankind dominates the planet. We co-operate with each other; we are a social animal and we communicate. The deafblind have those two normal means of communication removed from them, That implies terrifying isolation. Anyone who has not tried to take
  860
  that on board will go a little cold the first time they think about it. There is no more profoundly cut-off person than someone who cannot see and cannot hear. It is probably the most frightening disability that we have to deal with.
  Even if the amendment is not accepted, I hope that the Minister will give a strong guarantee that the deafblind will be provided with a minimum level of assistance in basic communication to allow them to become part of the rest of the species.
  Baroness Darcy de Knayth: I strongly support the amendment. There is no need to add to the graphic picture given by the noble Lords, Lord Ashley of Stoke and Lord Addington, of the problems facing deafblind people. Deafblind people have missed out and I hope that the Minister will respond positively, or at least promise to go away and look at the issue.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment, so movingly introduced by my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and spoken to by others, would introduce special help for one specific group of disabled people in the form of vouchers redeemable for services. The rate of provision would be equivalent to at least the higher rate care component of disability living allowance.
  I understand my noble friend's concern. I agree that deafblind people need specialist help to access information, interact with others and improve their quality of life. Being both deaf and blind denies all other sources of communication. There are problems of definition, because we are talking about the disability caused by blindness or deafness. People who are visually impaired or have partial loss of hearing can be registered blind or deaf but manage adequately with communication. However, that is not the issue.
  There are several reasons why it would not be right for the Government to accept the amendment. It would not be consistent with the aim of disability living allowance, which is a cash benefit designed to provide a contribution towards the extra costs of disability and managing that disability. It for the individual to decide how the money is used. That gives dignity and choice to disabled people. We are not keen on the shopping list that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned on the previous amendment or on a voucher scheme.
  There is also an important issue of fairness. If the vouchers were payable to people already in receipt of DLA, it would effectively double or more than double the provision available to one small group of disabled people. I recognise they have very severe disabilities, but others, such as those who are bedridden, who have no communication skills and who require round the clock care and attention, also have lives that are unimaginable for most of us. We should bear in mind the issue of equity across groups.
  A voucher scheme is not necessary because we already make deeming provisions for deafblind people to receive the higher rate mobility component of DLA. The higher rate care component is also available to help towards the extra costs of their disability. I have already referred to the Mallinson and Halliday cases, which

  861
  extended DLA to people with communication difficulties. We shall be helping deafblind children by lowering the age limit for the higher rate mobility component.
  I am aware that some disability organisations are concerned about the effectiveness of the higher rate mobility component in targeting the most severely disabled deafblind people. My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke was right to make that point. The statistics are shocking. Very few deafblind people are getting the help they are entitled to. We have heard from Sense that about 3,000 deafblind people need communicator guides, yet only 362—barely more than 10 per cent—receive the higher rate mobility component of DLA through the deafblind criteria.
  That problem clearly needs to be addressed. We have commissioned the disability living allowance advisory board to look at what can be done. It has identified a number of issues, including objective evidence gathering and, importantly, a review of training for adjudication officers and medical advisers. The board is aware of the interlocking nature of the two disabilities. The findings have been fed into the Benefits Agency modernisation programme. We will be monitoring the programme closely to ensure that claims for DLA by deafblind people are dealt with as fairly and efficiently as possible.
  As my noble friend said, the benefits system is not the only source of help for deafblind people. Support is also arranged by local authority social services. Local authorities have a duty to assess people whom they think may require community care services and decide what services should be provided. In addition, hearing and low vision aids are available on prescription or free loan from the NHS.
  The Government are determined to ensure that social services provide better support for all those with long-term care needs, including deafblind people. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health published his plans to improve social services in last year's White Paper, Modernising Social Services. The White Paper sets out our view that the promotion of independence should lie at the heart of all services. It describes the major reforms in hand to ensure that there is more consistency and fairness in social care and that services are more convenient and user-centred.
  I agree entirely with my noble friend that local authorities should identify all the people who need their services. In particular, they should actively seek out and contact those such as deafblind people who may find it particularly difficult to access services that they greatly need. If we can ensure that local authorities have sought out the deafblind people in their area and are providing appropriate and sufficiently generous care packages and if the Department of Social Security ensures that its adjudication officers are well trained so that they can ensure that deafblind people who apply go on to the higher rate of DLA if so entitled and it is appropriate, I hope that it may be possible to bring many more of them within the framework of the independent living fund.
  862
  Bringing someone within the framework of the independent living fund would mean that, if they were getting a care package from their local authority valued at £200, the ILF, if they were on the higher rate DLA, would then be able to add, if appropriate, a further £300 which would be very much more generous than the voucher system that my noble friend has suggested. That is one possibility that I am anxious to explore in conjunction with my noble friend to provide appropriate packages for people who are severely deafblind.
  As I say, the Government are consulting on proposals for a charter for long-term care, "You and Your Services". This charter is intended to ensure that services meet the standards that users want and expect. Later this year, we will consult on draft guidance on fair access to care services and we will certainly consider my noble friend's comments in that context. I would also urge him to encourage the voluntary organisations with which he works— the two leading ones are, I understand, Sense and Deafblind UK—to play a full part in those consultation exercises and particularly to work with local authorities to ensure that deafblind people are brought within the ambit of their services.
  I hope that what I have said has convinced my noble friend that there is no need for this amendment. We do recognise that many deafblind people are not getting the help they are entitled to, either from local authorities or through DLA. We are taking steps to address that problem. We are also taking action to improve the support that is available from social services for people who need long-term care, but I do not myself believe that a voucher scheme is the right way forward. I hope that, in the light of my reply, my noble friend will withdraw this amendment.
  Lord Ashley of Stoke: I do recognise the practical difficulties outlined by my noble friend. I must say that it is extremely rare for a Minister to offer something better than that offered by someone who has proposed an amendment to a Bill. I appreciate my noble friend's suggestions for investigating and bringing it within the ILF. That would indeed be marvellous if it worked. I look forward to working with my noble friend and discussing this suggestion which will be of enormous value to thousands of deafblind people. I am very grateful. I am absolutely delighted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 127E not moved.]
  Clause 63 [Certain overpayments of benefit not to be recoverable]:
  [Amendment No. 127F not moved.]
  Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 127G:
  Page 70, line 10. leave out paragraph (a)
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, we are seeking clarification from the Minister of the

  863
  interpretation of the word "review" in the Bill. On 28th January 1997, the Secretary of State said in another place:
  "The review process will involve gathering information by postal inquiry and home visits".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/1/99; col. WA321.]
  We have a number of questions on this matter. Can the Government confirm that the reviews they have in mind are very similar in kind to reviews carried out at home by administrative personnel from the Benefits Agency or by postal inquiry? If the reviews are going to be of a different kind, we would like to know what procedures the Government have in mind. In addition, Clause 63 refers specifically to the disability living allowance, incapacity benefit and severe disablement allowance. But what about disability working allowance, industrial injuries disability benefit or the disability premiums in income support?
  Furthermore, what will happen if someone still owes money from a previous review? Will there be an attempt to reclaim that money? Will DLA claims be dealt with on the same terms and subject to the same regime as beneficiaries of incapacity benefit or severe disablement allowance? What will be the financial consequences and will that depend entirely on the outcome of the reviews?
  In essence, we would like reassurance that the review process will be a positive one, such that it will not alienate people while ensuring that it achieves the right objective, which is to make sure that entitlement is fair. We want to safeguard the integrity and effectiveness of the review process. This is a probing amendment and I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Amendment No. 127G has the effect of removing that part of the clause that defines the word "review". Debates in another place have made it clear that the word "review" can be interpreted in many ways, so I am happy, in response to the probing amendment of the noble Baroness, to make clear the meaning attached to the use of the word in this clause. It was helpful of the noble Baroness to put the amendment in this way.
  The provisions of the clause are all about overpayments. It is well established that a recoverable overpayment of benefit can only arise after someone's benefit has been altered to a lower rate, or their benefit has been stopped. The legal mechanism for doing this is a review by an adjudication officer. Awards of benefit are made by adjudication officers and only an adjudication officer, following the proper procedures, can alter such an award by conducting a review.
  The Social Security Administration Act 1992 sets out the precise circumstances when an adjudication officer can conduct a "review" and alter someone's benefit. This provision applies whether benefit is being increased or reduced. The definition in Clause 63(5)(a) which this amendment seeks to remove simply lists those provisions that allow someone's benefit to be altered.
  There is nothing sinister about this. These provisions allow benefit to be reviewed as a result of a change in someone's circumstances, or the correction of a
  864
  misunderstanding of the facts of the case or because the law was applied incorrectly. Obviously it would be wrong for benefit to continue unaltered in any of those situations.
  Such a review could follow from any situation where an award was found to be no longer correct. The term "review" is not linked in any way to any particular initiative such as the benefit integrity project that may have been lurking in the mind of the noble Baroness.
  I hope I have explained that, as it stands, the subsection does nothing more than refer to the relevant provisions under which an award for benefit can be changed. The same provisions apply whenever an award is changed, for whatever reason. I urge the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for her very clear explanation of the position and I think she understands the spirit in which my questions have been asked, given the debates that took place in another place. I agree there is nothing sinister about it. We merely wanted to seek clarification as to the proper meaning in this context. I thank the Minister and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 63 agreed to.
  Clauses 64 and 65 agreed to.
  Schedule 8 agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Welfare benefits: miscellaneous amendments]:
  Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 128:
  After Clause 65, insert the following new clause—

  INCOME-RELATED BENEFITS: HABITUAL RESIDENCE TEST
  (" . In section 137(2)(a) of the Contributions and Benefits Act, at the end insert "so however that regulations may not treat a person who is in Great Britain and who has the right to live in Great Britain for the time being without immigration leave as not being in Great Britain irrespective of where he is habitually or ordinarily resident."")
  The noble Earl said: This amendment seeks to abolish the habitual residence test instead of merely modifying it in response to the judgment of the European Court of Justice in the Swaddling case that it is illegal. The habitual residence test since 1994 has been supported by the Court and Treasury Party and opposed by the Country Party, no matter which type of political clothing those parties might wear for the time being. I do not intend to make anything of that but it is my contention, and has always been my contention, that, on this particular point, the Court and Treasury Party happens to be mistaken.
  The habitual residence test was introduced as a centrepiece for a party conference speech in order to deal with the dangers of what is described as benefit tourism. If benefit tourism is a term of art, it is very definitely a term of modern art. It has a distinctly abstract quality. I remember the Minister at the time outlining the case in the form of a long series of quotations from an article in Time Out. I asked whether that was still the policy of the Department of Social Security, that it did not base its policy on anecdotal

  865
  evidence. I have as yet received no answer to that question and I would tonight like to repeat it because no other evidence has yet been put before us on this allegedly mischievous phenomenon. As with other sins, we do not know exactly what it is, but we all know that we are against it.
  Anyone who was in the House at midnight last night dealing with the Immigration and Asylum Bill will know that getting through our immigration laws is not particularly easy. Anyone who has dealt with debates on the actively seeking work rules will also know that the application of those can be extremely stringent. Where we have one test for entry and another test for life after entry, I have never been convinced that there is any need for a further test.
  The test says that you should not receive means-tested benefits if you are not habitually resident in this country. If benefit tourism is a term of modern art, habitual residence is not a term of art or even of law; it is a term of literature. It has no precise legal meaning. That is why, throughout the history of the test, there has been a great deal of difficulty in defining it. It is why the rates of failure in the test, with almost identical pools of applicants, have sometimes been as high as 80 per cent in one place and 20 per cent next door dealing with very similar applicants. Where the test is that wide open, where the legal concepts are that undeveloped, the scope for subjective judgment is very high indeed, which shows up both on the particularly high rate of success in appeals and in the fact that a very high proportion of those who have failed the habitual residence test have been from ethnic minorities.
  All our information on this is from sources such as the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux. Governments have been particularly careful not to compile statistics on institutional discrimination within the administration of the habitual residence test. But after the Lawrence case, we should think carefully about this, especially since one of the places where the test bites most severely, which in my understanding is not addressed by the new changes in the guidelines, is in extended families from the British Asian community. In cases where an arranged marriage is in prospect, very often there is an extended visit—of many months in some cases—to the family of the prospective in-laws. People regularly return from such visits and are told that they are not habitually resident, which sets a great many marriages off on the wrong foot. I do not think that that does any good.
  The lack of a precise legal definition is one of the problems. It was that hurdle over which the Government fell in the case in the European Court of Justice. The court held that the Government had altogether misdefined "habitual residence". The Government—I welcome what they have done as far as it goes—have changed the test in response to the European Court of Justice in order to say that anyone who has lived in this country and anyone who was born in this country and has a continuing connection should be treated with favour. That does not go all the way. Someone who is taken out of the country as a young child and comes back a number of years later may be held not to
  866
  be habitually resident. That answer was given by Mr Timms to my honourable friend Mr Rendell. I see that the Minister shakes her head. When two Ministers disagree, I venture to doubt. I hope that that is not improper.
  I declare an interest in this case because many years ago it happened to be my own. I have therefore always felt particularly strongly about it. Because the legal concept is so uncertain and because there are so many minefields, what the Government have done will not be enough to keep them out of further legal trouble. I am glad that people who are clearly British, including the niece of a former Leader of the House who was caught by the test, will now be able to pass it. That is a very necessary mercy and I welcome it. On the other hand, this must increase the risk that what is done may discriminate between British and other European Union nationals and may therefore fall foul of the Treaty of Rome. There is also the risk that it might be held to discriminate on grounds of race, which is equally illegal in this country. In any case, if people have passed our immigration requirements, and if they actively seek work, do we really need another test? At present it saves the Government only £18 million. Is it really worth all the hardship, all the aggravation and all the legal confusion and danger which it causes? I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment seeks to remove the need for people to meet a residence requirement in order to receive income-related benefits. It may be helpful if I explain that the purpose of the habitual residence test and ordinarily resident test is to ensure that income-related benefits—we are not talking about contributory benefits: the right to reside, the right to work and the right to build up contributory benefits are not affected by the habitual residence test—are paid to people with reasonably close ties to the UK and an intention to settle here. Its underlying principle is that UK taxpayers should not have to subsidise through income related benefits people with a very tenuous link, if any, with the UK. What they earn in their own right through work and contributions is a different matter.
  In considering whether a person is habitually resident or ordinarily resident, the adjudicating authorities consider a number of factors, including the claimant's attachment to the UK, the reasons for coming to the UK, his employment record and the length and continuity of residence in another country. In most cases it is easy to determine whether someone is habitually resident. In practice, only a small proportion of people need a full examination to establish whether they are habitually resident. The majority of those are able to confirm that they are. That is shown by the figures: 84 per cent of those who take the test pass it; 88 per cent of all UK nationals taking the test pass it.
  However, we understood and shared the concerns that have been expressed about the way the test worked in the past. That is why we decided to review it. We, too, had particular concerns about the impact of the test on returning UK nationals—the classic example being the missionary working abroad and coming home. To date, the majority of all people adversely affected by the test have been UK nationals.

  867
  On 14th June we announced our plans for reforming the habitual residence test. UK and other nationals returning to this country from any country overseas who are re-establishing their ties here can now be accepted as habitually resident immediately upon their return. The period in which habitual residence inquiries are made will be reduced from five years to two years. Legislation will be introduced automatically to treat as habitually resident in the UK people brought here from an area of civil unrest or deported to the UK, and improvements will be made to the administrative process. Typical examples would include UK nationals working abroad—the Swaddling case that went to the European Court. It would help UK nationals with overseas links; notably people from black and ethnic minority communities.
  I should add that we have advised staff to extend the effect of the Swaddling judgment so that it applies to people returning to the UK from outside Europe. People from ethnic minority backgrounds who travel overseas—for example, to maintain family and cultural links, as referred to by the noble Earl—will therefore immediately be able to re-establish habitual residence upon their return. I hope that that will allay the noble Earl's anxieties. United Kingdom nationals returning due to misfortune, marital breakdown or ill health will be helped by this judgment and UK nationals taken abroad as children.
  I am not sure about the noble Earl's reference to the response of Mr Timms. However, my honourable friend made the following statement:
  "The tricky task is to ensure that such abuse is excluded through regulation, without preventing those who should have access to the benefits system from having such access".—[Official Report, Commons, Standing Committee D, 27/4/99; col. 1037.]
  I am not sure that specific reference was made to children, but I may be wrong.
  Although these cases are not always clear cut, UK nationals taken abroad as children would normally be covered by the judgment. Taken together, we believe that our reforms strike the right balance between allowing ready access to income-related benefits to those with genuine links with the UK and protecting the social security system from possible abuse by those who do not so qualify. I hope that in my reply I have addressed the concerns of the noble Earl and that, as a result, he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  6.30 p.m.
  Earl Russell: Before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her one question that I should have asked in my speech. It arises from a Written Answer by the Minister:
  "We also propose to legislate to add to the categories of people who are to be treated as habitually resident those people who are brought here from an area of civil unrest or who are deported to the UK".
  Is such legislation in prospect either in this Bill or in the Immigration and Asylum Bill which is also before this House?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not know when the legislation is in prospect. I shall write to the noble Earl and let him know. We propose automatically to treat as habitually resident in the UK people who are brought here from an area of civil unrest or who are deported to the UK. It may be that this can be done through secondary legislation since primary legislation is not specified. I shall check and write to the noble Earl, but certainly what I have said is the Government's stated intent.
  Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister. I apologise for the rather ham-handed way in which I raised the matter. Should the information reach the Minister I shall be extremely happy to give way.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am glad to confirm that we expect to table regulations—as I said, primary legislation is not required—early next year. Therefore, they are not part of either this Bill or any other Bill.
  Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister. I shall look at those regulations with very great interest.
  I said earlier this afternoon that the Minister was an optimist. She has been so again. She said that the concept of habitual residence was easy to apply. If it were so it would not be applied with such different success rates in such different places. When referring to the definition of habitual residence, the Minister described a number of different tests. I accept that those are the tests, but I am sure that equally she accepts that they may give different answers, one from the other, when all are applied to the same person.
  I am also aware that when the previous government were pressed for roughly the concession that the present Government announced on 14th June they regularly replied that under European law they were unable to discriminate between British nationals and others in this way because Article 7 of the Treaty of Rome forbade it. If that was the advice given to the previous government I presume that the legal advice given to the present Government has been different. I would be very interested to know in what respect it is different, or on what ground. Where there are two different sets of legal advice I remain in doubt as to which is correct. I still remain suspicious that perhaps the advice given to the previous government on this subject was correct, and therefore the Government may face another hostile judgment in the European Court of Justice. I warned them that the last one was coming and received the reply, "The Government are confident". They always are. I look forward to the next instalment. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 128YA and 128ZA not moved.]
  Clause 66 [Sharing of functions as regards claims and information]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 128A:
  Page 72, leave out line 37 and insert ("the Child Support Act 1991 for a maintenance assessment)")
  The noble Baroness said: This is a drafting amendment. However, it may be helpful if I first explain the purpose of this clause. It provides an important step towards modernising the social security system, and it is about providing a streamlined service. The powers in this clause pave the way for an integrated claims service and provide new functions for local authorities. Our aim is that claimants should be able to access the system at any point and transact a range of business at that single point. As the Committee may be aware, at present local authorities may deal only with claims for housing benefit and council tax benefit. This clause enables them to handle claims and information relating to a wider range of social security benefits, as well as war pensions and applications for child support. It also provides for other partners in joint working arrangements to provide the same customer service in respect of claims for HB and CTB.
  The Committee will understand that the provisions in this clause, therefore, support the introduction of the "one" service—the single work-focused gateway to the benefit system—that we have already discussed. We have given local authorities the power to do what we have already discussed fairly fully in this Chamber. We intend that regulations made under this clause should specify the social security benefits to which the new integrated service will apply. There will be provision for dealing with claims and the collection of supporting evidence, as well as the handling of more routine social security business that claimants wish to transact, such as reporting changes in circumstances.
  Local authorities will be full partners in delivering the customer-focused, integrated service that we envisage. Part of that service will include dealing with child support applications. For example, we have already successfully introduced changes in the way that lone parents' claims for income support are handled. The Benefits Agency now helps customers to complete an application for maintenance at the time they first claim benefit. We want those who approach their local authority to make a claim to be offered the same level of service.
  However, the reference in this clause to applications under the Child Support Act is currently too narrow to achieve that aim. It relates only to what are called "private cases", or applications from lone parents who are not claiming benefits. This amendment puts matters right and underpins what we are doing with the "one" service and makes it possible to extend the service offered to people who are non-private cases within the CSA. As a result, we hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
  Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness said that this was a drafting amendment. A number of years ago I read out exactly those words on a ministerial brief only to
  870
  discover some weeks later that I had made a large number of people criminals retrospectively. I always view such remarks with the slightest suspicion. None the less, I believe that the noble Baroness is correct in saying that this is a drafting amendment. The original draft appeared to stop earlier than it should have; a few crucial words were not added on the end.
  Having said that—I shall resist the temptation to deal with the Child Support Agency more generally—as I understand it, this amendment is concerned with the sharing of functions as regards claims and information. Am I wrong in thinking that the effect of this wording is to enable local authorities to share information with the Child Support Agency? If so, the noble Baroness will not be surprised to hear me ask, yet again: at what level will that information be shared? But perhaps I have totally misunderstood the amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendment is required because the current clause defines a claim in relation to child support as an application for maintenance assessment under Section 4 of the Child Support Act. Section 4 relates only to private cases, and the amendment ensures that all child support applications are covered. That is the reason for the amendment. Under the "one" system that we discussed recently, if someone comes out of a relationship and becomes effectively a lone parent with a child, he or she goes to the "one" service in order to claim his or her income support. The "one" service will simultaneously deal with income support, housing benefit and, in the case of a lone parent, automatically encourages him or her to put in a claim for maintenance.
  As was clear when we discussed the "one" service, fully trained staff—I refer to 300-plus hours of training—in local authorities (in the pilot schemes) will be able to handle that claim. But in order to do that, and to share the information, we have to legitimise local authorities' roles. That is the point of the amendment.
  Lord Higgins: I understand that. However, am I right in thinking that the local authority will suggest that he or she should make a claim for maintenance, but will it then receive that information in the light of the Child Support Agency transaction? If so, is there a substantial increase in the extent to which information is transferred between one government agency and local authorities?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes, but not long ago the noble Lord pressed me for shared information on a common basis between public authorities so that the claimant was not forced to put in several complicated applications which, if there were one minor error in one, might trigger a fraud inquiry.
  With due respect, the noble Lord cannot have it both ways. He cannot want common sharing of information to obviate fraud and to make life easier for the claimant, and then object if we seek to introduce that. That is indeed the path down which we are going: that where we deal with benefits we seek an integrated service, an integrated approach. That requires in the long term a common spine of information based on sound, robust

  871
  information technology—I touch wood—in which case we should be able to provide a more efficient and effective service for our claimants.
  Lord Higgins: The Minister is light to say that I suggested that only a few days ago, I think at Question Time. At that time, the noble Baroness rightly pointed out that that would involve transfer. Will that be done at very low levels in local authorities?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I could not swear to the grade. The local authority will take the information. The CSA will continue as now to sort out the claim. That is done by the appropriately trained staff. But from my experience in the local authority world, there are not appropriate grades to make an analogy with Civil Service grades. The decision makers would be the equivalent of EOs. Any such staff—they tend to be senior clerical officers and the like—would have been fully trained through the "one" training process, which is the most elaborate investment in training of which I am aware.
  I cannot help the noble Lord because every local authority has different grading structures and different staff. The important thing is that staff will be empowered to do this work only if they have gone through the training process and will therefore be of an appropriate and suitable skill and calibre.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 66, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 67 agreed to.
  Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 128B:
  After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—

  SECRETARY OF STATE TO HAVE REGARD TO INCOME NECESSARY FOR GOOD HEALTH
  ('" .—(1) When determining levels of social security benefits and pensions, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the minimum level of income necessary to maintain good health and cover essential needs.
  (2) In considering the minimum level of income in subsection (1) above. the Secretary of State shall take into consideration the need to—

  (a) combat social exclusion,

  (b) maintain satisfactory standards of child development, and

  (c) ensure respect for human dignity.")

  The noble Lord said: I tabled this amendment in consultation with the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and perhaps I should explain very briefly how it came about. I did not volunteer to table the amendment they were seeking. It would be closer to the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to say that my very dear and noble friend Lady Castle volunteered for me. She suggested that I should be asked to help and I am very glad she did so.
  The Reverend Paul Nicolson, who chairs the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust, has been unfailingly helpful to me in preparing my submission on the amendment and I hope that he and his colleagues will feel that our debate this evening is worthy of their humane concern for the achievement of its purpose. With them I deeply regret that, sadly but unavoidably, the noble and most reverend
  872
  Lord, Lord Runcie, as a patron of the trust, cannot be here for a debate which I know he most warmly welcomes. I was extremely sorry also to hear from my noble friend Lady Castle this morning that she, too, would be unable to join us this afternoon.
  My amendment is about the importance of providing Britain's poorest people with the means to cover their essential needs and of urgent action by the Department of Social Security to set minimum income standards. The Commons Health Select Committee reported as long ago as 1992 that the DSS could not,
  "comment with authority on the adequacy of income support rates in the absence of research to support their view".
  No dietician and nutritionist is involved when the department decides the level of pensions and benefits. Yet the British Medical Association reported on 1st July that poor families in Britain include some of the unhealthiest children in the developed world. Only Albania has a similar proportion of dangerously underweight babies. And the United Nations today sees Britain as one of the most unequal industrialised countries in the field of child health. The BMA report attributes this to poor nutrition, low educational standards and lack of priority for healthcare. Others will blame underspending on benefits for our most vulnerable citizens and point to Britain's unenviable place near the bottom of the league of the OECD's 21 member states for the proportion of GDP spent on health, education and social security.
  In November last year the Independent Inquiry into Inequalities in Health, chaired by Sir Donald Acheson, reported that empirical evidence from research demonstrates that people whose incomes consist entirely of state benefits have,
  "insufficient money to buy items and services necessary for good health".
  It reported also:
  "The generally agreed 'healthy diet' in pregnancy may have long-term benefits in reducing the baby's later risk of cardiovascular disease … Mothers reliant on state benefits may not be able to afford a healthy diet, and may go short of food in order to feed their children".
  The first clear implication is that, when a pregnant woman is unable to afford a healthy diet, the consequences can be disastrous for the child. The foetus is underfed, leading to sickness in childhood and low life expectancy. And the second implication of Sir Donald Acheson's report, just as clear, is that satisfactory standards of child development are impossible to achieve on current levels of benefit in the UK.
  In the United States guaranteeing a minimum income to pregnant women has been shown to increase birth weight and life expectancy. But the UK is today equal 18th in the international league table for infant deaths. Japan, Germany, France, Spain and the Scandinavian countries, among many others, all have lower rates.
  My noble friend Lady Hollis will recall that the Commission on Social Justice—chaired with such distinction by my noble friend Lord Botrie—showed that the poor in Britain were dying younger in 1991 than in 1981. The reasons given were stress, inadequate healthcare and malnutrition. But the rich are living

  873
  longer. The British Medical Journal reported in February 1998 that professional workers could expect to live over five years longer than unskilled manual workers. Their life expectancy has fallen.
  In February 1998, the Department of Health published a graph showing that the life expectancy of semi-skilled and unskilled workers began to diminish in the mid-eighties, while the life expectancy of everyone else continued to increase. Nick Davies writes in his book Dark Heart:
  "Poverty kills with subtlety and skill. This is not the clumsy tyranny of the Third World dictator, leaving his subjects in pieces by the road side".
  But the effect of poverty on health in Britain can be stated without subtlety: it is the same in total as a plane crashing and killing 115 passengers every day of the year.
  The National Consumer Council reported in 1992 that it is primarily lack of money that causes families to go without food or to have to depend on an inadequate diet in Britain. In 1995 the council urged the Government to sponsor or undertake budget studies to find out what standard of living is implicit in social security benefit levels. But shamefully the DSS replied that it could not,
  "contribute to deliberations on the practical aspects of living on a low income".
  In answer to a recent Parliamentary Question tabled in another place, asking what assessment had been made of the ability of families and individuals living on income support to afford a healthy diet, the Minister replied:
  "A wide range of foodstuffs is available at affordable prices and a healthy diet is obtainable within the means of anyone receiving income support".
  Yet the report of the low income project team of the Government's nutrition task force makes it plain that a healthy diet is beyond the means of a great many people.
  There is no published research by the DSS to disprove the widespread evidence of malnutrition in Britain. For its research into living standards it relies mostly on expenditure data, but this does not convince the low income projects team that people on low incomes can afford a healthy diet. Expenditure by the poor is no guide to human need. They have to live with the reality that food, heating, clothing, transport and poverty-related debt must compete with one another for a share of inadequate benefits and low earnings.
  One and a half million people in Britain have no access to normal financial services. A further four million have no more than very limited access. They often have to rely on door-to-door moneylenders who charge exorbitant interest rates. Their participation in normal social life is minimal with very serious consequences for their communities and British society as a whole.
  An important distinction has to be made between poverty and social exclusion. While poverty is caused by lack of money, social exclusion also has to do with way of life and the environment in which people live. For example, poorer children are more prone to accident and injury. This is because they often have nowhere to play but the street. They live on estates where there is broken glass, used needles and other dangerous objects. Between 1981 and 1991 death by
  874
  fire among affluent children dropped by 28 per cent. Among poor children it rose by 39 per cent. These statistics shout the case for this amendment.
  Lack of money can lead to children being excluded from school outings and holidays and to going without adequate clothing, Christmas and birthday presents and many other things which are generally considered normal, not extravagant, by other children. Adam Smith wrote:
  "by necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people even of the lowest order to be without".
  Britain is one of the few developed countries which has made no effort to set governmental minimum income standards as distinct from relying on contestable academic measures of expenditure. We still fail to implement the European Commission's recommendation to member states of 24th June 1992,
  "to combat social exclusion [by] fixing the amount of resources considered sufficient to cover essential needs with regard to human dignity".
  This year public expenditure on income maintenance will cost approximately £150 billion, of which some £100 billion will go on social security benefits, student grants, training allowances and other transfer payments and the balance on income tax allowances and income tax reliefs. This spending dominates the national budget, yet it is made without any scientifically based estimates of the needs and living costs either of claimants or taxpayers. As the Guardian argued in a leading article yesterday:
  "Labour needs to set out the most fundamental welfare principle of all: what is an adequate income. This is not a technical but a political issue. No British government has ever set out a minimum acceptable standard of living, but six western nations have already done so in the last decade. The inadequacy of our current benefits can no longer be ducked".
  As of now, while it is aimed to eliminate poverty in 20 years, there is no estimate available of the minimum incomes required for essential needs and to promote good health among pregnant women, children, disabled people, unskilled manual workers or frail elderly pensioners living alone. The 20-year time scale understates both the urgency and seriousness of the problem. But the methodology to provide the DSS with the information needed for it to set standards is available. It was pioneered by the Family Budget Unit at the Department of Dietetics and Nutrition at King's College London.
  Nor has there been any estimate of how much it would save the Exchequer to be rid of poverty-related crime, court and prison costs, preventable ill-health, violence, stress, low educational achievement, divorce and other poverty-related costs. Yet the BMA estimates that every £1 spent on improving a child's health ultimately saves £8 in health care.
  This is why the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust is calling for clear undertakings from my noble friend the Minister this evening to,
  "implement the European Commission's recommendation of 24 June 1992 on combating social exclusion; secondly, to assess all policies, old and new—not, in the words of the White Paper, only 'major new policies'— for their impact on health; thirdly, to commission independent research into the weekly costs of essential

  875
  needs for the appropriate categories of people; and, fourthly, to publish the reasons, and all the supporting evidence, on which the levels of minimum incomes for the appropriate categories of people have been determined".
  This is a necessary amendment to the Bill, which has the backing of Age Concern England, Barnardos, the Low Pay Unit, the Maternity Alliance, NCH Action for Children and the UK Public Health Association, among many other admirable organisations to which the Government should listen not just with attention but the utmost respect. Acceptance of the amendment would require government to arm itself with information essential to combating social exclusion and promoting both respect for human dignity and the building of a just society. I beg to move.
  Earl Russell: I am happy to support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, to which I have put my name. I was not volunteered for this amendment and the Minister will know that I have spoken on roughly similar themes for as long as she has been in the House and, I think, rather longer. I shall say exactly what the effect of the amendment would be. It demands that the Government have regard to the minimum level of income necessary to maintain good health and cover essential needs.
  It has always been the Government's position hitherto that, at least inside the Department of Social Security, they did not know what the amount necessary to maintain good health was. They said that it was a matter for choice and that they were not concerned with how people spent their benefits. I have had many exchanges with my noble kinsman Lord Henley who said that it is not a matter on which the department possesses any information.
  I understand why the Government may resist the amendment. If I may borrow words used in another context by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff of Chieveley, caution—otherwise known as the Treasury—would never allow it. But caution takes more than one form and, as the BMA continually reminds us, ill-health caused by lack of adequate income may cause other costs of many different sorts whose size may be great enough to interfere with the Treasury's calculations.
  I shall mention briefly some of the work that has been done on the issue. For example, NCH Action for Children surveyed a sample of people in which one in five parents turned out to have gone hungry in the preceding month and one in 10 children under five had gone without food in the same period. No parent or child was eating a healthy diet.
  I should also mention the National Consumer Council survey Your Food: Whose Choice? It makes the vital point that all survey information is based on the standard supermarket price. If you live, say, in rural Wales, or if you are unable to get to the supermarket because like many people on benefit you cannot afford to run a car, you may well end up paying 20 per cent over the standard price. That means that in many areas of the country all the survey information is understating the problem by up to 20 per cent.
  The issue has been put fairly and squarely back on the agenda by the Acheson Report. It states, bluntly, that income from benefits is insufficient to maintain good
  876
  health. That is a stark and striking finding and it must call for action. I am sure that all of us have Treasury teams which tell us that we cannot solve the problem instantly. However, we can set out to move in the right direction. If we are not doing so, we are storing up greater problems for the future.
  I also have with me extracts from the newly-published book by the BMA, Growing Up in Britain. The BMA reports that children in social class B5 have more than twice the rate of long-standing illness, are smaller at birth, shorter in height and have a markedly poor diet. It also reports that we have become a country of rapidly increasing inequality, which means that the extent of these problems is likely to spread.
  The effect extends into health. The Minister will be familiar with the work of the Medical Research Council on low birth weight. It also makes the point that the effect of low birth weight is to diminish apparent intelligence and therefore to diminish educational performance. It states:
  "Inadequate nutrition can impair cognitive development and is associated with educational failure among impoverished children Nutrition early in life has a big impact on the development of the brain.".
  Therefore, a small increase in benefit levels might do more to improve educational performance than 10,000 Woodheads; if, indeed, 10,000 Woodheads would do anything to improve educational performance! I pass over that because it is wide of our present purpose.
  The document illustrates that the costs of not providing an adequate level of benefit may be far more various and manifold that anyone has taken into account. The effect of the amendment is extremely modest. It does not call for any immediate spending; it simply calls on the Department of Social Security to try to discover the size of the problem. In any political decision we take, we must count costs. In any decision about spending money, we must also count the costs of not spending it. That need has become urgent and if we do not address it we cannot claim that we are doing anything serious to try to fight poverty. I am most happy to support the amendment.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Murray of Epping Forest: The aim of the amendment is to begin the process of putting flesh on the bones of the Prime Minister's determination to end within a generation the scandal and tragedy of child poverty. He has declared his interest, which will be shared throughout the Chamber. I, too, declare an interest as vice-chairman of one of the charities referred to by my noble friend—NCH Action for Children. He powerfully described the relationship between poverty and ill health. As the noble Earl said, the situation is deteriorating.
  The report issued today by the Institute of Fiscal Studies demonstrates that the number of children in households with incomes below half the national average climbed from 1.4 million—one in 10 children—in 1968 to 4.3 million—one in three children—in 1995–96. Half today's poor children live in households where no one works. Of course the Government are

  877
  right to work towards providing work for those who do not have it. I share their aim. Indeed, the idea of work for maintenance was written on the banners of the trade union movement in the 19th century. However successful the Government's policy may be, some will not be able to work and will need support if their families are to be maintained in anything like decent living circumstances and children maintained in decent health.
  It is not inconsistent enthusiastically to support the Government's efforts to tackle social exclusion and to draw attention to the need to provide a reasonable safety net to the people who continue to need it. That is the only and laudable purpose of the amendment.
  Lord Goodhart: The amendment raises not only issues of domestic law, raised by my noble friend Lord Russell and introduced most effectively and powerfully by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, but issues of international human rights law. There are twin United Nations conventions to which the United Kingdom is a party. The first is the international covenant on civil and political rights, which is very well known to lawyers. The second, much less well known than it should be, is the international covenant on economic, social and cultural rights.
  Economic and social rights under the covenant include rights to, for example, education, healthcare, housing and social security. In the past, it was assumed that those rights in the covenant were mere statements of intention and in no way legally binding. But there is an increasing recognition among organisations and individuals concerned with human rights that economic and social rights should be legally enforceable rights. Those rights and their enforcement must be subject to a government's ability to meet them. We cannot expect poor countries to provide a level of education, social security or health equivalent to that appropriate to a richer country. But countries should do what they can and should aim to improve what they do as they grow richer. For example, the Republic of South Africa, a poor country, recognises a number of economic and social rights in its constitution and makes them justiciable within the limits of its ability to afford them. If South Africa can do that, surely a rich country like the United Kingdom can do the same. That is what the amendment does and that is an additional reason why I support it.
  The Lord Bishop of Hereford: I warmly support the amendment. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Morris, for moving it and I thank other Members of the Committee for supporting it. We have just heard a contribution from a lawyer and it is important that a voice is heard from these Benches in support of the amendment.
  It raises profound moral issues. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, said that this is not a technical matter; it is a political matter. It is technical and political, but above all it is moral. The unequal distribution of wealth, the need for social justice, are matters on which we ought all to be deeply concerned. It is imperative to comment on issues of social justice in the light of the Christian
  878
  tradition to work for a society which is more socially inclusive and less unjust. Our ideas of social justice are all derived from the teachings of the Judaeo/Christian tradition and to permit or collude with the exclusion of the poor, to accept that in a wealthy society some, and in particular children, should have to go without the necessities of healthy living, is to be guilty before one another and before God. That was the message of the prophets of Israel, the message of Jesus and of Christian teachers and reformers across the centuries: Thomas Aquinas, John Wesley, William Wilberforce, Josephine Butler, R.H. Tawney and William Temple.
  My postgraduate research was concerned with social thought and action of the Churches in the 1920s and 1930s. I carried out the work in the early 1960s at a time of relative prosperity, of high levels of employment, of hope and of confidence. I was hardly able to believe how the caring society in the 1920s and 1930s had tolerated such gross inequalities of wealth and poverty and such appalling conditions of housing and unemployment as accompanied the Jarrow marches and so on.
  The concern for adequate and therefore just provision for the poor has been taken up in more recent years by the Christian Churches. I refer to the work of the Church of England in calling for the Government to commission independent research which could lead to publicly recognised, minimum income standards based on need. That was a message of the Archbishop of Canterbury's Commission on Urban Priority Areas. In 1985, Archbishop Runcie, as he then was, in the report entitled Faith in The City, called for,
  "an assessment of need rather than what can be afforded".
  The report continued:
  "The basic question 'what are benefits supposed to cover?' has not been answered since the system was introduced in 1948".
  Benefits have been uprated a little most years, but even in 1948 the levels were based on figures constructed by Beveridge 10 years earlier and insufficiently uprated. Since 1948 no attempt has been made to set the rates according to an agreed standard of what they could and should cover. The rates for children have never been costed. For that reason I welcome the report which asks for that work to be carried out.
  The report of the Council of Churches of Britain and Ireland inquiry into unemployment and the future of work, published two years ago, focused on the debilitating effects of unemployment and the human need for good work. The report was based on a mass of research carried out by people who lived with and talked to people living in the poorest areas of this country. It was not simply Civil Service statistics; it was the real experience of people who discovered what life was actually like for such people.
  The report highlights the role to be played by the state in combating unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, and the role of the Churches in supporting good work for all. Since then the Government have taken impressive steps in the direction of combating long-term unemployment. We believe that

  879
  the transfer of the Benefits Agency into what is fairly described as a user-friendly unemployment advisory service is welcome indeed.
  Many people, despite the best efforts of government and employers, remain in long-term unemployment and I fear many will continue to do so. The CCBI report comments that levels of income from benefits were never intended to support those in long-term unemployment. So there are particular difficulties for such people who live on benefits today. The report makes it abundantly clear that income support levels are too low to maintain a minimum standard of living as commonly understood in Britain today.
  My support for the amendment is framed within the concept of justice, derived from an understanding of the Hebrew scriptures, the New Testament and the Christian tradition of reflection on these vital issues. Perhaps there is no better text than the famous words from the prophet Micah:
  "What does the Lord require of you? To do justice, to love mercy and to walk humbly with your God".
  That tradition sees wealth enjoyed by humans as ultimately the gift of God in creation. It affirms that wealth is to be used for the meeting of human need, according to the will of God, which is a will for justice. The amendment intends to bring about the commissioning by the Government of proper independent research into the weekly cost of essential needs, good health, social inclusion, the maintenance of satisfactory standards of child development and the setting of minimum income standards which will meet those needs in an economical, low cost, but acceptable manner.
  I am delighted that the Minister has in her possession at this moment the report which sets out the case so cogently. I look forward to hearing her positive and enthusiastic response to the amendment.
  Lord Patel: I support the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester. Research carried out by my colleagues and I has clearly demonstrated the strong link between low birth weight and the low socio-economic group of the mother.
  The Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists presented evidence of the association of poor nutrition of the mother with low birth weight to Sir Donald Acheson's committee. The work of Professor Eva Alberman, a renowned epidemiologist, has clearly demonstrated the reduction in childhood mortality and morbidity that would result from improvements in birth weight of babies born at less than 2,503 grams through improved nutrition of the mother. The relationship between low birth weight and adult diseases such as hypertension, heart disease and diabetes has already been referred to as evidence produced by the Medical Research Council in its research.
  Many gains are to be had by improving the nutrition of pregnant women through improving income support of women in poverty. I support the amendment.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, raises both emotional and important analytical issues. The debate has reflected the personal experience of the kind of problems that he outlined and reference has been made to various academic studies.
  The noble Lord began by referring to the work of Adam Smith. Welfare economics has moved on since his time. Perhaps my experience of lecturing on the subject at Yale University where most of my students had names like Rockefeller III and Henry Ford IV may have been in a rather strange environment.
  The research is important and it is right to refer to it. One distinction which economists tend to make and which is also crucial to the issue is the distinction between fundamental poverty and comparative poverty and secondary poverty. In a country like Chad, there is a level of absolute poverty which to those in this country is quite horrifying, and to a large extent the situation here is one of comparative poverty. Even since the time of Beveridge, the standard of living in this country generally has risen so much that our view of what is comparative poverty now is rather different from what it would have been in 1948.
  The question of comparative poverty is important. I refer to the subject with great diffidence. The noble Lord, Lord Murray, with his experience in charitable work, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, no doubt with his own experience, speak with far greater authority.
  The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the work of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust. I have studied with interest the points made in that study. In particular it refers to the consequences of inadequate income in ill health which leads to diminishing life expectancy. One set of figures was produced with regard to the fact that life expectancy of semi-skilled and unskilled workers began to decline in the 1980s, which I find somewhat puzzling. The study does not suggest why that should be so.
  The study also refers to people of an earlier period The noble Lord, Lord Morris, referred to the life expectancy and the nutritional situation with regard to the mother. One has to go back some years before one sees that reflected in the statistics for life expectancy at: the end of the generation rather than at the beginning of it. It is undoubtedly true that the nutrition level is important in that context. Reference has been made to the Acheson report and to various other BMA reports., all of which are important.
  I turn to the point I made a moment ago about secondary poverty. When I was governor of the then Institute for Policy Studies a report was produced on that subject particularly concerning smoking. It is not just a question of establishing the income level. The amendment suggests that the Government should introduce a level of income which will produce sufficient nutritional value.
  But there is still a high degree of choice for those receiving that level of income. One aspect that I found utterly horrifying was the extent to which people on income support who, presumably, are living at the

  881
  lowest level of income which is acceptable, spend a very high percentage of their income on cigarettes. Indeed, the amount of money returned to the Treasury from the tax on cigarettes was quite a high percentage of the total amount being received on average by this particular group on the lowest acceptable level of income.
  As regards the complaint made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, about the use of standard supermarket prices in assessing the minimum level of income, if there are people in this group who are unable to get to a supermarket, it may well be that they gain rather than lose because some studies seem to support the view concerning secondary poverty that people in that lowest income group tend to spend a great deal of money on convenience and junk food which may be even more expensive—for example, if one is buying frozen sprouts—than buying fresh sprouts and so forth.
  These are not simple issues. One has to consider very carefully whether the establishment of a level of income which will produce the degree of nutritional benefit we should all like to see can be defined in such simple terms. Having said that, both from personal experience and the various reports that have been referred to, they provide important yardsticks against which we can judge the amendment, which has given rise to an extremely interesting and valuable debate.
  Lord Haskel: I do not believe that anyone can disagree with the amendment tabled by my noble friend. No one can disagree that we want to combat social exclusion or that we want to maintain satisfactory standards of child development. No one can disagree that we need information on these matters and that we need to ensure respect for human dignity.
  However, I believe that in this debate speakers have been a little unfair to the Treasury. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that the Treasury would not allow the proposed measures. I believe he has been a little unfair. The Treasury has taken the initiative in trying to eliminate poverty and with the working family tax credit in order to try to get people out of dependency. Surely, the key to improving nutrition is to get people away from dependency. The Treasury is to be congratulated on taking these initiatives. It has committed itself to removing nearly 1 million children from poverty. It has produced the highest ever rise in child benefit. We are promised a new children's tax credit.
  It seems to me that we are moving in the right direction. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, said that perhaps we would just like to hear that the Government are moving in the right direction. I believe that the Government are doing so with the actions that I have mentioned. In addition, the work that they are doing to provide skills which are necessary to facilitate employment is a very important aspect of the programme. I say this because it adds a little balance to the debate.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said, we have had a very interesting debate. In a way I wish it had been in the form of an Unstarred Question drawing attention to this issue rather
  882
  than it arising at this rather late hour in the passage of the Bill. But I welcome the opportunity provided to describe the Government's approach to the fundamental and crucial issues raised this afternoon.
  Our commitment is to create a fairer Britain. Our reform of the welfare state is an integral part of that. Perhaps I may explain why we believe that our strategy is the best way to achieve that aim and why this amendment is not necessary.
  It seeks to address the problems of poverty and social exclusion through social security benefits. Certainly, benefits have a role to play and when setting the rates for benefits and pensions we bear in mind the whole range of research that looks at adequacy. For example, we recently raised the income support rates for families with younger children and our decision was influenced by the recent research report Small Fortunes, which has been quoted by noble Lords in the past.
  However, as Members of the Committee will appreciate, the question as to which level of income is adequate for all types of family has no simple answer. Different research methods provide different answers. We shall continue to review all the research, but setting a single minimum level of income would not do justice to the range and complexity of the work in that area.
  As I am sure Members of the Committee will agree—this is the important matter—the problems of poverty and social exclusion go much wider than benefits. If we are to wage a serious assault on poverty and social exclusion in Britain we need to tackle the causes. They are multi-faceted. The Committee concentrated in particular on children. One child in three in this country is poor; one in five children lives in a family where the parents do not work; thousands leave school without even basic skills; 3 million people have been out of work and dependent on benefits for over two years.
  As the Secretary of State, Alistair Darling, said, children are born in poverty, live in poverty and die in poverty, especially if they come from a workless and fractured family where the mother does not work and the father does not support the child. In that case they are doubly disadvantaged.
  The face of poverty in this country is not the face of a pensioner, a widow or a disabled person, it is the face of a child. We know that disadvantage passes from generation to generation. We are determined that that cycle should not continue. That is why the Prime Minister made his historic pledge that we aim to eradicate child poverty within a generation. That is an outstandingly bold pledge.
  How do we propose to do that? We are investing in our children's future by tackling the causes of poverty and by raising standards in health and education. Why do people come to live on benefits rather than the level of benefits it is necessary for them to have? Subsection (2) of the new clause would require to have taken into account child development needs in setting benefit levels. I agree that providing children with opportunities to develop and flourish are essential. We are introducing a range of measures, first, in tackling health inequalities raised by the Acheson report. We are including £320 million to cut waiting lists; £49 million for health

  883
  action zones; £266 million to improve primary health care. We have just published our health White Paper Saving Lives which sets out tough and challenging targets to reduce mortality rates in key areas with the potential to save over 300,000 lives over the next 10 years with all the implications for the low birth rate which the noble Lord, Lord Patel, mentioned.
  We are also seeking to introduce a range of measures to increase the incomes of families with children including the improvement of nearly £5 per week on the rate of income support and the working families tax credit from October this year. There will be an additional £1,000 per year also for disabled children in low WFTC families. There will be a further record increase in child benefit from April next year. There will be a new children's tax credit of £426 per year from April 2001.
  As my noble friend said, the passion of this Chancellor is to tackle child poverty. So far every Budget has been shaped above all with that end in view. I cannot believe that Members of the Committee do not accept that everything he has done with the WFTC, child benefit and all the other changes in income support and the rest, are designed to help families with children and motivate him in holding that office.
  As a result of the last two Budgets and the national minimum wage, the poorest fifth of families with children will be over £1,000 a year better off; and, if they have a disabled child, £2,000 a year better off. But providing financial help is not enough. We need to be much more ambitious. One of my complaints is the poverty of the horizons of tonight's debate, which assumes that the issue is about increasing the benefit levels of people who, even if we increased them by £20, would not lead the generosity of life that everyone in this Chamber believes necessary for social inclusion.
  Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Does she accept that if poverty leads to ill health, that makes it much harder to get off benefit into a more rewarding form of life?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Of course. Poverty creates ill health; ill health creates poverty. I entirely accept that. I do not want to sound like a previous Minister, but the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in quoting some of the research on poverty, health and smoking by Richard Dorset and Alan Marsh, referred to the need for a welfare into health programme as well as a welfare into work programme. That shows that real problems exist. Around one child in four of lone parents has some form of illness or disability; 75 per cent of that is related to respiratory problems and associated with the mother smoking. So I absolutely accept that there is a problem which we must redress through access to therapies. I believe that people do not have the energy to cope with those sorts of problems. Unless we can help them acquire that energy through offering them opportunities, we will not get the virtuous cycle we all wish to see.
  As I say, financial help is not enough. We need to be much more ambitious than saying, "Can we raise the benefit here by a little and raise it there by a little?" And we are. We are investing £540 million in the new Sure
  884
  Start scheme, which will ensure that children who are potentially the most deprived and damaged no longer vote with their feet and fall behind children of their age group the day they join school. We are investing £19 billion to drive up standards in education so that we invest in human capital for the future. And of course children's chances are largely shaped by their parents' opportunities. That is why we are taking steps to help more people into work and why we need to reform the Child Support Agency—something dear to my heart—so that women on income support receive the first £10 of maintenance and if they are on working families' tax credit, will keep every penny of maintenance, thus allowing them a possible extra £30 a week.
  So we are doing all of that. But above all, a child in a poor family will only no longer wear that badge of poverty if he is living in a family where someone is in work and where, therefore, either maintenance is being paid or his parent is helping to support him in that way. Helping people into work is at the heart of our welfare agenda. We cannot live a comfortable life on benefit; I know of no country in Europe where that is possible. We need to improve the skills and training of cur workforce and to reconnect people who have become detached from the labour market.
  That is why I was concerned about the "poverty of aspiration" behind so much of today's debate; the assumption of the passivity of those on benefit; that all that is required is slightly to increase their benefit cheque. That will not do. That is why we are launching our New Deals and the new "one" service. As well as helping people into work, we need to make sure that work pays. That is why we embarked on a radical overhaul of the tax and benefits system.
  For the majority, work is the best way of avoiding poverty and we know that lone parents who go on to the New Deal springboard into being £50 or more better off. If we can get their maintenance flowing, they receive another £30 on top of that. An £80 increase on a benefit level of £80 is worth having and really transforms a child's life, as opposed to the piecemeal incremental addition to benefits.
  For the majority, work is the best way of avoiding poverty and social exclusion. But we recognise that for some people that is not a realistic option and we need to provide them with the support they need so that they have the opportunity to enjoy active and fulfilling lives. We are taking steps to make that a reality. So for disabled people we are tackling discrimination. We are making sure people have access to high quality services—the health service, education and the law. And for those who are unable to generate a living income themselves through work, we are providing help through a modernised and effective social security system.
  We are investing £195 million in the New Deal for disabled people. We are introducing the disabled person's tax credit; doubling the child premium and working families' tax credit for a disabled child: creating the new disability income guarantee, worth at least £128 a week for the most severely disabled people under 60 in receipt of income support.

  885
  Through this Bill we are providing a secure income for disabled people who have never had the opportunity to work and therefore they will gain by almost £30 a week. We are modernising incapacity benefit to ensure that it reflects modern society and to restore the original purpose of the benefit. The Bill also takes forward our agenda to help tomorrow's pensions. The new stakeholder pensions and the provisions for pension sharing on divorce; our proposals for the state second pension and the promise of a new minimum income guarantee which will be uprooted by earnings; in all those ways we are saying that the best way to help children out of poverty is to ensure that they are members of a family where there is a parent in work. But if that is not possible—if the parent is severely disabled or alternatively they are a pensioner without an adequate occupational pension, then that is where we target our help.
  I recognise the concern in this Chamber that all citizens should have the opportunity to share in the prosperity of the nation; it is a concern that I share. I hope that I have persuaded my noble friend Lord Morris who moved the amendment so movingly, that the actions we are taking to tackle poverty and social exclusion are the best way to achieve that end, and that we intend to take account of the whole range of available research.
  However, I do not believe that we need this clause. We are a government prepared to be judged by results. That is why we will publish and are publishing an annual report which will include a range of indicators against which we chart our progress in tackling poverty. The annual report will examine our success in tackling poverty and social exclusion across the board, measured by indicators. It will provide a reliable and comprehensive guide to our performance and will, I hope, encourage my noble friend Lord Morris to withdraw his amendment tonight.
  Lord Morris of Manchester: With many others here and beyond this Chamber I shall be studying the reply of my noble friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary with due care and all my customary charity. At this stage I shall not press the amendment, but strongly urge her to reflect again on the case for achieving its humane and important purpose. Meanwhile, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in the debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage on this Bill be resumed not before 8.37 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  House resumed.

Meat Hygiene Service
7.37 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied with the performance and effectiveness of the Meat Hygiene Service.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank in advance all those who put their names down to speak, all of whom can speak from knowledge and experience, and I thank my noble friend the Minister.
This is the first time that the House has debated the Meat Hygiene Service since 1995, when the statutory instrument setting it up went through the House of Lords—there never was discussion in another place. We were told then that the Meat Hygiene Service, which replaced the well-tried and respected local authority meat inspection regime, would be accountable to Parliament through Ministers. In the light of that, I was surprised and concerned to see at col. 121 of the report for 9th July a Written Answer by the Minister to my noble friend Lady Gould which was critical of those who were asking Questions about the Meat Hygiene Service. Indeed, my noble friend was complaining of the cost and trouble to Ministers and officials caused by those Questions. My noble friend must be aware that Parliament is here to hold Ministers to account by means of Questions, debates and so forth. I hope that he will reconsider his attitude and never give a reply like that again.
During the 1995 debate, my noble friend Lord Carter—speaking then from the Opposition Front Bench—was highly critical of the Meat Hygiene Service, its costs and mode of operation. He ended his speech with a quotation from a United States judge, Mr. Louis Brandeis, who said,
"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding".—[Official Report, 18/4/95; col. 412.]
That just about sums up the Meat Hygiene Service. Indeed, the service has become an expensive, incompetent organisation, which has imposed high costs, inconvenience and disruption on abattoirs without, apparently, delivering any better or safer service than the local authorities. At the same time, it has built up an atmosphere of resentment and fear among abattoir operators, especially small ones, many of whom have been driven out of business by the high costs and red tape.
In 1995, Her Majesty's Government promised that charges would not be raised unduly. However, my information is that that promise has not been kept. Even at the present time, I understand that yet another increase imposed in April is shortly to be implemented. In my own view, charges should not have been imposed on operators at all, as the system of self-financing authorities is unfair and leads to inefficiency and, possibly, corruption. Clearly, the charges should now be dropped, following the decision after representation by tens of thousands of businesses, especially small and medium-sized ones, to scrap charges for the new food safety authority. The Government quite clearly took

887
notice of a mass opposition, and I think that they ought to take notice of the abattoir operators, who have been hard done by.
Indeed, it would be quite inequitable and scandalous to retain charges for the Meat Hygiene Service in the face of scrapping charges for another food safety inspectorate. What is sauce for the food safety goose is also sauce for the MHS gander; or it ought to be. But it seems that inspection charges are higher than they need be because the number of inspections has increased needlessly without giving the public any greater protection. There is evidence to show that there is more cross-contamination in the larger abattoirs and that the necessarily high throughput needed to make businesses solvent after meeting the high charges actually increases the risk to the general public. That certainly was not the intention of the European directive and the MHS when it was established.
Then there is the difficulty of recruiting. We have all heard about the difficulty of recruiting British vets to do this job. Indeed, none of them seems to want to do it. Of course, we have also heard a great deal about their training, or lack of it. Because British vets are not attracted to the job, a large number of foreign vets—not just a few—have had to be employed. From Answers by Her Majesty's Government, it appears that there are at present 130 foreign vets employed and I understand that 300 more are to be recruited. Perhaps my noble friend will take those figures on board and let me know if we are in fact going to recruit another 300 foreign vets.
These people are not really suited to British conditions. In many cases, they do not understand the system or the working culture. They are often officious and rude to abattoir staff. This is perhaps understandable, as they are given one week's training—I repeat: one week's training! It is really not sufficient, especially bearing in mind that they are, in effect, law enforcement officers. Police officers in this country receive 22 weeks' training before they are allowed to enforce the law. Yet here we are, giving only one week's training to other people who are doing the same sort of job.
Moreover, what makes things worse is the fact that the existing appeals system is to the Meat Hygiene Service itself. This means that the agency is prosecutor, judge and jury in its own cause. That simply cannot be right. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will think about that and bring forward some changes which will give abattoir operators confidence in the scheme and reduce their fear of victimisation if they make any complaints.
I know that there is much more to be said on this subject. I feel sure that the speakers who will follow me will say it and say it well. However, I want to ask, finally, whether there is a case for the Meat Hygiene Service to continue at all. The Written Questions so disliked by my noble friend seem to show that the whole system is based on outdated and imprecise scientific assumptions and that the employment of full-time veterinary coverage is not really necessary. When I was the leader of a local authority—a county borough council, which had its own health authority—I had some
888
experience of employing meat inspectors. They did the job extremely well; they did it efficiently and they did it at very low cost. I never have understood why we had to change from a system that was working well—except, of course, for the ridiculous EU directive.
I hope that my noble friend will undertake to carry out an investigation into the principle upon which the Meat Hygiene Service operates. I believe he will find that the scientific assumptions have been disproved. If that is so, he should seek to renegotiate the EC Directive 91/497 to achieve a much more satisfactory and less expensive meat service. Such action by him would help to restore the confidence of operators both in him and in the Government; and he would be a very popular Minister indeed.
7.47 p.m.
Lord Willoughby de Broke: My Lords I am sure that all the small abattoir operators will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for introducing this evening's debate. The Meat Hygiene Service was introduced in 1995. I am very sorry to say that it was introduced by a Conservative government. It was then described as,
"a costly, Stalinist, centralised and bureaucratic organisation".
Those are not my words—indeed, I wish they had been—but those of the noble Lord, Lord Carter, who is now the Government Chief Whip. Of course, so it has proved. The MHS, unreformed, looks like being a total disaster for the rural economy. It is driving perfectly good and viable businesses, which provide a much-needed service, into insolvency.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships just two examples. My own local slaughterhouse is run by its owner, who is also a farmer. It has been run by him for 35 years and has a completely unblemished record—no complaints, no hygiene bad scores, no food safety fears, no black marks, no E.coli; indeed, no problems. He remains in business, but for how long? He is a vital part of the local economy, linking farmers, butchers and consumers. However, at present, his veterinary inspection costs and his meat inspection costs total about £300 a week. Those costs are quite high, but they are bearable for a small business. But these will increase dramatically and so steeply by about 400 per cent when an attempt is made to recoup the full charges of the MHS—so much so that his business will become completely unviable, and he will have to close.
Perhaps I may cite another case in this respect. I refer to John Coles who has a small slaughterhouse in Devon. He was telephoned last week by his principal OVS arid told to carry out a water test at a cost of £500. I should add that he has never had any problems at all with water quality. As a rider, the OVS finished the conversation by saying, "Do you think it is still worth running a small abattoir?" He was due to be inspected this week under the HAS scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, pointed out, some of these vets have received little training. The Spanish vet had only been in this country for six weeks. Mr Coles rang me this evening just before the debate to say that the vet could not understand the forms, had had only three or four hours' training and

889
had marked Mr Coles' abattoir down from 85 to 66, which is just one point above the danger level for closure.
Is this really right? Are the Government really intent on driving these small businesses into liquidation, not because they are unsuccessful, or because they pose a threat to public health, but because they do not fit the MHS charging structure, they do not fit the mould? Why are the Government doing this? The Minister for the Cabinet Office has promised a new approach to regulation, and so has the Regulatory Impact Unit. It is supposed to,
"ensure that we implement regulations in such a way to minimise the individual and cumulative burden"
—of regulations—
"particularly on small businesses".
But it is small businesses that are being driven to the wall by the monolith of the MHS. Whatever happened to joined-up government?
I understand that the Government have written to the Commission to ask for clarification of Directive 91/497 and its derogations for LTAs which, incidentally, are quite clearly contained in Article 4 of the directive which I have here. I do not see why they need to be reinterpreted either by the Commission or by the legal department of MAFF. Will the Minister say whether the Government have had a reply to their letter to the Commission and, if so, what was the impact of that reply? Is there any truth in the rumour that the Commission said that there are derogations for LTAs in the directive, but that that advice has been contradicted by government lawyers? I would like some answer on that. I also ask the Minister to ensure that a copy of that correspondence is placed in the Library so that we can see for ourselves exactly what has gone on between the ministry and the Commission in this case.
I really believe that the Government must show a little more backbone on this whole issue. They must decide who calls the shots. Is it the Government or is it the bureaucrats? They must not let hundreds of small, perfectly good businesses go to the wall which have done nothing wrong at all except be small. The Government must not allow Europe to dictate the pace on this. They cannot simply lie back and think of Europe. I hope that they will think more of the small businesses that form such a vital part of the rural economy.
7.52 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, I also wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for raising this enormously important subject. Small abattoirs do not sound very exciting but there is no subject in my diocese, which depends considerably on small-scale livestock farming, which causes more anger, more resentment and more fear. It is not simply the abattoirs themselves which are under threat, but all the jobs that flow from them. It is an enormously significant threat to people who live in Herefordshire and Shropshire, and obviously in similar areas throughout the country.
890
Every small abattoir is faced with closure because of the enormous charges which are being levied on them. I think that there is perhaps some scope for re-interpreting a European Union directive—I shall come back to that in a moment—but I just want to emphasise the enormous impact which these charges are having. Small abattoirs play an absolutely strategic role in food production. They fill business needs that large factory slaughterhouses cannot. Small orders, speciality cuts, meat from rare breeds and organic meat all form the high quality end of the market that produces the good will and the innovation that the meat industry needs, particularly at this time when livestock farmers face such critical difficulties. They enable the small livestock farmer to add value close to home. Often it is possible for the animals to be slaughtered at a nearby small abattoir and then the joints or the sausages can be sold at the farm shop. That enables a small farmer to add value, instead of the value being added miles down the line by someone else, which of course is another cause of enormous resentment among small farmers. Farmers' markets, farm shops and village shops will lose their local supplies of meat and the fine food sector will simply not be able to obtain the high quality meat which makes its business possible. Thousands of jobs are at risk all over the country.
The question has to be asked: why do we have to have these enormously high charges? There is of course enormous gratitude that the Government have deferred the charges for enforcing the control measures for specified risk materials for one year, but that is only one year's grace as far as we know. There is no promise that those charges will not be levied again after the year's remission. The Government are charging for meat hygiene inspectors and official veterinary surgeons, MHIs and OVSs. The OVSs' inspection time has increased from 25 per cent to 50 per cent of slaughtering times and the threat is that it will be increased again to 100 per cent. We have already heard about the enormous costs that have to be paid.
There is the question of whether the European Union has been misinterpreted. I understand that it is in this country alone that this particular interpretation is placed on the directive; namely, that we have to have fully qualified veterinary surgeons as supervisors on top of the traditional meat hygiene inspectors. This, I think, centres round the interpretation of the words in the directive, "vétérinaire ordinaire". Does this actually mean a veterinary surgeon? I believe that it does not mean that, but unfortunately that is the interpretation that has been put on that particular phrase in this country. We have already heard about the scandal of vets from overseas who speak little English and who cannot understand the system, and whose judgments may be critically important and critically destructive for the welfare of small abattoirs. The track record of small abattoirs is good. Their hygiene levels on the whole are higher than those of large abattoirs.
This is a matter which is causing deep concern. I hope very much that the Minister will be able to give us some significant assurances that the Government understand the gravity of the problem; that he will be able to clarify this interpretation of the directive; that he will give us

891
assurances that the real value of small abattoirs to rural communities is fully understood by the Government; and that the Government are absolutely committed to ensuring their survival. So much is at stake that this debate, though a brief debate and not well attended by your Lordships is, I hope, something which will make a significant difference. I hope that I shall be able to go back to my farming friends in the diocese at the end of this debate and say that we have been given some real assurances of real value from the Minister. I note, sadly, that I speak before the noble Countess, Lady Mar, because I know that she has a great deal of expertise on this topic and I would have dearly loved to hear what she said before I had to make my own amateurish contribution. However, I do it with passion because I know how many people's livelihoods hang on the right answer to this problem.
7.57 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I would say to the right reverend Prelate that his contribution is as valuable as any other in this House because he speaks of the people who are being damaged by the legislation.
First, I would like to say "thank you" to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for asking this Question. Secondly, I ex press my heartfelt thanks to the Minister for so kindly arranging a meeting for Dr North, Mr Chadwick and myself with the chief executive and officials of the Meat Hygiene Service last Thursday.
I am delighted to report that the meeting, to put it mildly, developed into a lively exchange of views and we parted with an agreement for co-operation. Last evening I received a letter from Mr Johnston McNeill, chief executive, enclosing a copy of a letter from Mr Peter Soul, director of operations at the Meat Hygiene Service, to all principal official veterinary officers and area resource managers. I am aware of the huge cultural changes that are needed to enable a government department to become a publicly oriented business. I am also sensitive to the feelings of staff who work for an organisation that is a public "knocking block". I worked for British Telecom for 13 years. This enables me to say that I am pleasantly surprised at the contents of the two letters. They indicate a determination at senior level that what is known as the "canteen culture", where the customer is always wrong, should not prevail. If the members of the Official Veterinary Service conduct their business with abattoir owners and operators upon the lines suggested in the letter of Mr Soul, much of the antagonism that has built up should evaporate.
While the management problems have been addressed, there are other areas which require attention. I was shown a copy of the timetable for the conversion course for veterinary surgeons. We were told that it was in fact a refresher course and that veterinary surgeons are taught law and litigation in their basic training. The course lasts for one week. I was finally able to establish—the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, might be interested in this—that the time devoted to legislation is a mere 5¼ hours, regardless of whether the vet is UK or EU trained and regardless of an individual's grasp of idiomatic English. Again I find myself in sympathy with
892
a young Spanish vet, straight out of university, ill-equipped to cope with the far from genteel atmosphere of an abattoir and with a poor command of our language. I am no longer surprised at the reports my colleagues and I have been receiving. Perhaps I may ask the Minister to look to a review of the training procedure and, in particular, to the training offered to non-UK trained vets. At the very least it is unkind to throw them in at the deep end in this manner. This is a management problem that must be tackled.
The Minister must have noticed the number of questions about the science upon which many of the hygiene requirements and recommendations are based. I understand that Directive 64/433/EEC and its amendments form the basis of the Fresh Meat (Hygiene and Inspection) Regulations 1995. While the directive has been amended, the 1950s science upon which it was based has not been updated. There is up-to-date evidence that shows that our grandparents were often right in the way they handled food, and meat in particular, although at the time they did not understand the science.
I understand that there is a current review of all the EU hygiene directives. How can we ensure that subjects such as temperature and humidity control, frequency of hand washing and the relative safety of clean wooden chopping boards are considered on a hard scientific basis?
There is a great deal of criticism about the Hygiene Assessment Scheme 99. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Willoughby, about that. It appears to operate unfairly for smaller abattoirs in that their ability to obtain a score of more than 70 points is dependent upon the production of policy documents. I have been assured that any operator experiencing difficulty with this will be assisted by his OVS and I am pleased to see that Mr Soul's letter contains an instruction to this effect. I am sorry that the letter did not reach the veterinary surgeon of Mr Cole.
Mr Soul has also included the caveat that operators should be advised of requirements that have a statutory basis and those that are "best practice." I understand that the operation of the scheme is to be reviewed after three months. I hope that the wrinkles will have been ironed out by then.
Can the Minister say why MAFF has not seen fit to adopt the Food Safety Act 1990, Section 40, code of practice on the lines of that issued to local government officials? This includes a number of points which must be considered before litigation is resorted to. I understand that currently the MHS applies only the rather vague and limited criterion of the "public interest" when deciding whether to prosecute. Additionally, do ex-police officers have specific training and the expertise to conduct investigations into meat hygiene offences? There is considerable disquiet in this area and I would be grateful if the prosecution policy could be addressed.
I was alarmed to find that the audit is not independent and does not include the competence of enforcement officials and the quality of enforcement, as well as the level of achievement of standards by plant operators.

893
Performance standards are set by MAFF and compliance is audited by MAFF officials. In order to achieve independence, transparency and objectivity, will the Minister look into the possibility of introducing individuals from several disciplines into the audit teams?
Time precludes my dealing with the charging implications—other noble Lords have spoken about them at length—but I know that the Minister and his honourable friends in another place are actively considering them at the moment. I look forward to an early outcome to their deliberations. Uncertainty does not assist the industry.
8.3 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I shall be brief because the case for the prosecution of the Meat Hygiene Service has already been well put and because I feel sure that the Minister will welcome an extra minute or two to deal with the serious questions that have been put to him.
I have two questions to put to the Minister, both of a general nature. First, is he absolutely sure that the basic science which lies behind the creation and operation of the Meat Hygiene Service is sound? I ask this because I remember attending a conference a few years ago on the marketing of wild venison and being fascinated to hear the senior environmental health officer for the Tayside region say a most surprising thing. He said that food poisoning from meat had actually gone up by 47 per cent in Tayside since the meat hygiene regulations had been introduced. In his view, this was because the basic science of cleanliness which inspired the regulations was misguided.
I am not a scientist and I hope that your Lordships will forgive me if I express his reasons in somewhat simple terms. These were that over hundreds of thousands of years, at least, our tummies had got used to absorbing the bugs which inhabit meat processed in a fairly traditional manner; for instance, he mentioned wooden chopping boards and naturally ventilated larders. But the modern process of storing, cutting up and distributing our meat requires stainless steel, plastic, air conditioning and goodness knows what else. The result is that the bugs which survive, and even thrive, in this new synthetic environment are not the ones with which our tummies are familiar. Hence the increase in food poisoning.
I put this point more than once to the previous Government without getting an answer. I would be truly grateful if the Minister could do his best tonight. I would merely add that if there is anything in this theory, then we are probably already caught in a downward spiral of ever greater, ever more misguided regulation. As food poisoning continues, or even rises, the bureaucratic mind will introduce ever cleaner, more spotless, more expensive and more useless regimes, with increasingly opposite results to those intended.
894
That brings me to my second question, which is even briefer but perhaps a little deeper. Can the Minister convince the House that he and his department are not guilty, in Mr Christopher Booker's immortal expression, of taking a sledgehammer to miss a nut?
From all that has been said tonight, I would have thought that we are faced with one of the clearest examples of the bureaucracy senselessly destroying the livelihoods of many thousands of people. It is also causing massive and unnecessary suffering to millions of animals because they have to travel many extra miles to slaughter. Perhaps those animals are not quite so dumb as we think.
Worst of all, this kind of crazy officialdom is devouring our freedom, our trust in the way we are governed and, therefore, our democracy itself. After all, how can such a benign and intelligent man as the Minister preside over such madness? I look forward to his answer with great anticipation.
8.7 p.m.
Viscount Thurso: My Lords, I, too, am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, for having raised this important question. It is also clear that, up to this point, the debate has been peopled by experts in the subject. I am grateful to them for the knowledge that they have imparted. I became my party's food spokesman only a relatively short time ago, I think largely based on the fact that I was born on a farm and that I have worked in a restaurant. Indeed, one of my noble friends has described me as the last "F' in "MAFF".
I have had to learn a great deal extremely quickly. I have done so largely by ringing up as many organisations as I could lay my hands on and finding out what they thought. So I apologise if my contribution is less erudite than those which have gone before.
The Government have made abundantly clear—quite rightly—their determination to put the consumer first in matters of food hygiene and food production and that they will not tolerate any lapse in standards in the production of food. Clearly it would be wrong simply to accept an argument that the regulations should be clarified and made less onerous just because there is an added expense on the food industry. However, we on these Benches support the Government on that aspect and welcome generally the Bill to introduce the food standards agency. In pursuing that objective, there is a duty on the Government that they do so in a way that is clear, fair and perhaps even wise.
It is clear that there must be a proper regard for the relationship between risk and reward. Any set of regulations which achieve 100 per cent in any area are bound to be impossibly unworkable. One therefore has to find the correct balance between the rewards that one seeks to achieve and the risks that one leaves in place.
Two areas of grave concern have emerged in the debate. The first relates to the area of small abattoirs. It is interesting to note that the first sentence of the brief provided for me by the National Farmers' Union states that the NFU supports the Meat Hygiene Service. It then goes on to detail all the aspects that it feels are

895
absolutely wrong with the service, but the brief begins with that expression of support. I therefore think that the charges that are sometimes levied against the industry of simply not wishing to achieve the Government's objectives are not correct.
As many speakers have made clear, the costs that have been imposed on the industry, particularly on the small producer, are extremely onerous. I do not necessarily accept the principle that every time a new agency is created or new regulations are put in place, they should be self-financing. Frankly, there are times when the Government must shoulder the responsibility. If they wish to achieve certain objectives, they must be prepared to pay for them. That largely holds true in this area.
The problem is that all the costs fall on the producers: it is not simply those who run small abattoirs but also the farmers, who will shortly pay a £7 a head passport for beef, plus the £1 slaughtering charge. So there will be £8 of new costs coming in. As all my farming friends tell me, that the fact that costs go up does not, as in most other business, mean that the producer can simply charge more, because there is a market to go through. The market dictates the price that a producer will receive, irrespective to a large extent of the costs. We have seen that clearly in the prices recently achieved throughout the country. Farming is under great pressure at present, as are all aspects of rural life. Therefore, to impose unilaterally on the producer costs which cannot be passed on to the consumer is a very unfair way forward.
The second area of concern that has emerged clearly relates to the severity with which EU regulations are imposed. I have no particular knowledge of how they are imposed in this area. However, as chairman of Scrabster Harbour, I know that the trustees have just spent £150,000 creating a border inspection post so that we can continue to import fish. We have imported fish for a very long time and have had a happy system of dealing with it by means of a cold room, with which the vet was perfectly happy. However, EU regulations state that we must have a border inspection post, so we have built one. It has sat there for some three months now, completely unused, and the prediction is that it will go on being unused. If these regulations have the same kind of effect, clearly there is much to be done.
I believe that this Government are genuinely a listening Government. Not long ago, I appeared on a television programme with the Minister who has responsibility for food safety. I asked him whether he would remove the proposed levies for the food standards agency. Not surprisingly, at that time he said that he would not. However, other people have asked the same question; the Government have listened, and have decided not to charge. So I have confidence that the Government will listen to good representation. I know that my honourable friend Paul Tyler and others have made representations to the Government and that the Minister has listened to them. There is a review going on at this very moment. Perhaps the Minister, in replying, will give some indication of how that is going forward.
896
I hope very much that the representations that are being made to the Government will be listened to, and that they will once again demonstrate that they are a good government: that they listen to what people want and give it to them.
8.13 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, it is good of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, to give us a chance to join in this important debate. The topics covered have ranged widely. There have been references to costs, bureaucracy, science base, qualified vets and derogation, and from the right reverend Prelate we have heard comments on our rural way of life.
The Meat Hygiene Service performance targets are set by the Minister, monitored by MAFF's audit consultancy and management services division, audited operationally by the vet and meat hygiene advisers, and investigated by the National Audit Office. Performance outcomes are published in the Meat Hygiene Enforcement Report and in the BSE Enforcement Bulletin. My goodness, there are a fair few to start with!
Despite all of that, in a Question for Written Answer on 1st July by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, it was stated that the Meat Hygiene Service charges have risen astronomically since responsibility for the service was removed from local authorities. Indeed, I have proof of the noble Lord's contention in the shape of a copy invoice from the Meat Hygiene Service to Robinson's butchers of Wingate, County Durham, in the Prime Minister's constituency. That small slaughterer produces joints for sale in its local farm shops. From 26th April this year to 30th May, the MHS has invoiced it for £980.82 for a grand total of 14 cattle, 23 pigs and 26 sheep. To be fair, £68.98 is an EU charge levied in ecus and converted at an unexplained exchange rate. The remaining £911.84 is for inspectors at £14.53 an hour, travel at £14.53, overtime at £19.55 and a vet's bill of £37.53. No wonder there is confusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, referred to charges. Part of that grotesque charge reflects the MHS policy of charging for a minimum three hours per visit regardless of whether it takes half an hour or three hours. Another small slaughterer, John Chadwick, of Standish, near Wigan, has calculated that eight staff slaughtering on half a day a week cost him £210. At present, the Meat Hygiene Service charges a further £100 or so. But when the deferred EU charges are fully implemented, that will rise to £310.
Does the Minister therefore agree that the level of charging on small slaughterhouses is the very opposite of efficient? Will he start whatever process is necessary to change the basis of the charge from a flat rate to a headage payment, so that small firms are placed on a level playing field with larger companies and our European competitors? If not, will he admit that the Government have a hidden agenda to drive the small slaughterhouses out of business?
The Meat Hygiene Service has set up 10 performance targets for 1999–2000, not one of which relates to complaints—of which there have been plenty. I was also glad, thanks to my noble friend Lady Mar. to see the

897
letter from Peter Soul to his staff on how to deal with complaints. I was encouraged by its contents. However, will the Minister act quickly to set up a proper appeals procedure?
There are those who say that there has been too great a concentration in this House on the subject of the Meat Hygiene Service. Many Questions have been tabled by noble Lords on all sides. I hope that the figures that I have given and the examples given by other noble Lords will emphasise how seriously we view the situation. It is of great concern, particularly to small abattoirs.
The Government have established regional development agencies to improve the rural economy. I understand from a recent radio report that West Midlands RDA has placed agriculture at the top of its list of priorities, which I am sure the right reverend Prelate will be pleased to see. It recognises the importance of agriculture. Small rural slaughterhouses play a vital part in the continued viability of agriculture and in the provision of choice to the consumer. The right reverend Prelate spoke of innovation, niche markets, fine food markets, like those that I visited recently at the Royal Agricultural Show, and their ability to diversify and add value to their product, which is an aspect that the Government have encouraged.
I return to the Question posed by the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart; namely, whether the Government are satisfied with the performance and effectiveness of the Meat Hygiene Service. I must question the effectiveness of a system that costs so much and charges so unfairly, placing greater burdens on the smaller operator rather than the larger, and is set to apply additional charges when the full EU directive is levied. When that happens, where will Robinson's in Wingate and Chadwick's in Standish be and how will they cope? Will they find it possible to remain effective themselves?
I have highlighted only two slaughterers, but there are 113 others in England, Scotland and Wales. As the small abattoir federation stated,
"if the proposed charges are introduced then all low throughput abattoirs will no longer be able to afford to operate and will be forced to close".
This is a serious challenge that the Government have to face. I look forward to hearing the Minister's response.
8.19 p.m.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend for raising the issue which is of widespread concern to many in the industry and in the countryside. I also thank the noble Countess for her kind and constructive words.
We have heard a great many criticisms of the Meat Hygiene Service tonight, some justified, some perhaps unjustified. Before dealing with the main issues and questions raised, at the beginning of my speech it may be worth recalling why the Meat Hygiene Service was set up in the first place; the nature and importance of the job it performs and the achievements it has secured over the past four-and-a-half years, not forgetting some
898
of the constraints under which it operates. I shall try at the end to deal with particular issues facing us as a government in trying to protect small abattoirs within the system we have inherited and operate.
As noble Lords know, the Meat Hygiene Service was launched on 1st April 1995 as an executive agency of MAFF to provide a meat inspection service to all licensed fresh meat plants in Great Britain. Prior to that time, day-to-day enforcement of meat hygiene legislation was in the hands of some 300 local authorities. There appears to be a growing romantic aura around the system that operated then, but I remind noble Lords that under the previous system the meat industry suffered severely from inconsistency of enforcement and variability of costs between individual local authorities. The House will recall that the decision by the then government to put in place a centralised system to provide a consistent quality service across the country received widespread support from the industry which recognised the benefits to industry and consumers of a single national enforcement agency.
I also remind the House of what the Meat Hygiene Service does. It is responsible not only for providing a meat inspection service, but also for ensuring that the high standards required by law are maintained in the hygiene of meat production and in the welfare of animals and birds at slaughter. Moreover, it ensures that the specified risk material controls are rigorously enforced.
The MHS works with industry to enforce inspection, hygiene and welfare regulations, thereby providing public assurance and protecting public health. It ensures that the controls are in place to satisfy those countries that import meat from us—including in the near future, I am pleased to say, beef.
Despite what we have heard tonight, I believe that the MHS has a number of significant achievements to its credit which should not be ignored. As already mentioned, it has brought together the disparate local authority enforcement activities into a consistent and high quality service. It has also secured a significant improvement in the hygienic operations of our meat plants and in the safety of the meat produced in this country.
It has also coped with the BSE crisis—something which would have been considerably more difficult or even impossible under the previous arrangements. Each year it has been set and has achieved stringent performance targets by Ministers. I am pleased that the most recent targets, including those for the HAS scores, along with others set for last year, have all been met.
We must also remember the constraints under which it operates in providing the kind of service everyone wants to see. First and foremost is the European Union meat hygiene legislation. Many of our problems seem to derive from the prescriptive nature of the European meat hygiene directives. The original directives are over 30 years old and I am pleased that the Commission and the member states are starting on a review. Discussions are beginning on the texts of the consolidated food hygiene regulations which will incorporate meat hygiene rules. We hope that the opportunity will be

899
taken to review the effectiveness of the current meat hygiene directives. Ministers are on record as supporting a more HACCP-based approach—that is hazard analysis and critical control point, as noble Lords know—to meat hygiene where the operator is expected to identify and monitor the critical control points in his plant and operate in a hygienic manner.
We know that the Commission and some member states support a more flexible approach. However, discussions are only just beginning and the views of all those concerned are not yet known. We must admit that it will be some years before we will have completed negotiations on the consolidated food hygiene regulations. The final shape of those regulations is uncertain. In the meantime, we have no option but to continue to apply the existing controls.
Another significant constraint on the ability of the MHS is its obligation to provide a service as and when demanded by plant operators 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year. This presents certain logistical and resource problems which are exacerbated by the shortage of veterinarians in this country willing to undertake meat hygiene work. That is why the Meat Hygiene Service has had to look to other European Union member states and even further afield to find the veterinary resources it requires.
I add, in relation to specific questions asked by my noble friend and the noble Countess, that the Meat Hygiene Service is recruiting up to 300 non-British veterinarians to undertake the increased inspection work in abattoirs, cutting plants and cold stores. That is simply because there are not enough British vets who wish to undertake the work.
All vets so recruited must register with the Royal College and must also pass a test to show that they are proficient in English. They then receive OVS training. The department is satisfied that non-British vets used by the Meat Hygiene Service are fully capable of carrying out their duties. I assure the noble Countess that we will look closely to ensure that the foreign vets meet our needs.
A reassurance is the system of checks on Meat Hygiene Service performance, of which I will remind noble Lords. The service is already subject to intensive scrutiny. An essential part of the service's work is ensuring compliance with the specified risk material controls. Those are vitally important measures to protect public health from the risk of BSE. Each month, the State Veterinary Service independently audits compliance with these controls in all abattoirs. The consistent finding of this audit over the past three years is that almost 100 per cent of plants are fully compliant. The Government are therefore confident that the Meat Hygiene Service is providing a highly effective service in this area.
In addition, the Veterinary Public Health Unit and the European Commission make regular inspections of Meat Hygiene Service control systems, the most recent of which has led to the lifting of the beef export ban.
I should also like to say a little about openness and accountability in the Meat Hygiene Service. If individual operators have a problem with the service that
900
they receive, there are mechanisms in place to enable them to take their concerns up with the service management. Earlier this year the MHS introduced an enhanced complaints procedure to deal effectively and quickly with customer complaints. It was devised in accordance with the best practice principles used in public services throughout Britain.
The procedure has a two-tier approach. Since its launch in April 1995, it has operated a formal appeals procedure enabling its customers to seek redress if they have a complaint about a major aspect of MHS operations. Copies of the procedure were sent to all plant operators at the time.
In addition and complementary to that, the MHS set up a customer complaints procedure in March 1999 to enable complaints relating to the day-to-day aspects of the agency's operations to be dealt with more quickly than under the appeals procedure at the point of service delivery or by senior management. A simple guide to that procedure has been sent to all MHS customers and a copy is also available in the Library of the House.
The procedures meet the latest best practice principles as promoted by the Service First unit of the Cabinet Office and are part of the MHS quality management system which was registered by the British Standards Institute to international standards. That shows that the MHS is committed to continual improvement in delivering quality services and is willing to listen to ideas for improvement. It will also keep under review the effectiveness of the complaints mechanisms. If noble Lords have comments, suggestions or complaints about the procedure, they should put them forward.
Money and costs are central issues. Two of the principal objectives of the Meat Hygiene Service are to deliver value for money in the provision of efficient and high-quality services and to achieve the financial and performance targets set by Ministers.
As everyone who has contributed to the debate has said, operators are having to pay more than they did under the previous system. That results from the consistent application across the country of common standards. The achievement of those standards is not cost-free. I am assured that there is clear evidence that under the previous system some local authorities had been subsidising their costs in some way or had not provided the appropriate level of supervision.
On charging policy, the Meat Hygiene Service follows the guidance in the fees and charges guide produced by the Treasury. Meat Hygiene Service charging methodology is fully specified in UK legislation and is the subject of full consultation with industry and other interested parties. The service has limited flexibility to vary its charging procedures without clear parliamentary authority and already follows the standard practices expected of any government agency.
The Government recognise the deep concerns about the prospects of increased MHS charges for veterinary inspections in abattoirs, particularly for smaller operators. It is not our intention to force plants to close. I recognise the great importance of the local abattoir to the local community. The availability of a local abattoir can reduce journey times for animals, which has implications for

901
animals as well as for costs. The local abattoir can often handle one or two animals or particular species such as goats, whereas a large abattoir will want to concentrate on the longer runs of a single species. I recognise that the disappearance of the small local abattoir would cause an undesirable degree of dislocation to many rural communities. The Government greatly wish to avoid that.
That is why we have deferred the introduction of charges for specified risk material inspection for a year and have undertaken an examination of the impact of all charges on the slaughtering industry and the primary producers who supply it. That will ensure that charges are as low as possible, consistent with public safety and European Union legislation. However, the Government remain of the view that it is right in principle to recover the cost of inspection from industry. Public health and consumer interest come first in our priorities.
The impact of charges is being reviewed and any changes in the level of Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges to apply in 1999–2000 have yet to be decided. Any revised rates will be subject to full consultation with all plant operators.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, there is one minute left on the clock and the Minister is already four minutes over his time. Is he going to answer the question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford on the interpretation of vet ordinaire? Why should a vin ordinaire be a vin ordinaire and why should a vet ordinaire be so extraordinarily expensive? We would like an answer on that. Secondly, apart from all the wonderful procedures that the service is following, does the Minister have any evidence that the incidence of food poisoning has gone down?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I had it in mind to answer the many questions that were asked, but I note that the clock is firmly against me. Perhaps we were not given enough time. I was particularly intent on answering the right reverend Prelate on the interpretation of the European directives, because that is at the heart of our problems and differences. There is an apparent inflexibility built into the system. We have been legally advised on that inflexibility, but as we have said before, we have asked the Commission whether the interpretation is correct on derogation, level of charges, low-throughput abattoirs and definitions of vets and veterinarians. We have received a reply and Ministers are currently considering it and the response to our consultation on the impact of charges. We hope to respond on that very soon.
The right reverend Prelate was correct to say that that has been at the centre of the problem for Ministers who want to help small abattoirs. We have been looking for ways to help and we do not want to be so rigidly constrained. We shall make announcements in due course. I am sorry that I do not have time to reply to the other questions, but I shall write to everyone.

Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
8.39 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Clause 68 [New threshold for primary Class 1 contributions]:
On Question, whether Clause 68 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: We now turn to a different section of the Bill from the more emotional areas that we were dealing with a moment or two before the Committee broke for the previous proceedings. I understand that we are to have a change of cast for the Government response to this particular clause, which in a sense is rather sad because it has history going back to the Social Security Bill of last year.
It would be convenient for us to debate Clause 69 with Clause 68, which effectively does for Northern Ireland the same, if I understand it correctly, as Clause 68. Related to this is the enormous Schedule 9, which effectively provides that there should be a new threshold for primary Class 1 contributions.
When this matter first arose in the Government's Budget of last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wrong in saying, in the course of his Budget speech, that further changes would be made of the kind that we are now debating. Apparently he intended to say "future changes", and indeed these have now arrived, although strangely the figures for this measure, which he announced in last year's Budget, did not appear in the Red Book last year. A considerable controversy arose as a result and the matter was discussed by your Lordships and an amendment was passed which went to the other place in effect seeking to implement what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had then said.
Effectively, this particular set of clauses brings the structure with regard to national insurance contributions in line with the changes to the situation with regard to employers that the Chancellor announced last year.
One of the crucial points—and this is really what I want to concentrate upon this evening—which arose in the course of the debates last year was not only the one I have just mentioned but also what was to happen in the case of individuals who would no longer be paying national insurance contributions. Indeed, this was referred to, for example, in the debates which took place in your Lordships' House on 18th May (at col. 1285 of Hansard).
Crucially, the Government were not prepared to implement immediately what the Chancellor had proposed because they had not yet thought how to protect the position of those with incomes between £64 and £81 a week. The Chancellor mentioned this particularly in his Budget speech. If I can put it in rather more simple terms, the situation was that particular individuals falling between those two amounts—I will not go into the technicalities of how it actually appears in the drafting—were no longer going to be contributing and, as a result, they would not be entitled to contributory benefits. Therefore, the matter was put on ice for a year.

903
We imagined, given that they were delaying these matters, that the Government would come up with some splendid method whereby the position of those individuals would be protected. In the event, that is not at all what has happened or, more accurately, their position has certainly been protected but the Government have achieved this, not by some sophisticated method which might have given rise to considerable thought on their part, but by the simple process of saying that people who are not now contributing should get the contributory benefits and effectively deeming that these people, in the words of the Bill, should get contributory benefits, even though they have not contributed.
This does seem to us a serious development because we debated at great length—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I particularly—the whole question of the contributory principle. We are all agreed that it is not an insurance principle. Effectively, it is an understanding that you do a deal with the Government and it is only if you have met the contribution conditions that you will actually get the whole series of benefits which are subject to that requirement. The Government now say that the individuals between these groups of income which I have mentioned, although they have not contributed, get the contributory benefit, and that seems to us a serious undermining of the contributory principle.
It also raises two other related issues: one is, what about the people far below the first threshold? Are they not to gain any advantage? More particularly, what is the position going to be of the people who have a deficient contributory record?
I am sure the noble Lord who is in the Chair at the moment will remember long debates on this particular subject, and one knows only too well from one's former constituency experience that many people thought they were going to get, for example, a national insurance pension and then found that they were getting less than the full amount because they had not met the contribution requirements. If we are to go along the road which the Government now suggest and people are to get, for example, if I understand it correctly, a national insurance pension even though they have not contributed to it, or at any rate not contributed the full amount, and be placed in a privileged position compared with those who perhaps have contributed for many years but not sufficient years to give them the full entitlement to the national insurance pension, that is not a satisfactory arrangement. Certainly the Government have failed totally to come up with any solution, as they suggested last year they were going to do, to meet this particular problem. I would appreciate the Minister's comments on that issue.
Lord Goodhart: We are quite unable to go along with the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on this issue. For a long time our party policy on these Benches has been that the contributory principle is a sham and that it is time that that sham was exposed to public view and it was made clear that national insurance contributions are in reality a tax and not contributions towards the pension right. That has certainly been the case, at the very least,
904
since the time when there was de-linking of the amount of the contributions from the amount of the pensions, contributions being earnings linked while the pensions were flat rate. We have no objection to this in so far as it represents a move towards treating national insurance contributions as being a tax. Indeed, it is obviously logical to make the starting point for national insurance contributions the same as that for income tax and also to protect the position of those whose earnings are somewhat less than that threshold in respect of their rights to pension. Certainly the fact that they do not pay contributions or tax is no reason why they should not get a state pension if they have contributed through their work in the economy.
I should also say that it would be wholly illogical not to recognise that, for a very long time now, it has been accepted that contributions can be credited to people who have not actually paid them. For instance, those who are unemployed or those who have caring responsibilities. It certainly seems to us to make no difference whatever in principle that that right to be credited with contributions that you have not in fact paid should be extended to those whose earnings are below the lower earnings limit.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall not follow the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his historical foray; I am not capable of doing so anyway. I think the Committee would prefer me to deal with the situation as it is. I am a little surprised that Clauses 68 and 69, which were grouped with the schedules which actually contain the meat, have been taken out of this group because Clauses 68 and 69 contain nothing in themselves, they are simply paving clauses for the schedules. However, we shall be discussing the amendments to Schedule 9 in due course. It may be as well if, in advance of that, I set out what we are trying to do here.
The measures are the next step in our reforms of national insurance contributions, which were, as the noble Lord said, announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget last year. Changes were introduced last year—welcome changes. For employers, the level at which contributions were first paid was raised from April 1999 to the level of the single person's tax allowance. We did away with the complicated tax structure they faced. There is now a simple single rate. That has saved employers some half a billion pounds. For employees, the unfair entry charge of 2 per cent on all earnings below the lower limit for contributions was removed, so that they pay £69 a year less—a reform that will particularly help the lower paid. I do not see my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester present to hear that. We promised then that we would seek to raise the level at which employees started to pay their contributions, but without any loss of benefit entitlement.
The measures in the Bill deliver on that commitment. They raise the starting point for employee contributions from the lower earnings limit—currently £66 a week—to a new primary threshold: the primary threshold for primary contributions, which are paid by employees This will be set by regulations at £76 in 2000/2001 and, in 2001/2002, raised to the level of the single person's

905
tax allowance, which is expected to be around £87 a week. That will bring the starting points for employee and employer NICs into line.
More important is that, as a result of this change—a rise of more than 25 per cent in the point for starting to pay NICs—nearly 1 million employees will no longer have to pay contributions. The majority of all earners—16 million people—will pay less, by around £90 a year. Even the minority who pay more will be paying a maximum in 2001/2002 of £3.70 a week. Combined with the introduction of the working families' tax credit, this is a key further step in our policy of making sure that work pays.
But, if this reform were introduced alone, people who earn at low levels would lose their entitlement to benefit. That concern was particularly highlighted by Martin Taylor in his report on the tax and benefit system. Such a move would deprive these vulnerable people of their ability to contribute and would undermine our determination to make work pay. For that reason, the Government made a commitment that we would protect their rights while maintaining the link between work and entitlement to benefit. Schedule 9 therefore introduces a new Section 6A, which provides the protection necessary. That is the section on which Members have focused. Indeed, they are proposing a series of amendments which would virtually take it out, apart from a few words that are spared. New Section 6A ensures that earners who would have paid contributions on their income between the lower earnings limit and the new primary threshold maintain their contributions record and their ability to build up benefit entitlement. It does so by providing that the earnings within this band will be treated as though the employee had actually paid them. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made clear, that has always been the case. There has always been protection by the award of credits when people are unable to pay contributions due to circumstances beyond their control, such as when they are unemployed or when they are carers. It is right that their contribution record should be kept, even though they no longer actually contribute.
I really do resist the noble Lord's argument that this is a wicked departure from the contributory principle. The important principle which is maintained is the relationship between work and benefits. That is not changed in any way in what is proposed here. Credits are not sufficient by themselves to give total entitlement to social security contributory benefits. It is necessary for some contributions to have been paid during the relevant tax years on which a benefit claim is based. That was the case before and that is the case now. So I find the noble Lord's objections to the policy wholly misconceived.
The noble Lord has not referred to this, but I do want to refer to an important point which arises from the later amendments. If I get it off my chest now, I shall not have to repeat it. We are maintaining the link between the level at which people start to pay contributions and the level at which they stop. The current level of contributions is set each year by regulation at a level that must be between 6½ and 7½ times the retirement
906
pension rate. This year it is set at £500 a week, which is slightly less than 7½ times the rate of the basic pension. The retirement pension rate also sets the lower earnings limit. The two limits are therefore held in line with each other. We are now increasing the lower earnings limit to the primary threshold by £10 a week in the first instance and far more than the standard re-rating would have achieved and we are setting the upper limit at 6½ to 7 times the new primary threshold to keep the relationship as it was.
Lord Higgins: The noble Lord is reading extremely quickly. It was very difficult indeed to follow the last two paragraphs. I do not know whether he would care to read them again. I had a great deal of trouble in following the relationship between the contributions and the national insurance pension.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am sorry about that. We will do a words per minute count. I did not think that I was reading particularly fast. My noble friend Lord Dormand understood it perfectly well. I was very content with the way I described it and Hansard will no doubt record it. If the noble Lord has any problems, when we come to the amendments, I shall certainly deal with any points raised.
I want to go on to the point he raised about people below the lower earnings limit. It is right to recognise an earnings level for contributory benefits. If the lower earnings limit were to be reduced or abolished, it would be possible for people who paid very small amounts of national insurance contributions to gain entitlement to pensions greater than their normal earnings from work. The cost of those pensions would be additional administrative and non-wage costs for employers. We are not changing the current position for those people, which is exactly the same principle as that which was adopted by the previous government. I hope that the noble Lord will be reassured on that basis.
Our reforms simplify the structure of national insurance. They help to bring it into line with the tax system. They reduce the contributions burden paid by three quarters of the workforce—around 16 million people. They give particular help to low earners who are currently liable for national insurance contributions. We are ensuring that no one will lose benefit rights while we are still maintaining the clear link between work and entitlement. I hope that the noble Lord will not persist in his opposition to Clause 68.
Lord Higgins: These are complex issues. I was seeking to follow what the noble Lord said. It would have been helpful if he had repeated what he said in his own form of words. When one has Treasury briefs on these subjects, it is frequently the case that they are over-concentrated. I am inclined to agree with the noble Lord that, on reflection, it would have been as well to have taken the clauses and the schedule together. Perhaps I may ask him one simple question and then we can come back to the other points on the next set of amendments. Why could not the Chancellor say last year when he made his Budget speech and when the noble Baroness was discussing the matter at great length

907
on the Floor of the House during proceedings on the Social Security Bill that he was going to protect the position of the people between the two bands by a simple process of providing that there would be a notional payment?
9 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: At the time I anticipated that this might be proposed but it had not yet been finally determined. Therefore, it would have been imprudent of me to suggest to the House that that was intended. Until the Chancellor of the Exchequer had clearly determined his policy on this matter, to indicate my own views on how the situation might be resolved would have misled the House.
Lord Higgins: That comment brings out two points which have run throughout our debates: first, that the department is being taken over by the Treasury; and, secondly, that it is extremely difficult to get decisions out of the Government—this may also be true in respect of other matters—because the department cannot say what the position is until the Chancellor has expressed a view. That is not unusual. Surely, at the time that we debated this matter last year the Chancellor should have known that he did not have a sophisticated solution—which was the impression given at the time—and we would simply end up with what is now in the schedule; namely, notional payments of contributions. It would have saved a great deal of time last year if, instead of constantly saying that there was no need to worry because there would be a splendid solution to sort out the problem, the Government had simply said that there was no solution but they would ensure that people got the benefits anyway.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It would save a lot of time this year if we concentrated on the legislation before us rather than delved into past history.
Clause 68 agreed to.
Clause 69 agreed to.
Schedule 9 [New threshold for primary Class 1 contributions]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Dean of Harptree): If Amendment No. 129 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 130 to 136.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 129:
Page 128, line 43, leave out paragraph 3
The noble Lord said: We have tabled a number of specific amendments. However, as the noble Lord pointed out in the previous debate, effectively this amendment knocks out the crucial point in the schedule. Therefore, it is appropriate to debate it in that way. This part of the schedule proposes that there should be notional payments of primary Class 1 contributions where earnings are less than the lower earnings limit. Perhaps we may return to the point made by the noble Lord a moment or two ago about the relationship between that level of contribution and, if I heard him
908
correctly, the national insurance pension. I was not aware that there was such a relationship. It would assist if he could spell out that point.
The noble Lord has said that a contributions record will be kept for those who have not contributed. That is a situation which has not existed before. Effectively, people will receive contributory benefits even though they have made only a notional payment of contributions. How does that square with the basic problems which arise in regard to national insurance pensions as far as concern those people with deficient records? There are people who over the years have made contributions to the national insurance system and have some entitlement, for example to a national insurance pension, but none the less do not receive the full amount. I am not clear why they should) not receive the full amount whereas in future people who do not contribute, but who are deemed to have made, a payment, should get that benefit. It seems that there is unfairness between the two groups of people. Many people are deeply concerned that they do not have a full pension because they have not contributed, but it is now said that others are to get it. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful that the noble Lord has not sought to defend his amendments. If one considers them together, they take away the benefit entitlement of nearly 1 million vulnerable people on low incomes. They remove all elements of the new Section 6A which protects the benefit entitlement of low earners. Amendment No. 129 would take out the entire section, whereas Amendments Nos. 130 to 136 would remove different provisions within it.
To remove Section 6A as suggested by Amendment No. 129 would penalise nearly 1 million people who currently pay contributions but who earn below the level of the new threshold that we are to introduce. I am sure the Committee agrees that it would be wrong to increase the take-home pay of those lower paid employees while excluding them from contributory benefits. That would reduce the incentive for people to take up work at all. On the basis of what has been said perhaps I can be forgiven for not going into the detail of the effects of Amendments Nos. 130 to 136.
I find it extremely difficult to understand the argument of the noble Lord. He referred more than once to "national insurance pension" which is not a phrase with which I am familiar. If he means the state contributory pension I understand that, but "national insurance pension" is not a phrase that means anything to me. What we are doing is incredibly simple. I find it difficult to know where to start with the amendment moved by the noble Lord. To encourage people to go into work we propose that the lower level of national insurance contributions should be the same as the lower level of income tax. That is to be done over two years because it is an expensive proposal, and it is also complicated. However, it can be done, and we are doing it. As a result, 1 million people on low incomes will be substantially better off in their take-home pay, and a very considerable number of people who are not now in

909
work will no longer suffer the tax and national insurance contribution disbenefits of going into work. Everything that we do is with that in mind.
The Government also say, simply, that if that happens they do not want people to lose out on contributory benefits. Therefore, we are doing what we have done with the stakeholder pension; namely, if people have not paid in, as would be the case if they were unemployed or were carers, they are deemed to have paid in. I do not understand the difficulty of the noble Lord. Where is the unfairness? Everybody is better off under that proposal.
Lord Higgins: The noble Lord apparently says that people who are not contributing will now receive what were previously contributory pensions. At that point the concept of contributory pensions seems to fail. These people will receive what I referred to as the national insurance pension—I think that it is clear I meant the basic state pension—even though they have not contributed. I ask him again: how is that fair on the people who did not contribute previously and are now told that they have a deficient contributory record?
In the noble Lord's earlier remarks he seemed to indicate that there was some relationship between the level of contribution and the national insurance pension—or state pension. I was not clear what he was saying at that point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Is the noble Lord suggesting the issue of a relationship between the lower earnings level and the pension?
The point I seek to make is that we are maintaining the link between the level at which people start to pay contributions and the level at which they stop. The lower earnings level has always been linked to the level of the basic retirement pension on the principle that someone who contributes at the lower earnings level should have their income maintained at the same level in retirement. Surely that is fair.
I wish to correct something I said a moment ago. I talked about the stakeholder pension with reference to the £9,000 when I meant the state second pension. I did not mean the stakeholder pension.
The noble Lord and I will have to thrash out this issue in private between now and Report stage. I am sure that it is my fault but I do not think that there is a meeting of minds here.
Lord Higgins: I am by no means sure that it is the noble Lord's fault. It may equally be mine. I agree with him. The right course to adopt is to read carefully what he said, if necessary seek further clarification, and return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 130 to 136 not moved.]
Schedule 9 agreed to.
Schedule 10 agreed to.
Clause 70 [Earnings of workers supplied by service companies etc.]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 74, line 36, leave out from ("worker")") to ("and") in line 40 and insert ("would have been an employed earner of a business carried on by another person to which he provides services ("the client") had he contracted direct with the client,")
The noble Lord said: At Second Reading, I pointed out that the Bill was four or five Bills included under a single piece of legislation. Consequently it was difficult to deal in any depth at Second Reading with the component parts. One of the component parts now appears as Clause 70. I think that it would be appropriate, and probably easier at this stage rather than later to cover some of the points which one would normally have raised had their been a proper Second Reading opportunity as regards this clause.
Clause 70 appears as a result of a statement made by the Chancellor in the Budget. A press release on 9th March 1999 is headed,
"Countering avoidance in the provision of personal services".
It states:
"The Chancellor today announced that changes are to be introduced to counter avoidance in the area of personal service provision. This move underlines the Government's commitment to achieving a tax system under which everyone pays his fair share".
We are entirely in favour of everyone paying their fair share. It would be wrong to suppose for one moment that we are in favour of unjustified tax avoidance. That is not the situation. However, it has become very clear that the way in which the Government propose to introduce the proposals has widespread repercussions. Clause 70 is included in this Bill whereas in our view there is a strong case for it to be in the Finance Bill.
In that context, one is bound to refer to what happened at Report stage in another place. Because the Government sought to time proceedings on amendments, which we discussed earlier, where there was likely to be a government Back-Bench rebellion, this clause appears to have been slotted in at that stage for that purpose. In the event, the move was completely unsuccessful and the rebellion achieved the appropriate publicity. It is also the case—one of the following amendments points it out—that the clause seems to have been inserted at an inappropriate point in the Bill. We have suggested changes in the order of clauses in that respect.
One can debate this issue at several different levels. The first is the straightforward, party-political level including the operation of spin doctors and the Whips, to which I referred earlier. The more important issue is whether the measure will receive adequate scrutiny. I pose a simple question to the Minister. Why were these clauses introduced at Report stage in another place and not in Committee? One of the problems with this House being a revising Chamber is that we could knock out this clause, but the Bill would go back to the other place where it would be debated on the Floor of the House under a tight time schedule. Indeed, the original Bill was guillotined in the other place and there was no adequate opportunity to table a series of amendments that would

911
have improved the Bill, as could have been done if the measures were being considered in Committee upstairs in the other place.
Secondly, there is a series of issues in relation to the effects that these measures will have on the economy. Widespread representations have been made by many outside bodies that suggest that the effect on the economy is likely to be bad and may affect our competitive position. Alternatively, those affected by the clauses will go abroad to be able to operate efficiently.
Thirdly, there is the question of the relationship between the Treasury, especially the Inland Revenue department, and the Department of Social Security. As I suggested earlier, there is a strong case for these clauses to appear not in this Bill but in a Finance Bill. Of course, it can be argued that traditionally national insurance matters are a matter for the DSS, but we have only recently moved the whole of the Contributions Agency front the DSS to the Treasury. So that argument seems very thin, to put it mildly. Now that the Contributions Agency has been taken over by the Treasury there is no reason why the legislation should not follow. There are related issues as to where the proceeds should go—to the Consolidated Fund or to the National Insurance Fund—but those are not difficult to deal with.
The next set of issues arises from the process of consultation. The other place was not able to consider a full regulatory assessment—certainly not in Committee, for the reasons that I have mentioned—before the Bill left there. We now have in front of us a regulatory assessment that deals with some of the points, but the reality is that there have been inadequate consultations on these proposals. The clauses were rushed through at the last minute in the other place and I have been inundated with complaints about their adverse effects on a range of British interests.
Finally, there are many arguments to be made about the effects that the clause will have on the definition of who is an employee. I understand that there is considerable case law on that point. The Bill may make much of that case law obsolete and much of the uncertainty that was removed by the evolution of that case law may be resuscitated.
I understand that the Government propose to introduce a so-called control test to determine whether a person is an employee or a genuine limited company. That test will turn on whether the client has a right of supervision, direction or control over the tasks that are being undertaken by the person. That test sounds nice and simple, but in reality it will be very difficult to administer. In contrast, the existing law—the leading case is Market Investigation Limited v. Ministry of Social Security, 1969—suggests that the more accurate definition of "employee" should be used.
The amendment seeks to make the previous definition applicable, in particular that of an employed earner. Perhaps I may spend a moment on a simple-minded example. The problem with the idea of control, supervision and so forth is not realistic. Let us suppose that I employ a plumber who is a limited company.
912
I may give him clear instructions as to what he should do. I want to supervise his work as regards ensuring that he does not wreck the furniture, the extent to which he should continue and the extent to which I can control him. The fact that I do so does not make him my employee. I am employing a limited company and to that extent the definition which the Revenue seeks to use is inadequate and dangerous.
A more relevant point is that the Chancellor of the Exchequer complained that an individual could work for, say, a bank on a Friday and suddenly reappear on a Monday as a limited company consultant, thereby hoping to benefit by avoiding national insurance, contributions and so forth. The crucial issue is how many clients the individual has. If in those circumstances he has only one client, one may reasonably say that we should not approve of such, a device. However, many of the representations we have received have suggested that when changing to a limited company the benefits in tax and national insurance contributions are a great deal less than the Chancellor appears to suppose.
More generally, one has received complaints from the London Chamber of Commerce and Industry, the British Chamber of Commerce, the CBI, the Institute of Directors, the National Association of Pension Funds Ltd, the Law Society and, on technicalities, from the tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. All those bodies have provided strong arguments against the Government's proposals. None of them is concerned to promote tax avoidance, but they are extremely worried about the effect that the measure will have. Therefore, we hope that the Government will rethink the issue and put forward a more sensible solution. Their present proposal is likely to be damaging to the economy. The amendment seems to us to solve some of the problems identified by the bodies I have mentioned. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I added my name to the amendment almost with a sense of déjà vu. Twenty years ago, when I was Secretary of State for Health and Social Services, my officials came to me with a proposal that there should be imposed a new control test to determine whether an independent contractor was an employee. The institutions they chose in order to test that out were the major London orchestras and professional choirs. That caused a good deal of disquiet in the arts establishment.
The matter was brought to my attention by a relation of mine, who is one such musician—I declare an interest, if such interest has to be declared—and I was warned that there might be serious problems. When my officials arrived, they sought to justify the argument that the musicians, who were instrumentalists or singers, were engaged in a contracted service with the organisation for which they were performing, because, they said, the musician has to obey every wave of the baton of the conductor.
I promise that this is true. They said, therefore, that, by the normal test of whether someone is an independent contractor or an employee, such singers, violinists, trumpeters and bassoon players were all

913
employees, in which case the orchestra should pay employers' national insurance contributions and the employees should pay Class I contributions.
I said that that was totally unrealistic and that it was to fail to recognise the nature of that kind of professional occupation. After all, such a musician may be playing at a session of a recording company in the morning, may be singing at a memorial service in St Margaret's Church at lunch time, may be rehearsing for a concert all afternoon and performing that concert in the Barbican or the Albert Hall in the evening. In the course of the day, that musician would be working certainly for three and maybe for four different conductors. Is it to be argued that in the course of one day such a musician should have four separate employments?
I asked, "Do you really expect me to go to the House of Commons and advance such an argument? I shall not because I know that it is totally unrealistic as a member of my family is one such musician". They said, "We shall have to report this to the Chancellor of the Exchequer", who at that time was my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. I answered, "I don't think that will get you very far because he too has a daughter who does exactly the same thing".
That was almost the last I heard of the matter. The final word came from my private secretary, who, having ushered the posse of officials out of my room, returned to me and said, "Well, Secretary of State, that was the unacceptable face of bureaucracy"!
I am not surprised that this matter has surfaced again in a slightly different guise, but with the same fallacious argument about control. My anxiety about the clause centres on the fact that it takes this test of control as the guideline as to whether or not, when the contract is made through an intermediary, the client controls the work. To my mind, that is wholly misconceived.
A great many people, such as the musicians I have described, will meticulously obey the requirements of the client because that is the nature of the work that is being performed, but that does not change the status of the worker from being a self-employed professional person who has contracts with a range of people. Some contracts may be arranged directly and some may be arranged through intermediaries. There is a profession known as fixing. Fixers are firms that undertake to find musicians to perform particular pieces of work for conductors.
I understand that later amendments refer to information technology, but there are many other walks of life where this kind of relationship has built up because it is the most convenient and effective way of conducting business. It provides complete flexibility for the client—I shall continue to call him that because it is what the Inland Revenue calls him—to call up the particular services that he needs for as long as he needs them. He can them terminate the arrangement in accordance with the contract. The individuals who do the work then work for other clients. That, as it were, is the hallmark of the individual who is self-employed.
914
It has been the policy of successive governments to help people into precisely that kind of activity. The present Government are no exception. They have introduced measures to encourage unemployed people to become independent and, in many cases, to set up in business. Out of small acorns great oaks can grow. There are examples in recent years.
I find the clause totally misconceived. By saying that the relationship was one which, if there were no intermediary, would create the status of employed worker, the Government's purpose would be met. Like my noble friend Lord Higgins, I am not seeking to defend tax avoidance. What I am very concerned about is that the method that the Government have chosen is sweeping into their net tens of thousands, or perhaps even hundreds of thousands, of individuals who by no stretch of the imagination are engaged in tax avoidance. They are conducting their affairs in a thoroughly efficient, commercial and effective way in a modern, flexible economy. Whether it is the unacceptable face of bureaucracy or a misconceived zeal to try to find tax avoidance where there is none, I find the clause very unsatisfactory.
The Inland Revenue has been kind enough to provide a number of examples of cases that might be within and outside the clause. There are several pages of them. Perhaps I may read just one. I hope that it will perhaps illustrate the folly that I have been trying to describe. It is the Inland Revenue discussion document, 18th May, page 6. It states:
"A vet in partnership spends every Monday working at the local zoo attending various animals as required by their keepers, and undertaking other duties (e.g. performing post-mortems, preparing animals for transit, supervising inseminations and providing training on various animals health matters) as directed by the head keeper. The zoo pays the partnership an annual fee for the vets attendance each Monday. This engagement should be caught by the new rules. However, members of the partnership are sometimes requested to attend animals at other times, for example, when one injures itself in the middle of the night. Such visits are outside the terms of the annual contract and a fee is charged appropriate to the work done. On these occasions the zoo has no right of direction or control over what is done or how it is done".
Except, I add in parenthesis, to say, "Look, there is a sick animal, go and do something about it." Presumably, the zoo owner does that.
"The zoo may reject the advice given or refuse the treatment recommended but that would not amount to a right of direction or control. In these cases the new rules would not apply".
For a moment let us consider the folly that that would cause. Let us consider the position of a partnership. This case concerns a vet in partnership with others like the firm with which we all became so familiar and learnt to love in the series "All Creatures Great and Small." Let us just imagine Robert Hardy, the actor who played the senior partner, having to treat himself as an employee for half of Monday each week and then being his self-employed professional self for the rest of the week. How on earth does a partnership expect to operate in those terms? Why should he be regarded as an employee, simply because of the way this clause is introduced, through an intermediary?

915
I find the clause totally unacceptable. As was said in The Times the other day about the Chancellor:
"Does he really think that it makes sense for a free-lance television producer who may work for a dozen different companies during the course of a year, to have to be treated by each as an employee? Or the IT consultant, who moves from project to project, to be forced to give up his independent status and join the company payroll, no matter how brief his stay with the new employer may be?".
I have a sheaf of similar press cuttings but at this hour of the night I shall not weary the Committee with them.
This clause is misconceived in the form in which it comes before us. As my noble friend from the Front Bench said, the Government undertook to consult. But they introduced the clause in the other place before they even started consultation. I dare say that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, will have something to tell us about the process of consultation, and perhaps the progress. But I hope that the Government have begun to get the message that the clause cannot be allowed to go through as it stands.
It is not sufficient to say that the consultation will be about the regulations, because the heart of the new system is in this clause. The detail will be in the regulations. It is the new clause itself which is misconceived.
Lord Goodhart: I am all too conscious that it is relatively late at night, and also that I am the third speaker in this debate. Nevertheless, Clause 70 presents problems which are extremely difficult and complex and in order to do justice to it I fear that I shall have to take a little more time than I would wish and no doubt than the Committee would like.
It is essential to understand the background to this matter. The background is a distinction between the status of an employee who works under what lawyers call a "contract of service" and a self-employed, independent contractor who works under what a lawyer would call a "contract for services." For the worker there are some tax advantages in being self-employed. A self-employed person is taxed under Schedule D; an employee under Schedule E. Schedule D presents some advantages in tax flow—you pay tax only twice yearly instead of week by week under PAYE—and some business expenses are deductible under Schedule D which are not deductible under Schedule E. But a much more important difference is national insurance contributions.
A self-employed person receives almost the same benefits as an employee—everything except jobseeker's allowance and SERPS. But the contributions paid by a self-employed person are far smaller than those by or on behalf of an employee. The client of a self-employed worker pays nothing in NICs. An employer of an employee pays 12.2 per cent in NICs on everything above £83 a week. A self-employed person pays in most cases less than the employee by way of NICs, let alone the combined liability of the employee and the employer.
There are, of course, some drawbacks for the self-employed person. They do not receive employment protection rights, statutory sick pay, a right to paid
916
holidays and so forth. But the distinction between self-employment and employment is well established by law. As already pointed out, there is a great deal of case law.
Let us assume that an expert in information technology is hired by a company to do a job, and let us assume that the terms on which he is hired are such as to make the expert under established law, prima facie, an employee of the client. But in this case there is no contract between the expert and the client. Instead, there is a contract between the client and the expert's personal company; all the shares are owned by the expert. The client pays a fee to the expert's company. The company pays part of that to the expert, perhaps a bit to the expert's wife, and the company then pays the rest to the expert as a dividend. But under the present law the expert cannot be treated as an employee of the client because there is no contract between them. This arrangement gives enormous NIC advantages because, if there were a direct contract, the client would have to pay the employer's NICs on the whole of the wages above £83 at, as I said, 12.2 per cent.
Dividends are not liable to NICs. Therefore, the expert and his company can limit their NICs to whatever the company actually pays in wages. That is plain tax avoidance or, more accurately. NIC avoidance. It is worth pointing out—and this has not been concentrated on enough—that the main beneficiary is not the expert, but the client who employs the expert without paying a penny in NICs. That point has been ignored by the very high-pressure lobbying campaign we have had. Indeed, to some extent, I believe that the use of personal service companies is being forced upon workers, especially in the information technology world, by companies which are not prepared to take workers on as employees because the NIC consequences and the consequences for employment rights are something they prefer to avoid. Where that occurs, I believe that workers with personal service companies are the victims, not the beneficiaries, of this arrangement, although I suspect that they do not often realise it themselves.
I do not think that the use of one-person companies for avoidance purposes is acceptable. It is an abuse of the NIC system and should be stopped. So why riot accept Clause 70 as it stands? We have had a very highly organised lobbying campaign on this matter. I do not accept all of the points made by the lobby. It argues that any change in the law would damage entrepreneurship and force many owners of personal service companies to emigrate. I find myself quite sceptical about that argument. I certainly do not accept that IT workers are in a special category. Therefore, I shall not be able to support Amendments Nos. 140ZA or 140A.
The critics of Clause 70, as it stands, include many very reputable organisations who are not part of the lobby. They include the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales and the Tax Law Review Committee of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, of which I am a member. The real problem is not the Government's objective but their proposed method. As it stands, Clause 70 will add to the complexity and uncertainty of the law because it gives power to the

917
Treasury to decide who is, and who is not, to be treated as an employee of the client. Such power may be used to treat as an employee someone who would not be treated as an employee if he were providing services under a direct contract with the client. That is the Government's intention. The discussion paper says that they intend to apply a control test to determine who is to be treated as an employee. But under the existing law, control is merely one of the tests of the nature of the relationship, not a conclusive test.
There are other factors which can be taken into account. They include whether the worker supplies his own equipment; whether the worker is entitled to substitute others to do the work; and the degree of financial risk assumed by the individual worker. It will therefore follow that we will have two entirely separate tests—one in contracts to which Clause 70 applies and the other in straightforward contracts. I am afraid that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was wrong in saying that this will make the existing case law obsolete. It will not. The existing case law will continue to apply whenever there is a contract direct between the client and the expert or the worker. What we will have is a quite separate test in the special cases where there is an intervening company, and there alone. So that will increase the complexity of the law.
In summary, I cannot do better than quote from a letter sent by the Tax Law Review Committee to the Inland Revenue last month. It says:
"The complexity of the classification issue is increasing as work patterns change and flexible forms of working become more common … the test of supervision, direction and control proposed by the Inland Revenue for use in the context of personal service companies is no longer of primary importance in the case law, having been rejected many years ago as being unsuited to modern economic conditions. It may be one of a number of relevant factors now but will not be applied in isolation. One consequence of using an over-simplistic control test in the proposed personal services company legislation would be, therefore, that a worker who did display what the courts have defined as essential characteristics of self-employment could nevertheless be treated for tax and NI purposes as an employee under the new rules".
9.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I hope that I may interrupt the noble Lord for a moment to pursue the point he made a second ago. He is saying—quite rightly, I think—that the existing case law continues but we are going to have a further definition of what constitutes an employee. As far as that group is concerned, the existing case law, as I understand it, becomes obsolete.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is quite right. The point I was making is that we are now to have two quite different and quite distinct tests depending on whether or not there is an intermediate company. I shall read one last sentence of the letter,
"At the same time a simple direction and control test might be insufficient to catch some of those it is intended to cover".
These difficulties could be greatly reduced, if not eliminated, by accepting Amendment No. 137. This amendment was drafted by the tax faculty of the Institute of Chartered Accountants. It means that the use
918
of personal services companies will be ineffective to save NICs where there is disguised employment, and nowhere else. It makes the law much simpler. It applies a test which has long been refined by the existing law. It reduces the power of the Revenue to impose tax by regulations—something which has always been regarded as a highly undesirable power. It hits the intended target and that target alone.
If this amendment is accepted or passed, we shall support Clause 70. Without it, or something like it, we are unable to support Clause 70. I hope that the Government will respond to the pressure coming from well beyond the lobby groups and those who are directly affected.
Lord Campbell of Croy: This clause was added to the Bill at Report stage in another place. It appeared to be an afterthought. That meant that it had little consideration in the other place. There was little time for it. In my opinion it would be more appropriate, or a version of it—because I do not agree with the present wording and intention—in a future Finance Bill.
I must make it clear that any avoidance of national insurance should be investigated and tackled. But this is a clumsy, blanket way of proceeding which would damage many businesses which should not be targets because they are not trying to avoid national insurance or disguise direct employment. It appears that there was no consultation with the sectors of business most concerned before the clause was introduced in the other place. The clause would allow the Inland Revenue to treat self-employed people working on contract as if they were employees of the companies for which they undertake the work. This would be particularly hard in its impact on the information technology industry.
The clause would apparently allow the Inland Revenue to deem any activity to be employment and to tax a company accordingly. The Government have been reported themselves as admitting that about 60,000 small businesses may have to close down. They no doubt announced that on the basis that all those employees would find work elsewhere. However, many will be in the IT sector. The Government have posed as champions and promoters of information technology in Britain to improve efficiency and to excel in competition abroad. Now there is this sudden blow to the IT sector.
I am reminded of the 1960s when I was in another place. The Prime Minister, Mr Harold Wilson, whom I knew well and admired, spoke about the "white heat of the technological revolution." However, about a year and a half later, the government, without any warning, introduced the selective employment tax, SET, which was of course subsequently abolished to general acclamation. Nothing could have been more counter to the spirit of the white heat of the technological revolution.
Now New Labour has given the impression that it understands that the United Kingdom's economic health and success depend upon industry and business thriving—"modernising", to use a favourite word of the Government—and exporting competitively. Over the past 20 years a considerable market has developed for

919
the provision of skilled, temporary workers on contract. This is now common practice throughout the engineering industry. The advantages to the client are flexibility and the ability to find engineers with the right skills and experience for the duration of a project—and for no longer than that. This is particularly important in the IT sector where the work often relates to projects lasting between six and 24 months. Under those circumstances it is not practicable or desirable to take on full-time staff.
If it goes through in its present form, I believe that this proposal would have a devastating effect on small firms and an upsetting upheaval for the present framework and organisation of IT consultancies.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: This has been really a debate on Clause 70 stand part and I must respond to it in that way. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, was speaking specifically to a later amendment which we are not at present debating. Apart from that, before I respond to the specific points that have been made, it is necessary for me to set out our position on Clause 70.
Clause 70 provides an enabling power to make regulations which will prevent significant avoidance of national insurance contributions. The Chancellor announced his intention of doing so in the Budget. More than £200 million a year is being lost to the National Insurance Fund because of this avoidance. It would not be fair to other contributors if we were to allow it to continue.
The problem can be explained quite simply. A worker will normally pay a different amount of tax and national insurance contributions depending on whether he or she is an employee or self-employed. But some people who, if this distinction was applied to their circumstances, would count as employees, manage to avoid many of the consequences of employee status by setting up or acquiring an "off-the-shelf' limited company. That means that the engager, the client, who would otherwise be their employer, contracts instead with the company for the supply of their services. That engager then does not have to operate PAYE or pay employer's national insurance contributions.
The worker is then free to decide how to take the money out of his company. He can take it out in the form of dividends, which are not subject to national insurance contributions. Let me give an example of how this actually works. An individual with an income in the year of around £30,000 to £35,000, paid through a service company, might pay company taxes and running costs and expenses such as travel, subsistence and pension contributions of about £7,000; take out just over £3,000 as salary, just enough to qualify for state benefits; take out dividends of £11,000; and distribute £11,000 of dividends to his wife. By doing so, he would achieve a saving of £6,000 in tax and national insurance contributions when compared to the amount of tax and national insurance contributions he would pay if engaged directly as an employee of the client to whom he is selling his services. It is a very big saving.
920
In his speech today and at Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, made it clear that he recognised that there was a problem. He said:
"I recognise that there is a tax abuse which needs to he stopped. A one-man company, where a shareholder simply hires out his or her own services and takes payment by way of dividend from the company rather than by way of salary is undoubtedly serious tax avoidance. It needs to be blocked".—[Official Report, 10/6/99; col. 1637.]
That is an excellent summary of what we heard from many business representatives.
It is not a new form of avoidance. As far hack as 1981, the National Audit Office reported that avoidance and evasion by agency workers operating through service companies was generating a tax loss in the region of £40 million a year. But it is certainly growing. Anyone who looks at the advertisement; in the freesheets will see very clear incitements to that sort of tax avoidance. One sees, for example,
"Calling all Kiwis! Temping in London? Earning more than £4 per hour? Then we can help you MAXIMISE your EARNINGS by working through your own limited company".
That applies also to accountants, secretaries, PAs, doctors, nurses, teachers, IT consultants, and even labourers. They are invited to set up a company for a small quarterly fee of £103 plus VAT.
The issue is older than that. I ran a market research company for 30 years. A market research company employs part-time interviewers to carry out the fieldwork. It is a business that was, and still is, successful. We had 100 to 150 interviewers at any one time. In 1969 a case was brought, Market Investigations Ltd v Minister of Social Security. Market Investigations Limited was a competitor of ours. The judgment ruled that, because of the degree of control exercised by Market Investigations Limited over its interviewers, and because the interviewers could not be said to be performing their services as persons in business on their own account, the interviewers were employed earners. My interviewers were told whom they had to interview, they had to follow an interview schedule, a questionnaire, and if we did not like what they did, we did not pay them. They were definitely controlled.
So, as a result of that case, I set up a system for nearly all of my interviewers whereby we kept a separate payroll for interviewers; we paid national insurance contributions and PAYE. As far as I know, all of my competitors in the market research business did the same. That long pre-dates the attempt, when the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin was Secretary of State, of his officials to persuade him to introduce a control test.
But there was one defect in what happened when I was running that company. A number of my interviewers were already smart. They set up limited companies of their own and I did not pay national insurance contributions for them or deduct PAYE. They were undoubtedly the precursors of the kind of avoidance that we are trying to deal with in this clause.
As a result, I can assure the Committee that I have been familiar with the problem for a very long time indeed. Although I shall answer the particular criticisms that have been made of the clause, fundamentally I am unsympathetic. I am adamant about the need to get rid

921
of phoney service companies intervening, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, between the worker and the person who should be described as the employer.
Perhaps I may now turn to the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and other noble Lords. First, the noble Lord asked why the matter was not raised in Committee in another place. He suggested that we were trying to avoid debate. The announcement was made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget, when Committee stage was already halfway through. The provision was introduced on Report in May, two months after the Budget. There was not a great deal of delay, and certainly we did not avoid debate in this House.
The noble Lord then criticised us for not including the provision in the Finance Bill rather than this legislation. The first effect of including it in the Finance Bill would have been no detailed debate in this House. So again, it cannot be claimed that we are avoiding debate. But in any case, the convention that exists as regards Finance Bills is that they are concerned with moneys that go into the Consolidated Fund, and this is money which goes into the National Insurance Fund. Therefore, whether the Inland Revenue is doing it has nothing to do with the case. The convention in Parliament is that this should not be in the Finance Bill. The noble Lord went on to ask about consultation.
Lord Higgins: If I understand the position correctly, there are to be more clauses about the issue in the next Finance Bill. If this clause goes through, they will have the power to alter anything in Clause 70 which we are debating this evening.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If there are clauses which deal with the National Insurance Fund, they will have to be dealt with by other primary legislation than the Finance Bill. It is the convention of Parliament that they should not be in the Finance Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, went on to criticise the lack of consultation, but he gave evidence of the degree to which there has been a huge amount of consultation and publicity and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, a huge amount of lobbying. The consultation has been extremely serious. I shall gladly write to the noble Lord about its details and not weary the Committee with it now. I undertake that the consultation will be fully published well in advance of the Report stage. We will report to noble Lords and the public about the issues raised in the consultation process.
Lord Higgins: If the noble Lord will allow me to intervene, we will come to it on a starred amendment concerned with Clause 70(9) on page 77 of the Bill. The subsection states:
"If, on any modification of the statutory provisions relating to income tax, it appears to the Treasury to be expedient to modify any of the preceding provisions of this section for the purpose of assimilating the law relating to income tax and the law relating to contributions … the Treasury may with the concurrence of the Secretary of State by order make such modifications".
922
It seems that the point the noble Lord was making earlier is not valid. If I understand it correctly, it would be possible in the next Finance Bill to alter the clauses in this Bill.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, there is a distinction between what goes into a Finance Bill and what is dealt with by the Treasury. The matter is being dealt with by the Treasury now in a non-Finance Bill which is being discussed in full by your Lordships' House. The Treasury is involved in all kinds of legislation other than Finance Bills. I can assure the noble Lord that I have not been at the Dispatch Box answering for the Treasury for the past two years only on issues of the taxation which goes into the Consolidated Fund. That is not the distinction. The distinction is whether it goes into the Consolidated Fund or, as in this case, the National Insurance Fund.
The issue of the control test raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is far more serious. It was also mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Jenkin and Lord Goodhart, and in a specific case by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. In seeking to have a control test, we attempt to do two things first to simplify the complex case law which exists as between Schedule D and Schedule E; and, secondly, to put the responsibility for making a decision on the client, in other words the putative employer rather than on the individual himself or herself. Although the control test worked perfectly well in the market research business, I recognise that there are cases—the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin read out one—where it may not work so well. I shall not attempt to engage with him as to the way in which orchestras work. He and I are both patrons of the New London Orchestra which is a scratch orchestra. It raises exactly the kind of case to which he referred.
Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the issue of whether we can impose this obligation on the client and force the client to make the deductions from the worker is important in the consultation, and it will be taken account of in our response to the consultation.
Then there is the issue in the consultation about the certification system for agencies. The legislation proposes that the certification system should be voluntary; nevertheless, that is an issue which has gained currency in the consultation and we shall have to respond. We shall do so before the Report stage.
Rebadging has also been referred to, with employees leaving on a Friday and coming back as consultants the following Monday. That happens in the public sector as well as in private industry. The issue has been raised in consultation and we shall have to address it in our response. Your Lordships will have to know about it before we come back to the issue on Report.
There are many important issues, particularly those identified by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on which we have a great responsibility to respond to consultation and to report that response to the House before we come back on Report. I am not making any promises, but there may be modifications to Clause 70 as a result. However, we shall not retreat from the position that the intervening service company is an abuse of tax and

923
national insurance legislation. We have to find some way of dealing with that. That is the point of the clause and that is our sticking point.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: Before the Minister sits down, I quoted from an Inland Revenue document on the case about the vets. The document makes it clear that the Government are not going to attempt to ban the intermediate personal services company. How does that square with what the Minister has just said?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: There have always been personal services companies. The question is whether the company is inviting an abuse of the tax and national insurance system. Reading from a press statement, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said that 60,000 small businesses were at risk. That is not the case. There are many thousands of genuine one-person companies—maybe the plumber of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is one of them—that have a large number of clients and need the protection of limited liability status. They will not be threatened. Our target is the intervening company that is set up to avoid tax and national insurance.
Lord Campbell of Croy: I was saying that the press were reporting that the Government had admitted that 60,000 small businesses would go out of business. I am glad that the Minister has said that that was incorrect.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: It is indeed incorrect.
Lord Higgins: The Minister has suggested that there should be extensive consultation between now and Report stage. We welcome that because we have been inundated with representations from many interested parties. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, rightly stressed, they were from highly reputable bodies with no individual interest in the issue. They are simply concerned about the repercussions of the Government's proposals.
It is all very well to hold consultations at this stage. That should clearly have happened some time ago. In the light of what the Minister said, I shall not press the amendment, although I should like him to clarify his objection to Amendment No. 137, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I have pointed out, would seem to get over the dangers created by introducing a new and different definition of an employee. Experience and case law suggest that the definition is not adequate. It would be helpful in trying to reach a better conclusion if the Minister could make clear the Government's attitude to the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord did not speak to his amendment in his original speech and that is why I did not reply to it. The record will show whether I am right or wrong. If the client controls how the task is to be undertaken or how it is to be completed, he would be considered to be liable to pay national insurance contributions on the worker's earnings; that is the way the clause is drafted. If the worker is engaged for a specific task and has complete freedom as to how
924
it is to be completed, the clause would not be applicable. Our thinking is that a simple one element test would provide certainty and ease of operation for both parties and that is what is now in question as a result of the consultation process.
I heard what the noble Lord said, I have taken into account all of the considerations that have been raised in this debate and it is on that basis, rather than a specific critique of either this amendment or of Amendment No. 141B in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that I invite your Lordships to await the response which I have undertaken to make.
Lord Goodhart: As it is obvious that if there is a direct contract between the client and the worker, the existing test of whether it is self-employment or employment will apply, what is the justification for applying a different test simply because of the existence of the intermediate company? Would it not be simpler just to ignore the intermediate company and apply the same test to both workers?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The noble Lord answered that himself in his earlier speech when he said that there is not a single existing test as between Schedule D and Schedule E. The point is that it is a multi-dimensional test. Control is certainly one of the issues but, as he said, others might be whether there is a degree of risk or whether the worker is using his own. tools. I do not welcome the idea of going back to the old Schedule D/Schedule E tests because I prefer simplicity as the officials of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, preferred simplicity, but if it cannot be done, then it cannot be done.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The Minister insists in dealing with this case as between one client and one worker. That is what the whole focus of the clause and indeed of the Minister's speech has been. Can he give us an undertaking that, in the course of his consultations, he will have regard to the nature of the independent contractors' total activity because it is that which makes the person self-employed and, even though he may be working for one client at a time because of the nature of the work that he does, in fact, over a period of a year, he may have several clients. It seems to me that you have to take account of that in determining the relationship between the worker and any particular client.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is certainly one of the many tests in the Schedule D/Schedule E issue. My interviewers were not employed only by: me, they were employed by a number of different market research companies and I still paid national insurance contributions and deducted PAYE for them and I have no doubt their other employers did the same. This is not a new issue, it is one that has been going for a very long time. However, the noble Lord is right, it is of course one of the issues which has to be taken into account.
Lord Higgins: When the noble Lord reads Hansard tomorrow, he will find that, while covering what I said

925
was effectively a Second Reading speech because the issue needed that, I referred specifically to Amendment No. 137, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, did as well. We remain puzzled by exactly what the attitude of the noble Lord is to this amendment. He says that this will be covered in consultation in the course of the following months. None the less, it seems to us that the Government must have some view on whether this amendment meets the case. What they do not appear to have done at the moment is to make any argument in favour of having an additional definition of "employee" other than that which already exists.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought it was clear from what I was saying that I was acknowledging with reluctance the difficulty of a uni-dimensional test—the test only of control. Everything I have said has acknowledged that difficulty. Amendment No. 137 adds another dimension. Our response to the consultation process is considering not just this additional dimension but the other dimensions referred to in debate. We have to remove the avoidance. But the mechanics of how we remove the avoidance are not set in stone. If there is an alternative approach which business believes is more sympathetic and yet delivers our policy, we will consider it favourably. That is my response to Amendment No. 137 and indeed it is my response to all of the amendments to Clause 70.
Lord Higgins: We shall return to these matters on subsequent amendments and no doubt again at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 75, line 9, at end insert—
("() Regulations shall not be made under this section until the Secretary of State, following full consultation with all interested parties, has laid before Parliament a regulatory impact assessment which, amongst other matters, assesses the implications of the proposed regulations for economic activity within the United Kingdom.")
The noble Lord said: This amendment suggests that regulations shall not be made until the Secretary of State, in full consultation with all interested parties, has laid before Parliament a regulatory impact assessment, which, among other matters, assesses the implications of the proposed regulations for economic activity with the United Kingdom.
In reply to the previous amendment, the noble Lord said that there will be full consultation. We appreciate that. However, having said that, we turn to the question of the regulatory assessment. While the other place did not have the benefit of that, we have had it. But it is narrowly defined in terms of the impact on individual companies and so on. Many of the representations that we have received from a vast range of interests—interests which have only an abstract concern rather than an individual company financial interest—suggest that the effect on the UK economy may well be serious, not least in areas where the greatest initiative is shown; for
926
example, the IT industry. Therefore, I hope that the Minister can accept the amendment so that we shall have a supplementary regulatory assessment which, in the light of the discussions mentioned by the Minister, will spell out all the concerns expressed by the various outside bodies. In one of the noble Lord's several winding up speeches on the previous debate he said—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I had to make more than one winding up speech because more than one noble Lord intervened.
Lord Higgins: At this time of night there is always the danger that it becomes a conversation rather than a debate. I was not criticising the noble Lord for the fact that he made about five winding up speeches, but in one of the earlier ones, if I may put it that way, he made it clear that the Government are determined to deal with the problem of tax avoidance in that area. We can understand that. But he seemed to imply that they had to deal with the problem of service companies. I hope he will accept that many service companies are entirely legitimate, they fulfil an important and useful function and give to the economic market a degree of flexibility which it would not otherwise have. Having said that, we will need to go into the matter in considerable detail later on. I hope that the noble Lord can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I shall be extremely brief. At the Report stage in another place on 17th May the Minister, Mr Timms, said:
"A regulatory impact assessment will be issued in due course, once the details of the practical application of the new rules have been finalised".—[Official Report, Commons, 17/5/99; col. 756.]
That is exactly what our amendment says. I look forward to hearing that the Minister will accept it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: At least the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, recognised that the regulatory impact assessment had been published. I am sorry that it has not come to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, but I am sure that we can send him a copy.
In direct response to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I do not accept his criticisms of appendix 6 of the regulatory impact assessment. It goes into the details of the costs of operating individual service companies and complying with new legislation on a micro-basis, but it also makes assessments of the macro-costs and talks about the estimated extra NICs revenue which arises from a change of this kind. It estimates the number of service companies, some but not all of which may well be genuine service companies, in the past and their growth in recent years. I thought that I had already made it clear in one of my winding-up speeches that the Government recognise that there are genuine service companies.
From what I have said about our response to the consultation and the representations that have been made, it is quite clear that we are considering the possibility—I shall not go further than that—of making changes to the provisions of Clause 70. If that is the case, then clearly a regulatory impact assessment will

927
be a necessary part of our response. Rather than introduce an amendment at this stage, I ask the noble Lord to accept my assurance that any changes will be accompanied by an appropriate regulatory impact assessment.
Lord Higgins: The noble Lord accepts that there are genuine service companies which are not tax avoidance vehicles and fulfil a useful function. Does he also accept that implementation of Clause 70 as it is now may well wipe out some of those perfectly reasonable companies?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am not prepared to say that. I believe that Clause 70 properly addresses those service companies which are designed primarily for tax avoidance purposes. Clearly, there could be difficulties at the margin if the uni-dimensional control criterion did not apply effectively, but it is not right to say that Clause 70 as drafted would affect genuine service companies. Certainly, that is not the intention.
Lord Higgins: One well understands that that is not the intention. I pose the question again: is it the case that Clause 70 as now drafted may well adversely affect, if not eliminate, perfectly legitimate service companies that have no connection with tax avoidance?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have no reason to believe that that is the case. The objections to Clause 70 that have been raised in the consultation have not been concerned with that specific point.
Lord Higgins: I find that response rather extraordinary. The whole of the agitation on the part of individual companies and all the bodies concerned, none of which is in favour of tax avoidance, is that the shotgun approach adopted by the Government in Clause 70 will adversely affect perfectly legitimate companies. Therefore, I find the reply very strange. Nevertheless, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment. No doubt we can return to these matters.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 75, line 9, at end insert—
("() Regulations under this section shall not apply to any circumstances where the worker is entitled to delegate the whole performance of the services to another person. or where the third party is entitled to nominate someone other than the worker to perform the whole of the services.")
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 139 in my name and those of my noble friends, including my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, proposes that,
"Regulations under this section shall not apply to any circumstances where the worker"—
that is a term of art in this context—
"is entitled to delegate the whole performance of the services to another person, or where the third party is entitled to nominate someone other than the worker to perform the whole of the services".
The amendment seeks to ensure that regulations do not affect companies where the individual concerned is clearly a company and not a personal employee of the
928
client, or where the client is entitled to say that someone other than the worker performed the service. We hope that the provision is helpful and that the noble Lord can accept the amendment in seeking to avoid some of the shotgun effect to which we have just referred. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The amendment has the merit of being already reflected in existing employment law. As long ago as 1978, the Privy Council, in the case of Australian Mutual Provident Society v. Chaplin ruled that,
"In the present case there appears to be nothing in the written agreement to prevent the respondent from delegating the whole performance of his work to one or more sub-agents. In the opinion of their lordships, this power of unlimited delegation is almost conclusive against the contract being a contract of service".
In the much more recent case of Express and Echo Publications v. Tanton, quoted in The Times as recently as 7th April of this year, the agreement provided that, if the individual contractor was unable or unwilling to perform services personally, he should arrange at his own expense for another suitable person to perform the services. In that case the Court of Appeal held that,
"A contract of employment involve[s] mutual mist and confidence … It [is] established that where a person who worked for another was not required to provide their services personally, it could not be right as a matter of law that the relationship between the worker and the person for whom he works was that a employee and employer.
"[A clause not requiring the worker to perform any services personally] was a provision wholly inconsistent with the contract being a contract of service".
It seems to me that the substitution test is now well regarded and well established by existing law. I hope that the Minister can give an undertaking that that will be one of the matters to be taken into account in the. consultation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can certainly give that undertaking. In saying that, we are reconsidering the multi-dimensional tests which at present exist through case law in the distinction between Schedule D and Schedule E, I mentioned a number of points, tools, risk and so on, which will be taken into account. The power to delegate clearly is another appropriate consideration. I can give an undertaking that that will be taken into account in our response to the consultation. I would rather do it that way than accept the amendment on the face of the Bill now.
Lord Higgins: If the Government take the view which the Minister has expressed, and it is accepted in another place, it seems better to accept the Minister's undertaking on the point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No 140:
Page 76, leave out lines 13 to 23
The noble Lord said: This amendment suggests that lines 13 to 23 on page 76 should be omitted. This is

929
effectively subsection (5) of Clause 70. It relates to regulations which may be made by reference to,
"any certification procedure which may be established by the Treasury for the purposes of that provision, or … such certification procedure … as may be specified",
in the regulations, and so on.
The amendment seeks to establish what the Government have in mind so far as concerns certification proceedings. There are other areas of tax law, in particular as regards self employed people in the construction industry, and so on, which provide for a degree of certification. But is it envisaged that the Government will decide whether or not to certify the 60,000 companies involved as not being an anti-avoidance device?
In advance of the consultations, it would be helpful to know what the Government have in mind with regard to the provision which the amendment seeks to eliminate. I beg to move.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My noble friend Lord Higgins has mentioned the construction industry and has referred to what were originally called the 714 certificates. As the Financial Secretary, I introduced those certificates and the system worked well. I made a speech about self-employed hod carriers as an example of the abuse. If the worker could establish that he had a good relationship with the Revenue, that he paid his taxes and his national insurance, he could get a certificate and the sub-contractor could be paid gross. Without such a certificate, the sub-contractor had to deduct tax. That is a well tried system and I hope that the Minister will indicate that the Government have learned from that experience.
10.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I do not need to reply, because the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, has already replied for me!
Certification will make a service company or agency liable to pay class 1 NICs, and operate PAYE, on substantially all the money they receive in respect of contracts to which the new rules apply. This will mean that they cannot avoid NICs by paying dividends. As a consequence, clients who engage a worker through a certified agency will not be required to deduct tax and NICs from the payment that they make to the certified agency or service company in respect of the worker.
The provision will enable registered service companies to continue to provide their labour to clients as they do at present but without the scope for tax or NICs avoidance that exists currently.
Amendment No. 140 would remove the legislative power to introduce a certification scheme. As the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, made clear, we are talking about a voluntary certification scheme that is only adopted when it is to the advantage of one or both sides. Removing the certification provision would remove the ability for clients to make gross payments to service companies, even where those service companies are willing to account for the full amount of tax and NICs themselves.
930
We have consulted extensively on these proposals. There have been specific representations on the proposed certification scheme. We are looking again at whether we can achieve our aims in a way which is effective against avoidance without the need for such a scheme. We do not want to have all the trouble of a certification scheme if it does nobody any good and does not achieve our objectives. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that we take very seriously the need to minimise burdens on businesses.
We will set out in regulations the detail of how the provision will be developed. Full account will be taken of the feedback we have received, including the debate this evening. I have already undertaken that we will provide a full response before the Report Stage of the Bill, and the certification scheme will be included in that response.
If I may add another point of clarification. I wish to make it clear that the certification scheme will simply enable service companies to register that they take a responsibility for PAYE and NICs. It is not a question of identifying good or bad companies. If any contributor fails to discharge its liability, it will be pursued.
Lord Higgins: I had forgotten that my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding had some initiative in the area that he mentioned. Since he dealt with direct taxation and I dealt with indirect taxation, we tended to take a break at the appropriate spot and I might have been out of the Chamber at the time. Be that as it may, I still have some doubts about the certification procedure. I have listened to the Minister's remarks and will wish to return to the subject later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Jenkin of Roding Lord Jenkin of Roding moved Amendment No. 140ZA:
Page 76, line 48, at end insert—
("() Regulations made under this section shall not apply where a person provides services that relate to the production, storage or communication of information using computers or micro-electronics.")
The noble Lord said: At this hour of the night and in the light of what the Minister has said, I shall be brief. In particular, I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that I will not be seeking a specific exemption for the IT industry. The amendment was tabled because the IT industry would, if the clause were to be accepted and the regulations made as envisaged when it was introduced, be particularly hard hit by the changes. The industry is special and unique and is expanding at an exponential rate.
There are considerable peaks and troughs in activity. At present there is a high peak with a number of firms dealing with the millennium bug. The industry is essentially project driven. They may be short, lasting a few weeks, or they may last one or even two years. There must be flexibility for both the clients and the experts to be able to deploy their services as effectively and flexibly as possible.
I hope that in discussions the Minister will take particular account of the needs of the IT industry. The other evening I attended a meeting of the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury of Turville. He made a most impressive speech about the huge importance to the economy of our knowledge-based industry. No industry is more knowledge based than the IT industry. One's reaction on reading this clause and the original justification for speeches of Mr Timms in another place was that the Government were talking with two voices. On the one hand, the Minister for Science, sometimes supported by the Prime Minister, appears to be saying that they really want everyone to succeed, for small businesses to flourish and to have the flexibility and enthusiasm of a knowledge-based industry; and then along comes the Treasury and the Inland Revenue and say, "We shall clobber them if they do". That cannot be right. The IT industry is a case in point and that is why I tabled the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: I support my noble friend's amendment. Indeed, I have tabled a similar amendment. Neither of us wish to enter the process of enumeration of companies which are all right and those which are not. Our experience on the selective employment tax, which together we abolished, suggests that such enumeration is not a good way of tackling the problems.
It is clear from one's enormous mailbag that particular industries will be badly hit by the Government's proposals. To the extent to which the Minister is successful in his search for a solution which does not damage companies which are not tax avoidance companies, but legitimate and no doubt entrepreneurial enterprises, we hope that that matter can be clarified. We must ensure that we remain competitive and that people are not driven overseas in the IT industry, and that people are comparatively mobile.
Time Earl of Kintore: If the amendment is accepted another body of people—that is, the highly-skilled work force searching for oil in the North Sea—would ask for similar treatment. I shall speak about them at some length during the debate on Clause 70. Surely, what is suggested in the amendment is a last gasp solution and we should be trying to resolve the problem.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can give the assurance which the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, seeks; that we shall pay particular attention to the representations made about the information technology industry. However, I have two qualifications to make. I am not sure that the phrasing of the amendment is an adequate definition of what is meant by "information technology industry". On that basis alone, I could not accept the amendment as being part of the Bill.
Secondly, although I recognise that there are considerable numbers of people who install and service domestic PCs on a one person basis—I have employed such persons, if "employed" is the correct word—much of the talk about the IT industry is about small service companies with several employees. Such companies will
932
need several employees if they are to provide an effective service to business. They will have to pay national insurance contributions and deduct PAYE.
I have a feeling that some of the representations have been somewhat exaggerated or over-played. If the noble Lord is seeking an assurance that we shall pay particular attention to the needs of the IT industry he can certainly have that assurance.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: With that assurance, I seek leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 140A not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 140B:
Page 77, leave out lines 3 to 11
The noble Lord said: I apologise for the late arrival of this starred amendment on the Order Paper. I had not spotted subsection (9) on page 77 which gives me some cause for concern. I referred to it in debates on earlier amendments.
The subsection raises the broad issue that we discussed earlier as to the exact relationship in such matters between the Treasury, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Inland Revenue on the one hand, and the Department of Social Security on the other. As the noble Lord said, had these matters been put in a Finance Bill the Committee would not have had the opportunity of debating them in detail as we have done this evening.
I would like clarification of whether it is envisaged that there will be a further set of clauses related to these matters in a subsequent Finance Bill. I had received the impression—I know not how—that that is to be the case. If that is not the case, it will remain true that the other place has not had a chance for detailed examination of these proposals. None the less, I believe that it is right that they should have a further opportunity. 'We shall need to take into account the results of the consultation that the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, has mentioned.
Secondly, I seek to clarify the point that the noble Lord has made about whether the proceeds will go into the Consolidated Fund or into the National Insurance Fund. I have already stressed that as the Contributions Agency has moved to the Treasury, it is not clear why the Treasury should not take a lead in such matters rather than the Department of Social Security. Clause 70 says that:
"the Treasury may with the concurrence of the Secretary of State by order make such modifications of the preceding provisions of this section as the Treasury think appropriate for that purpose".
If I understand the matter correctly, the Treasury—the noble Lord rightly distinguished between the Inland Revenue and the Treasury—in the guise of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, can make an order which will alter the provisions in the clause that we He now debating. That seems to me to be a rather extraordinary situation. If that were to be the case, one would have expected there to be a Treasury provision in the first place. Certainly priority is given to the Treasury, with the concurrence of the Secretary of State, rather than the other way around.
In regard to where the money goes, if I understand correctly, the noble Lord is saying that as national insurance contributions are being avoided, the money should end up in the National Insurance Fund. But this is purely a book-keeping operation. The National Insurance Fund does not exist in any particular sense. It is true that some of its revenue comes from national insurance contributions, but a large chunk comes, and has always come, from other sources of revenue. I remain puzzled as to why the noble Lord believes it important that money should go into one fund rather than another. It would be helpful if he could clarify exactly what the division of responsibility is between the Treasury and the Department of Social Security.
10.45 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: I would like to raise a slightly different point. As stated by the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation in its 17th Report in the current Session, at paragraph 9,
"Subsection (9) of the new Section 4A is a Henry VIII power allowing the modifying of the section to assimilate the law relating to income tax and the law relating to contributions. An order under this subsection is subject to negative procedure".
As I read the report of the Select Committee, on balance—the wording is quite significantly gentle, it is not very definite—it considers the negative procedure appropriate. It is right to look at the language. It says,
"As we understand it, this power can be considered to be consequential on the provisions which Parliament will consider when the Finance Bill is introduced and we understand that that Bill could not be used to bring about this assimilation".
Pausing there for a moment, I believe that is the point that the Minister was making in an earlier debate: one cannot put social security legislation into a Finance Bill. Is that not the point? Is the Minister shaking his head?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: The Finance Bill cannot be concerned with national insurance contributions which go into the National Insurance Fund. It really does not matter whether it is social security or Treasury, the point is whether it is the Consolidated Fund or the National Insurance Fund. I shall respond to that in more detail in a moment.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: The Select Committee goes on to say,
"Moreover, the power is for a limited purpose and is not capable of being used for a wider purpose".
I question whether in these circumstances the negative procedure is right. I normally have the greatest respect for the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, but on this matter it is possible that it has missed a trick. This is quite an important point and it should be properly debated by Parliament. I shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, for quoting from the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. But he quoted from it in little chunks with interventions. He used either his own words or those in
934
quotation which did not fully represent the position. The only safe thing for me to do is to quote from paragraph 9 of the report:
"Subsection 9 of the new section 4A is a Henry VIII power allowing the modifying of the section to assimilate the law relating to income tax and the law relating to contributions. An order under this subsection is subject to negative procedure. As we understand it. this power can be considered to be consequential on the provisions which Parliament will consider when the Finance Bill is introduced and we understand that that Bill could not be used to bring out this assimilation. Moreover, the power is for a limited purpose and is not capable of being used for a wider purpose. The Committee therefore considers the negative procedure appropriate".
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, used the words "on balance" as though the committee was using them. It does not. It understands the position to the best of its ability and it is satisfied with the powers which are being given. We in government get into terrible trouble if we try to go against that committee. We get torn apart, but here we are agreeing with it and the noble Lord does not like that. He had better get himself nominated to the committee and stiffen up its act if that is what he feels is appropriate. I shall rest on the approval of the committee so ably chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Alexander of Weedon.
Amendment No. 140B would remove subsection (9) of Clause 70 which provides a power to enable the clause to be adapted by order if the parallel tax provisions introduced in next year's Finance Bill differ from what is envisaged by the clause. I can assure the Committee that there is no sinister purpose behind the inclusion of subsection (9) in Clause 70; it is simply a necessary provision to ensure that the powers in the clause operate effectively.
There are two reasons why the subsection is needed. First, NICs are not as flexible as tax about when a provision comes into force. NICs' liability is geared to a worker's pay period, be it weekly or monthly; any NICs legislation must be introduced prior to the start of the tax year. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill allows for such a timetable to be met. But the provision for tax in the Finance Bill next year—2000—will not be ready for this timetable. It is therefore important for us to be able to amend the detail of the NICs provisions to take into account any detailed changes in the tax rules. I am sure that Members of the Committee understand the need for business to operate to one set of rules rather than two.
Secondly, the subsection gives flexibility to keep the NICs measures in line with the tax rules. The annual Finance Bill means that changes to the tax legislation can occur every year subject to parliamentary approval, but there is no equivalent annual legislation automatically available for the national insurance legislation. So without the subsection it would be difficult to amend the contributions and benefits Act to mirror any necessary changes in the Finance Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, again raised the question as to why NICs legislation cannot be included in Finance Bills. As I said before and can only repeat, it is a convention of Parliament that Finance Bills are restricted to tax provision. Tax revenue is paid into the Consolidated Fund. Contributions are not a tax and are paid into the National Insurance Fund. It seemed to be

935
suggested that somehow this is a polite fiction. The National Insurance Fund is necessary to pay benefits. At the moment it is broadly in balance, but there were a number of years under the noble Lord's government when it was not in balance. There was a deficit in the National Insurance Fund. We have corrected that situation. The National Insurance Fund is now a proper fund which does what it is supposed to do. It is still the position that the tax provisions of Clause 70 will be introduced through the Finance Bill because they are in the Consolidated Fund, but the NICs provisions will not. That is why we have to have this secondary power provided by subsection (9) of Clause 70.
Lord Goodhart: Before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I can ask him this. Obviously what will happen is that the Finance Bill will be enacted in July 2000 and will take effect retrospectively to 6th April. The modifications to the NIC rules under subsection (9) therefore cannot be made until after 6th April because there will not be anything to align with at that stage. Is the Minister satisfied that subsection (9) gives power to the Treasury to make regulations having retrospective effect?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That was my understanding, but if I am wrong I shall write to the noble Lord.
Lord Goodhart: It will be necessary for them to have retrospective effect.
Lord Higgins: I expected the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to dispute the point made by the Minister as to whether or not the contributions were a tax since it is a clear policy of the Liberal Democrats to say that they are. However, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the situation. As I understand it, there will be a corresponding set of clauses related to the tax aspect of this matter in the Finance Bill next year.
Having said that, the reality is that the Treasury has taken over the Contributions Agency and the provisions the Minister mentioned now seem somewhat anachronistic in this context in as much as the Treasury seems to be taking over more and more of the department. However, in the light of what he said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 70 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: This has been a helpful, if at times rather technical. debate. The Minister has taken a conciliatory attitude. In particular, he has given us an assurance that we will return to the matter on Report in the light of discussions which are taking place with the various interest parties. It is quite difficult to discuss this kind of issue in Committee. The preparatory work which the noble Lord has suggested will certainly be welcomed, albeit it is taking place rather late in the day.
It is clearly the Government's intention that such provisions should not adversely affect legitimate service companies, which are not designed for tax avoidance.
936
Indeed, if that is not so, the danger is that yet another so-called "stealth tax" will be imposed, which will have an adverse effect on business. That will be in addition to the very considerable burdens which administration of such a situation is likely to create if the Government do not succeed in narrowing down the definition of companies which are clearly avoidance vehicles in the way that all of us on all sides of the Committee would wish to see. We welcome the Minister's assurances and look forward to debating the matter further on Report in the light of those discussions.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If it would be helpful, I should like to suggest that, as soon as we have our response to the consultation ready and even if it is during the Summer Recess—in other words, before the House returns in October—we could seek a meeting with everyone who has expressed an interest in this subject to see whether we can find a mutually convenient time when we can all sit down together and have a seminar. If noble Lords would find it helpful, I would certainly be willing to return to the House when it is not sitting for that purpose.
Lord Higgins: That seems to me to be an extremely helpful suggestion because the matter is of considerable importance to industry. It is important that we should get it right. We may, of course, be under some time constraints when we return as regards the spill-over. Therefore, if we can be clear in advance about what are the outstanding issues between us, if any, that would be helpful. Speaking for myself, I would be happy to co-operate with what the Minister has suggested.
Clause 70 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 141 not moved.]
Clause 71 [Earnings of workers supplied by service companies etc: Northern Ireland]:
[Amendment No. 141A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 141B not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 142:
Transpose Clause 71 to after Clause 73
The noble Lord said: This is the transpose clause. Unfortunately, I was not quick enough a few moments ago. I said "not moved" when Amendment No. 141 was called. Quite clearly, in the light of the speed with which Clauses 70 and 71 were introduced, it seemed to us that they ended up in the wrong place. In fact, Chapter II of Part V of the Bill starts with Clause 68, which deals with new thresholds for primary Class 1 contributions and Clause 69, which deals with the same thing for Northern Ireland. We then have the two clauses that we have just discussed, followed by Clauses 72 and 73 relating to Class 1B contributions both here and in Northern Ireland.
Therefore, it seems to us that Clauses 70 and 71 were put in the wrong place and that they really ought to have been placed at the end of the chapter. However, having said that, I hesitate slightly to move such amendments and press them because Clause 70 is now such a

937
notorious clause that, if we renumbered it, we might cause great confusion outside. So I do not propose to move this amendment—
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: If the noble Lord does not mind, I would prefer him to move the amendment so that I may say a few words in response.
Lord Higgins: I understand that the Minister wishes to respond. In that case, perhaps we may delay the proceedings for a few moments to allow him to do so. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can be brief. The placing of the clause in the Bill is done on the advice of parliamentary counsel. I certainly never had the courage to question parliamentary counsel's judgment on these matters. No doubt the noble Lord did so constantly when he was in office. Clauses 72 and 73 are minor clauses. It is appropriate that they should come last in this chapter.
Lord Higgins: I fully accept that. My recollection mostly is that parliamentary counsel—we may have had a heavier legislative programme—were paid vastly more than us but had more frequent nervous breakdowns. But be that as it may, I accept the point that the noble Lord has made. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 72 and 73 agreed to.
Clause 74 [Measures to reduce under-occupation by housing benefit claimants]:
Baroness Buscombe Baroness Buscombe moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 80. line 29, at end insert—
("(d) for ensuring that, in relation to a housing benefit claimant who is disabled, due account is taken of his need for additional space, including an extra bedroom for a carer.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is intended to protect the interests of those individuals who are in receipt of housing benefit, who are disabled and who require the support of a carer in their home. Clause 74 will enable the Government to make regulations that will establish a pilot scheme under which tenants in the social rented sector who are under-occupying their homes and who receive housing benefit will receive a financial incentive to move to smaller and cheaper accommodation.
The financial incentive will involve those tenants being rewarded with a lump sum payment equivalent to half the difference between their old and new weekly rent, multiplied by 156. While broadly supporting this proposal, in moving this amendment we look to the Government for reassurance that they will take adequate account of individual circumstances, and in particular circumstances whereby a claimant has need of a carer, in which case additional space is assured for that carer, including an extra bedroom for that carer.
A carer's role is recognised through the invalid care allowance. In many situations where claimants are in receipt of that allowance it is necessary for the carer effectively to live in. We believe that it is tremendously
938
important to protect the ability of that carer to be able to live in in a separate room and to be able to rest and recuperate as and when relief from the caring allows. I believe that the wording of the amendment speaks for itself. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I recognise that this amendment aims to protect disabled people by ensuring that their needs are taken into account in the under-occupation scheme. I should mention that the same amendment was debated in the other place and my honourable friend Mr Hugh Bayley reassured honourable Members that the amendment was not necessary, whereupon Mr Quentin Davies withdrew his amendment on the grounds that the Minister had given,
"the clear assurance that we wanted".
Therefore I am a little surprised that the amendment was retabled as all I can do is to give the same assurance as has already been given by the Minister in the other place. Therefore I do not think that this amendment is necessary.
However, I am happy to repeat the speech of my honourable friend Mr Hugh Bayley, who said that some disabled people have a requirement for additional space arising from, for example, a carer who resides with them and that the scheme will take that into account, including the needs of other people who may need additional rooms, such as parents with children who come home at weekends. People will gain from the scheme even where they require additional space as long as the overall size of their new home is smaller than their old. For example, a single disabled person living in a four-bedroom house could move to a two or even a three-bedroom house and still be entitled to a payment under the scheme. He or she would not be required to move to a one-bedroom flat.
I hope that in the light of that reply the noble Baroness will appreciate that her amendment is unnecessary. The scheme is also, of course, entirely voluntary. No one will be forced to take part and no one will receive less benefit if they do not move. It is up to them. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that the amendment is unnecessary and will withdraw it.
Baroness Buscombe: I stress that we have had continuing representations from a number of organisations and individuals in relation to this clause. Therefore we felt it appropriate to bring forward this amendment at this stage. I thank the Minister for her reaffirmation of what was said in the other place. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 143ZA:
Page 80, line 39, leave out subsection (5) and inser—
("() A person aggrieved by a determination of any prescribed description made under regulations under this section may appeal to such court or tribunal as may be prescribed; and the regulations may make provision as to the procedure to be followed in connection with appeals under this subsection.")
The noble Baroness said: I am delighted to move the amendment. It fulfils a commitment made to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation following its very helpful report on the delegated powers in the Bill.
As I mentioned when we discussed the last amendment, Clause 74 enables us to set up a housing under-occupation scheme. The scheme—which, of Course, will be entirely voluntary—will offer people incentives to move to smaller and more suitable accommodation by allowing them to keep part of any saving in HB.
It was always our intention that there should be a right of appeal under the scheme. The current drafting of the clause allows for this appeals mechanism to be established through regulations, as the Explanatory Notes make clear. The Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation suggested that it would be useful to bring that provision onto the face of the Bill. I am delighted to be able to support that recommendation, which is why we have brought forward the amendment. It confirms that people involved in the under-occupation scheme will have a right of appeal to a court or tribunal.
This is of course a pilot scheme, which we intend to trial in three local authorities. Much of the detail may need to he refined and adapted in the light of developing experience. Therefore the amendment provides for the actual appeals process to be defined in regulations. For example, regulations will identify the appropriate avenue for appeals, the decisions which will be appealable and the time and manner for making appeals. This is consistent with the approach taken for the scheme as a whole, which allows the full workings of the scheme to be set out in regulations, building on the basic framework the clause itself provides. This seemed to us the best balance between the appropriate suggestions of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation—which, as my noble friend said, we take very seriously—and the need to be able to loop in from our experience in the pilot areas. I am confident that noble Lords will welcome the amendment. I urge the Committee to support it.
Earl Russell: The Minister's confidence is well founded. I welcome the amendment and I thank the Minister very warmly for it.
Baroness Buscombe: I, too, welcome the amendment and rise to support it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 74, as amended, agreed to.
[Amendment Nos. 143AA to 143AC not moved.]
Clause 75 agreed to.
Schedule 11 [Contributions and pensions administration]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 143AD:
Page 138. line 32, at end insert—
("10A. In section 172 (Assembly, etc. control of regulations and orders)., in subsection (2)(c) for ", 153(2) or" there is substituted "or 153(2)".")
The noble Baroness said: The group of government amendments before us now is extremely technical and deals mainly with some corrections to legislation passed earlier in the year. It may help the Committee if I explain a little more of the background to Clause 76 and Schedule 11, to which these amendments relate.
A number of noble Lords here today were involved last winter in the debates on the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.)—I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, recognises the word "etcetera"—Act 1999. That Act transferred the functions of the Contributions Agency to the Inland Revenue and responsibility for NIC policy to the Treasury and the Revenue.
In the course of the passage of that Act we Identified a small number of technical errors and omissions. I regret that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is not here because normally we rely on him to spot technical errors and omissions. For once his farsightedness has slightly failed us. We normally regard him as the backstop for government slippage. Even so, these were minor matters that were not material to the effect of the Bill hut we decided to take the earliest possible opportunity to clarify them. So the Government brought forward in another place amendments to the Bill to correct the se errors and omissions. They are now set out in Schedule 11.
Schedule 11 is there largely to ensure that the references and numbering are correct, that the transferred functions are treated consistently and that all consequential changes are picked up. None of these corrections affect the exercise of the functions as at 1st April.
As the Committee is well aware, social security legislation generally extends to Great Britain only. So the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act allowed an Order in Council to make parallel provision in Northern Ireland. That w as the snappily titled Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999. Since that was laid before Parliament, we have identified a number of extremely minor and technical errors in or related to that order and found a further minor omission from the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) Act itself. The amendments before us now put right those matters.
The amendments do such things as ensure grammatical consistency in an amended list, remove a passage of rogue text and pick up a number of consequential amendments. None of them affects the effective operation of the legislation in Northern Ireland.
Some of the amendments in this group have a retroactive effect; that is, they are deemed to have taken effect in April or October, in place of the provisions which contain the errors. That is partly for simplicity, and partly to remove any doubt about whether the previously unclear legislation should have been applied.
I do not intend to take up any more of the Committee's time on the detail of the amendments, although I am happy to take any questions that Members

941
may have. I ask the Committee to support the amendments in the assurance that they are technical and tidy up the drafting. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I thank the Minister for her kind words about my noble friend Lord Goodhart. I am quite pleased to find that he joins the company of Homer and is found among those who are capable of nodding.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 143AE to 143AH:
Page 139, line 6, at end insert—
("15A.—(1) In section 116 (supply of information held by tax authorities for fraud prevention and verification), for subsection (1) there is substituted—
"(1) This section applies—

(a) to information which is held—

(i) by the Inland Revenue, or

(ii) by a person providing services to the Inland Revenue, in connection with the provision of those services,

but is not information to which section 115D above applies, and

(b) to information which is held—

(i) by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, or

(ii) by a person providing services to the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, in connection with the provision of those services."

(2) This amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st April 1999 in place of that made by paragraph 2(2) of Schedule 5 to the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.
15B.—(1) In section 145 (adjustments between the Northern Ireland National Insurance Fund and the Consolidated Fund of Northern Ireland)—

(a) in subsection (1)(a), sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) are omitted: and

(b) in subsection (3)(a), for "subsection (1)(a) and (b)" there is substituted "subsection (1)(b)".

(2) These amendments shall be deemed to have come into force on 5th October 1999 in place of those made by paragraph 34 of Schedule 2 to the Tax Credits Act 1999.
15C.—(1) In section 165 (regulations and orders - general), in subsection (9)(c), for "142(7), I45(4)" there is substituted "145(4)(a)".
(2) This amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st April 1999 in place of that made by paragraph 49(3) of Schedule 3 to the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.")
Page 139, line 26, at end insert—
("20A.—(1) In section 154 (disclosure of information between government departments, etc.), in subsection (5) after "Subsections (1) and (IA)" there is inserted "extend".
(2) This amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st April 1999.")
Page 139, line 38, at end insert—
("21A.—(1) In section 177 (orders and regulations—general provisions), for subsection (7) there is substituted—
"(7) Any power conferred on the Secretary of State to make regulations or orders (other than an order under section 162) is exercisable by statutory instrument, and subsections (2) to (4) and
942
section 178(1) apply to regulations or orders made in exercise of any such power of the Secretary of State as they apply to regulations made by the Department."
(2) This amendment shall be deemed to have come into force on 1st April 1999 in place of those made by paragraph 75(3) of Schedule I to the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.")
Page 140, line 17, leave out ("paragraph 66(3) (which has not come into force) is omitted") and insert ("the following provisions are omitted, namely—

(a) paragraph 4(6) (which was superseded by paragraph 4 of Schedule I to the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, etc.) (Northern Ireland) Order 1999), and

(b) paragraph 66(3) (which has not come into force).")

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 77 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Russell: I think I owe an apology to several people for raising what is properly a matter for the privileges of another place. But I do so at the request of my honourable friend, Mr Kirkwood. As a result of the operation of the guillotine in another place, this clause was never debated there.
The purpose of the clause is to make easier the authorisation of preliminary expenditure for a purpose which may be in the pipeline for the future. On such matters as IT preparation, a great deal of expenditure arises early on, before the legislation is tabled.
Some noble Lords may remember the paving Bill for theworking families' tax credit, which contained one of the most colossal Henry VIII clauses that I have ever seen. I understand the need for this kind of thing, but there is a real problem here. Without preliminary expenditure, a large number of policy changes cannot even be contemplated. So I understand why the Government want to be able to proceed by statutory instrument rather than needing an Act of Parliament to authorise each particular piece of expenditure.
However, the principle which is here—I shall not say breached, but possibly weakened—is one of very great importance historically and in another place it is guarded very jealously indeed. I understand that a certain amount of concern has been raised among fairly senior figures in another place about the possible effect of the clause. They would like the matter raised here in order that something can be written into the record about it.
I should like to know what safeguards will be in the way of this exercise of power. Under what circumstances is it likely to be exercised? What are the limits on the vires? What scrutiny will there be of the decision to table statutory instruments to authorise such preliminary expenditure? In particular, will it be possible for a Select Committee in another place—and several Select Committees are interested in the matter—to examine the statutory instrument in draft before it is tabled.
The principle of parliamentary control of expenditure and the principle of the efficient conduct of business are both important. If we can find, through the working of

943
this clause, a way of reconciling them, that, I hope, will be for the good of all parties. I oppose the Question that Clause 77 shall stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This clause creates a power to incur expenditure on work undertaken in preparation for changes to the social security system.
Without the clause, expenditure could not be incurred on much of the work needed to prepare for a change in social security until after Royal Assent for the substantive legislation introducing the change. As the social security system is large, complex and increasingly dependent on computers—heaven help us—there are long lead in times for making changes. Having to wait for Royal Assent, therefore, means that much needed welfare reform is delayed or implementation is rushed with resulting higher costs and possible loss of quality.
So the clause is intended to give a specific and time-limited power to incur expenditure on making preparations for future change of the social security system. The power covers two types of preparatory work: first, work in support of changes arising from decisions on social security policy, such as the introduction of a new benefit or for major changes to existing policies which will require primary legislation; and, secondly, work in support of changes to the social security system needed as a consequence of other government policies. For example, as the Prime Minister made clear in his statement on 23rd February, the power could be used to allow work in preparation for the country joining the European Monetary Union. I was pressed on that question in your Lordships' House. I said that unless one spent the money in advance there would be no choice for people to make in a possible referendum. If we wish to have the option of joining, we must prepare for it and the scale and complexity of the DSS computer systems make advance preparation critical. At the time I believe I had the support of the noble Earl and his colleagues.
There would be firm additional parliamentary controls on this expenditure. They are set out in the clause itself and are additional to the normal processes of estimates and supply. First, only preparatory work could be subject to this procedure. Substantive expenditure on the new service—for example, payments of a new benefit—could not be approved in this way. Secondly, a report detailing the nature and amount of intended expenditure would need to be laid in the House of Commons before expenditure could be approved. Thirdly, that approval would have to be by affirmative resolution. Fourthly, any such approval would be limited to a time period of two years. There is no question of indefinite and continuing expenditure.
In addition to those provisions on the face of the Bill, my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr Timms, assured the chairman of the Social Security Select Committee—the noble Earl's honourable friend Mr Kirkwood—and the chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, at col. 1338 of Hansard for 20th May 1999, that arrangements could be made so that in normal circumstances those committees could examine the report before the House of Commons takes a decision.
944
I was pressed on that point by the noble Earl. The mechanism for it will be further discussed with the Select Committees concerned.
The Committee may wonder why there is no role for this Chamber in these parliamentary controls. It is because, as the noble Earl, Lord Russell, acknowledged, it is purely financial and is therefore subject to Commons privilege. However, the House of Lords will have its usual role in commenting upon and influencing the substantive legislation as it passes through the parliamentary process. There may well be other opportunities to discuss the underlying policy.
I hope that in the light of the assurances I have been able to give the noble Earl, he will feel that the concerns of his honourable friends in the other place have been addressed.
Earl Russell: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I understand the force of all the points she makes. I conceded from the outset that the clause meets a real need. I am satisfied by the safeguards which she offers which are carefully thought out and well considered.
I have a slight uneasy sense that people in the past have conceded such things for good reasons and with good safeguards. They have found that they have got on the slope which leads on downhill. But if that happens, I am fully satisfied it will not be by any intention of this Government who, I believe, have done their best. I am grateful for the assurance about the Select Committees. I only hope that the normal circumstances will be normal. So do we all. I withdraw my opposition to Clause 77.
Clause 77 agreed to.
11.15 p.m.
Clause 78 [Regulations and orders]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 143B:
Page 83, line 22, at end insert—
("() A statutory instrument containing an order under section 23(3) shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 78, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 79 agreed to.
Schedule 12 [Consequential amendments]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 144 to 152:
Page 142, leave out lines 14 to 16
Page 142, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 30 and insert—
("(a) make any one or more of the orders which it could make under Part II of the 1973 Act if a decree of divorce, a decree of nullity of marriage or a decree of judicial separation in respect of the marriage had been granted in England and Wales, that is to say—

(i) any order mentioned in section 23(1) of the 1973 Act (financial provision orders);

(ii) any order mentioned in section 24(1) of that Act (property adjustment orders);")

Page 142, line 37, leave out ("24C(5) and (6)") and insert ("24B(3) to (5)")
Page 142, line 38, at end insert ("and nullity);")
Page 142, leave out lines 39 and 40
Page 142, line 41, leave out ("section 24F") and insert ("section 24C")
Page 142, line 42, leave out ("section 24G") and insert ("section 24D")
Page 142, line 42, at end insert (", and
(c) at the end there is inserted—

"(1) section 40A (appeals relating to pension sharing orders which have taken effect)."").

Page 151, line 19, at end insert—
("Family Law Act 1996 (c. 27)
62A. The Family Law Act 1996 has effect subject to the following amendments.
62B.—(1) Schedule 2 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 2, for "section 21" there is substituted "sections 21 and 21A".
(3) In the section set out in that paragraph, for the sidenote there is substituted "Financial provision orders, property adjustment orders and pension sharing orders."
(4) In that section, in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subsection (2), there is inserted at the end ", other than one in the form of a pension arrangement (within the meaning of section 25D below)".
(5) In that section, after subsection (2) there is inserted—
"(3) For the purposes of this Act, a pension sharing order is an order which—

(a) provides that one party's—

(i) shareable rights under a specified pension arrangement, or

(ii) shareable state scheme rights,

be subject to pension sharing for the benefit of the other party, and

(b) specifies the percentage value to be transferred."

(6) In that section, subsections (3), (4) and (5) become (4), (5) and (6).
(7) In that section, after subsection (6) (new numbering) there is inserted—
"(7) In subsection (3)—

(a) the reference to shareable rights under a pension arrangement is to rights in relation to which pension sharing is available under Chapter I of Part IV of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, or under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation, and

(b) the reference to shareable state scheme rights is to rights in relation to which pension sharing is available under Chapter II of Part IV of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, or under corresponding Northern Ireland legislation."

(8) In that section, subsection (6) becomes subsection (8).
(9) After paragraph 6 there is inserted—
"Pension sharing orders: divorce and nullity
6A. For section 24B substitute—
"Pension sharing orders: divorce
24B.—(1) On an application made under this section, the court may at the appropriate time make one or more pension sharing orders.
(2) The "appropriate time" is any time—

(a) after a statement of marital breakdown has been received by the court and before any application for a divorce order or for a separation order is made to the court by reference to that statement;

(b) when an application for a divorce order has been made under section 3 of the 1996 Act and has not been withdrawn;

(c) when an application for a divorce order has been made under section 4 of the 1996 Act and has not been withdrawn;

(d) after a divorce order has been made.

(3) The court shall exercise its powers under this section, so far as is practicable, by making on one occasion all such provision as can be made by way of one or more pension sharing orders in relation to the marriage as it thinks fit.
(4) This section is to be read subject to any restrictions imposed by this Act and to section 19 of the 1996 Act.
Restrictions affecting section 24B.
24BA.—(1) No pension sharing order may be made under section 24B above so as to take effect before the making of a divorce order in relation to the marriage.
(2) The court may not make a pension sharing order under section 24B above at any time while the period for reflection and consideration is interrupted under section 7(8) of the 1996 Act.
(3) No pension sharing order may be made under section 24B above by virtue of a statement of marital breakdown if, by virtue of section 5(3) or 7(9) of the 1996 Act (lapse of divorce process), it has ceased to be possible—

(a) for an application to be made by reference to that statement; or

(b) for an order to be made on such an application.

(4) No pension sharing order may be made under section 24B above after a divorce order has been made, except—

(a) in response to an application made before the divorce order was made: or

(b) on a subsequent application made with the leave of the court.

(5) A pension sharing order under section 24B above may not be made in relation to a pension arrangement which—

(a) is the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the marriage, or

(b) has been the subject of pension sharing between the parties to the marriage.

(6) A pension sharing order under section 24B above may not be made in relation to shareable state scheme rights if—

(a) such rights are the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the marriage, or

(b) such rights have been the subject of pension sharing between the parties to the marriage.

(7) A pension sharing order under section 24B above may not be made in relation to the rights of a person under a pension arrangement if there is in force a requirement imposed by virtue of section 25B or 25C below which relates to benefits or future benefits to which he is entitled under the pension arrangement.
(8) In this section, "period for reflection and consideration" means the period fixed by section 7 of the 1996 Act.
Pension sharing orders: nullity of marriage.
24BB.—(1) On or after granting a decree of nullity of marriage (whether before or after the decree is made absolute), the court may, on an application made under this section, make one or more pension sharing orders in relation to the marriage.
(2) The court shall exercise its powers under this section, so far as is practicable, by making on one occasion all such provision as can be made by way of one or more pension sharing orders in relation to the marriage as it thinks fit.
(3) Where a pension sharing order is made under this section on or after the granting of a decree of nullity of marriage, the order is not to take effect unless the decree has been made absolute.
(4) This section is to he read subject to any restrictions imposed by this Act.
Restrictions affecting section 24BB.
24BC.—(1) A pension sharing order under section 24BB above may not be made in relation to a pension arrangement which—

(a) is the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the marriage, or

(b) has been the subject of pension sharing between the parties to the marriage.

(2) A pension sharing order under section 24BB above may not be made in relation to shareable state scheme rights if—

(a) such rights are the subject of a pension sharing order in relation to the marriage, or

(b) such rights have been the subject of pension sharing between the parties to the marriage.

(3) A pension sharing order under section 24BB above may not be made in relation to the rights of a person under a pension arrangement if there is in force a requirement imposed by virtue of section 25B or 25C below which relates to benefits or future benefits to which he is entitled under the pension arrangement."
62C.—(1) Schedule 8 is amended as follows.
(2) In paragraph 9—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2)—

(i) for "or 24A" there is substituted ", 24A or 24B", and

(ii) for "to 24A" there is substituted "to 24BB", and

(b) in sub-paragraph (3), after paragraph (a) there is inserted—

"(aa) for "or 24B" substitute ", 24B or 24BB";".
(3) In paragraph 10, in sub-paragraph (2), for "24A" there is substituted "24BB".
(4) For paragraph 11 there is substituted—
"11. In each of sections 25B(3) and 25C(1) and (3), for "section 23" substitute "section 22A or 23".
11A. In section 25D—

(a) in each of subsections (1)(a), (2)(a) and (ab) and (2C)(c)(i), for "section 23" substitute "section 22A or 23", and

(b) in subsection (3), in the definition of "shareable state scheme rights", for "section 21A(1)" substitute "section 21(3)"."

(5) In paragraph 16, in sub-paragraph (2), at the end there is inserted—
"(f) after paragraph (f) there is inserted—
"(fa) a pension sharing order under section 24B which is made at a time when no divorce order has been made, and no separation order is in force, in relation to the marriage;"
(g) in paragraph (g), for "24B" substitute "24BB"."
(6) In that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) In subsection (4A), after "paragraph" insert "(de), (ea), (fa) or"."
(7) In that paragraph, in sub-paragraph (4), for the words from "subsection (4)" to the end of the first of the inserted subsections there is substituted "subsection (4A) insert-", the second of the inserted subsections is renumbered "(4AA)" and after that subsection there is inserted—
"(4AB) No variation of a pension sharing order under section 24B above shall be made so as to take effect before the making of a divorce order in relation to the marriage."
(8) In that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (4) there is inserted—
"(4A) In subsection (4B), after "order" insert "under section 24BB above"."
(9) In that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (7) there is inserted—
"(8) After subsection (7F) insert—
"(7FA) Section 24B(3) above applies where the court makes a pension sharing order under subsection (7B) above as it applies where the court makes such an order under section 24B above."
(9) In subsection (7G)—

(a) for "Subsections (3) to (5) of section 24B" substitute "Section 24BA(5) to (7)", and

(b) for "that section" substitute "section 24B above"."

(10) After that paragraph there is inserted—
"16A. After section 31A insert—
"Discharge of pension sharing orders on making of separation order.
31B. Where, after the making of a pension sharing order under section 24B above in relation to a marriage, a separation order is made in relation to the marriage, the pension sharing order is discharged.""
(11) In paragraph 19, in sub-paragraph (3)—

(a) after "24A" there is inserted ", 24B", and

(b) after "property adjustment order," there is inserted "any pension sharing order,".

(12) In paragraph 21—

(a) after "24,", in the first place, there is inserted "24B,", and

(b) for "24,", in the second place, there is substituted "24BB,".

(13) After paragraph 25 there is inserted—
"25A. In section 52(2)(aa), for "section 21A" substitute "section 21"."
(14) In paragraph 32, in sub-paragraph (2), for the words from "the words" to the end there is substituted "paragraph (a) substitute—
"(a) make one or more orders each of which would, within the meaning of Part II of the 1973 Act, be a financial provision order in favour of a party to the marriage or a child of the family or a property adjustment order in relation to the marriage.".
(15) In that paragraph, in sub-paragraph (3), for "21(a)" there is substituted "21(1)(a)".
(16) In that paragraph, after sub-paragraph (3) there is inserted—"
(3A) For section 21(1)(ba) substitute—
"(ba) sections 24BA(5) to (7) (provisions about pension sharing orders in relation to divorce);
(baa) section 24BC(1) to (3) (provisions about pension sharing orders in relation to nullity);".
(3B) In section 21(3), for "section 23" substitute "section 22A or 23."").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No 152A:
Page 151, line 21, at end insert—
("Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 (c. 66)
62D. The Bankruptcy (Scotland) Act 1985 has effect subject to the following amendments.
62E. In section 35(1), in paragraph (a) for "under the said section 8(2) for the transfer of property by him" substitute "a court has, under the said section 8(2), made an order for the transfer of property by him or made a pension sharing order".
62F. After section 36C there is inserted—
"Recovery of excessive contributions in pension-sharing cases.
36D.—(1) For the purposes of section 34 of this Act, a pension-sharing transaction shall be taken—

(a) to be a transaction, entered into by the transferor with the transferee, by which the appropriate amount is transferred by the transferor to the transferee; and

(b) to be capable of being an alienation challengeable under that section only so far as it is a transfer of so much of the appropriate amount as represents excessive contributions.

(2) For the purposes of section 35 of this Act, a pension-sharing transaction shall be taken—

(a) to be a pension sharing order made by the court under section 8(2) of the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985; and

(b) to be an order capable of being recalled under that section only so far as it is a payment or transfer of so much of the appropriate amount as represents excessive contributions.

(3) For the purposes of section 36 of this Act, a pension-sharing transaction shall be taken—

(a) to be something (namely a transfer of the appropriate amount to the transferee) done by the transferor; and

(b) to be capable of being an unfair preference given to the transferee only so far as it is a transfer of so much of the appropriate amount as represents excessive contributions.

(4) Where—

(a) an alienation is challenged under section 34;

(b) an application is made under section 35 for the recall of an order made in divorce proceedings; or

(c) a transaction is challenged under section 36,

if any question arises as to whether, or the extent to which, the appropriate amount in the case of a pension-sharing transaction
950
represents excessive contributions, the question shall be determined in accordance with subsections (5) to (9).
(5) The court shall first determine the extent (if any) to which the transferor's rights under the shared arrangement at the time of the transaction appear to have been (whether directly or indirectly) the fruits of contributions ("personal contributions")—

(a) which the transferor has at any time made on his own behalf, or

(b) which have at any time been made on the transferor's behalf,

to the shared arrangement or any other pension arrangement.
(6) Where it appears that those rights were to any extent the fruits of personal contributions, the court shall then determine the extent (if any) to which those rights appear to have been the fruits of personal contributions whose making has unfairly prejudiced the transferor's creditors ("unfair contributions").
(7) If it appears to the court that the extent to which those rights were the fruits of unfair contributions is such that the transfer of the appropriate amount could have been made out of rights under the shared arrangement which were not the fruits of unfair contributions, then the appropriate amount does not represent excessive contributions.
(8) If it appears to the court that the transfer could not have been wholly so made, then the appropriate amount represents excessive contributions to the extent to which it appears to the court that the transfer could not have been so made.
(9) In making the determination mentioned in subsection (6) the court shall consider in particular—

(a) whether any of the personal contributions were made for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of the transferor's creditors or any of them; and

(b) whether the total amount of any personal contributions represented, at the time the pension sharing arrangement was made, by rights under pension arrangements is an amount which is excessive in view of the transferor's circumstances when those contributions were made.

(10) In this section and sections 36E and 36F—
"appropriate amount", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the appropriate amount in relation to that transaction for the purposes of section 25(1) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (creation of pension credits and debits);
"excessive contributions" shall be construed in accordance with subsection (2)(b) of section 36A of this Act;
"pension-sharing transaction" means an order or provision falling within section 24(1) of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (orders and agreements which activate pension-sharing);
"shared arrangement", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the pension arrangement to which the transaction relates;
"transferee", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the person for whose benefit the transaction is made;
"transferor", in relation to a pension-sharing transaction, means the person to whose rights the transaction relates.
Recovery orders.
36E.—(1) In this section and section 36F of this Act, "recovery order" means—

(a) a decree granted under section 34(4) of this Act;

(b) an order made under section 35(2) of this Act;

(c) a decree granted under section 36(5) of this Act,

in any proceedings to which section 36D of this Act applies.
(2) Without prejudice to the generality of section 34(4), 35(2) or 36(5) a recovery order may include provision—

(a) requiring the person responsible for a pension arrangement in which the transferee has acquired rights derived directly or indirectly from the pension-sharing transaction to pay an amount to the permanent trustee on the debtor's estate,

(b) adjusting the liabilities of the pension arrangement in respect of the debtor,

(c) adjusting any liabilities of the pension arrangement in respect of any other person that derive, directly or indirectly, from rights of the debtor under the arrangement,

(d) for the recovery by the person responsible for the pension arrangement (whether by deduction from any amount which that person is ordered to pay or otherwise) of costs incurred by that person in complying in the debtor's case with any requirement under section 36C(1) or in giving effect to the order.

(3) In subsection (2), references to adjusting the liabilities of a pension arrangement in respect of a person include (in particular) reducing the amount of any benefit or future benefit to which that person is entitled under the arrangement.
(4) The maximum amount which the person responsible for an arrangement may be required to pay by a recovery order is the lesser of—

(a) so much of the appropriate amount as, in accordance with section 36D of this Act, represents the excessive contributions, and

(b) the value of the debtor's rights under the arrangement acquired by the transferee as a consequence of the transfer of the appropriate amount.

(5) A recovery order which requires the person responsible for an arrangement to pay an amount ("the restoration amount") to the permanent trustee on the debtor's estate must provide for the liabilities of the arrangement to be correspondingly reduced.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), liabilities are correspondingly reduced if the difference between—

(a) the amount of the liabilities immediately before the reduction, and

(b) the amount of the liabilities immediately after the reduction,

is equal to the restoration amount.
(7) A recovery order in respect of an arrangement—

(a) shall be binding on the person responsible for the arrangement, and

(b) overrides provisions of the arrangement to the extent that they conflict with the provisions of the order.

Recovery orders: supplementary.
36F.—(1) The person responsible for a pension arrangement under which the transferee has, at any time, acquired rights by virtue of the transfer of the appropriate amount shall, on the permanent trustee of the debtor's estate making a written request, provide the trustee with such information about the arrangement and the rights under it of the transferor and transferee as the permanent trustee may reasonably require for, or in connection with, the making of an application for a recovery order.
(2) Nothing in—

(a) any provision of section 159 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 or section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995 (which prevent assignation and the making of orders which restrain a person from receiving anything which he is prevented from assigning),

(b) any provision of any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the passing of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999) corresponding to any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(c) any provision of the arrangement in question corresponding to any of those provisions,

applies to a court exercising its power to make a recovery order.
(3) Regulations may, for the purposes of the recovery provisions, make provision about the calculation and verification of—

(a) any such value as is mentioned in section 36E(4)(b);

(b) any such amounts as are mentioned in section 36E(6)(a) and (b).

(4) The power conferred by subsection (3) includes power to provide for calculation or verification—

(a) in such manner as may, in the particular case, be approved by a prescribed person; or

(b) in accordance with guidance—

(i) from time to time prepared by a prescribed person, and

(ii) approved by the Secretary of State.

(5) References in the recovery provisions to the person responsible for a pension arrangement are to—

(a) the trustees, managers or provider of the arrangement, or

(b) the person having functions in relation to the arrangement corresponding to those of a trustee, manager or provider.

(6) In this section—
"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;
"the recovery provisions" means this section and sections 34, 35, 36 and 36E of this Act;
"regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State.
(7) Regulations under the recovery provisions may—

(a) make different provision for different cases;

(b) contain such incidental, supplemental and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient.

(8) Regulations under the recovery provisions shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." ").
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 152A, 152B, 152C and 152D make further necessary additions to our measures on the protection of pensions on bankruptcy. All the provisions apply to cases in which the court has ordered recovery of excessive contributions from a bankrupt's pension rights, but where some of the rights have been split on divorce. They supplement the provisions in Clauses 15 and 16.
The purpose is twofold. The first is to make it clear in the provisions covering England and Wales that the procedures that apply when recovering excessive contributions from a bankrupt's pension will also apply when recovery is being made from the arrangement in which a former spouse's pension share rights are held. The second is to introduce equivalent provisions for Scotland. They are technical amendments that clarify existing provisions in the Bill and introduce equivalent provisions in Scotland and I commend them to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: The House will be grateful to the Minister for explaining the Government's thinking behind the amendments. We shall not oppose them because we see merit in protecting creditors from gratuitous alienations and unfair preferences that may be made through the pension-sharing provisions.
However, we have concerns about potential devolution issues and the drafting of a number of terms in the amendments. Part II of Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act 1998 stipulates in Sections C2 and F3 that insolvency and occupational and personal pension matters are reserved to the Westminster Parliament. However, the amendments relate directly to the Family Law (Scotland) Act 1985. Family law is a devolved competence.
The First Minister made a statement to the Scottish Parliament on the subject on 9 June, but he will not give the Scottish Parliament the opportunity to debate the issues, which are fully within its competence. Is it not ironic that the Government, who introduced devolution with such great enthusiasm, are failing to allow the Scottish Parliament to exercise its full powers for fear that they will not have a majority? Do the Government accept that they should proceed with great caution until interested parties in Scotland have had an opportunity to debate the issue? Surely the views of the Scottish Parliament should be sought before action is taken.
There may be a good reason in this case, but what about the future, when the Government want to make legislative changes for Scotland in which devolved and reserved matters are inextricably linked? How will that be done? Will the Scottish Parliament always be consulted, and if so, how? What if the Parliament refuses to make the change? Will Westminster overrule it, as the Scotland Act permits? Those are important questions, but I do not expect an answer from the Minister tonight. However, I should be grateful if he would write to me.
954
The phrase "fruits of contributions" is used in Section 36D(5) and (6) in Amendment No. 152A in conjunction with the words "directly" or "indirectly". I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify those terms.
It is not apparent at what stage the Government envisage that contributions will be so far removed from the original excessive contribution as to be exempt from the terms of this provision. Could the Government clarify whether, for example, interest paid on the fund and accruals to the capital will come within the ambit of this clause.
This problem is also apparent in new Section 36E(2)(a) which refers to rights which a transferee can acquire directly or indirectly from the pension sharing transaction. New Section 36D(5) also makes reference to contributions which have at any time been made on the transferor's behalf. Could the Minister confirm if the Government are referring in this clause to contributions made by an employer on an employee's behalf and whether this would also cover a windfall situation?
Reference is made in new Sections 36F(4) and 342F(7) to a prescribed person. New Sections 36F(6) and 342F(9) both state that prescribed means "prescribed by regulations". The prescribed person will have an important role in the calculation or verification of the amount to be paid under a recovery order. It is imperative therefore that the qualifications of such a person are stipulated in statute and not left to secondary legislation to be further described. We believe that a precise definition of who the Government envisage fulfilling the task of the prescribed person should be set out in the Bill. I would be grateful if the Minister could comment on this point.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for the consideration he has given to these amendments. He certainly raises some important points. I may be able to respond to some of them but, as he so kindly offered, I will certainly write to him about those which I am not able to cover.
On the first question about devolution, he suggested that, since it amends Scottish law—the Family Law Act—it should be for the Scottish Parliament to legislate. We have considered the matter very carefully with the Scottish Office and have concluded that because these clauses are about insolvency and occupational and personal pensions rather than about family law, although they go into the Family Law Act, they are reserved matters under Section 29(4) of the Scotland Act, and therefore they would not be for the Scottish Parliament. It is important, if we are providing a level playing field in the treatment of pensions north and south of the Border. to make the provisions in this Bill.
The noble Lord asked about what was meant by the fruits of contributions, both directly or indirectly. Direct or indirect contributions mean contributions made by the individual or on his behalf out of moneys due to him. The fruits of these contributions are the benefits which accrue—for example, the investment growth or the returns. It is right that there should be no benefit to the

955
bankrupt from attempting to keep assets out of the hands of creditors, so it is made by the individual on his behalf. I shall have to write to him about employer's contributions.
He asked me about prescribed persons and ensuring that the prescribed person had a suitable qualification. The valuation of pension rights is usually undertaken by an actuary using guidance provided by the Faculty and Institute of Actuaries and approved by the Secretary of State. This is the approach which we have taken in these provisions. As with previous legislation, it would not be appropriate to set this out on the face of the Bill. However, the noble Lord can be assured that the appropriate qualifications will be available to prescribed persons and the regulations will be written in that sense.
I appreciate that there are other points, but I will write to the noble Lord about them. I beg to move.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the Minister for the care with which he gave that answer which is extremely reassuring. Anomalies do not worry me; lack of consultation would do so. I am extremely glad that the Government have taken care to satisfy themselves that these are not in fact devolved matters. What I would be glad to hear, and what I will assume to be the case unless I am told that it is not, is that that view is shared by Scottish Ministers and officers of the Scottish Parliament. The key maxim in this situation must continue to be "only connect." So long as these matters are discussed privately before they reach this Chamber, I think that we will get on all right.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I have to remind the noble Earl that E. M. Forster was English, not Scots. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, quoted the First Minister as saying that these matters would not be considered by the Scottish Parliament. If that is not satisfactory for the noble Earl, I shall consider writing to him about it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11.30 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 152B to 152D:
Page 152, line 24, leave out ("the matters specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of section 342A(6)") and insert—
("(a) whether any of the personal contributions were made for the purpose of putting assets beyond the reach of the transferor's creditors or any of them, and
(b) whether the total amount of any personal contributions represented, at the time the pension-sharing transaction was made, by rights under pension arrangements is an amount which is excessive in view of the transferor's circumstances when those contributions were made.")
Page 152, line 26, at end insert ("and sections 342E and 342F")
Page 152, line 44, at end insert—
("Orders under section 339 or 340 in respect of pension-sharing transactions.
342E.—(1) This section and section 342F apply if the court is making an order under section 339 or 340 in a case where—

(a) the transaction or preference is, or is any part of, a pension-sharing transaction, and

(b) the transferee has rights under a pension arrangement ("the destination arrangement", which may be the
956
shared arrangement or any other pension arrangement) that are derived, directly or indirectly, from the pension-sharing transaction.

(2) Without prejudice to the generality of section 339(2) or 340(2), or of section 342, the order may include provision—

(a) requiring the person responsible for the destination arrangement to pay an amount to the transferor's trustee in bankruptcy,

(b) adjusting the liabilities of the destination arrangement in respect of the transferee,

(c) adjusting any liabilities of the destination arrangement in respect of any other person that derive, directly or indirectly, from rights of the transferee under the destination arrangement,

(d) for the recovery by the person responsible for the destination arrangement (whether by deduction from any amount which that person is ordered to pay or otherwise) of costs incurred by that person in complying in the transferor's case with any requirement under section 342F(1) or in giving effect to the order,

(e) for the recovery, from the transferor's trustee in bankruptcy, by the person responsible for a pension arrangement, of costs incurred by that person in complying in the transferor's case with any requirement under section 342F(2) or (3).

(3) In subsection (2), references to adjusting the liabilities of the destination arrangement in respect of a person include (in particular) reducing the amount of any benefit or future benefit to which that person is entitled under the arrangement.
(4) The maximum amount which the person responsible for the destination arrangement may be required to pay by the order is the lesser of—

(a) so much of the appropriate amount as, in accordance with section 342D, represents excessive contributions, and

(b) the value of the transferee's rights under the destination arrangement so far as they are derived, directly or indirectly, from the pension-sharing transaction.

(5) If the order requires the person responsible for the destination arrangement to pay an amount ("the restoration amount") to the transferor's trustee in bankruptcy it must provide for the liabilities of the arrangement to be correspondingly reduced.
(6) For the purposes of subsection (5), liabilities are correspondingly reduced if the difference between—

(a) the amount of the liabilities immediately before the reduction, and

(b) the amount of the liabilities immediately after the reduction,

is equal to the restoration amount.
(7) The order—

(a) shall be binding on the person responsible for the destination arrangement, and

(b) overrides provisions of the destination arrangement to the extent that they conflict with the provisions of the order.

Orders under section 339 or 340 in pension-sharing cases: supplementary.
342F.—(1) On the transferor's trustee in bankruptcy making a written request to the person responsible for the destination arrangement, that person shall provide the trustee with such information about—

(a) the arrangement,

(b) the transferee's rights under it, and

(c) where the destination arrangement is the shared arrangement, the transferor's rights under it,

as the trustee may reasonably require for, or in connection with, the making of applications under sections 339 and 340.
(2) Where the shared arrangement is not the destination arrangement, the person responsible for the shared arrangement shall, on the transferor's trustee in bankruptcy making a written request to that person, provide the trustee with such information about—

(a) the arrangement, and

(b) the transferor's rights under it,

as the trustee may reasonably require for, or in connection with, the making of applications under sections 339 and 340.
(3) On the transferor's trustee in bankruptcy making a written request to the person responsible for any intermediate arrangement, that person shall provide the trustee with such information about—

(a) the arrangement, and

(b) the transferee's rights under it,

as the trustee may reasonably require for, or in connection with, the making of applications under sections 339 and 340.
(4) In subsection (3) "intermediate arrangement" means a pension arrangement, other than the shared arrangement or the destination arrangement, in relation to which the following conditions are fulfilled—

(a) there was a time when the transferee had rights under the arrangement that were derived (directly or indirectly) from the pension-sharing transaction, and

(b) the transferee's rights under the destination arrangement (so far as derived from the pension-sharing transaction) are to any extent derived (directly or indirectly) from the rights mentioned in paragraph (a).

(5) Nothing in—

(a) any provision of section 159 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 or section 91 of the Pensions Act 1995 (which prevent assignment and the making of orders which restrain a person from receiving anything which he is prevented from assigning),

(b) any provision of any enactment (whether passed or made before or after the passing of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999) corresponding to any of the provisions mentioned in paragraph (a), or

(c) any provision of the destination arrangement corresponding to any of those provisions,

applies to a court exercising its powers under section 339 or 340.
(6) Regulations may, for the purposes of sections 339 to 342, sections 342D and 342E and this section, make provision about the calculation and verification of—

(a) any such value as is mentioned in section 342E(4)(b);

(b) any such amounts as are mentioned in section 342E(6)(a) and (b).

(7) The power conferred by subsection (6) includes power to provide for calculation or verification—

(a) in such manner as may, in the particular case, be approved by a prescribed person; or

(b) in accordance with guidance—

(i) from time to time prepared by a prescribed person, and

(ii) approved by the Secretary of State.

(8) In section 342E and this section, references to the person responsible for a pension arrangement are to—

(a) the trustees, managers or provider of the arrangement, or

(b) the person having functions in relation to the arrangement corresponding to those of a trustee, manager or provider.

(9) In this section—

"prescribed" means prescribed by regulations;

"regulations" means regulations made by the Secretary of State.

(10) Regulations under this section may—

(a) make different provision for different cases;

(b) contain such incidental, supplemental and transitional provisions as appear to the Secretary of State necessary or expedient.

(11) Regulations under this section shall be made by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament." ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 80 [Transitional provisions]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 153 to 155:
Page 85, line 4, leave out subsections (3) to (5)
Page 85, line 17, leave out ("24D") and insert ("24B")
Page 85, line 18, leave out ("of nullity")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 156:
Page 85, line 19, leave out from ("before") to end of line 20 and insert ("1st January 2000.")
The noble Lord said: I am fairly certain that this amendment has not been debated. In view of the lateness of the hour and the fact that no doubt the Minister will not have been briefed on the amendment, I shall not move it tonight. However, it is likely that I shall raise the matter at Report stage.
[Amendment No. 156 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 157 to 159:
Page 85, line 21, leave out subsection (7)
Page 85, line 24, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
("(8) Paragraph 3 of Schedule 3 does not have effect if the proceedings in which the decree is granted were begun before the day on which section 19 comes into force.")
Page 85, line 43, leave out subsection (12)
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 80, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 81 and 82 agreed to.
Schedule 13 [Repeals]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 159A to 159H:
Page 159, line 28, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In section 8(3), the words ", subject to section 21(4) below,".")

Page 159, line 41, column 3, at end insert ("4(6),")
Page 160, line 10, column 3, at end insert—

("Section 145(1)(a)(i) and (ii).")

Page 160, line 22, column 3, at beginning insert—

("In Article 9(3), the words ", subject to Article 21(4),".")

Page 160, line 29, column 3, leave out ("and 24(3)") and insert (", 24(3), 33(5) and 75(3)")
Page 160, line 31, column 3, leave out ("and 38(4) and (5)") and insert (", 38(4) and (5) and 49(3)")
Page 160, line 31, column 3, at end insert—

("In Schedule 5, paragraph 2(2).")

Page 160, line 33, at end insert—

("1999 c. 10.

Tax Credits 1999 Act

In Schedule 2, paragraph 34.

In Schedule 6, the entry relating to the Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992.")

The noble Lord said: These amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 143AD. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 83 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 160 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 161 and 162:
Page 86, line 18, after ("5") insert ("and 62A to 62C")
Page 86, leave out line 19 and insert—
("(c) section 80(6) and (8); and")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment. No. 162YA:
Page 86, line 23, at end insert—
("() Sections 68 to 73 shall not come into effect until such day (not earlier than 6th April 2000) as the Treasury may by order appoint.")
The noble Lord said: This is an example of my wish always to be of help to the Government in the drafting of their legislation. It seems to me odd that Clauses 68 to 73 are Treasury clauses. There are powers to make regulations under them which are made by the Treasury. However, as far as concerns the commencement power, the power to make a commencement order is given to the Secretary of State by Clause 83. It seems to me that a commencement order in respect of these clauses should be made by the Treasury. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I suspect that the noble Lord has identified a technical issue relating to the drafting of Clause 83, which contains no specific provision to bring the NICs measures into effect. Therefore, by default it is taken to be the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Social Security to make the necessary commencement order. However, as the noble Lord made clear, responsibility for national insurance policy was transferred to the Treasury and Inland Revenue in April by the Social Security Contributions (Transfer of Functions, Etc) Act 1999. I had better take this matter away for further consideration. If an amendment is necessary, we shall table it at a later stage. Any such amendment would have to be drafted by parliamentary counsel.
Lord Goodhart: In that case, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 162ZA:
Page 86, line 25, at end insert—
("() sections 49, 50(1), 50(2) (except for sections 39B(3) and 39B(4)(b) of the Contributions and Benefits Act contained therein) and section 51;")
The noble Lord said: It is perhaps a shame that we mentioned the previous matter. I deal with Amendment No. 162ZA briefly but it is a not unimportant point. I am aware that the Child Poverty Action Group in particular is concerned about this matter. The wording of the amendment is rather obscure. Effectively, it seeks to bring forward the date when widowers receive the new pension which the Government have conceded in the light of the case before the European Court of Human Rights. We propose that those people whose cases have been upheld by that Court should not have to wait until 2001 before they receive assistance. Various cases have been brought to my attention in which people may suffer hardship as a result of delay.
I understand that one of the reasons for the delay is problems with computers. The more I hear about the department's computers, the more concerned I become. Only this morning, representations were made to me that people who had deferred their entitlement to the state pension had been told that the Government hoped to pay them by next November. Perhaps we should have a debate soon about the department's computers, which

961
are giving grave cause for concern. At all events, one would have thought that in the context of this amendment payments could be made manually. We hope that such payments will be made. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This amendment would bring forward implementation of the new bereavement benefit scheme to the date when the Act was passed but delay one element of it; namely, the 26-week time limit for the payment of bereavement allowance. I am a little surprised that the noble Lord tables this amendment now, given the very thorough discussions held earlier. However, I sympathise with his intention that, because the current scheme of widows' benefits discriminates against men, it should be changed as soon as possible.
On the other hand, it would not be possible for the Benefits Agency to implement any part of the new scheme before April 2001. Once the parliamentary process is completed, the changes require extensive modifications to our computer systems, as the noble Lord so shrewdly—and, I fear, the second House repeatedly—anticipated. We are not able to begin spending money on the development of these computer systems until the Act receives Royal Assent. The Benefits Agency will also need time to ensure that staff are fully trained. This means that inevitably there will be a time lag between Royal Assent and implementation of the proposals.
I do not believe that I need go into the details of the proposals. Given that it is simply not possible to introduce the new scheme, or some parts of it, as soon as the Bill receives Royal Assent, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment. I could describe what we are doing, but I am sure that the noble Lord does not want me to describe again the policy intention; certainly, the Opposition Chief Whip urges me not to do so. In the light of that, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment. We cannot do it even if we wanted to. Therefore, the amendment is not appropriate.
Lord Higgins: The noble Baroness said that the preparatory work to make provision for the computers in relation to this proposal, which we would like to see accelerated, could not be undertaken until the Bill received Royal Assent. Am I wrong in thinking that this kind of preparatory expenditure would be appropriately authorised once the Bill had a Second Reading in another place?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I should write to the noble Lord. I understand that some preparatory expenditure can follow Second Reading but the bulk that the noble Lord seeks cannot. It has to await Royal Assent to the Bill.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps the Minister will write to me. We are all interested in getting the matter moving. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 162A to 163A not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 163B:
Page 86, line 33, at end insert—
("() Part IV shall not come into force until a period of no less than one year after regulations to be made under that Part have been published in draft by the Secretary of State for consultation.")
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 163C.
Two weeks ago we debated Amendment No. 70A. We on these Benches and the insurance industry accept that the Government have made the provisions in Part IV of the Bill overriding in some cases. However, the Minister confirmed that Part IV will not on the whole be overriding. In this context, it is vital for the insurance industry to have clarification of the point encompassed by the amendment, which is intended to ensure that if the legislation is not wholly overriding trustees of pension schemes will need to be given adequate time to implement the detailed changes to be included in regulations.
The insurance industry is hoping that at least a year must be allowed between draft regulations being made available and the provisions of Part IV coming into force. The provisions on pension sharing contained in Clauses 23 to 47 are technically complicated. It will fall to pension scheme trustees to ensure that all the necessary changes are made to their schemes. Life insurance companies must be given sufficient time to make the substantial computer system and administrative changes which will be needed. This is a considerable burden. Trustees could be placed in the unenviable position of not being able to implement pension sharing orders because they have not had time to amend the scheme rules permitted, but facing a possible penalty from OPRA if they do not.
As the provisions will not be made wholly overriding, the insurance industry estimates that it will take at least one year, and perhaps realistically 18 months, from regulations being made assuming that it had had a few months prior to that to see proposals in draft to implement the necessary changes.
Will the Minister confirm that the insurance industry will be given at least a year in which to implement the detailed changes? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am happy that the noble Lord puts forward this probing amendment so that we can make our position clear to the industry.
The amendments are concerned with the timing of the introduction of the pension sharing Bill. The Government's thinking is very much in line with the spirit of the amendment, which I assume is essentially a probing amendment about the implementation date for pension sharing. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that it is extremely important to give the pensions industry and family lawyers adequate time to prepare for implementation. In fact we aim to give everyone about a year to prepare from the date on which the regulations—there will probably be over 100 of them: so it is a complicated matter—are laid. So assuming implementation by the end of the year 2000, we shall aim to consult on draft regulations this autumn and lay the regulations around the end of the year.

963
That is our aim. It represents a challenging timetable. We recognise that it is important to allow practitioners adequate time to prepare for implementation. Before we make the final decisions on the precise start date for pension sharing we need to be aware of all the factors involved. On that basis, we believe that it would be unnecessarily restrictive to insert the proposed amendment into primary legislation.
I do not believe that there is a case for delaying the introduction of pension sharing. On the contrary, people outside are pressing us to speed the matter up. We are determined to see the project through. I am sure we shall have the support of the whole House in doing so. I hope that we shall have the implementation during the lifetime of this Parliament. Our aim certainly is to implement it by around the end of 2000 which would give the industry the year's approach that the noble Lord requested. In the light of what I have said, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
11.45 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for that reply. She is right that the amendment is a probing
964
amendment. In the light of what she has said about the industry having at least a year, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 163C and 164 not moved.]
Clause 83, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 84 [Extent]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 165 to 170:
Page 87, line 3, after ("5") insert (", 62A to 62C")
Page 87, leave out line 5 and insert—
("(e) section 80(6) and (8).")
Page 87, line 10, after ("13") insert ("and 62D to 62F")
Page 87, line 25, leave out ("26,") and insert ("26(b),")
Page 87, line 38, after ("25") insert ("and 26(a)")
Page 88, line 5, leave out ("15,") and insert ("15C,")
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 84, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 85 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.
House adjourned at thirteen minutes before midnight.

  French Wines: Control of Impurities
  French Wines: Control of Impurities
  Finance Bill: Human Rights Convention Compatibility
  Finance Bill: Human Rights Convention Compatibility
  PFI Projects: Private Sector Capital Spending
  PFI Projects: Private Sector Capital Spending
  Appellate Committee Hearings: Induction Loop Provision
  Appellate Committee Hearings: Induction Loop Provision
  Devolved Assemblies: Electronic Voting
  Devolved Assemblies: Electronic Voting
  National Attack Warning System
  National Attack Warning System
  NATO and the KLA
  NATO and the KLA
  Contingency Fees in Employment Tribunals
  Contingency Fees in Employment Tribunals
  Human Cloning: Expert Advisory Group
  Human Cloning: Expert Advisory Group
  Consultant Obstetricians in the NHS
  Consultant Obstetricians in the NHS
  Midwives in the NHS
  Midwives in the NHS