Sitting of 14 June 1999

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

    Europol
    Shona McIsaac: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Europol in combating organised crime. [85564]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): Europol is already providing valuable support to member states in their efforts to tackle organised crime. Its role will become even more important when it takes up its full range of activities, which we hope will be on 1 July.
    Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will she explain the particular role that Europol will play in the fight against drug trafficking? Does she acknowledge that we need the co-operation of European Union member states if we are to be successful in that fight against drugs, and that we shall never be successful if we go it alone?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The fight against organised criminals who trade in drugs is an
    2
    extremely important task for Europol, as it was for Europol's precursor, the Europol drugs unit. Recently, there have been some very successful operations in which, as a result of intelligence from the Europol liaison officers, about 207 kg of cocaine was seized in Spain. Europol will be able to do a most important job, which will mean that our streets will be safer and that fewer people will suffer as a result of drugs going into our constituencies.
    Mr. John Greenway: Chastened by her party's drubbing in the European elections, when people voted to be in Europe, not run by Europe, does the hon. Lady acknowledge the constructive role of the previous Conservative Government in the creation of Europol, and that the success to which she has just referred is based on co-operation between member Governments? Is it not true that the worst possible development for Europol would be to bring it and the criminal justice system into the competence of the European Commission—a discredited commission that cannot even deal with fraud in its own affairs?
    Kate Hoey: It is correct that the previous Government played a most important role in the setting up of Europol, as the hon. Gentleman points out. The United Kingdom was the first country to sign the Europol convention. We are absolutely clear that Europol's powers will be operative, not operational; its staff will not have powers to arrest people or to initiate investigations independently, nor will they operate in the territory of member states, except in a support capacity. In view of that, we can all support the work that Europol will do to make our country safer from criminals—particularly from organised criminals.

    Identity Cards
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards the use of identity cards. [85565]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I see no arguments to convince me in favour of compulsory identity cards whereby a failure to carry a card in a public place would become a criminal offence. Subject to that caveat, we keep under review the balance of advantages and disadvantages that national identity cards could bring.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend will know that there is wide support among the general public not only for the introduction of compulsory cards, but for voluntary cards to be used as an interim measure. Why does he not now put that matter out for national consultation, through our access to local authorities, to the police and to Departments of State and also by using focus groups, in order to establish the demand and with a view to the early introduction of that excellent system?
    Mr. Straw: Experience in other countries, particularly in Australia, shows that, although the public concerned may, in theory, be in favour of a compulsory card, when they are faced with the consequences of compulsion—namely, that it becomes a criminal offence not to have a card with them—there is immediately the potential for substantial and gratuitous conflict between the police and individual members of the public whose crime has been to forget their wallet. At that point, support for a compulsory card tends to wither away rather rapidly. I am open to argument over the matter, but I see no argument whatever that would convince me in favour of such compulsory cards. I fully understand the arguments in favour of voluntary identity cards; such cards are different and all of us carry a large number of what amount to voluntary identity cards. There is a case for bringing together such cards, and we are considering it.
    Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire): Does the Home Secretary agree that the law-abiding have nothing to fear from the introduction of a national identity card? As he has expressed support for a voluntary identity card, why do the Government not get on with putting one into public use?
    Mr. Straw: I was making exactly the point that the law-abiding have nothing to fear from a voluntary card. However, I believe that they would find it rather oppressive if, simply as a result of forgetting their wallet, they were faced with the fact that they had committed a criminal offence. The police were hardly in favour of the idea of such compulsion when the matter was raised by the previous Government. As for the hon. Gentleman's encouragement to me to get on with it, we are indeed considering the matter; we do not need many lectures from a supporter of the previous Government, who published a consultative document in 1995, but did nothing thereafter.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: Is my right hon. Friend aware that to focus on compulsion might be the wrong approach? Many people would like to have an identity card issued by the Government that authenticates one's age and identity—first, for the purposes of age identification and, secondly, to facilitate travel. People in the rest of Europe travel on ID cards without having to wait for a passport—something which many of my constituents tell me is a problem at the moment. Given
    4
    that 30-odd new Tory Europhobes are now to be going to and from Europe, would it not be helpful, before they go native, to give them an ID card to remind them that they are still British?
    Mr. Straw: Yes—and we would make sure that it had the Union flag on it.
    Turning to the 99 per cent. of my hon. Friend's question that was serious, I think he is right to say that, in many ways, the debate about whether cards should be compulsory is a diversion. I see few merits in making failure to carry a card a criminal offence; if that is accepted, we can move on to a serious debate on the circumstances in which a general identity card could be introduced.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I welcome the Home Secretary's recognition that there are strong objections to making the rights of citizenship dependent on carrying a particular Government identity document, but does he also recognise the practical difficulties? Is the Government machine capable of issuing large numbers of identity cards, given that there are thousands of people queueing in the streets of Liverpool and tens of thousands who cannot obtain a passport in time to go away on holiday? What would such problems be like if they were all waiting for an identity card?
    Mr. Straw: Let me make it clear, as has the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), that I greatly regret the administrative problems that have arisen in respect of the issue of passports following the introduction of the new information technology contract. We are working hard to clear the backlog: many hundreds of thousands of passports have been issued, and the introduction of a fast track has been almost completely successful in ensuring that people receive their passports, if they put on the application form the date by which they have to travel.
    Mr. James Clappison: Is not the Home Secretary being somewhat complacent about the question of passports? Is not the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) right—uncharacteristically and in only one respect—to say that it would be a matter of concern if the Passport Agency were to be responsible for the administration of identity cards? Will the Home Secretary give a guarantee that people—especially the people of Liverpool—will not be put through the trauma and worry of waiting for their passports to be returned by that agency? Have not the Government managed to isolate British citizens who want to travel—isolate them from Europe and from anywhere else—through their incompetence in the administration of the system?
    Mr. Straw: No, I do not accept that. I am not in the least complacent about the problems that have arisen and there was no suggestion of complacency in my answer to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). I deeply regret the fact that the administrative problems have arisen, and we are doing all that we can to overcome them. Sadly, the introduction of large-scale IT contracts in both the public service and the private sector is all too frequently followed by such

    5
    administrative problems. The agency is recruiting 300 additional staff to reduce the arrears, and we hope to overcome the problems shortly.

    Crimestoppers
    Mr. Paul Goggins: What action he is taking to support Crimestoppers. [85568]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): We greatly appreciate the work of Crimestoppers, especially the way in which it allows the anonymous reporting of crime. Ministers attend Crimestoppers events to support its work whenever possible—indeed, I attended a national conference in Birmingham in November. We are holding discussions with Crimestoppers about ways in which we might work together and support it in its work.
    Mr. Goggins: In thanking my hon. Friend for his answer, may I point out that one in six of all the cases leading to arrest and charging carried out under the auspices of Crimestoppers have occurred in Greater Manchester? Does he agree that the two main reasons for that success are, first, the good quality of media coverage and, secondly, the high level of support from Greater Manchester police, which provides three full-time detectives as its contribution to Crimestoppers? Will he encourage other police forces to follow the example of Greater Manchester police? Will he consider the possibility of Home Office funding, both for joint projects with Crimestoppers, and to cover some of its core costs?
    Mr. Howarth: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Greater Manchester police on the work that they do in co-operation with Crimestoppers. That kind of partnership between different agencies and the police is important if we are to combat crime successfully. I understand that Crimestoppers has not yet made any specific formal request to the Home Office for direct funding, but obviously any such request will receive serious consideration. I remind my hon. Friend that we are discussing with Crimestoppers how we can support its work, which we take very seriously.

    Organised Crime (EU Enlargement)
    Caroline Flint: What plans he has to ensure that applicants to become European Union members meet the required standards in combating organised crime. [R][85569]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): The United Kingdom is doing its utmost to ensure that the applicant states meet the required standards laid down by the European Commission in the area of justice and home affairs matters. Measures to combat organised crime form a major part of those requirements. United Kingdom law enforcement agencies are playing a major role in providing training and assistance under the European Union twinning programme and other United Kingdom initiatives to help ensure that standards are met.
    Caroline Flint: As the Minister will be aware, organised crime knows no national boundaries. Will she
    6
    outline how training and assistance will be applied to ensure that there is proper adherence when countries become members of the European Union?
    Kate Hoey: The United Kingdom has been selected to lead four twinning projects on organised crime and related policing matters in Hungary, Slovakia, Romania and Poland and to participate in a fifth in the Czech Republic. That is a recognition of the United Kingdom's law enforcement capabilities and how good our law enforcement is. We will try to encourage EU applicant countries to examine their training and support systems and their accountability and, as my hon. Friend said, to consider the main benefits that will accrue from improving law enforcement agent capabilities through nations joining to fight organised crime effectively as a partnership.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: Will the Minister assure the House that the Government will resist extending corpus juris—which is alien to the concept of habeas corpus—to the justice systems either of EU applicant countries, as a condition of membership, or of existing member countries?
    Kate Hoey: Yes, the hon. Gentleman has my full assurance.

    Licensing Laws
    Mr. Brian Jenkins: What discussions he has had with the parliamentary beer club about its research into licensing laws. [85570]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): I met club representatives on 2 July 1998 and 27 January 1999 to discuss how they could contribute most helpfully to the Government's review of licensing laws. The club has been examining licensing systems abroad and is developing its own ideas for reform. I look forward to receiving the club's report, and I am grateful for the advice that it has provided so far about this important subject.
    Mr. Jenkins: Does my hon. Friend realise that the extension of hours will benefit the trade in this country and that the change will cause no problems for many well-run organisations? However, is my hon. Friend aware of the term "fun pub"? For many residents who live near such places, they are not fun pubs but neighbours from hell. What extra regulations will my hon. Friend put in place to ensure that those residents' quality of life is not diminished further? How can they be sure that their normal life will continue?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend raises a serious problem that deserves our proper attention. The aim of the current review is to balance residents' legitimate concerns—not only about fun pubs but about any licensed premises near their home where there may be disturbances at closing time or at other times—with other people's right to enjoy themselves at a time that is convenient and fits in with how they want to lead their lives. We want a licensing system that is robust enough to defend residents while allowing people to exercise their market choice as consumers.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Is the Minister aware of the beer club's research into the smuggling and bootlegging of beer? Does he agree that the problem undermines the rule of law and is becoming increasingly costly to police forces throughout the country, particularly in big cities? Will he give the House an idea of what the Home Office is doing to combat that crime caused by the Treasury?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Lady is right to say that the smuggling of beer and other products to evade duty is a serious problem, and we all probably have some constituency experience of that. Young people are often a target group for those smugglers, and we have a serious programme to try to make it harder for anyone to sell alcohol to young people. My Treasury colleagues are aware of the difficulties and of the amount of revenue that is lost, and they are working on ways to combat that serious problem. The hon. Lady is right to draw attention to it, and we have plans to tackle it in the near future.

    Domestic Violence
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on help offered by his Department to victims of domestic violence. [85571]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): We have launched an awareness campaign; we have improved funding for the Women's Aid Federation and victim support; we have implemented provisions in the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and the Family Law Act 1996 and we are speeding up justice for victims and protecting vulnerable witnesses.
    Mr. Chapman: Violence against women in the home represents a quarter of all violent crime. Does my hon. Friend agree that this scourge needs to be tackled, that it must be given priority and that there must be partnership between agencies and the Government? Will she join me in welcoming the initiative to be launched on Merseyside next month, "zero tolerance for women and children", which will attempt to tackle the problem on that basis?
    Kate Hoey: My hon. Friend is right: 25 per cent. of all violent crime is perpetrated against women and it has to be tackled at the highest levels and with the greatest co-operation between all agencies. Of course we welcome all the many initiatives around the country, and I welcome particularly the zero tolerance campaign to which my hon. Friend refers.

    Elderly People (Assaults)
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What recent reports he has received from police forces in England on attacks on elderly people; what advice he gives to the police on protecting the most vulnerable members of society; and if he will make a statement. [85572]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government, through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, have encouraged the police and local authorities to work in partnership with other local organisations to tackle crime against the elderly where
    8
    that has been identified as a local problem. There are many examples of successful local initiatives to deal with bogus callers and those who commit other crimes that particularly affect the elderly, including the doorstep code introduced by the West Yorkshire police, which has made a particularly valuable contribution.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and also for his Department's effort and its provision of £50 million for the next three years to try to help communities that have high burglary rates. I am concerned about the number of elderly people who feel isolated and socially excluded for want of better street lighting and better lighting around their premises, and more secure doors and windows in their homes to try to prevent people from breaking in and attacking them. It was recently reported that an elderly widow had been murdered in her home, and over the past two years, two of my elderly constituents have been murdered in their homes. My local newspaper regularly reports that elderly people have been attacked, mugged and threatened by people in their community. We need to concentrate more on protecting the most vulnerable people from those bullies.
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend rightly identifies crime against the elderly as being essentially a quality-of-life issue for the elderly. There can be nothing more debilitating for an elderly person than the fear that when they go down the road to pick up their daily paper they will return to find that their house has been burgled, or that they will be subjected to harassment while they are going to or from their home. That is why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary introduced the Crime and Disorder Act and why we are placing particular emphasis on target hardening.
    Part of the £50 million that will underpin the Crime and Disorder Act will be spent on providing the nuts-and-bolts practical advice and assistance to which the elderly are entitled. That will give them the proper sense of safety and security in their home.
    Mr. James Gray: Does the Minister agree that not only such worthwhile initiatives but sentencing policy should take care of the most vulnerable in our society—the elderly and the very young? Is he aware of a very alarming case in Swindon, which was announced, I think this morning, of the release into my constituency on three years' probation of a paedophile who has been convicted of 17 separate offences against very young children? Does he agree that that sends out the wrong message to paedophiles, and a very alarming one to mothers of young children in my constituency?
    Mr. Boateng: It would be wrong of me to comment on an individual case, but I would be only too happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss sentencing policy generally, because this House will wish the clearest message to be sent to those who prey on the vulnerable—be they young or old—that they will be punished, and punished severely, when they offend in such a way.

    European Elections
    Mr. Martin Linton: What measures he proposes to increase participation in elections following the result of the European elections. [85574]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The turnout for most countries in Europe fell significantly for these elections, including in some countries—notably Austria, Finland and Germany—by a greater margin than that in this country. Disappointingly, the United Kingdom level was none the less the lowest of any member state, reflecting in part a wider problem with turnouts in the UK. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), has been chairing a working party on electoral procedures, on which the main Opposition parties are represented. That will be making a number of recommendations that are intended to improve turnout.
    Mr. Linton: Does the Home Secretary accept that Britain is now the apathy capital of Europe, with the lowest turnout in Europe and, indeed, in any European election, ever? Does he also accept that that cannot be blamed on the voting system, since on the very same day, we had the lowest by-election turnout since the war—the lowest peacetime by-election turnout since 1919—and only a month ago, we had the lowest local election turnout for at least a quarter of a century? None of the major parties can draw any comfort from the results, since all voting figures were lower than those for the previous European election. Indeed, the votes for Labour and the Conservatives were the lowest ever in a European election. Even after the counts in Northern Ireland and Scotland, the Tories will have had their lowest vote ever. So, every party should support the measures—
    Madam Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Gentleman realise that he is supposed to be putting a question and not making a statement? I should be glad if he would pose his question to the Home Secretary—and immediately.
    Mr. Linton: Will my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary make proposals to encourage voter participation through measures including early voting at any time in election week, personal and proxy voting on demand, all-year voter registration, weekend voting, citizenship education in schools and perhaps also lower council tax for those who have voted?
    Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend is entirely right—there ought to be consensus on this among all parties—that, irrespective of the voting system used, there is a need for us to ensure rising participation in British elections and British politics. I am pleased to say that the working party chaired by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary is not only considering, but will be making recommendations on, a more imaginative approach to election systems. We must remember that arrangements for the current electoral system were set in the 19th century and have hardly been altered since then. We must bring them up to date for the 21st century.
    Recommendations will include ideas about voting in supermarkets, railway stations and shopping centres, the possibility of weekend voting and the much more
    10
    extensive use of postal voting, including electronic voting as well as use of the Post Office. All such proposals require very careful examination and support from all political parties if we are to raise participation in British politics.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: In the spirit of cross-party consensus and co-operation engendered by the introduction of the dreadful proportional representation system, may I give the Home Secretary a tip for free? If he wants to increase participation in future European elections, let the Labour party take a leaf out of the Conservative book and bring its position into line with the views of 60 per cent. of the people, who do not want this country to enter the single European currency.
    Mr. Straw: As ever, I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his gratuitous advice—[Interruption.] I quite understand Conservative Members' excitement. In Labour's 18 years of opposition we had such moments, when we thought that victory had finally arrived, and all too often we discovered, the next day, that life returned to normal and we faced another 17, 16, 15 or 14 years of Conservative rule—so I sympathise with Conservative Members. I congratulate them on their victory in these European elections; they should savour the day. Meanwhile, we will return to the business of governing the country.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: But would it not be wise of the Home Secretary to learn the lessons of what happened on Thursday? There were several. One is that it is pretty clear that proportional representation is not a very good idea in Britain, even if it is in some other parts of Europe. I know that my right hon. Friend is not a paid-up member of those who are for proportional representation. He should also remember that the British people do not go a bundle on the Common Market. The third—and perhaps the most important—lesson is that it is high time that the Labour Government paid a little more attention to their hard-core working-class old Labour vote and perhaps not so much to those who live up long winding drives with pampas grass 12 ft high.
    Mr. Straw: I pay considerable attention to the first category of Labour voters that my hon. Friend mentions. There are not many gravel drives in Blackburn—although there are some—and there is certainly little in the way of pampas grass. On systems of proportional representation, I believe that the House must take note of the fact that, following decisions in which the previous Government were complicit, this country has been required to introduce a common system for elections since 1979 and, following the treaty of Amsterdam, has been required to introduce—[HON. MEMBERS: "That's yours."] Hang on; I know that it was our responsibility, but I do not recall any objections being raised by Conservative Members—[HON. MEMBERS: "What?"]—to this bit. Common principles have been introduced for elections, but scope remains for adjustment of the systems used. As I told the House during the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill last year, we shall establish a review of electoral arrangements—quite apart from the working party chaired by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State, which will obviously examine those arrangements.
    Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Is the Home Secretary aware that among the highest turnouts last

    11
    Thursday were those in the elections in Wales, but that they were also far from satisfactory? Does he recognise that turnout was higher in those constituencies where parties were proactively involved in campaigning? In his review, will he consider having an open list, not a closed list, because the identification with an individual certainly leads to a higher turnout? Finally, will he bear in mind the need to consider the requirements of disabled people in particular, so that they can turn out to vote more easily, not only in European elections but in all elections? I believe that the Home Office has a meeting on that subject this afternoon.
    Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to draw attention to the relatively high turnout in Wales, which, at 28 per cent., was the highest of any part of Great Britain—we do not yet have the Northern Ireland results. That was impressive. The nature of the list system used is a matter for the House. We had many debates about that before the passage of the European Parliamentary Elections Act 1999, and I rather expect that those debates will continue.
    The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of making it easier for disabled people to vote. That is one of the reasons why I believe that there is a strong case, although it may require legislation, for greatly extending the facility of postal voting, including electronic telephone postal voting.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: The Home Secretary will remember that he promised us a review. We think that it is an excellent idea, and we hope that he gets on with it and throws out most of the rubbish that we are stuck with at present. Will he bear in mind the fact that there is no doubt that the British voter positively dislikes closed lists? Voters want to know which representative they are voting for. Some of us who voted Labour were strongly, strongly tempted to strike out one or two names on the list, and had great difficulty resisting that temptation.
    Mr. Straw: Even had my hon. Friend done so, it would not have spoilt her paper. She should bear that in mind.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: Now he tells me.
    Mr. Straw: Without reworking old arguments, which will clearly become new arguments, it is worth pointing out that even under the closed list, people knew who they were voting for, and that each of us, including my hon. Friend, was elected under a closed list, if by that she means a system whereby the party puts forward the candidate for election, not the individual voter choosing the candidate from a particular party.
    Sir Norman Fowler: There will be a great deal of sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) about the Government's policy. May I make it clear to him that there is an open door to new recruits, from wherever they may come.
    On the voting system, will the Home Secretary confirm that had the elections been on the first-past-the-post system, Labour would have lost even more seats last night
    12
    than it did, which is why so many Labour Back Benchers are so twitchy today, and that the Liberal Democrats would have been entirely wiped out?
    Mr. Straw: That all depends on one's assumption. Others on the Conservative Benches, and probably even the right hon. Gentleman himself, were arguing that first past the post would have led to an increase in turnout, in which case Labour would have done better under the closed list, rather than worse. Whatever else one says about the closed-list system, never in the history of British politics has there been an act of greater generosity by a governing party to both opposition parties than our introduction of the closed list.
    Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman has obviously misunderstood what happened in the elections. If they had been conducted under the first-past-the-post system, the Conservatives would have won more, not fewer, seats, and his party would have lost more. Does he not understand that?
    The answers to my questions, which the right hon. Gentleman was unable to give, were yes and yes. Will he concede that we had debate after debate on the Floor of the House in which, although we opposed the closed-list system, the Liberal Democrats did not? I believe that they will concede that. [Interruption.] Do they have loss of memory, as well as loss of seats? Is it not clear that the closed-list system has been rejected by the public, just as certainly as they have rejected the Government's policy on Europe?
    Mr. Straw: I am confused by the right hon. Gentleman's question. If he is claiming victory for the Conservative party's results
    under the closed-list system, it is difficult for him also to argue that the Conservative party has somehow been rejected, having been elected under that system. He is right to say that the Conservatives opposed the closed-list system. So far as I recall, so too did the Liberal Democrats. That is a matter of record, as the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) will remember. There were many arguments in favour of the closed-list system, and he will recall that I advanced them to the complete satisfaction of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

    Police Funding
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: What research he has commissioned on the impact of increases in funding of police forces on their performance. [85575]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Audit Commission publishes an annual report on police performance. Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary visits each force every year and conducts full inspections of each force every three years, along with regular thematic inspections across forces. The last Audit Commission annual report, published in January this year, found that there was no direct link between increased spending and improved performance in police force areas.
    Mr. Thomas: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. If there is no such direct link, presumably efficiency has a large part to play in terms of performance.

    13
    That being so, what steps does my right hon. Friend suggest could be taken to improve the operational efficiency of the police with a view to making them more visible, particularly in market towns?
    Mr. Straw: We have set a challenging but realistic efficiency agenda for the police service. We are asking it to find 2 per cent. efficiency savings, which it then reinvests in its own front-line operational performance. There are many ways in which the police service can improve operational efficiency, not least—but by no means exclusively—by tackling too-high levels of sickness and early retirement through alleged ill health.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does the Home Secretary accept that while examining performance, it is important also to consider whether the police can lock up criminals? With that in mind, will the right hon. Gentleman examine closely a case that was heard last week in Derbyshire when the police, refusing to name an informant, had to drop the case in the Crown court, thus allowing someone charged with a serious crime to get away, to protect the informant? Will he look at this matter, which is obviously very serious?
    Mr. Straw: I shall look at the case and I shall be happy to see the hon. Gentleman about it. The disclosure of informants' names is an important and sensitive issue. As the House knows, following proposals from the previous Government, there was broad agreement across the Chamber about changing the rules on disclosure in the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. I accept that those rules may need to be strengthened further.

    Social Exclusion
    Mrs. Joan Humble: What representations he has received on the role of the voluntary sector in tackling social exclusion. [85576]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The voluntary and community sector has a key role to play in tackling social exclusion. The Government recognise that many voluntary and community organisations have particular skills and knowledge across a range of subject areas and service provision. That is why the Government have entered into a new spirit of partnership with the sector, and why the policy action teams established to take forward the work on social exclusion use and rely heavily on the contributions of representatives from a range of voluntary organisations.
    Mrs. Humble: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. May I encourage him to invite as wide a variety of voluntary organisations as possible to participate in the debate? For example, only a couple of weeks ago I attended a meeting of the Blackpool Women's Aid organisation. It is keen that the work that it undertakes to combat domestic violence is seen as part of the strategy to combat social exclusion.
    Mr. Boateng: Domestic violence is a real threat in terms of law and order—we should never forget that it is a crime—and because it has an appalling impact on the immediate victims, namely women. It is usually women
    14
    who are the subject of domestic violence, along with their children. By all the indices of deprivation—for example, failure at school and mental health problems—domestic violence plays its part, and is seen to do so. Women's Aid and other voluntary organisations have, and will continue to have, a key role in the development of our strategy to combat domestic violence.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the hon. Gentleman examined what has happened with regard to the minimum wage legislation as it applies to voluntary organisations? Many voluntary organisations have people who are paid a small amount to help them with their general expenses. As a result, people have been able to volunteer to help at a women's refuge, a playgroup or whatever. Are these organisations being affected by the fact that people are not able to carry on helping them because they have to be paid the full minimum wage, despite the fact that they are happy to volunteer to work for a couple of pounds an hour?
    Mr. Boateng: On the contrary, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations supported the introduction of the minimum wage. There is no way that effective voluntaryism can ever be based on poverty wages.

    Neighbourhood Renewal
    Ms Christine Russell: If he will make a statement on his Department's role in neighbourhood renewal. [85577]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Officials in my Department are working with colleagues across Whitehall on a range of initiatives to promote neighbourhood renewal. Those include the Government's response to the social exclusion unit's report on neighbourhood renewal, the single regeneration budget and the new deal for communities, all of which are playing an important part in ensuring that neighbourhood renewal and combating social exclusion go hand in hand.
    Ms Russell: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Will he join me in congratulating Cheshire constabulary, Cheshire county council and Chester city council on working tremendously hard to put together a community safety partnership, which I had the honour of launching a couple of weeks ago? Will he comment on community safety partnerships in general, which, like all the other initiatives he mentioned, will play a part if we are to repair the social fabric of all our communities? We must recognise the vital role that community partnerships can play, because we need not only to repair the social fabric and the bricks and mortar of our communities after 16 years of neglect, but to tackle crime and the fear of crime.
    Mr. Boateng: I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I have had the opportunity to visit Chester, and I heard a presentation and saw for myself the excellent work that is being done by the voluntary sector, particularly in relation to drugs and reducing drug use among young people. The local business sector, the police and the local authority are getting together to make a clear and real contribution

    15
    to reducing drug abuse in Chester. That is good news for the young people concerned and good news in terms of the effect of drug abuse on crime generally.
    Mr. John Bercow: After reflecting on measures to assist the renewal of neighbourhoods, does the Minister agree that, far from being a harmless if self-indulgent activity, the spread of graffiti at bus stops, on the walls of public buildings and in other places is corrosive of the forward-looking spirit and the sense of self-respect that are essential to the regeneration of neighbourhoods? Will he therefore confirm that the Government take a dim view of such behaviour and will introduce tougher measures to root out that unattractive phenomenon in our society?
    Mr. Boateng: I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. Gentleman. Such graffiti often represent a form of visual violence that is totally unacceptable. Care and concern for the built environment is central to neighbourhood renewal, and I am glad that so many local authorities across the country are recognising that by establishing 24-hour schemes to deal with graffiti. We need more people to take that approach, and we are determined to encourage and support it through our crime and disorder partnerships.

    Asylum Applicants (Support)
    Mr. Mike Gapes: If he will make a statement on his plans to change the system of support for asylum applicants. [85578]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As I announced to the House last Wednesday, I have decided to increase the cash amount paid to asylum seekers and to clarify the Secretary of State's responsibilities for the children of asylum seekers.
    Mr. Gapes: I welcome that answer, but does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to help those many thousands of people who flee oppression and discrimination, some of whom come to this country, is to ensure that quick decisions are made about their status so that they do not have to wait months—or years, in many cases—before a decision is made?
    Will my right hon. Friend give the House an assurance that renewed, strenuous efforts will be made to sort out the chaotic inheritance that the previous Government left at Croydon, and the incompetent computer system which has caused so many problems for so many of my constituents and others? Will he also do something to deal with the crooks, spivs and racketeers purporting to be immigration advisers—some of whom are solicitors—to get them out of the system? That will make sure that our constituents do not suffer from incompetent, misleading advice and that the legal aid system is not abused by such people.
    Mr. Straw: I agree with virtually everything that my hon. Friend said. We are profoundly committed to introducing much faster decision making in the asylum system. We are sticking to the two-months and four-months targets for all asylum applicants from April 2001, but I have already made it clear, in the answer that I gave the House last Wednesday, that we intend to process family cases within two months after the introduction of the asylum support directorate arrangements from April next year.
    16
    My hon. Friend is right to refer to the crooks, spivs and racketeers. I am afraid to say that they include too many members of the legal profession who have got rich by manufacturing asylum claims. Part of the purpose of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which has its Report stage in this House tomorrow and Wednesday, is to crack down on exactly such activity.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: We have received the first Kosovan refugees in the Vale of York at New Earswick. The local authority responsible, the City of York, has raised a number of questions concerning the outstanding financial arrangements to be decided by the Home Secretary and his Department. Can the Home Secretary assure us that an early answer will be given?
    Mr. Straw: Yes, I can. If the hon. Lady has any further problems on behalf of the local authority, I shall be happy to take them up. I have made it clear that central Government will pay the additional costs incurred by local authorities and the voluntary sector. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and Housing will shortly write to all local authorities and voluntary organisations, setting out the detailed arrangements.
    Mr. Neil Gerrard: Although I very much welcome what my right hon. Friend has said about speeding up the system, does he agree that the best way to deal with people who make fraudulent claims is to make a quick decision and to enforce it? If most decisions on families are to be made within eight weeks of their making an application, is it worth setting up what amounts to an alternative Benefits Agency in the Home Office to administer the system, to place them up and down the country, and to issue and redeem the vouchers? Would not it be simpler to restore the right to benefits to families, to make decisions quickly and to enforce them on people who make fraudulent claims?
    Mr. Straw: I regret to say that I do not agree with my hon. Friend's assumptions. There is no doubt that the availability of cash benefits in the social security system is a major pull factor that encourages fraudulent claims at port. It is one of the factors that encourages many people whose claims are wholly without foundation to come in clandestinely, particularly to Dover and other south-east ports, from eastern Europe and other countries where they are not under any threat of persecution. They come in principally to claim cash benefits. That is unacceptable, and has placed a disproportionate burden on Kent authorities and on 10 London boroughs, which, between them, account for more than 50 per cent. of asylum seekers being supported by local authorities. I can tell my hon. Friend, who represents one of those London boroughs, that the only practical way to remove the burden from those boroughs and the Kent authorities is to have a national dispersal and asylum support system such as we propose.

    Kosovan Refugees
    Mr. Nigel Waterson: How many Kosovan refugees are currently being accommodated in (i) the United Kingdom, (ii) East Sussex and (iii) Eastbourne. [85579]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): So far, 3,773 Kosovan evacuees have been airlifted to Britain under the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees programme. Most of them have been housed in the midlands, the north of England and Scotland. However, 12,360 nationals of the former Yugoslavia have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom since 1996. We cannot identify the precise number living in East Sussex or Eastbourne without examining individual cases.
    Mr. Waterson: Despite the fact that the Minister cannot give me the current figures, can he project how many of these refugees will eventually be housed in East Sussex and in my constituency? Will he give the House an assurance that there will be the closest and most detailed consultation between central Government and local government to ensure that the arrangements are proper, efficiently handled and put no undue extra burden on overstretched services in particular areas?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable request. We shall endeavour to ensure that there is full consultation with the local authorities and that they are given as much information as possible about the numbers that they should expect in their area. We shall try to ensure that the arrangements for meeting any additional costs are arrived at after full and proper consultation.
    Fiona Mactaggart: The Kosovan refugees have largely been accepted into hostels and settlement centres. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider whether that approach might be appropriate for other groups of refugees if it is successful? Will he assure the House that the research unit in the Home Office will look carefully at the consequences of new decisions on support systems so that we learn the lessons of new arrangements for supporting refugees?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend asks two reasonable questions. I hope that I can give a positive response on both. The voluntary sector's use of reception centres for the Kosovans has been successful. We are looking closely at the lessons to be learned from that. We want to be sure that we get it right when we introduce new systems. We can learn a lot from our experience with the Kosovans. We want to ensure that research into support mechanisms is done effectively and that we learn lessons from it.

    Closed Circuit Television
    Mr. Tony McNulty: What research his Department has commissioned about the effects of CCTV on crime levels. [85580]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): Research by the Home Office police research group has shown that closed circuit television reduces crime and, importantly, the fear of crime, particularly when it is deployed as part of a wider crime reduction strategy. We shall assess the effectiveness of schemes that received funding under the CCTV challenge competition as the information becomes available.
    Mr. McNulty: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and congratulate the councils of all parties across the
    18
    country which have successfully implemented CCTV. I should like assurances on two points. First, should not all subsequent bids be rooted in an understanding of local crime and disorder audits and strategies? Secondly, some independent research has been carried out on dispersal, but far more is needed so that we can be assured that the intuitive view that CCTV simply disperses crime elsewhere is not right.
    Mr. O'Brien: I can assure my hon. Friend on both points. We want to ensure that any application for CCTV funding is rooted firmly in the local crime and disorder audits. We also want to ensure that displacement of crime is studied properly. A study commissioned by the Scottish Office of the CCTV system in Airdrie found that there was no evidence of displacement and that there was a genuine reduction in crime as a result of CCTV. We want to build on that, but my hon. Friend is right to say that we need to ensure that research is done on an even broader basis.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: During the assessment that the Minister mentioned, will he make a comparison between the situation in Market Harborough and that in the borough of Oadby and Wigston, both of which are in my constituency? CCTV was introduced in Market Harborough under the Conservative Government, but the Liberal Democrat borough council in Oadby and Wigston has refused to apply to the Home Office for funding under the previous Government and under this Government. Will he make a point of comparing levels of crime in the two areas so that the benefits can be made clear to the feckless Liberal Democrat council in my constituency?
    Mr. O'Brien: That might be an interesting comparison, but the hon. and learned Gentleman should know that when we came to office, there was only £1 million left in the budget for CCTV. We have introduced a £170 million CCTV initiative that involves £150 million for England and Wales, £13 million for Scotland, £4 million for Northern Ireland and £3 million for Wales. That money is tied into a £250 million crime reduction package. We are investing in reducing crime, whereas the previous Government merely talked about it.

    WPC Fletcher
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on the progress made in the inquiry relating to the murder of WPC Fletcher. [85581]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The Metropolitan police have recently completed the report of their review of the evidence surrounding WPC Fletcher's murder and of the allegations made in the "Dispatches" programmes, and I understand that no evidence or intelligence was found to corroborate those allegations. Instead, the review has supported the findings of the original investigation that WPC Fletcher was killed by a bullet fired from the first floor of the Libyan People's Bureau.
    Mr. Dalyell: I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his sustained personal interest in the matter and for his letter of 3 June. Will the criminal investigation in conjunction with the Libyan authorities take a long time? What is the hoped-for time scale?
    Mr. Straw: First, I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks, but I wish to thank him in return for his great
    20
    forbearance because the investigation by the Metropolitan police took much longer than anybody anticipated. As I said to him in my letter, that is at least testament to the thoroughness with which the review was conducted. I cannot give my hon. Friend a precise answer to his second question, but I am happy to write to him and, as I said in my letter of 3 June, to meet him to brief him in more detail about the nature of the review.

Kosovo
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Robin Cook): With permission, Madam Speaker, I will make a statement on recent developments on Kosovo.
Today is the fifth day since the entry into force of the military agreement. I can report to the House that Serb forces are leaving Kosovo broadly in line with the phased withdrawal set out in that agreement. Meanwhile, NATO forces have entered much of southern and central Kosovo and are ahead of the planned timetable for their deployment. A quarter of all troops so far deployed are from the United Kingdom—the largest single national contingent. The whole House will wish to congratulate our troops on the professionalism with which they have deployed so quickly and efficiently.
Members of the House will have seen pictures of the spontaneous welcome the troops have received from Kosovo Albanians wherever they have gone. The warmth with which those Albanians have expressed their joy at our arrival speaks volumes for the brutality and the terror from which our campaign has liberated them. For the past two months they have seen their neighbours massacred, their young relatives raped and their homes burnt. Now, they can see a future in which none of those crimes can return to haunt Kosovo.
The presence of the Russian troops around the airport has not interfered with the deployment of NATO forces. Our forces are entering as planned from Macedonia. It is important to keep a sense of perspective on the numbers involved; there are only a couple of hundred Russian troops in Kosovo, compared with 14,000 NATO troops today.
General Jackson this morning had a business like meeting with General Zavarzin, the commander of the Russian troops at Pristina airport. He has just reported that he hopes that agreement can be reached on assimilating the Russian troops into KFOR. Nevertheless, it was plainly unsatisfactory that Russian troops should have entered without co-ordination. Yesterday, I spoke at length to Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and we agreed that there should be no more surprise moves. He gave an undertaking that Russia would not deploy any further troops without prior agreement. Earlier undertakings about Russian deployments have not all been respected. It is crucial that this undertaking should be fully respected.
Negotiations, led by the United States, continue over how Russia's contribution to KFOR can be integrated into the overall operation. Those have been protracted negotiations. On the Russian side, its military have sought a sector of their own. On our side, we have insisted that any outcome must meet the terms of the peace plan for a single operation with a unified chain of command. There is no provision anywhere in the peace plan for partition of Kosovo.
Several non-NATO countries will contribute to forces in Kosovo. I have always made it clear that we would welcome Russia also working with us as partners in the peacekeeping force, but it must be as part of a single, integrated operation, not as an independent force. That reflects our commitment to liberating the whole, not part of Kosovo.
22
We now face a major challenge in helping Kosovo to recover from the atrocities of the past year. There are four immediate priorities. First, we must ensure that there is security and safety for all the people of Kosovo, whether Albanian, Serb or from any other ethnic group. KFOR will be alert and robust in ensuring that all Serb forces withdraw from Kosovo within the agreed timetable, which should be completed over the next week. KFOR will also be responsible for the demilitarisation of the Kosovo Liberation Army. I spoke last night to Hashem Thaqi, the leader of the KLA, and stressed that we expect restraint from the KLA as the Serb forces withdraw, and co-operation in our efforts to end all violence in Kosovo.
Secondly, we must provide urgent relief to the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons who have spent the past two months hiding from Serb forces on the hillsides and in the forests of Kosovo. A convoy with much British support delivered humanitarian supplies to Pristina yesterday on behalf of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and is reloading today in Macedonia.
Thirdly, we must manage the return of the masses of refugees who were deported as part of Milosevic's failed plan for the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. We should not be too glib about refugees returning to their homes. Many of those homes have been blown up or burnt down by Serb aggression. We face a major task in helping the bulk of the refugees to rebuild their homes before the Balkan winter sets in. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has today announced a further £50 million for humanitarian relief, on top of the £40 million already provided.
Fourthly, we must record the evidence of the war crimes that have been committed in Kosovo to enforce its ethnic cleansing. There has already been the horrific discovery of a mass grave containing a large number of villagers massacred at Kacanik. We have already started the deployment of a British police team to Macedonia, in order that the International War Crimes Tribunal can draw on its forensic skill and experience in exhuming victims of atrocities and identifying the cause of death. Although we have brought peace to Kosovo, its people will not live at peace with themselves unless we bring to justice those responsible for such atrocities.
For the immediate future, responsibility for the government of Kosovo will be in the hands of an international civil administration, which will be led by the United Nations but will draw on the contributions of the European Union, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe and the UNHCR. It will be charged with rebuilding the physical infrastructure of Kosovo, regenerating its economy and supervising free elections to new political institutions. Over a period it will transfer its powers to the local people, in line with our goal of democratic self-government for Kosovo.
From the start of the conflict, the Government have stressed that we want it to be a turning point for the whole region. All Serbia's many neighbours have shown total solidarity with the NATO campaign. We must not now forget the courage and commitment that those Governments showed in aligning themselves with us.
On Thursday I attended the launch of the stability pact, a forum bringing together the countries of the region with the European Union, the United States, Russia and other key international players. I pledged that, for our part,

23
Britain would be their partner in helping to accelerate their integration into the modern Europe. To do that we must open up the wealthy markets of the European Union so that those countries can share in our prosperity through increased trade. We must invest in developing their democratic institutions, civic society and open media in order that they can share in our standards of freedom.
We hope that one day the people of Serbia will also be able to share in the benefits from the stability pact, but first it will be necessary for the Government in Belgrade to renounce the policies of Milosevic, which have brought so much violence to their neighbours and so much poverty to themselves. We cannot embrace Serbia in the modern Europe until Serbia embraces our values of belief in the equality of all citizens, irrespective of ethnic identity, and respect for the rights of minorities.
There would have been no turning point for the countries of the region if the international community had not demonstrated that we would not tolerate the brutality and the ethnic cleansing that Milosevic visited on Kosovo. The revulsion around the world at the expulsion of the Albanians from Kosovo is confirmed in the text of the Security Council resolution, which was drafted by the G8 Foreign Ministers over 12 hours of negotiation last week.
The resolution condemns the violence against the people of Kosovo and demands full co-operation with the International War Crimes Tribunal. It meets all our key objectives: the withdrawal of all Serb forces, the deployment of an international military force with a unified command and the return, without hindrance, of all refugees.
There is much hard work still to be done before we have created a Kosovo that will give its people the opportunity to earn their living in peace. The time to celebrate will be when we have settled all refugees in their homes.
However, all those in the House who supported NATO's campaign can be satisfied with an outcome that has vindicated the strategy of the alliance and its resolve to defeat the forces of ethnic cleansing. We have compelled an end to the atrocities in Kosovo and secured for its people a future free from fear. We have shown that the era of forced mass deportation of a whole people belongs to Europe's past, and that we will not tolerate it coming back again.
We promised the refugees that we would take them back to Kosovo under our protection. We now have the opportunity to fulfil that promise, and we will not slacken in our resolve or our determination until we have helped them all to go home.
Mr. Michael Howard: I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement. The whole country has been encouraged by the progress made over the past few days. NATO's resolve to see the action through has yielded substantial results. I congratulate the Government and our armed forces on what has been achieved.
As I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will acknowledge, recent developments also demonstrate the extent of the problems still to be overcome and the difficult decisions that must be taken. I join the Foreign
24
Secretary in paying specific tribute to the crucial role played by General Jackson and to the exemplary performance of the forces that he leads.
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that the ultimate test of success is whether all the refugees feel able to return home across Kosovo? The issue of the composition and deployment of the peacekeeping forces continues to be crucial in this respect. There is obvious concern about the deployment of Russian forces at Pristina airport.
Will the Foreign Secretary confirm that NATO originally planned for British paratroopers to enter Kosovo on Friday morning? Does not article II, paragraph 2a, of the military-technical agreement signed by General Jackson specify that, one day after its entry into force, Yugoslav forces would have vacated zone three and that the international security force would deploy "rapidly" to avoid a "security gap"?
Why were those plans cancelled? Why was a technical and logistical briefing arranged for reporters earlier on Thursday, at which NATO officers would outline the deployment of forces, also cancelled? When did NATO first learn that Russian troops were entering Kosovo?
Is the Foreign Secretary aware that Brcko Radio reported at 10.30 am on Friday that Russian troops had departed from their barracks in Lopare and Zivinice and had crossed the border into Serbia at Pavlovica Cuprija, and that those reports were confirmed by SFOR? Is not it also the case that if, even at that point, British troops had been allowed to move to Pristina, they would have arrived before the Russians? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that a further 150 Russian troops were reported yesterday morning to be waiting at Bijeljina ready to move into Serbia to reinforce Russian troops at the airport?
On the question of the future control of the airport, when does the Foreign Secretary expect that to be resolved? More fundamentally even than that, will he comment on media reports over the weekend that, following the stand-off at the airport, the American envoy Strobe Talbott offered to allow Russia a "zone of responsibility" in Kosovo? Is not that wholly inconsistent with what the Secretary of State for Defence has said in ruling out any suggestion of such a zone in Kosovo, which he described as tantamount to partition of the province?
Will the Foreign Secretary say whether the position in Bosnia, where the Russians are spread across the US-led multinational division (north), is seen as a model for Kosovo? Does he agree that these events have demonstrated once again that any agreements have to be absolutely watertight?
The Foreign Secretary mentioned this morning that the Russian Government provided a commitment over the telephone yesterday that their troops would be integrated into the overall peacekeeping force. When will the terms of that arrangement be finalised? Can he reassure the House that the extent of the buffer zone across the border in Kosovo will be adequate, and will he comment on reports that concessions were made on that issue and on the timetable for the withdrawal of Serbian forces?
There are reports today of further evidence being uncovered—at Kacanik, for example—of horrific war crimes. What arrangements are being made for investigators of war crimes to be given unhindered access to the evidence that they will need?
Last, but by no means least, I welcome today's announcement by the Secretary of State for International Development of further aid for humanitarian relief. Is the

25
Foreign Secretary satisfied that arrangements are in place to ensure that humanitarian and reconstruction efforts are co-ordinated sufficiently?
Recent events have provided cause for hope in the future in Kosovo. We must ensure that our efforts to secure a lasting settlement that will provide security for all Kosovo's population are not diminished.
Mr. Cook: The Defence Secretary has advised me that there were no plans of the kind described by the right hon. and learned Gentleman for British paratroops. The entry into force agreement prescribes that VJ units will leave from zone three on the first day. Zone three is in the north of Kosovo, adjacent to the Serb border. It was specified for the first day so that the VJ units could show good will and earnest intent by withdrawing into Serbia from the area nearest to it. It was not possible for KFOR forces to occupy the north of Kosovo until forces began to withdraw from the south. There was no way in which to occupy the north without first travelling up from Macedonia.
There has been no security gap. The time of entry into Kosovo by the KFOR forces was determined by the commander, General Jackson, and by no other consideration. It would not have been possible for General Jackson to have reached Pristina airport in advance of the Russian troops for the simple reason that it remained ringed by a large part of the VJ army between the Macedonian border and the airport.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked about the negotiations on the military-technical agreement and the buffer zone, and about the time lines. The military had full control on those matters and reached agreements that reflected its practical understanding. I do not regard any extensions of time lines as concessions. They were necessary to provide a realistic time scale for the withdrawal of all Serb forces.
We must recognise that we have substantially reduced the infrastructure during our military campaign. It will therefore take the Serbs a little longer to get out of Kosovo, but get out they will. All of them will have to withdraw. The great advantage of the military-technical agreement is that it provides a day-to-day benchmark by which to measure progress.
I am pleased to confirm that we hope soon to have a scene of crime team in Kosovo. Other nations are considering providing similar assistance to the International War Crimes Tribunal. The team will carry out full investigations of any mass grave or other evidence of atrocity that we uncover, and I fear that we will find much more as we fan out across Kosovo. It was because of British intervention that the Security Council resolution contained a strong demand that all—including the Government in Belgrade—should co-operate with the tribunal.
Finally, I was asked about the arrangements for reconstruction and humanitarian aid. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has collaborated closely with international agencies on those matters. At the Cologne meeting on the stability pact I took the opportunity to speak to Mrs. Ogata, of the UNHCR. We are working hard to try to make all the relevant organisations pull together for a major task. No one should underestimate the challenge or the difficulty of carrying it through.
26
I thank the right hon. and learned Gentleman for the generosity with which he congratulated the Government and the British forces on what they have achieved during the past few days and in the preceding 10 weeks. There is a long way to go. We must wake every morning alert for the latest trick played by Milosevic. On most days, we will not be disappointed. We have shown in the past 10 weeks that we are more resolved and more determined successfully to see through the campaign. We must now show that we have more resolve and determination than he does to ensure that we win the peace.
Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I also pay tribute to both the Government and the armed forces for the success of the operation—a success that we see every time we turn on our television sets? Behind the understandably careful language of the Secretary of State would we not be realistic to recognise that the unilateral action of the Russians is a potential source of political embarrassment for NATO? If it were repeated, it could cause disruption and increase tension. Indeed, it might even prejudice the effective administration of Kosovo. Do not those difficulties arise directly out of the ambiguity of the United Nations resolution and the annexes to it? If the right hon. Gentleman has read paragraph 7 of the resolution and paragraph 4 of annexe 2, he will know that they are capable of interpretation that does not provide that NATO should have the responsibility for command and control. How is that ambiguity to be resolved satisfactorily? What intelligence assessment, if any, was made of the likelihood of unilateral action by Russia? If none was made, why not?
Finally, the reports of the massacre that are most recently available to us suggest that on this occasion doctors and nurses may have been systematically murdered. Does that not tell us all that we need to know about those with whom we have been dealing in Kosovo—that they should think it right to take the lives of those whose duty it is to preserve life?
Mr. Cook: I echo the right hon. and learned Gentleman's final remarks. It is important to recognise that Kosovo remains a place of some danger. Our forces will show their full professionalism and alertness in ensuring that they maintain their own self-defence while securing security for the people of Kosovo. I invite the right hon. and learned Gentleman to keep the Russian forces in perspective. They are in one part of Kosovo where there are no Albanians and there is no need to return refugees. At the moment, the Russians cannot leave that part and move elsewhere without an agreement with ourselves. We should not get over-exercised by that being a major impediment to the deployment of KFOR and the work that it is carrying out throughout Kosovo. I agree, however, that the unilateralism with which the Russian troops were deployed is disturbing. That must not be repeated if we are to achieve the confidence, trust and sensible agreement that we need for the management of one co-ordinated, whole and integrated operation. A model is available—the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) referred to it—and that is the Bosnian one. For some years, NATO and Russia have worked side by side in partnership in Bosnia with integration at all levels of command. I was pleased that, yesterday, Igor Ivanov volunteered a reference to the Bosnian model as a way forward in the immediate future. I hope that it will help us to proceed with the assimilation

27
of the Russian troops with NATO into KFOR. We want Russia to be there. Frankly, we want a bigger Russian contribution to securing peace in Kosovo, but it is to be integrated in overall operations.
Mr. Donald Anderson: The Russian swoop on the airfield may not be a major impediment, but it is a possible precedent for problems. Of course, it was right to engage Russia politically and militarily in the solution—it should have been done earlier—but the suggestion that the swoop on the airfield was a misunderstanding strains credulity. Therefore, what lessons have the Government learned in terms of ensuring that there is now a watertight agreement and clear lines of communication to ensure that such misunderstandings, if they arise in future, will speedily be ended?
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend describes the Russian presence as an impediment, but I repeat to the House that the Russians have provided no practical impediment to the work of KFOR. As I pointed out in my statement, that work is already going on and it is ahead of schedule, not behind schedule.
However, my hon. Friend touches on an extremely valid point: not all the explanations given by Moscow for the deployment of those Russian troops are mutually consistent. We need to achieve clarity in our relations with Russia and in the unified chain of command in order to ensure that there is no repetition of unilateral action. At present, two sets of talks are going on: the talks between General Jackson and his opposite number on the ground about the troops at the airport; and the talks between the United States and Russia about the wider question of the integration into KFOR of the larger Russian contribution that is coming.
Our understanding is that the Russian Government want to find a satisfactory and practical solution to the matter. We should not lose sight of the fact that it is in Russia's interests to solve the problem. It is only a few days until the weekend when all the Heads of Government of the G8 countries will meet in summit; a major part of the agenda should be—and will be—the difficulties of the Russian economy and the need for a closer and better relationship between it and the west. We want to be able to focus on that at the weekend; we know that the Russian Government also want to do that, so there should be good will on both sides to resolve this problem.
Sir John Stanley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that, were a separate Russian sector to be created and were the Russian forces in that sector to be placed outside the NATO command and control structure, that would, in effect, amount to a de facto partition of Kosovo that—as the right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out in his statement—is in no way provided for in the peace solution?
Mr. Cook: The reason that negotiations are continuing and have not concluded is precisely because we stoutly resist such a model—for the very reasons given by the right hon. Gentleman. We should recall that one civil administrator will be responsible for the civilian reconstruction of Kosovo. His or her writ will run through all sectors in Kosovo, and he or she will be responsible
28
for bringing together one set of political institutions—including election to one, single Kosovo Parliament. Therefore, it is most important that all military commanders, in whatever sector, recognise the objective of working together to create one, single Kosovo under democratic self-government.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: This is the third time in 20 years of my membership of the House that Ministers have come to Parliament to announce, in essence, the routing of the dark forces of fascism in different parts of the world—in the Falkland Islands, in Kuwait and now in Kosovo.
My right hon. Friend referred to economic regeneration. Given that we shall be dealing, in effect, with a de facto international protectorate, and given that the relationship between Kosovo and Serbia will now be strained, is it not now necessary to consider the whole question of the future of the currency? Otherwise, we may well find that the reconstruction of the economy of Kosovo is undermined by the problems that exist in wider Serbia.
Mr. Cook: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that, in Kosovo, we have witnessed the defeat of fascism. There was no clearer basis for Milosevic's action than the doctrine of ethnic superiority, which we have now comprehensively defeated.
As for my hon. Friend's question, I am not sure that the first thing currently needed by Kosovo is a central bank. There are an immense number of tasks to be carried out in order to ensure that we repair the physical fabric, rebuild homes and get people back there and into their careers. Of course, as that process develops, it will be necessary to work out an economic reconstruction package. The European Union stands ready to assist with that—so too do other institutions of the world community. In Kosovo, we can develop an economy that will provide lessons for the people of Serbia and bring home to them the extent to which they are both impoverished and deprived of freedoms that are now being taken for granted in the rest of Europe.
Kosovo could be a good model and a useful lesson to help to encourage the forces of opposition in Serbia.
Mr. Tom King: In paying tribute to the achievements of our armed forces and the other forces in NATO, does the Foreign Secretary accept that now is the really dangerous time for them and that the days ahead might pose far greater dangers than any they have faced so far? He calls for an end to ethnic cleansing, and, in the same breath, mentions the scale of the atrocities that are every day being discovered, in the knowledge that they will reinforce in the minds of others the desire for revenge for the atrocities that have been committed against them. Preventing acts of revenge will pose a great challenge to NATO forces.
The right hon. Gentleman proudly paid tribute to the fact that we are making by far the largest contribution to NATO's current land forces, and our forces are likely to remain in the region for some considerable time. Is that predominance of contribution likely to continue?
As for Russia, I have heard some alarming stories of impetuous suggestions—not, I am pleased to say, made by anyone in this country—about how the current difficulties with the Russians might be dealt with. In view

29
of the confused nature—to put it mildly—of the current Russian Government and the various elements within it, may I strongly suggest that that matter be left to General Jackson for sensible resolution on the ground?
Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely that the issue of the airport is much better resolved by dialogue, which, as far as possible, should take place on the ground among those who can see the situation at first hand rather than from a remote position.
On the question of British forces in KFOR, we expect the large predominance and strong representation of the British in KFOR to be reduced after a number of months, as the rapid reaction corps is no longer needed for KFOR headquarters. We are in the lead during the current operation because we are the designated lead country in the rapid reaction corps.
I strongly share the sentiments expressed by the right hon. Gentleman in his opening remarks. The work is dangerous and no one should underrate the courage needed of our armed forces to enter territory in which there is as yet no secure peace. Our commitment is to create a multi-ethnic, pluralist Kosovo—a place where people of all ethnic identities will feel safe and secure. However, after the past two months of atrocities, that task will be far more difficult than it would have been before. One of the real tragedies for Kosovo and for Serbia is that President Milosevic did not accept the package offered at Rambouillet, which would have given Serbia a better result than it now has, and without any of the pain, bloodshed and brutality of the past two months.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: The right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) specifically asked about Kacanik, where the most dreadful things have happened. Could there also be an investigation into the brutal murder in Kacanik on 28 February of the Serb police inspector, Bogulduk Staletovic, who was doing his best to bring ethnic Albanians and Serbs together? What will happen to any member of the KLA who is found to have been equally brutal? What is NATO's attitude now to its obligations to the protection of those innocent Serbs who may themselves be ethnically cleansed?
Finally, during the debate of 25 March 1999, I asked the Foreign Secretary about relations with the Russians, and especially about the valuable work that he was then doing with the governor of Murmansk and others on the millennium bug—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. Would the hon. Member whose pager is going off leave the Chamber? Some hon. Member must be guilty. I am sorry, Mr. Dalyell—please continue.
Mr. Dalyell: I was referring to the question of the millennium bug, Murmansk, and the Soviet Arctic fleet. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary replied:
"I am confident that they will want to proceed with what they know is a solution to a pressing problem."—[Official Report, 25 March 1999; Vol. 328, c. 540.]
Is that, in fact, being done?
Mr. Cook: Our commitment to protect the people of Kosovo extends to all, including the Serbs. In fact,
30
the evenhandedness of our forces was demonstrated when the Gurkha Battalion disarmed 70 members of the Kosovo Liberation Army whom it encountered in an armed formation.
As to the murder of the Serb policeman to which my hon. Friend referred, it is the remit of the International War Crimes Tribunal to pursue war crimes of all kinds against all ethnic groups. To be fair, the House should note that the tribunal in Bosnia has indicted Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks without respect to ethnic identity.
Finally, I assure my hon. Friend of my personal commitment to taking forward the work at Murmansk on nuclear waste. I am pleased to say that Igor Ivanov has accepted my invitation to visit Britain as my personal guest, and that issue will certainly be high on our agenda.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: First, will the right hon. Gentleman accept that, while the Russians have been handled without great difficulty, their behaviour has been reprehensible and they have taken up much of the time of General Sir Michael Jackson, who has better things to do than worry about them? When the right hon. Gentleman speaks to the Russians at the weekend, will he tell them not only that their behaviour has been reprehensible, but that he expects to see Russia immediately replace its troops from SFOR who have been sent to Kosovo?
Secondly, will the right hon. Gentleman comment on the use of the airport at Pristina? Despite the Russians' presence, can it be used for all forms of military transport and aircraft? If so, will the right hon. Gentleman consider moving one or two of the Harriers so that they might be used sooner? Thirdly, when will the right hon. Gentleman be able to comment more precisely on the disarming of the KLA?
Finally, has the right hon. Gentleman considered speaking to the building industry in this country to see whether it might lend the development service some of its experts on rebuilding? The chaos that will face the refugees upon their return to Kosovo will be terrible to behold and they simply will not know where to begin.
Mr. Cook: I agree absolutely with the hon. Gentleman's last point. All European nations will have to contribute to ensure that we can rebuild Kosovo before winter, and I am sure that the British building and construction industry will be willing to play its part.
The hon. Gentleman expressed certain views about Russian behaviour, but he will understand that it might not necessarily be helpful for me to confirm whether I share that sentiment. We are concerned about the Russian situation, which has consumed a lot of time that we could have devoted to other parts of the Kosovo crisis. I thoroughly endorse his point that the Russians' unilateral arrival in Kosovo is as unfortunate and unhelpful as their unilateral departure from SFOR, where a gap has been left in the Bosnian forces.
We have no present requirement for the airport, nor do we plan to use it. However, it is important that, in the fullness of time, the airport be brought back into use for all members of KFOR and be operated on a multinational, not simply national, agency basis.
Ann Clwyd: My right hon. Friend knows that I supported the aims of NATO throughout the

31
war. I obviously support the reconstruction of Kosovo and the assistance that we will give that country and its people. I hope that economic assistance will also go to Montenegro, Albania and Macedonia. Will my right hon. Friend re-examine the decision not to assist Serbia until Milosevic is got rid of? I want to see Milosevic brought before a war crimes tribunal so that he can answer for his war crimes and other crimes against humanity. However, at the same time, I believe that Serbia will join the community of nations faster if we show a willing hand in assisting it to reconstruct and rebuild Serbian lives.
Mr. Cook: I thank my hon. Friend for the consistent support that she has given to our campaign and to our objectives, which she has expressed at all times in the past 10 weeks. I am glad that my hon. Friend mentioned Montenegro because it gives me an opportunity to underline our commitment to that country. President Djukanovic and his Government demonstrated tremendous courage and steadfastness, despite pressure from Belgrade, in bravely standing out against Belgrade's policies and in opening their borders without restraint to refugees from Kosovo. Our agreement with the Serb forces makes it plain that they must withdraw to Serbia, not to Montenegro, and we shall continue robustly to support the democratic Government in Montenegro.
On support for Serbia, a distinction will have to be made. We want to help the people of Serbia. They, too, face the problem of the coming winter, and we must be prepared to provide humanitarian relief where it is necessary and appropriate. But the international community cannot become involved in major economic reconstruction of Serbia while the country is led by the present Government, if for no other reason than that their economic policies would make any such attempt futile and might well result, as in the past, in much of the money that should be spent on Serbia ending up in foreign bank accounts that do not belong to the people of Serbia.
Mr. Bowen Wells: Which bank account has the £50 million for the relief of refugees, which I very much welcome, come from? Has it come from the Treasury contingency reserve or the reserves held by the Department for International Development? To whom will that money be given and for what purposes? Is it intended to provide prefabricated housing to enable returning refugees immediately to reoccupy their ruined villages and towns and begin reconstruction—and possibly to be part of the work force?
Mr. Cook: The money has just been announced and we have not yet earmarked how all that £50 million will be spent, but we shall take that forward in consultation with agencies, particularly the UNHCR. I am advised that the money comes from DfID's reserves and will therefore be provided without any cost to DfID's programmes in Africa, Asia and poorer countries.
Mr. David Winnick: Will it be possible for a report on war crimes to be presented to the House and placed in the Library so that the crimes, rapes and atrocities that have taken place can be understood not only by us, but by generations of parliamentarians in the
32
next century? They would then be able to understand why the operation took place and why it was so essential that Kosovo be liberated.
I want to ask my right hon. Friend a question about a matter that he has touched on before. What reassurance can be given, as soon as possible, to Serbian civilians in Kosovo that NATO troops are there as an international force to protect all, and that we will not tolerate any pogroms or persecution of Serbians because we are there to protect all communities?
Mr. Cook: I am happy to repeat my earlier assurances that our commitment is to protect all people in Kosovo, whatever their ethnic identity. Our objective is to create not a single ethnic state, but a multi-ethnic state under the democratic rules and values that we understand.
I shall consider my hon. Friend's request for a report on war crimes and find out whether we can respond to that in the fullness of time. It is important not only that we know what happened in Kosovo, but that the people of Serbia know what happened. Too many of them are still ignorant of what was done in their name in Kosovo, and I am sure that if they fully understood that they would share our repugnance and revulsion. That education is probably an important part of putting Serbia on the road to democracy and freedom.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: What proposals does the right hon. Gentleman have for the political reconstruction of Kosovo? I am sure that he agrees that there should be an elected Albanian-Kosovar authority in Kosovo as soon as possible. I recognise that it is difficult to have elections before the refugees return, but could he tell the House what proposals he has for the creation of a democratic body in Kosovo? In the meantime, whom does he regard as having authority to speak on behalf of the Albanian Kosovars? Is it Mr. Rugova, is it the head of the Kosovo Liberation Army, or is it someone else; and on what basis does that person have authority?
Mr. Cook: The short answer to the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last question is that it is not for me to decide who speaks for the Kosovo Albanian community. It is for those in that community to decide. Our commitment is to provide a democratic process, with guaranteed free and fair elections, in which they can decide for themselves who they wish to speak on their behalf. In the meantime, until we can achieve that, it would be helpful if all those representatives of Kosovo Albanian opinion were to work together to help us to co-operate with them in the salvation of Kosovo.
On the political structure, the terms of the Security Council resolution are explicit: a political settlement should take account of the Rambouillet accords. They provide for an elected Parliament of Kosovo. To correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman, they provide not for an Albanian Parliament but for a Parliament representing all the ethnic groups in Kosovo. The OSCE will be charged with the duty of carrying out elections for the creation of that Parliament. We will seek to proceed with that as quickly as is reasonable, but it will not be done overnight. The simple task of creating an electoral register in Kosovo following the past two months will itself take some months.
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Should we not be rejoicing at the presence of Russian

33
troops in Pristina and Kosovo because it not only gives the Serb population in Kosovo a sense of security, but underlines Russia's feeling that ethnic cleansing should go no further in the province? In view of my right hon. Friend's statement that he wants more Russians in Kosovo, should he not be making representations to the Government of Hungary to ensure that Russian troops can be taken into Kosovo, overflying Hungarian airspace?
Mr. Cook: The Government of Hungary, as a member of NATO, will of course permit overfly as and when there is agreement with NATO for those troops to arrive in Kosovo. I reiterate that I would welcome a strong Russian contribution to Kosovo and to the Kosovo force, but the time for rejoicing will be when we have the agreement that enables those Russian troops to take part in an integrated operation with a unified chain of command.
Several hon. Members rose
Madam Speaker: Order. We must now move on.

NEW MEMBER
The following Member made the Affirmation required by law:
Hilary James Benn Esq., for Leeds, Central.

Points of Order
4.19 pm
Mr. David Rendel: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of today's planted written question, which has already been answered, on the habitual residence test and its future. Is it not very wrong that, only a few weeks ago, the Government rejected an amendment to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill that would have achieved very much the same as today's answer? Is it not also wrong that, given that the matter affects the right to benefits of 20,000 people every year and will save the Government some £20 million a year, the Government decided to release the information in a written answer, rather than making a full statement to the House, which would much better have enabled those whose rights are at risk to realise what is happening?
Madam Speaker: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, it is for Ministers to decide whether to make such announcements by oral statement or by written answer. No doubt the hon. Gentleman, who I know has a keen interest in this, will find ways of following up this issue through the procedures of the House in due course.
Dr. Evan Harris: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The House has a great interest in issues relating to the sexual health of teenagers and the education and welfare of single parents. In recent weeks, there have been many opportunities for the Government to present on the Floor of the House their policies on that matter. Although a planted question was answered by the Prime Minister today, is it in order for the Government to leak the information to the newspapers, and to write an article for a newspaper this morning, before presenting the information to the House in a written answer or, preferably, in a statement, so that hon. Members on both sides of the House may hear those important matters first and have an opportunity to question the Government on them?
Madam Speaker: I am aware that the Prime Minister has answered a written question on this issue today. If there has been advance publicity about this, I most strongly deprecate it. Any such publicity could certainly have waited until tomorrow, as far as I am concerned.

Orders of the Day
  Health Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Health Bill [Lords]

  ENGLISH AND SCOTTISH BORDER PROVISIONS
  '.—(1) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any functions to which subsection (2) applies which are specified in the Order, so far as exercisable in respect of the provision of services to persons in English border areas, to be exercisable (instead of any corresponding function to which subsection (4) applies) in respect of the provision of the services in question to persons in Scottish border areas who are specified in the Order.
  (2) This subsection applies to any functions under the 1977 Act, or Part I of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997. which are exercisable by the Secretary of State or any Health Authority or Primary Care Trust.
  (3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any functions to which subsection (4) applies which are specified in the Order, so far as exercisable in respect of the provision of services to persons in Scottish border areas, to be exercisable (instead of any corresponding function to which subsection (2) applies) in respect of the provision of the services in question to persons in English border areas who are specified in the Order.
  (4) This subsection applies to any functions under the 1978 Act, or Part I of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997, which are exercisable by the Scottish Ministers or any Health Board or NHS trust established under the 1978 Act.
  (5) In this section—
  "English border area" means the area of any Health Authority adjacent to Scotland,
  "Scottish border area" means the area of any Health Board adjacent to England.'—[Mr. Denham.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.21 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 46 and 47.
  Mr. Denham: This is the first debate of the Report stage. We had lengthy considerations Upstairs in Committee, and I am sure that we shall cover some of the same ground today.
  This new clause and the amendments consequential upon it will enable sensible provision to be made for local health care services at the border between England and Scotland. It is intended that similar provision will be made at the border between England and Wales, but that does not require primary legislation.
  Several GP practices located near the England-Scotland border have patients on their lists from both sides of the border. Under the existing arrangements, that means that the general practitioners concerned are part of both the English and the Scottish national health service systems. In commissioning services, in particular, that has created additional burdens on border GPs, which take up time, energy and resources that might be better devoted to
  36
  patient care. For example, one practice reported having to liaise with six different teams of community staff to cover its scattered population.
  The new clause will enable a GP practice and its patients to be dealt with by either an English health authority or a Scottish health board, instead of having to be dealt with by both. Provisions have been made in England at the boundaries between health authorities so that all the patients registered with a GP practice have their services commissioned by a single primary care group. That enables a more coherent approach to be taken to the planning of local health services, simplifies local administrative procedures and avoids duplication of time and effort.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Would the Minister be kind enough to clarify whether these provisions have been brought forward primarily because of the introduction of primary care groups, and whether, if fundholding had remained, these provisions would have been unnecessary?
  Mr. Denham: No. I understand that the problem that we are dealing with dates back to the introduction of commissioning in the early 1990s. At the moment, it affects relatively few patients and GPs; none the less, it is a problem for them.
  As the effect of an order under the new clause will be to confer on the Secretary of State or English health authorities the ability to operate in relation to Scottish patients, and for Scottish Ministers and Scottish health boards to operate in relation to English patients, both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament will be able to scrutinise, debate and approve the order. Amendment No. 47 provides that the Order in Council must be laid before, and approved by resolution of, both Houses of Parliament and the Scottish Parliament.
  Although relatively few patients will be affected by these provisions—about 3,500 on current estimates—they are important in ensuring that sensible, practical arrangements can be made for the provision of health care in border areas. We have consulted those who will be most affected by the provisions—health authorities, health boards and GPs in cross-border areas—and everyone who responded was in favour of the approach that we propose to take.
  I commend the new clause to the House.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: The Minister outlined this rather late Government new clause and presented it merely as a tidying-up exercise that would extend to the border between England and Scotland the arrangements already in place for dealing with primary care groups whose populations straddle borders between health authorities in England.
  I accept the Minister's underlying premise that practical and administrative difficulties arise for general practitioners whose practices deal with populations in different health authority areas, and that as a consequence they may have to deal with a multiplicity of commissioning arrangements. It is right in principle that we should seek to address GPs practical concerns in a

  37
  way that ensures that the service delivered to their patients is effective, meets their patients' expectations and is seamless in its presentation.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems that arises from the border areas is the disparity between the amounts of money paid per capita for patients in Scotland, as against those in England?
  Mr. Hammond: I thank my hon. Friend for that comment. He anticipates an issue that I shall come to in a moment.
  Let me set the matter in the context of the considerable pressure on general practice throughout the country—by that, I mean the United Kingdom. The position is no different in Scotland from that in England. Indeed, there is evidence that GPs in Scotland particularly have been feeling the strain over the past few months.
  Over the past year, since the Government made widely known their plans for the reorganisation of primary care in the United Kingdom, general practitioners have been alarmed and disconcerted about the prospects for their future. They have been concerned about the sanctity of their status as independent contractors to the national health service, and they have been alarmed on behalf of their patients about their continuing ability to supply the range of services that those of them who were fundholders were privileged to be able to provide under the fundholding regime.
  The Government have gone a considerable distance to reassure GPs about their intentions for the future of general practice services. Hon. Members who were privileged to be members of the Standing Committee that considered the Bill will by now be familiar almost verbatim with the terms of a letter written on 17 June 1998 by the Minister of State's predecessor to the chairman of the general practice committee of the British Medical Association. That letter was written in response to the widespread concerns of GPs that the move to primary care groups would impinge upon their freedom to prescribe and refer as they thought fit.
  The reason that I raise the matter now is that, despite probing at some length in Committee, we were unable to ascertain whether the commitments made by the Minister of State's predecessor in that letter to GPs in England and Wales were binding in respect of GPs in Scotland. The new clause deals with the situation in which GPs in Scotland may be treating English patients, and GPs in England may be treating Scottish patients.
  The tone of the letter of 17 June was reassuring. The Minister's predecessor wrote:
  "The ability to offer patients the individual care they require has been and remains the cornerstone of general practice. The new system allows individual GPs to decide what is best for the patient, whether for example to prescribe drugs or refer patients to hospitals, in the light of their clinical judgement. Patients will continue to be guaranteed the drugs, investigations and the treatments they need."
  The Minister went on to state:
  "There is no question of anyone being denied the drugs they need because a GP runs out of cash."
  38
  That comment is made in the context of the new unified budgets for primary care trusts, which will succeed primary care groups in due course. The Minister concluded that paragraph by stating:
  "I can guarantee that the freedom to refer and prescribe remains unchanged."
  4.30 pm
  The difficulty that I and my colleagues who were members of the Standing Committee faced was that although the Minister was able to give assurances that the commitments made in the letter, which referred explicitly and specifically to primary care groups—the precursors to the primary care trusts that will eventually succeed them—would apply also to the trusts when they came into being and would be equally valid, it was not possible for him to give the Committee any such satisfactory assurance with regard to Scotland. As is clear under the arrangements in the Scotland Act 1998, and given the Bill's provisions relating to devolution, it will be for Ministers in the Scottish Executive to make such commitments and to give such binding undertakings.
  There are concerns in the GP community on both sides of the border; there are also considerable morale and recruitment problems. We have additional concerns about the position of general practitioners in Scotland. The new clause clearly highlights the potential divergence between the delivery of health services in England and in Scotland. The Minister is creating a population of people who will live and belong in one country but be treated under the rules of the other country.
  When the Minister replies to this short debate, perhaps he will confirm that what I have just said is correct and that when an English person is the patient of a Scottish general practitioner and crosses the border into Scotland for treatment, he will be treated under the rules and regulations pertaining in Scotland, not those pertaining in England. In that sense, that patient would be in a distinctly different position from a national health service patient who is treated at NHS expense in a private hospital, where, notwithstanding the fact that he is not in an NHS hospital, the NHS regime for ensuring quality that is in place in the NHS extends to and covers that patient during the period that he spends in a private hospital. It would be useful if the Minister could confirm my understanding that the rules and regulations and the regime of the country where the GP is located will govern the treatment.
  That is not an empty question. At present, in many respects the systems and the services are similar on both sides of the border. However, it is possible—in my view and in the view of my right hon. and hon. Friends, it is quite likely—that over time differences will evolve in the regimes that operate north and south of the border. Those differences will be possible because of the responsibility that Scottish Executive Ministers will have in relation to non-reserved health matters and because of the serious discrepancy to which my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) has already drawn attention in the per capita spending on health services north and south of the border.
  Mr. Fabricant: My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has reminded me that there are fund-raising or tax-raising powers in the Scottish Parliament. Discrepancies between the amounts

  39
  of money being spent per patient in Scotland as opposed to those in the rest of the United Kingdom could be increased if the Scottish Parliament were to charge 3p extra on income tax.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right to observe that, even under the existing block grant system, per capita spending in Scotland is significantly higher than in England, but, as he says, it would be possible for the Scottish Parliament to raise health spending in Scotland still further. If it were minded to do that, given that health is a devolved matter and its responsibility, that would be a legitimate political decision for it to make in the light of the expressed views of the Scottish people. I do not think that we in this place would question its right to do that.
  We are considering a situation in which the evolution of divergent services between the two countries, north and south of the border, could accelerate and could become an issue. I shall give the House an example of one of the areas that we explored recently in Committee, about which I had the privilege of asking the Minister some questions.
  It is clear that professions supplementary to medicine which are not already regulated under the present system, but fall to be regulated under the Bill, will be subject to regulatory regimes which can be different north and south of the border. It will be perfectly possible for such professions to have different regulatory regimes, under which someone who is entitled to practise north of the border might not be entitled to practise south of the border. It is important that we recognise those possibilities and the fact that discrepancies could occur over time.
  One of the most important changes that the Government will introduce to the national health service through the Bill relates to the duty of quality, which is imposed on all health service bodies, and to the duty of co-operation, which is imposed as a statutory duty between health service bodies and between health service bodies and local authorities. We do not disagree in principle with the imposition of a duty of co-operation—it sounds sensible and we have had an opportunity to explore how well it will work in practice—but the duty of quality will be enforced in England and Wales primarily by the activities of the Commission for Health Improvement, which will have a wide-ranging remit to examine NHS bodies' implementation of their quality programme and the way in which they are interpreting the guidelines of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
  The remit of NICE does not extend to Scotland, however, so once again there will be a discrepancy between the regimes operating in England and in Scotland. Conservative Members will be greatly interested to know what arrangements the Minister intends to put in place to ensure that people who cross the border for treatment or for diagnosis are not in any way caught in the gap between two different regimes.
  The remit of NICE will include looking at the clinical and cost efficiency of various drugs and treatments that are, or will perhaps become, available in the NHS. Subject to not anticipating later debates, let us assume that the Bill will remain unchanged, and that the remit of NICE will
  40
  thus remain unchanged. Yet another problem will arise in respect of the English-Scottish border: once NICE has deliberated, reported and made its recommendations on the appropriateness of a making a drug or a treatment available with regard to its clinical and cost effectiveness, reality will bring us sharply up against the wide discrepancy between per capita funding of the NHS in England and in Scotland.
  NICE cannot operate in a vacuum. It is not realistic to assume that the judgments that it may sensibly make in relation to England can be equally applicable in Scotland, where the NHS is differently funded. In case anyone thinks that the differences are minor or insignificant, I shall give the figures, which are interesting. In 1999–2000, expected per capita NHS expenditure in England is £802, whereas in Scotland it is £964.
  Mr. Malcolm Chisholm: That point has been made several times already, and may be made many more times before the night is out. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that public expenditure should be related to need? If so, does he accept that all the major health indicators show that Scotland is a more unhealthy nation than England?
  Mr. Hammond: I would accept the need element, but if one looks around the English regions, it quickly becomes apparent that the regional distribution of NHS expenditure does not directly reflect need, as the hon. Gentleman suggests it should. I am trying to identify the implications of the different funding per capita in the national health service north and south of the border for the effective functioning of these apparently innocuous cross-border arrangements.
  Mr. Fabricant: I should not like my hon. Friend to be misled into thinking that areas of deprivation exist only in Scotland. Last Friday, I attended a meeting of the primary health care group in Salters Meadow centre, Rugeley road, Chase Terrace, which became part of my constituency after the boundary change. My hon. Friend may be surprised to know that the standard mortality rate for Chasetown men suffering from heart disease is 207, which is more than twice the national average. The saddest thing of all is that the local Hammerwich hospital, which serves people from Burntwood, faces the possibility of closure as a direct consequence of the abolition of fundholding practices and the introduction of primary care groups. Is not that a disgrace?
  Mr. Hammond: I agree with my hon. Friend: it is, indeed, a disgrace. Hon. Members will know of many local pockets of deprivation and health need around England and Wales that are not being dealt with consistently. We are faced with a discrepancy between per capita spending in England and Scotland of a fraction under 20 per cent. On the Government's own estimates, that figure is not intended to go down: it will stay approximately stable. Those planning the delivery of health care in Scotland will have significantly greater latitude than those charged with the task of planning health care in England and Wales. That cannot but have an impact on the systems, and on the availability of treatments and drugs.
  The Minister may have a different view, but I cannot see any way in which the proposed cross-border arrangements could be anything other than one-way

  41
  traffic. I do not imagine that many Scottish patients will want to be under the regime that will operate in England, given the much tighter financial constraints that it will face. The 20 per cent. difference—£160 per capita—extrapolated across the country would have a huge effect on waiting lists in a typical English parliamentary constituency. It is a significant factor relating to the delays experienced by constituents of hon. Members with English and Welsh seats who are waiting for treatment, and those being told that treatment is not available to them.
  I should be interested to hear from the Minister what additional arrangements to deal with the differences in the regulatory structure will be needed to protect patients who are involved in cross-border arrangements.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: Before my hon. Friend finishes, I wonder whether he could shed some light on a potential problem with the new clause. Is it not possible for someone to opt to enjoy the Scottish arrangement at one time and the English arrangement at another? Would the clause not institutionalise a situation that the health authorities in the border regions could exploit by offering some services to a lower standard in the knowledge that the people in their areas could just as easily go over the border and benefit from different provision?
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point to which the Minister should reply. I suspect that the Government's intention is that the arrangements should deal with patients who live in a different country from the practice where they are registered.
  My hon. Friend's point brings us to initiatives such as walk-in consultation centres, which the Government favour. A variety of other cross-border issues will arise in decisions on where a person belongs and what that entitles them to. If figures are available, will the Minister tell us how many people will be affected? A finite number of people will be involved in GP practices that already have a cross-border element. Has the Minister made an estimate of what the number might rise to as a result of the incentives that the new clause, which I am confident will be incorporated in the Bill, will give patients on the English side of the border to manipulate the arrangements?
  Finally, subsection (2) says:
  "This subsection applies to any functions under the 1977 Act".
  The Minister was kind enough to write to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) during the closing stages of the Standing Committee. He said that he intended to make provision for the exercise of health service functions across the England-Scotland and England-Wales borders; that the new clause would be designed to put existing practice on a firmer legal footing; and that provision would be made for the exercise of functions under part I of the National Health Service Act 1977 in relation to GP practices that straddle such borders. What is the significance, if any, of the decision to exclude from the new clause the reference that the Minister was expecting to make to part I?
  Mr. Fabricant: As my hon. Friend has already said, doctors are alarmed and concerned about the outrageous fact that fundholding practices have been abolished before the Bill is enacted. I shall not on this occasion read at length—there might be opportunities later, in the early hours of tomorrow morning—from an e-mail that I have received from a local doctor. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) smiles, because he knows that a number of doctors in Lichfield have access to e-mail and they e-mail me frequently on the issue. I shall simply quote the first line:
  "All right, primary care groups do now exist, but there are still more questions than answers."
  That also applies to new clause 18.
  When I asked the Minister whether the new clause would have been necessary under fundholding, he answered yes. He said that it was a simple tidying-up mechanism, but, if so, why has it been introduced at such a late stage? Are the parliamentary draftsmen at fault? Is the Department of Health at fault? Why has it been introduced at the final stage?
  New clause 18 will amend the National Health Service Act 1977. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) pointed out the strange architecture of the Bill. It is so peculiar and difficult to see through that the Department had to produce a consolidated Bill to incorporate the 1977 Act, of which they printed only two or three copies, so that we could attempt to follow how the Bill and previous Acts will be amended. I cannot but be suspicious that the reason for the Bill's strange architecture is to confuse the Members of Parliament who have to scrutinise the legislation and the doctors.
  It is also typical that new clause 18 states in the first line:
  "Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any functions to which subsection (2) applies".
  In other words, yet again a blank chequebook is being given by a Bill that contains no detail. Issues will be determined Upstairs in the privacy of a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation by only a few Members of Parliament and under a time limit.
  The Bill is confused, both in its structure and in what it is trying to achieve. The Bill mentions English border areas and Scottish border areas, but it gives no clear definition of those areas. Does it mean five miles either side of the border, or 10?
  Mr. Denham: It might be helpful if I point out that subsection (5) of new clause 18 defines English and Scottish border areas in terms of the health authorities and boards adjacent to the border.
  Mr. Fabricant: That is helpful. The Minister is, as ever, well informed, but will patients in the area feel that their position has been clarified? As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said, patients might find it beneficial to cross the border into Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge gave some figures that suggest that they might. He pointed out that £802 per capita is spent on health care in England and Wales, whereas £964 is spent in Scotland. That shows the differential.
  The hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said that there is greater deprivation in Scotland than in England, and perhaps that is so in

  43
  general, but there are pockets of deprivation in England and Wales, just as there are pockets of great wealth in Scotland. During the war, my mother was posted to Morningside in Edinburgh, which I believe is quite a wealthy area.
  In Chasetown in my constituency, the standard mortality rate generally is 160 for men, which is 1.6 times the national average, and 142 for women. The SMR for heart disease in Chasetown is 192, almost double the national average. The figure for men is 207, and for women 196. The main causes of death are congenital factors, accidents and cancers. To say that such conditions exist only in Scotland would be a huge travesty of the truth.
  Why are the moneys being spent in Scotland not also being spent at the same rate in deprived areas of England and Wales?
  Mr. Chisholm: The hon. Gentleman has not completely understood what I said. I made a simple point about headline health indicators for Scotland as a whole compared with England as a whole, whereas he is making an entirely different point.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful for that clarification. I thought that the hon. Gentleman's point was that Scotland deserves extra money because it is deprived in comparison with England and Wales, with more disease and higher mortality rates. I think that he is now nodding in assent. I am making the same point: deprivation should be taken into account, not only in Scotland but in England and Wales.
  Do not we have a national health service? Instead of the service being truly national, serving Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland, it is becoming fragmented and unfair. If an individual is suffering from a complaint, he may be more likely to receive better treatment in Scotland, where more money is available, than in the rest of the United Kingdom. Is not that wrong? Should not money follow the patient, not the nationality?
  Dr. Howard Stoate: Have not we always had differential spending on health care, depending on circumstances? The resource allocation working party in the 1980s made it clear that money should be allocated in different areas according to need. We currently use Jarman indices to make deprivation payments available to general practitioners. It is wrong to be hung up on the idea that Scotland gets all the money, because different regions have always had different amounts available, dependent largely on need.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Let us not go too far down the road of regional differences. I remind the House that we are talking specifically about arrangements at the border.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am grateful for that guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), who is a GP. However, he reinforces my argument, which is that money should follow need. It should not be allocated according to deals that favour other countries in
  44
  the United Kingdom over English regions. Why should 20 per cent. more money be available, per capita, in Scotland than in England and Wales? It is not because of need or deprivation, but because of Scottish Office deals with the Treasury.
  5 pm
  Patients and doctors will have an incentive to use new clause 18 to move from one part of the borders region to another simply to get extra money and care. Who could blame them? Should not parents expect the best care for their children? If that means crossing the border, they will do so. However, as the hon. Member for Dartford said, money should be allocated according to need. It was a shame that the hon. Gentleman—in whose constituency, incidentally, there was a Tory gain in last Thursday's elections—chose not to be a member of the Committee considering the Bill. He is a GP, and his input would have been valuable, but perhaps the Whips decided that he should not be on that Committee—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must return to the new clause.
  Mr. Fabricant: The new clause is confused. As I said, it is not explicit, and the detail will have to be dealt with by an Order in Council. Much is left to the imagination, and the fear is that the Government will take advantage of that lack of detail when they want to make financial cuts.
  We have been led to believe that Scotland will enjoy better health care because of devolution, yet a clause in the part of the Bill that deals with Scotland, to which I shall return later, provides that, under the terms of devolution, the Bill can override legislation passed in the Scottish Parliament. It is clear, therefore, that the Government are merely paying lip service to devolution. They are interested in the soundbite and the general principle, but the Bill allows them to overrule the Scottish Parliament in this matter.
  Finally, in our deliberations in Committee, a number of acid tests of the Bill emerged, and one is relevant to the new clause. The Government said that they would abolish fundholding. All the GPs in my constituency were fundholders, and so were able to send patients where they could get the best treatment locally. That secured the future of the two local hospitals in my area, the Hammerwich hospital in Walsall and the Victoria hospital in Lichfield.
  We asked the Government to include an acid test in the Bill. The Government had said that primary care groups would not mean a reduction in service, so we asked them to include a clause requiring the publication each year of the details of any service that would be withdrawn or added as a result of the replacement of fundholding with PCGs. That would have tested whether PCGs were improving the health service, and new clause 18 would be less relevant. The Government tacitly admit that the abolition of fundholding and the introduction of PCGs will mean a reduction in service, which is why they are introducing new clause 18.
  Patients in border areas may have to cross borders, which would not have been necessary under fundholding. The position became clear in Committee. The Minister chanted the mantra—we have heard it from the Secretary of State—that fundholding was unfair and a two-tier

  45
  system. We suggested that every doctor should be made a fundholder, but we were told that that would be too expensive. That is an admission that fundholding was about excellence, just as grammar schools were. We cannot afford to make all doctors fundholders, so the 60 per cent. of patients who were treated by fundholding practices—practices abolished even before the Bill has been enacted—will instead receive a second-class service.
  The hon. Member for Dartford is scribbling hard and may wish to take part in the debate. On the other hand, he may be told by his Whips to keep quiet. Why was the hon. Gentleman never a fundholder? The answer is ideology, not his patients' needs. He should come to Lichfield to meet my doctors.
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: Do not ask him to do that.
  Mr. Fabricant: I should invite the hon. Gentleman to come while he is still a Member. After the next election, if last night's European results are anything to go by, he will not still sit for Dartford.
  Dr. Stoate: My practice never became a fundholding practice because it realised that that system was bad value for money and it did not give patients a good deal. On a point of information, the hon. Gentleman may wish to know that general practitioners in Dartford formed one of the first pilot groups for the switch to primary care groups. About 50 per cent. of those GPs were fundholders, but they voluntarily relinquished fundholding because they realised that PCGs offered far better services for patients in Dartford and Gravesham. By doing so, they provided an extremely effective PCG a year ahead of anyone else. It is providing far better services at far better value for money than any fundholding practice did. That is why the Government are not keen on fundholding.
  Mr. Fabricant: GPs know one thing: Labour's huge majority allows the Government to jackboot any legislation through the House. They knew that fundholding would be abolished—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This debate is not about the merits of fundholding. Would the hon. Gentleman please return to the new clause?
  Mr. Fabricant: The introduction of new clause 18 at such a late stage is typical of the way in which the Bill was drafted. Clauses were added at the last minute in Committee, and the new clause—the Government call it simple tidying up—is also being added at the last minute. It is impenetrable, referring to the Bill and to preceding legislation. Yet again, we find a lack of detail. Instead, huge powers are given to the Secretary of State to make decisions Upstairs. Who can wonder that GPs are disturbed? Who can wonder that they doubt the Government's motives? Most important of all, who can be surprised that a MORI poll has shown that 30 per cent. of the population now know that the national health service is not safe in the Government's hands?
  Mr. Brady: Such was the rousing reception with which the speech by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) was greeted, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I could hardly hear that I was being called to speak.
  46
  However, the reception was highly deserved as my hon. Friend made an important contribution to the debate. My contribution will be more technical and I will deal with some of the detail of the new clause.
  It would be unwise to suggest that I disagree with your suggestion that the debate should be concerned with the border, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but in my view it is not merely about the border areas but about changing the location of the border for certain purposes. The new clause gives rise to grave concern because of the provision for an Order in Council with all that that implies. When the Minister responds, I would welcome some real detail about what the Government intend to put in the order, and therefore, about the implications for people who live in the border area, whether on the Scottish or the English side.
  My concern is that for the purpose of primary health care in particular a different border will be applicable. It is not the border that divides England and Scotland, which is obviously one to which people who live near it have grown used and which has a historical basis. People are comfortable with that border. However, the new clause would change the border. For health purposes, the real border will be that of the health authority area adjacent to the border with Scotland.
  The new clause would not simply make arrangements relevant to what happens on one or other side of the border, but would in some ways blur the border between Scotland and England. The critical difference in the treatment that a patient receives will no longer depend on whether he lives on the side of the border that benefits from the Barnett formula and the increased health expenditure to which the broad mass of people in the United Kingdom have been happy to consent for a long time. It will depend on whether people live within the boundaries of the health authority or health board that abuts the border on the Scottish side. That provision has grave constitutional implications and it also has implications for the treatment and funding of health care for the people concerned.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield sought to suggest, expenditure on health care for the citizens of the United Kingdom differs. It depends on where they live and on the GP with whom they are registered. Due to accidents of geography, there is a question mark over the treatments that people can receive in certain areas. I do not want to stray too far away from the border, but I recently dealt with a constituent who was being denied a treatment that his consultant had told him was essential for his future health. Had he lived on the Manchester rather than the Salford and Trafford side of the health authority boundary, he would have been allowed that treatment.
  In the new clause, the difference is writ large—it is between those health authority areas that are English and have roughly 20 per cent. less funding to spend on their residents and those that are Scottish.
  We now also have a new distinction between health authorities that have the benefit of abutting the border and those that do not. If the health authority area is at one remove from the border, it will have less flexibility in the planning of its arrangements for the provision of treatment for its residents than if it is directly adjacent to the border. In the planning of treatments that might be discretionary and might contain some element of choice—whether

  47
  handed down by the national institute that will be created, or lying within the discretionary decisions currently taken by health authorities—there will be instances in which a health authority could decide that a form of treatment is too expensive to constitute good value. However, that would not be a problem for residents of that area who could cross the border to Scotland where such treatment might be available, at taxpayers' expense. That treatment would be denied to people living on the English side of the boundary.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way because he is making a powerful speech. Does he agree that the phenomenon of differential treatment by postcode that he describes has no basis either in logic or in equity? Does he experience in his constituency of Altrincham and Sale, West the same backlash against that injustice that I experience in my Buckingham constituency?
  Mr. Brady: I think that I am probably experiencing the same kind of response as my hon. Friend. More often than not, it comes down to the fact that, if there appears to be a danger that adverse publicity will arise from treatment being denied, then treatment is provided, whereas if a person is prepared to suffer in silence, treatment may never be provided. That is a real concern. It is also a concern that relates to waiting list figures, which, of course, are being massaged throughout the whole country. Many health authorities have a miraculous ability to find it in their powers to treat a patient who makes a bit of a fuss about a long delay in receiving treatment. That is nothing short of a scandal; we are beginning to see a different standard of treatment and certainly a different length of waiting time for treatment, depending on the area in which one lives or on whether one is prepared to make a fuss.
  Mr. Hammond: Has my hon. Friend observed—as I have—that the most effective way to move oneself up the waiting list is to get one's name mentioned in the Chamber?
  Mr. Brady: I am reluctant to be drawn on that point.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are again straying a long way from arrangements on the border. Will the hon. Gentleman return to them?
  Mr. Brady: That is why I was reluctant to be drawn by the question of my hon. Friend, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  In relation to the specifics of the new clause, we are exacerbating the situation. We are enshrining in law that it will be not merely a matter for health authorities—depending on where they are in the country—to provide different levels and types of treatment at different costs, but that there will also, in effect, be a statutory system allowing individual patients to make choices that exploit the inevitable anomalies in the treatment systems available. A patient might have the choice of registering with one GP practice or another, or might be able to register with an English GP or a Scottish one. A patient
  48
  might register with an English GP, but will be aware that Scottish health care facilities may, none the less, be available to him. That is one of the serious question marks over the way in which the new clause was drafted.
  The point made by the Minister when he replied to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield relates precisely to the question of which areas the measure applies to. The Minister is right to point out that subsection (5) states:
  "'English border area' means the area of any Health Authority adjacent to Scotland,
  'Scottish border area' means the area of any Health Board adjacent to England."
  However, will he tell us why? What makes that a logical assumption for the purposes of the measure?
  In my view, the truly relevant distinctions would be geographically defined far more tightly than simply according to the administrative boundaries of health authorities. The Minister must accept that there might be people living in parts of Northumbria, Cumbria and the Scottish border areas who have no need of the provisions set out in the new clause but who may, none the less, derive benefit from them.
  Mr. Denham: The reason that those health authorities and health boards are covered is that they encompass practices in which people are registered on both sides of the border. Therefore, those are the sensible health authorities and boards to draw into the legislation.
  Mr. Brady: The Minister says that that is the reason for the inclusion of those health authority and boards, but the new clause does not limit the application of the procedures and situations set out in it to those people who are registered with practices which have patients on both sides of the border. In short, the Government are creating a potentially serious anomaly.
  I am not familiar with the health authority boundaries, but as one who knows that part of the country reasonably well, I would hazard a guess that they encompass large geographical areas. Therefore, the Government are attempting to define in legislation extremely large areas to which the provisions will be applicable, even where there is no real need for those provisions or where the real need could be far more tightly defined, for example, by restricting the application of the provisions to those people who are registered with practices which have patients on both sides of the border. The new clause is badly drafted and it gives the legislation extremely wide scope.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister's intervention was interesting. Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Minister is to offer a convincing rebuttal of my hon. Friend's case, it is necessary for him to show that, in the areas concerned, every practice, without exception, has patients registered on both sides of the border? If the Minister does not take this opportunity to rise and say that, my hon. Friend's case will rest.
  Mr. Brady: I do not expect the Minister to leap to his feet, because he knows full well that he cannot demonstrate that that is so, and that is precisely what makes my point.

  49
  For the vast majority—probably 99 per cent.—of the residents in the health authority areas which will be affected by the new clause, the provisions are not a necessity. However, the new clause will change the nature of the health care provision that is available to them, and it will do so in a way that distorts the planning and provision of health care in a stretch of land along either side of the border between England and Scotland that is remarkably broad. That part of the country is, in the main, rural, so the health authority and health board areas are relatively large.
  The new clause, in effect, blurs the border between England and Scotland for certain purposes. For the administrative basis of health care provision, the border could, in principle, be blurred away from the geographical border to the administrative border of the health authority or health board adjacent to the geographical border. As for the reason why the Government are trying to do that, I can only suggest that it is a conscious attempt to fudge some of the difficult problems raised by the progress toward devolved government in Scotland, for example, the inequities between England and Scotland in tax and spending arrangements that might arise from devolution. It is a cause of great concern. Many people in England and Wales are beginning to question the constitutional balance created by devolution. English voters are becoming increasingly concerned about the Barnett formula and the fact that their taxes will be used disproportionately to fund services in Scotland. The new clause will add to that effect.
  For example, the Scottish Parliament might vote to increase taxation—by introducing the tartan tax that was debated at length during consideration of the devolution legislation—in order to provide better health services. However, that tax increase would cease to be acceptable to the Scottish people in the context of the new clause, which would cause those who are not the sole beneficiaries of that expenditure to provide the additional revenue.
  The relationship between taxation and the democratic accountability for raising and spending it is ludicrously complicated. The Barnett formula and the existing anomalies in expenditure levels in England and in Scotland have been accepted—if only as a result of the passage of time. However, an additional complication could arise. Scottish electors could be asked to support the decision of the Scottish Parliament to raise taxation for the express purpose of augmenting health provisions on the northern side of the border. However, new clause 18 could lead to Scottish electors being taxed in order to spend more money not just on people south of the border, but on a relatively small and arbitrarily fixed group of them.
  It is not appropriate to legislate to create an absurd anomaly. A small number of people may derive a disproportionate benefit for which others have paid and for which their elected politicians are not accountable. That could cause grave concern and a good deal of controversy. Our concerns would be lessened if the Minister would respond to the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and define the areas precisely. If he would come to the Dispatch Box and tell us that the new clause will affect only 50 or 100 people living in the most remote rural
  50
  areas of Cumbria, Northumbria and the Scottish Borders, we might be prepared to say that its constitutional abhorrence pales into insignificance.
  Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in order to provide such an assurance, the Minister would have to contemplate freezing the lists of GPs in those border areas? Given the relative paucity of choice available to people living in those sparsely populated areas, would my hon. Friend not find that an unacceptable restriction?
  Mr. Brady: I think I probably would—I certainly think that those affected would. Difficulties may arise if the lists are not frozen and this legislation is passed. Rather than registering with local practitioners, people who live outside the areas directly affected that would normally be served by border practices—they could live 20, 30 or 40 miles from the border—might find it advantageous to register with GPs close to the border in order to benefit from higher levels of expenditure. In very rural areas, people's local practice may conceivably be 10 miles south of them.
  5.30 pm
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is absolutely right, but the issue is not simply the higher level of expenditure in general, but the availability in one area of a drug or treatment that is not available in another area. We have all heard stories of people selling up and moving house to get into a local health authority area where, for example, beta interferon is available. That could well happen across the border.
  Mr. Brady: I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. I would go further and say that not only is a clear incentive created for people to move house or register with a different GP—they might go to considerable lengths to benefit from treatment that they would otherwise be denied—but, giving due credit to health authorities and boards for their wit and intelligence in seeking to serve the interests of their population, it may be entirely appropriate for them to take into account their privileged status under new clause 18.
  As designated health boards or authorities, part of their planning process may be to accept that they are part of a jigsaw that fits with the board or authority on the other side of the border. It would be perfectly possible under new clause 18 for a health authority or board deliberately to refuse a particular treatment in the knowledge that the corresponding board or authority on the other side of the English-Scottish border provided that treatment and that its own residents would not be disadvantaged by the decision.
  Indeed, in aggregate, residents may benefit from such decisions because the Bill allows residents to have an à la carte health service in which they can pick a treatment that is available in their local health authority area and turn across the border to Scotland for a treatment that is not available where they live. Treatments such as beta interferon or erythropoetin, which was the treatment in question for the constituent to whom I referred earlier, may be available in one health authority area but not in another. That may become a permanent state of affairs

  51
  and may encourage co-ordination, whether formal or informal, in the provision of health services across the English-Scottish border.
  Mr. Hammond: Managed from Brussels.
  Mr. Brady: I am not sure whether my hon. Friend wants me to repeat his remark, but he said that it will be managed from Brussels, which is doubtless in the mind of the Government, although they may now think twice about their headlong rush towards integration, following yesterday's election results.
  The result of new clause 18, however, for people who live in the border regions may be beneficial in that their health authority can co-ordinate treatment with the health board on the opposite side of the border. That would increase the number of treatments available to residents in that area, without any increase in total expenditure.
  The disadvantage is to those people who live on the Scottish side of the border in the next tier of health board areas, but far more so to those people living in the next tier of health authority areas on the English side of the border because they are multiply disadvantaged by the Bill. They are already disadvantaged by having to pay taxes that disproportionately fund health services in Scotland under the Barnett formula.
  Health authorities, with which we all deal, must make choices and decisions in conducting their daily business. They must make difficult decisions on how to divide the resources made available to them—whether the prescription of beta interferon is the best way in which to improve overall health in the area or whether money could be better spent on other treatment. Health authorities adjacent to the border would make fewer such choices under new clause 18.
  Mr. Bercow: I am sorry to agitate and interrupt the eloquence of my hon. Friend's flow, but the scope for the form of administrative table tennis which he has described is perverse in the extreme. On the strength of his listening to Ministers' statements, does he judge that they are guilty of knavery or of folly? In other words, is this a Machiavellian plot or has the Minister, whom we know to be capable of this, stumbled into the mess inadvertently?
  Mr. Brady: I thank my hon. Friend for that elegant intervention. I do not know whether the Minister has stumbled into this or whether his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is perhaps even more capable of stumbling into problems, is responsible for it. My suspicion is that the proposed legislation is simply ill thought out.
  The reason why the new clause has been tabled at this point is far from that in the picture painted earlier for my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield: that there has been a crying need for such a provision for a long time and that it was absolutely necessary that the Government should now deal with something that has been causing difficulty. In fact, there had been no previous difficulty of any significance. Somebody suddenly realised that there might be one and thought that something ought to be drafted that might deal with it, subject to the approval of a suitable Order in Council by not only both Houses of
  52
  the Westminster Parliament but the Scottish Parliament. Perhaps I am more generous of nature than my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham; I hesitate to attribute unkind motives to the Minister or suggest that he is making a foolish mistake.
  The new clause appears to have been given minimal thought or consideration. It has been tabled on Report, instead of in Committee, where we might have had a much better opportunity to debate its implications. Had it appeared in the Bill in the first place, perhaps some of the very serious complications surrounding it could have been addressed earlier.
  I suspect that there is no deliberate intention to deceive, although it may be convenient for the Government—if possible—to blur the inequities that arise from devolution, which are most obvious to those who live adjacent to the border. Those living nearer the border can see such inequities and problems in sharp contrast, whether in taxation, health care provision or other public services. Although I am far from convinced that the Government have made a deliberate attempt to blur such distinctions, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham was right to suggest that there is a possibility of knavery—and we should consider that.
  Regardless of Ministers' motivation in tabling the new clause, this is an ill-judged piece of legislation. As has happened so many times in the relatively brief time that we have suffered the new Government's control of policy, legislation is being introduced which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield said, gives the Secretary of State very broad powers to introduce more detailed provisions without the facility for debate and amendment that there would have been, had they been included in the Bill.
  That is unfortunate for Members of the House who, rightly, wish to debate these matters properly and in detail. Moreover, if the Labour Government are going to start paying attention to the concerns that the public plainly have about them, as demonstrated in the recent European election, they should address people's concern that the Government still behave in a way that sometimes consciously stifles debate. They are also concerned that, at other times, as in this instance, an over-reliance on delegated powers denies the Government the opportunity—they should start to understand that it is an opportunity—to enjoy the benefit of scrutiny in the House before they embody detailed matters in law.
  If a tenth of the concerns that I and my hon. Friends have expressed about the new clause were to prove well-founded, the clause would constitute a bad piece of legislation. Those concerns will come back to haunt the Government, and Ministers will regret not acting on them. If they had had the good sense to put the detail of such material in the Bill, they would have benefited from hearing it debated, and from having the pitfalls highlighted.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is making an extremely powerful point. He was not privileged to serve on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill, but he might like to know that the Government tabled a new clause at the end of that Committee's consideration and have been forced to come back today with a substantial number of amendments to it. That demonstrates the truth of my hon. Friend's case.
  Mr. Brady: I thank my hon. Friend. It is ludicrous to table the new clause in its current form yet still to fail

  53
  to address the concerns that are being expressed today. These matters should be the stuff of the primary legislation before us. It is not enough for a slice of the United Kingdom—I suspect, merely 100 miles wide at one point—on either side of the border between England and Scotland to be covered by a catch-all provision in the Bill, which can be defined only by subsequent delegated legislation.
  The Minister, in his brief opening remarks, gave no information regarding the numbers of people who are resident in the areas of the health authorities and health boards that we are discussing. He gave us no idea of the geographical size of those areas. He gave us no idea of how many GP practices would be affected, either by the new clause or by the order that he presumably has in mind, but to which the House is not yet privy. He gave us no idea of the current disparity in terms of health expenditure on one side of the border or the other, or, in terms of weighted capitation, of the effect of that on different health authorities on either side of the border. He gave no indication of the kind of treatments that may currently be available in a health authority on one side of the border but which are not available in a health board area on the other side or, more likely, vice versa.
  The Minister has given the House none of that information. I live in hope that he may put that right later, when he responds to this short debate. He flicks casually through his notes, but I am not certain that he has that volume of information in his possession as he sits in the House this evening.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend's patience is renowned throughout the House, but I must trouble him once more. Does he agree that it is not necessary to gaze into the crystal ball when we can read the book? Does he accept that his point has not only intellectual merit, but practical validity? It is not just a theoretical concept that by fleshing out Government proposals in the Bill, we maximise the chance of better legislation and better service to the public. That is manifestly proven in the context of legislation that the Government have introduced in other areas of public policy. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is precisely because of the tendency to legislate by Order in Council and regulation that is not subject to the scrutiny of the House that the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), for example, got into such an unholy mess in relation to the working time regulations? Can we not learn from that experience?
  Mr. Brady: I endorse everything that my hon. Friend said, but I am aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you may not wish me to venture into other areas of policy. Assuming that having sold one house, the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) does not take advantage of the provisions of the new clause to buy another property in a health authority area where he may benefit from treatment on the other side of the Scottish border, I am not sure that I would be permitted to stray into that area.
  The point is sound. Not only should the Government, as a matter of principle, bring these issues in detail to the House of Commons, but their own ends would ultimately be served better if they did so.
  I suspect that the Minister does not have the basic, essential information that ought to be available to hon. Members now to enable them to reach a proper conclusion
  54
  about the impact of new clause 18. We have heard nothing about the number of people likely to be affected, the sums of money available, the sums spent and the treatments available in different areas. None of that information has been given to us, so the House is left in the dark.
  Once again, we must agree a new clause that has wide parameters and about which we have virtually no information. That is profoundly wrong as a way of legislating and it will cause the Government considerable regret later.
  The hon. Gentleman whose constituency I do not know and who was earlier described as the hon. Gentleman on the fourth Bench, but whom I know to be an hon. Member of great distinction, spoke about different levels of social deprivation in different parts of the United Kingdom. That is relevant. I expect that few hon. Members, if any, would disagree with the notion that there should be some degree of weighting in public expenditure on the basis of need, as the hon. Gentleman said.
  However, new clause 18 provides a mechanism for the weighting of provision not on the basis of need, but purely on the basis of geography. It must surely be wrong that someone who lives in a wealthy part of Northumberland, close to the Scottish border, may derive much greater benefit from the measure than someone who lives in the most impoverished part of Newcastle upon Tyne would gain. My knowledge of geography is not quite so good on the Scottish side of the border. However, someone who lives in one of the remote border areas—for example, the Cheviots or wherever—may gain benefits regardless of economic status, the level of need and health indicators, putting him in a preferential position relative to those living in the most deprived parts of Glasgow or of other Scottish cities.
  This is not about the provision of health care on the basis of need. It is not justifiable on any rational or moral ground. It is an attempt to gloss over an administrative problem that the Government created, but without giving proper thought and attention to the implications that it could have. The Minister's opening remarks gave me no confidence that the Government have thought things through to a position where they will be able to answer the difficulties when they bring forward their Order in Council.
  I raise the question, in conclusion—
  Mr. Bercow: Surely not.
  Mr. Brady: I am saving myself.
  Is it appropriate for the House to agree to accept a new clause that has massively broad parameters when we have been given no detail about the implications and about the people who will be affected by it? We have been given the assurance that these matters will be dealt with when the Government see fit to bring forward delegated legislation. Of course, there will be no opportunity to amend it. As it will have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament as well as the Scottish Parliament, that must leave open the possibility that the supposedly pressing need, according to the Minister, to tidy up administrative problems that have existed for some time, might be rejected and that the Order in Council might be thrown out not by this place, not by the other place, but by the Scottish Parliament.

  55
  If the Members of the Scottish Parliament are to do their jobs properly and are to consider the impact of legislation that carries the potential effect of requiring their constituents to pay for health provision for people living outside their constituencies and outside the boundaries of Scotland, they may see that there will be no benefit for the Scots and that health care resources may be diverted from Scottish people to English people. As an English Member, I may think that that is a reasonable state of affairs and may even up the current discrepancies in health expenditure on either side of the border. However, Members of the Scottish Parliament may see the matter in a different light.
  Surely the questions that are being raised by myself and others must weigh heavily on the minds of Members of the Scottish Parliament. They will be dealing with proposals that can carry a huge disbenefit to some residents in Scotland. None of these matters has been dealt with by the Minister. I hope that he will attend to some of them when he replies. I hope that in my brief remarks I have highlighted that the Government have brought forward ill-considered and ill-thought-out legislation with potentially serious consequences, and have not bothered to bring the information to the House on which we can make a reasoned judgment.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: I propose to be brief. I did not intend to speak on the new clause, but I was tempted to do so by my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) and for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant). A possibility has occurred to me that is rather different in scope from the possibilities that my hon. Friends have outlined. I should preface my remarks by saying that I have had some difficulty in understanding the clause although I have read it several times. It is not exactly transparent, perhaps because so little of its substance is present on the amendment paper. It seems that that will be manufactured in the form of an Order in Council somewhat later.
  The thrust of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield was that there would be a movement of patients from the English side of the border, seeking treatments on the Scottish side, because of the 20 per cent. better funding arrangements that are available to Scottish health authorities. I am indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West for dwelling on the fact that the border becomes confused—he used the word "blurred"—as a result of the new clause.
  My view is that the border will become a much more critical divide than hitherto in health affairs. That is because the Scottish Parliament will have absolute discretion when it comes to the treatments that it funds or does not fund. I shall put a specific possibility to the Minister and ask him to address it when he replies.
  There is little doubt that the Scottish Parliament will develop its own identity both with respect to its attitude to health care and its attitude to moral issues. It strikes me that there is a distinct possibility of the flow of patients being entirely the other way round—people who are in the care of health authorities north of the border in the border areas seeking treatments south of the border. There is a real possibility that patients might legitimately
  56
  expect treatment under, for example, the provisions of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which remains a reserved matter, while the Scottish Parliament decides as a matter of principle that it will not fund that treatment. There is the possibility that patients who are unable to secure treatment in Scotland will seek to use the provisions of the clause to secure that treatment in England. I have chosen the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, but I could have referred instead to the provisions of the Abortion Act 1967.
  As I have said, the Scottish Parliament will have absolute discretion as to what procedures it is prepared to fund north of the border. It will be entirely operationally possible for that Parliament to deny a series of treatments in its funding decisions which, in terms of reserved legislation, the British people as a whole have been led to expect they may legitimately receive. There is a strong possibility in the years ahead of health refugees, as it were, coming to the border areas and seeking to use the provisions of the clause to obtain treatments which are not available in Scotland from English health authorities. I ask the Minister to address that possibility.
  Mr. David Amess: I apologise to the Minister for not being here at the start of the debate; I was in my room, because I had anticipated that the statement on Kosovo would last an hour, although I think that it finished after only 40 minutes. However, I was watching his performance carefully on the monitor and I have to say to him that the start of proceedings on Report has been, in every sense, a hangover from his style in Committee. He came to the Dispatch Box and gently introduced new clause 18 as though it were harmless, but it certainly is not an innocuous measure.
  6 pm
  Today, a member of Her Majesty's Cabinet has talked about a low turnout and, according to that right hon. Member, a low turnout indicates that the majority of people are happy. There is a relatively low turnout in the Chamber at the moment, so I assume that the majority of Members are happy with the Bill and the new clause—but I am not at all happy with new clause 18 and I would not trust the Government an inch.
  Mr. Hammond: Does my hon. Friend agree that the other possible interpretation of low turnout is bewilderment and the impenetrability of what one is dealing with? That would apply equally to the European elections and to the Bill.
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is entirely right and what he has said will perhaps seem even more true when I have developed my arguments about border arrangements.
  I say to the Minister that accepting the new clause without query is not what the House is about. The Health Bill is on Report, which is an important stage of our consideration, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), who taught the House how to be succinct and got a point over so that we understood it extremely well. Of course his constituents are angry about these border

  57
  arrangements. I understand, although he will correct me if I am wrong, that the general hospital in his constituency has closed two wards and moved 100 nurses to other—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Will the hon. Gentleman please return to discussing the border arrangements?
  Mr. Amess: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West on feeling so moved as to talk about the new clause in the way that he did.
  Mr. Brady: Staying entirely in order, I should say that the planned closure of two wards at Altrincham general hospital—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is not in order.
  Mr. Amess: New clause 18 has five subsections, and I want to deal first with subsection (5), which says:
  "'English border area' means the area of any Health Authority adjacent to Scotland,
  'Scottish border area' means the area of any Health Board adjacent to England."
  I apologise if I missed the Minister giving the details of those health authorities in my rush to get to the Chamber from No. 1 Parliament street, but for goodness' sake, the Bill is a shambles. That was what we found all along in Committee and we have been provided with no proper detail.
  The Bill was introduced in the House of Lords and has been in Committee, but still the Government have not got their act together. I do not know how many health authorities are involved, but would it not have been sensible for the Minister to tell us precisely which ones we are talking about?
  Mr. Fabricant: I apologise for having had to leave the Chamber for a few minutes. My hon. Friend might like to know that when I asked the Minister for a definition, he simply referred me to another provision. He could not—perhaps he was unable to—name the health authorities concerned, and I find that shocking.
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is right. I recall forecasting in Committee that the Government would collapse, and I have been proved right—it happened yesterday, when their incompetence was well and truly shown up in those shocking results. I do not know why we are rushing through proceedings—we are here to scrutinise Bills properly—and I challenge the Minister to describe in detail when he responds to this brief debate which health authorities he is talking about.
  This is an important matter because my constituents in Southend, West want it to be dealt with properly and want the Government to deal with it evenhandedly. If I knew the details of the individual health authorities, I might be in a strong position to bring out particular points in respect of the border arrangements. I speak only for myself, but I find the whole concept of borders offensive. By using such a style in the Bill and in the new clause, the Government are setting people against people. What is going on is outrageous.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to know a number of things from the Minister? First, does

  58
  he yet know exactly which authorities he has in mind? Secondly, has he informed the Members whose constituencies fall within the areas of those authorities? Thirdly—my hon. Friend will agree that this point is manifestly related to the matter we are discussing—should we not be told whether those Members are in the Chamber, as they are interested parties? If not, why not?
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is on to the precise point, but if he had been privileged to serve on the Standing Committee he would have witnessed at first hand what a shambles the Bill is. Although I hope that I will be corrected, I suspect that we will not find out which health authorities will be affected. That will happen when the Bill goes to the other place, because the Government hope that it will not want to scrutinise the Bill properly; but I know that the other place will certainly scrutinise the Bill properly.
  One of the Labour Members who has spoken—I am determined to tease out which constituency he represents—was an outstanding Minister who had the guts to resign over child benefit, I believe, or a similar measure. As he responded to a point made by one of my colleagues, he said that Scotland needs more money to be spent on health care and then talked about areas of deprivation. Since this rotten Government came to office on 1 May 1997, there have been areas of deprivation across the length and breadth of the country. Southend, West is now an area of deprivation.
  I am delighted that the Conservatives got half the votes cast in my constituency in the European election.
  Mr. Bercow: I am interested in what my hon. Friend has to say, but I simply cannot abide any longer the House sitting on the border, languishing between knowledge and ignorance. I therefore hope that he is grateful to me for pointing out that, unless I am much mistaken, the hon. Gentleman in question represents Edinburgh, North and Leith. He has been extremely modest in refusing to take a bow, but I do not want him skulking in the shadows unnamed.
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend will have helped other people, who report on these matters, and I thank him for his advice.
  Mr. Fabricant: On that point about skulking, has my hon. Friend noticed that only at this late stage has the Scottish Health Minister arrived for the debate? We have been discussing the border areas of Scotland and England; while England has been represented, Scotland, as ever, has been unrepresented.
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is on to an excellent point.
  Miss Widdecombe: Where is the Secretary of State?
  Mr. Amess: Indeed, where is the Secretary of State?
  Miss Widdecombe: My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that we have had a response to that question—the Minister assures me that the Secretary of State has much better things to do with his time.
  Mr. Amess: Well, there we are. Obviously, Her Majesty's Government have learned nothing from what happened on Thursday and the count that took place on Sunday. Their arrogance is beyond belief.

  59
  I shall gently chide my right hon. Friend. Earlier, I referred to turnouts. The turnout in the Chamber is beginning to improve, so it seems that more and more hon. Members, certainly on the Conservative Benches, think that the border arrangements in new clause 18 are important.
  Miss Widdecombe: Can my hon. Friend judge the importance attributed to border arrangements in the eyes of the Government by the number of Labour Members who have spoken?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps we could now turn specifically to the border arrangements.
  Mr. Amess: I was referring to social deprivation. The NHS figures show that in 1998–99, £36,860 million was spent in England compared with £4,642 million in Scotland. For 2001–02, the figures are £45,370 million in England and £5,549 million in Scotland. In 1998–99, the figure per head was £746 in England compared with £907 in Scotland, and for 2001–02 it is £910 in England and £1,087 in Scotland. The Minister owes it to the House to give a thorough answer to the question about the real reason for the disparity in spending.
  The Minister's hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), referred to these matters. I remember serving on a Standing Committee of a health Bill some years ago, when we debated the amount of money being spent in Scotland. Before hon. Members shout me down, I should like to refer to a debate on Scottish teeth. It was clear that in spite of the huge amount of money being spent on dental care in Scotland, Scottish teeth needed a great many more fillings than English teeth. During the Committee stage of that Bill, Labour Members, who were in opposition at that time—it is a pity they are not now—argued that that was due to diet and social deprivation. That is utter nonsense. My constituents' teeth are every bit as important as the teeth of the people affected by these border arrangements.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman, I hope for the last time, that this debate is not about relative spending on health north and south of the border. It is specifically about technical arrangements on the border.
  Mr. Amess: I want to draw the Minister's attention to the heart of new clause 18. He told us that subsection (4) applies to any functions under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978 or part I of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997, which are exercisable by the Scottish Ministers or any health board or NHS trust established under the 1978 Act. I may have missed the Minister giving any detail about the 1978 Act and the matters that would be affected, but I would ask him to spell out in precise detail, when he replies to the debate, what he was referring to.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that the questions he asks are a consequence of the fact that the new clause has been introduced so late? If it had not been tabled late, he would have been able to use the excellent explanatory notes, which have been prepared by able officials in the Department of Health.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. Amess: I have not had time to read the explanatory notes. They may be excellent, but I suspect that they do not explain the 1978 Act in detail. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether they deal with the 1978 Act.
  Mr. Brady: Before my hon. Friend departs from subsection (4), will he tell us whether it is his understanding—as it is mine—that the phrase "Scottish Ministers" applies to Scottish Ministers in the House rather than to members of the Scottish Executive? Should any of the health matters dealt with by the Scottish Executive also be covered by subsection (4)?
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend leads me on to another subject: the powers of the Scottish Parliament in relation to the Bill. In Committee, members of Her Majesty's loyal Opposition were somewhat confused about why on earth the Bill was being introduced when it was clear that the Scottish Parliament would take over the matters that we were dealing with. I have tried to follow the Bill carefully, but I am still not convinced about the relationship between the powers and duties under the Bill and the powers of the Scottish Parliament. If the Minister is saying that the border arrangements in new clause 18 override anything discussed in the Scottish Parliament, what on earth is the good of the Scottish Parliament? The Scottish people have been sold a pig in a poke.
  Miss Widdecombe: A pup.
  Mr. Amess: A pup, or whatever it is. They have been led up the garden path. I am pretty sure that the good citizens of Scotland will be interested to know that the Parliament they voted for in the referendum will not be as important as they believed it would be at the time, because subsection (4) will reduce the power that they thought it would have.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does my hon. Friend recall that the part of the Bill beginning with clause 45, where new clause 18, if it is passed, will be inserted, provides that powers of the Scottish Parliament can be overridden by the Bill? Does that not make a mockery of devolution? Is that not one in the eye for Scottish electors who thought they were electing a Labour Government to get Scottish devolution only to discover that—rightly in my opinion—the Westminster Parliament can overrule the Scottish Parliament?
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend's remarks are valid in relation to border arrangements.
  Subsection (2) states:
  "This subsection applies to any functions under the 1977 Act, or Part I of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997".
  As a courtesy to the House, the Minister should have given us a little explanation of the 1977 Act. He may want to intervene or to deal with the matter when he winds up the debate.
  I was sent here as a Member of Parliament, supporting my party's beliefs, to represent the interests of my constituents. I genuinely believe that when we complete the Report stage of the Bill tomorrow—[Interruption.]—sorry, next week. When we eventually complete the

  61
  Report stage, my constituents will be very angry about new clause 18. They will not be happy about the cross-border arrangements.
  The Bill will be a charter for private medicine. My hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) talked about people moving across the border. The situation is a little like the council tax. We all have a road in our constituency where people on one side pay one charge and those on the other side pay a different charge. Usually the charge is lower for a Conservative council and higher for a Lib-Lab council. The disparities caused by the new clause will be similar.
  The Minister fought the general election on a manifesto that said "Vote Labour on 1 May and you will save the national health service." Bearing in mind the new clause, the manifesto should have said, "Vote Labour on 1 May and you will end up needing to save the national health service." The Bill is a shambles. Why did the Minister not mention in Committee that he was going to introduce cross-border arrangements? The Government were talking about the Bill last year, but still, on 14 June 1999, they have not got their act together.
  Mr. Bercow: The Minister is an agreeable fellow, but I know from experience that he is adept at avoiding questions. He dances round the issue, rather like Muhammad Ali used to dance like a butterfly round the boxing ring. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to request that the Minister answer the specific points that were raised earlier? Which authorities does the Minister have in mind? Has he spoken to hon. Members who are directly affected? On what day did he decide to introduce the new clause? We must have specific answers to those specific questions tonight.
  Mr. Amess: I hope that we get answers to those points. We kept putting points in Committee, but we were short-changed. We may well be short-changed on Report as well.
  Mr. Hammond: I remind my hon. Friend that I said earlier that the Minister wrote to our right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) during the Committee stage about his intention to introduce a new clause along these lines. A more fruitful line of inquiry might be why the issue was so complicated that the Government were not able to include provisions for due consideration in Committee and why we had sight of the new clause only last week.
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend tempts me to get involved in a very long discussion that may be ruled out of order.
  The Government will regret the day they introduced this disgraceful Bill, which has been delivered incompetently. I do not know who is to blame, but I think that it might be the person in charge of the Government. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was right to say that the new clause could have been introduced earlier. He said that he saw the details last week. I had a busy week campaigning, which was my main priority. I did not have time to study the new clause in detail. I have had to mug up in the brief time that
  62
  I have had today, and I am not best pleased about that. I have had to dump all my other important arrangements to try to understand the new clause.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The timing of the tabling of the new clause has been more than adequately dealt with. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will deal with its content.
  Mr. Amess: The fifth point about the cross-border arrangements on which I want a direct answer from the Minister relates to an article that I saw in The Independent entitled "Pupils to Train as Mini-Paramedics", which said that Scottish schoolchildren were being trained in resuscitation techniques as part of a campaign to reduce the number of deaths caused by heart attacks. I applaud that. I went to a St. John Ambulance reception at which we were shown how to resuscitate people, although I would not willingly and enthusiastically jump to give resuscitation to—no, on second thoughts I would of course want to revive anyone. The article says that the campaign, funded by the British Heart Foundation, will train children in how to keep a heart attack victim alive while they wait for an ambulance to arrive. I understand that similar projects have been undertaken in America.
  Will the programme be affected by the cross-border arrangements? That may be covered in subsection (1), but if it is I did not understand it and I heard nothing about it in the Minister's speech. I suspect that it might be affected. A great deal of trouble has been taken over the scheme—possibly unnecessarily.
  Surely to goodness the new clause is an admission that the Government were wrong about fundholding and that it is after all a good idea. The new clause will encourage people to cross borders. I assume that the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) has been told to leave the Chamber. He was not welcome in Committee, either. Having tried to intervene here and have a decent debate, he has gone off. He wanted to say something about fundholding. The new clause and the Government's policy of setting citizen against citizen are an admission that they got it wrong about fundholding. Under fundholding, doctors could ring round and find out who was available to perform an operation more quickly. That was a good thing.
  Mr. Bercow: I am listening intently to my hon. Friend. Will he entertain the possibility that the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) was excluded from membership of the Standing Committee not because of his views on fundholding arrangements or cross-border provisions—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with the new clause.
  Mr. Amess: It was kind of my hon. Friend to intervene, but I must concentrate on cross-border arrangements. I have heard a sedentary comment from a Labour Member about queue-jumping. My goodness, given the Government's policy it is appalling for any Labour Member to talk about queue-jumping. However, we will not get to that debate for some time.

  63
  6.30 pm
  When the Minister replies, I hope that he will give the House a little more detail about subsection (3) of new clause 18. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) suggests that the Minister has not looked at new clause 18. I hope that that is not the case, because we are on Report and Ministers should be so familiar with the detail of their legislation by this time that the answers should pour forth from them. Therefore, it is not unkind to expect the Minister to give the House more detail about subsection (3). It puzzled me. It states:
  "Her Majesty may by Order in Council provide for any functions to which subsection (4) applies which are specified in the Order, so far as exercisable in respect of the provision of services to persons in Scottish border areas".
  I do not understand that and I want to know whether the Minister understands it. As the Member of Parliament for Southend, West I need to understand it because after this debate my constituents will want to know what it means.
  Mr. Fabricant: Is it not apparent what the provision means in the sense that yet again it is an example of the Government not knowing what they intend so they give powers to the Secretary of State to make any decision he likes about doctors, patients, border areas, non-border areas, Scotland and England?
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend may be right, but the new clause is defective. The Minister will claim that it is not and we will be asked to accept it, but when it goes to the House of Lords an amendment will be tabled to it. Subsection (3) continues:
  "to be exercisable (instead of any corresponding function to which subsection (2) applies)".
  I do not know what subsection (2) is and I wonder whether the Minister knows what it is. It continues:
  "in respect of the provision of the services in question to persons in English border areas who are specified in the Order."
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the litmus test of whether the Minister understands the new clause is that when he replies to this short debate he is able to explain its rationale and content without reference to a crib sheet provided by those whom we are not supposed to name?
  Mr. Amess: I do not know how I should comment on that, although I believe that the Minister was a barrister or a solicitor before he became a Member of Parliament. We will have to see whether he stands at the Dispatch Box without notes and can answer my point about subsection (3).
  The Minister, when he worked on new clause 18, could have made it more easily understandable. The arrangements for borders will become a big issue. In fact, I shall suggest to the Chairman of the Health Committee that we ask the Minister to come and give evidence to the Committee to justify the border arrangements. The more I listen to myself talk, the more I believe that the new clause is unfair.
  Mr. Fabricant: It is capricious and unfair, but is not it also worrying? Subsection (3) specifically states that the
  64
  Secretary of State may
  "by Order in Council provide for any functions".
  Has my hon. Friend discovered any other clause in the Bill that is so open that the Secretary of State can provide for any function? Is not it outrageous that he will be given a blank cheque?
  Mr. Amess: The whole flavour of proceedings in Committee was that the Opposition were unhappy with the wide-ranging powers given to the Secretary of State for Health. I do not wish to imply that we thought that the Secretary of State for Health was incompetent, but we thought that he was too busy to do justice to all those functions.
  Mr. Fabricant: We are in no position to judge whether the Secretary of State is competent or incompetent because he did not do the Committee the courtesy of turning up for even five minutes.
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is right. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald was present throughout in Committee, the Secretary of State's absence was unfortunate.
  Mr. Hammond: To return to the point that my hon. Friend was making about the wide order-making powers that the Secretary of State will have, does he agree that the Minister could have saved much debate and given us much reassurance if he had made draft orders and regulations available to us? Does my hon. Friend recall that we pressed the Minister on whether they would be made available in time for the debate today? Sadly, we have not seen any.
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is right and I congratulate him on his diligence in Committee and today. As he knows, we were not afforded that courtesy. Indeed, we tried to make constructive, sensible changes to the Bill, but we did not have one amendment accepted.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We are not considering what was accepted in Committee. We are dealing with the new clauses and amendments before us.
  Mr. Amess: We would not be in the mess that we are now in—grappling with new clause 18—if the matter had been handled differently. The Minister is charming and persuasive and he thought that new clause 18 would be accepted without any debate. However, I do not trust the Government's motives in the border arrangements.
  I wish to go into more detail about the health authorities adjacent to Scotland.
  Mr. Swayne: Is it appropriate to call them authorities, given the huge and sweeping powers that the new clause will give the Minister over every aspect of their function? Are they authorities in any sense?
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I pointed out earlier that the Bill is defective and we will probably find that that description of authority is removed when the Bill is discussed in the House of Lords. The Minister has so far failed to give us any details of the

  65
  health authorities adjacent to Scotland. Many people are waiting to hear which health authorities have been affected. As my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge pointed out earlier, people will wish to move to those areas because they think that they will get better health care. I thought that the Labour party was supposed to be about equality, but the new clause is all about inequality. It is divisive in every sense.
  Mr. Bercow: I am still puzzled by the way in which the new clause was tabled at such short notice and without explanation. Having consulted the reference sources, I have discovered that among the Minister's interests are cooking and walking. We welcome the fact of that hinterland, but perhaps he imagines that tabling the new clause at this late stage, without explanation or apology, is like producing a new recipe. Is not it important that, wherever else he walks, he does not walk away from his responsibility to answer the serious challenges that we have posed to him?
  Mr. Amess: That is a telling point. The Minister knows that if he gives us a precise list of the authorities concerned, Her Majesty's loyal Opposition may accept the argument. My constituents want to know which health authorities are to get special treatment.
  The Labour Government talk about equality and the Minister disarmingly suggests that the new clause is merely a tidying-up measure. I believe that we have not been given the details because there is an argument going on behind the scenes. There is uproar in health authorities throughout the country, for all manner of reasons that we will discuss later. There is a row about which authorities are to be included, because inclusion will bring favourable treatment. My constituents think that that is unfair.
  As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm) said, there are areas of great social deprivation, not only in Scotland but throughout the country. The areas on the other side of the border will be very upset about the favourable treatment given to the authorities on the list.
  Mr. Bercow: If the authorities due to benefit from the special arrangements have not yet been determined, is not it possible that, in the argument that is raging behind the scenes, Ministers are planning to work on the basis of a conformists' charter, and that Labour Members who are prepared to suck up to the Government will benefit from the arrangements, while those who are not, such as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Chisholm), who is a faithful servant of his constituents, will not? Must not these matters be disclosed to the House without delay? It is not acceptable for this hole-in-corner practice to be allowed to continue.
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend is entirely right. The Government talk about being transparent. My goodness, they were found to be transparent on Thursday and when the votes were counted on Sunday.
  Let me inform my hon. Friend that there is a row going on between the Scottish Parliament and the Government about which health authorities should get preferential
  66
  treatment. I suspect that the Lib-Lab alliance running the Scottish Parliament is falling out with the Government. If there were nothing underhand—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be addressing the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow); he should be addressing the Chair.
  Mr. Amess: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  6.45 pm
  There is something underhand going on. The Minister must surely realise that the listing of the health authorities is crucial to our accepting the new clause; we could not countenance accepting it otherwise.
  All Members of Parliament and of the Scottish Parliament are batting for resources for their own areas, so they all want favourable treatment for their health authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) said that perhaps the word "authority" was no longer appropriate. He could be right. If the legislation had not been introduced in so shambolic a fashion, we would know what responsibility Health Ministers in the Scottish Parliament have for health authorities and the relationship between that responsibility and legislation going through our Parliament.
  The second part of subsection (5) is of equal importance and is perhaps a point on which all Scottish Members should seek to speak. If they do not speak, their constituents will want to know about it.
  Mr. Brady: Is not that especially true given that this is one of the few areas of debate in which Scottish Members can rightly participate?
  Mr. Amess: My hon. Friend has grasped the precise point. Here is an opportunity for the 72 Scottish Members—
  Sir Robert Smith: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Will you clarify that it is in order for all Members of Parliament to speak on any matter that the House is discussing?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Every hon. Member would know that. Hon. Members are making a debating point.
  Mr. Amess: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I could comment on that point of order, but I had better not.
  Every Scottish Member should note the second part of subsection (5). Sadly, we have no Conservative Members of Parliament in Scotland at the moment. [Interruption.] My hon. Friends remind me that we have two Members of the European Parliament there; or perhaps more. We have Scottish Euro-Members but no Scottish Members of Parliament. Labour, Liberal and Scottish National Members should surely to goodness want to know about the health boards adjacent to England.
  If the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith about areas of social deprivation is valid, surely many Scottish Members should want the Minister to tell us which health boards are affected.
  Mr. Chisholm: I want to put it on the record that I never mentioned areas of deprivation, but I have been

  67
  slightly shy of intervening because, after five weeks in the Scottish Parliament, I am in a state of culture shock: up there we are trying to have genuine debate and scrutiny rather than the time-wasting self-indulgence that we are witnessing today.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) is not time wasting. I would not allow that. However, he has made his case about the cross-border authorities, and must move on.
  Mr. Amess: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for not allowing me to respond to the point. In fact, I had not realised that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith was also in the Scottish Parliament.
  Mr. Bercow: I do not want to tempt my hon. Friend away from his normal path of rectitude, as he always adheres to the traditions of the House. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith is the only Scottish Labour Back Bencher in the Chamber. Does not my hon. Friend agree that it is important that the Minister, when he winds up, says whether those hon. Members affected by the new clause have been briefed in advance? Are Labour Members absent because, as the relevant information has been vouchsafed to them already, they think that they need not contribute, or because they are incompetent and have simply forgotten that the Bill has come back on Report today?
  Mr. Amess: The reason is arrogance: Labour Members think it a bore to scrutinise legislation. They accept without question everything that the Government propose. That is outrageous. This is the mother of Parliaments, and hon. Members should understand that they are not irrelevant to the scrutiny of legislation. I would not have spoken if the Minister had intervened to list the authorities and health boards affected, but he has not done so.
  It is frustrating that Opposition Members get no answers to their questions. I find that I am able to challenge the Executive only in Select Committee. New clause 18 deals with important matters. It is all about money spent in the health service, but the disparity that it introduces is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable—and arrogant—of the Government to table a new clause and expect no one to question the detail. The National Health Service Act 1977 and the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 matter.
  Mr. John Hayes: My hon. Friend makes a profound point, but this is not the first example of such behaviour by the Government. Introducing new clauses in this way has become the hallmark of this Administration. It is impossible to examine important measures in sufficient detail, and I am surprised that Labour Back Benchers—who are also entitled to hold the Executive to account—do not feel the same way. Although my hon. Friend is too generous and liberal with the Government, I support him and hope Labour Back Benchers will do the same.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no argument with the point being made by the hon. Member for Southend,
  68
  West, but he has made it several times. Once a point has been made, it cannot be repeated. The hon. Gentleman must move on.
  Mr. Amess: The Minister owes it to the House to convince us that the new clause is in the best interests of all United Kingdom citizens. For myself, I found it profoundly unsatisfactory that the Minister moved the new clause without giving any detail of its affect on the rest of our constituents. The detailed arguments about people moving house and changing doctors are relevant, because the Government's health strategy reveals a profound misunderstanding of how health care should be delivered.
  This is bad legislation. As I said earlier, I am suspicious of the Government's motives with the new clause, which will affect health care delivery in every part of the country.
  Mr. Swayne: On the national question, I refer my hon. Friend to the brief intervention from the hon. Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith). My hon. Friend was very courteous in giving way, so short was the hon. Gentleman's appearance in the Chamber. Does my hon. Friend agree that some legislation, such as that covering human fertilisation, remains the prerogative of this House, but that determination of the provision in Scotland of treatment under that legislation is the sole preserve of the Scottish Parliament? That may place a differential burden on health authorities—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I invite the hon. Gentleman not to get into such matters.
  Mr. Amess: I shall say to my hon. Friend only that it is a discourtesy when an hon. Member intervenes in a debate and then scuttles out of the Chamber.
  Dr. Evan Harris: My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine (Sir R. Smith) made a point of order, not an intervention.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am not concerned about who enters and leaves the Chamber, as that has nothing to do with new clause 18. I am concerned with the debate, which is about the amendments before us.
  Mr. Amess: I am worried that new clause 18 will have an adverse effect on health care throughout the country. It will be discriminatory, and will introduce a great disparity in health care provision between areas. People will find it very confusing.
  I think that the Minister's heart has never been in the Bill. I do not doubt that he is doing his duty for the Government, but I doubt that he would table new clause 18 were he in overall charge of the Bill. I think that he agrees that it will cause great dissatisfaction among our constituents, and believe that he will regret the day that he came to be associated with the Bill and the new clause.
  Although some hon. Members believe that a low attendance in the Chamber indicates satisfaction with a proposal, I feel so passionately about the Bill that it is important that we scrutinise it properly on Report. I shall not desist until I get some straight answers. I have asked

  69
  five specific questions of the Minister. If the Minister would, at the very least, provide a list of the health authorities and boards affected on either side of the border, he would restore my faith in his good will.
  7 pm
  I am dissatisfied with the way in which this legislation is being handled. People look to this Chamber to legislate in the best interests of everyone, and I hope that the Minister will realise that the disparity in treatment that will be caused by new clause 18 is not in the best interests of his own constituents, of my constituents or of the constituents of my hon. Friends the Members for Altrincham and Sale, West, for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), for New Forest, West, for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), for Runnymede and Weybridge, for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), and for my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald. The Minister should withdraw new clause 18 because he should admit that it has been defectively drafted. If he thinks that we will accept it without question or that it will not be properly scrutinised when it returns to the other place, he will be disappointed.
  I appeal to the Government to give the House detail on the five points that I have raised and the other points made—so succinctly—by my hon. Friends.
  Mr. Denham: I shall try to answer as many points as possible, but the hon. Gentleman will understand if I have sometimes missed his meaning during the past hour.
  It is worth remembering what I said earlier. We estimate that about 3,500 patients will be affected by the Bill, which is the number of patients in England and Scotland who are registered with a GP practice on the other side of their border. I would not be introducing the new clause if I had not been assured that it had been fully explained to health authorities and boards and the other groups involved and that they had been fully consulted. Everyone who has responded has been in favour of our approach. The new clause addresses practical problems that have faced GPs who provide primary care in what are often scattered rural communities.
  Mr. Brady: What about the health authorities or boards not immediately adjacent to the border? Were the next ones up consulted too?
  Mr. Denham: I am fairly certain that they were not; I see no reason why they should have been. The health authorities and boards concerned are responsible for areas rather larger than those covered by the practices involved. I could see no point in extending consultation further south or north of the border. I had to be sure that the measure was supported. In fact, the idea was initially suggested not by the Government, but by general practitioners who have complained about the current position for several years.
  Mr. Swayne: In what detail were the health authorities consulted? How the Government intend to proceed is not clear from the new clause. Presumably, the health authorities were given detail that we have been denied.
  Mr. Denham: As I have already said, they were told that we intended to use the new clause to enable health
  70
  authorities, primary care groups, primary care trusts and the Scottish equivalents to commission services for all their patients, irrespective of on which side of any border they lived.
  The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked about part II services.
  Mr. Bercow: Was the estimate that 3,500 people are likely to be affected based on current figures, which could increase or decrease? Alternatively, was it predicated on the assumption, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) has referred, that lists would be frozen?
  Mr. Denham: For 1998–99, the exact estimate was that 2,313 English residents were on lists of GPs in Scotland, while 1,125 Scottish residents had GPs in England.
  Several hon. Members have asked about how orders would be made and which patients would be affected by them. Although it is highly unlikely that people will sign up for a practice many miles from their homes to gain some perceived benefit, I can assure the House that any order would be specific about the category of people to whom it would apply, which gives us the ability to tackle that unlikely scenario. I was asked whether orders could fix the number of patients at the time of their introduction. Order-making powers might enable us to prevent people from signing up for practices many miles from their homes where it would be unnecessary or perverse. However, we see no need to fix lists and have taken no such decision. New patients are always moving in and out of areas and registering with a GP practice.
  Mr. Brady: Surely there must be many cases—beta interferon, for example, or any other expensive drug or treatment—in which it would be entirely rational for someone to move house into an area covered by an order. However an order is drafted, it cannot possibly preclude people who do that from being allowed to register with a GP.
  Mr. Denham: The position has been misunderstood. If people felt now that it would be better to move either north or south of the border, they could do so. We must focus on the need to sort out the practical problems faced by GP practices and patients when it comes to the delivery of health care in border areas. The new clause is a sensible means of dealing with those problems.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: I have given way several times and would like to get on. We have had a lengthy debate and I want to move on to some of the other reasonable questions that were posed.
  Mr. Hammond: I have listened carefully to the Minister. Without going to the extreme solution of moving house, will the hon. Gentleman clarify one matter? Where a health authority area includes a number of people who are patients of a GP over the border, would anything prevent any other persons residing in that authority area from signing on with that GP if they wished to do so, or can only certain people in the area access that privilege?
  Mr. Denham: I may have missed the hon. Gentleman's point, but at the moment if a Scottish patient, for example,

  71
  registers with an English GP, that GP has to make provision under the Scottish health service and vice versa. New clause 18 seeks to deal with the problems that arise from that situation.
  At present, if one crosses the border to register with a GP one none the less remains treated by one's own, English or Scottish, health service. That decision was taken during the early 1990s, I presume. That causes GPs or primary care groups practical problems, such as being able sensibly to commission treatment on behalf of their patients. That is why it is more sensible for treatment for all patients of the practice to be commissioned because they are attached to that practice rather than according to the health authority in whose geographical area they live.
  Mr. Hammond: I thank the Minister for that explanation, which was extremely useful. However, he did not deal with my question. Is he telling the House that only people who live in a tightly defined sub-region of the health authority or health board area can access a GP on the other side of the border, or would I be right in thinking that any patient who lives in the area has the right to transfer? Would he not anticipate an exodus of patients to those border GPs, if there were sufficient incentive—for example, if there were significant differences in treatment and service availability on either side of the border?
  Mr. Denham: I do not anticipate that trend developing in practice. One can construct such a theoretical argument—the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) did so—but in practice, most people, sensibly, want their GP to be within a reasonable distance. We are talking about vast rural areas. GPs can be a long way away and it is unlikely that people will want to go even further. Also, it is unlikely in practice that such a disparity in services will arise. Indeed, had real concern that that would happen existed, I am sure that it would have been mentioned by the people we directly consulted—the GPs themselves, who are concerned about their patients, and the health board in the area.
  There are two further protections. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked whether anyone could theoretically sign up to a GP over the border. The order can specify the persons to whom it applies and the functions affected. Also, as I said—this answers the question about overruling the Scottish Parliament—each order will be subject to affirmative resolution both here and in the Scottish Parliament. Therefore, the provisions being made under the new clause could be scrutinised.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: One more time.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister, whose patience and charity are well established throughout the House. Will he explain whether the order could not only specify categories of people to whom the arrangements would apply, but limit the number to whom they would
  72
  apply? Does he accept that in either case a problem would arise? If there is a limit on numbers, it is arbitrary; if there is not, the flood gates have been opened.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was not a very brief intervention.
  Mr. Denham: I had quite settled back into my seat, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The order could specify the number of people. I am not sure that that is likely to be the way in which one would approach the problem, but the hon. Gentleman asked a reasonable question about the breadth of the legal provision, and the answer is yes.
  I must deal with two specific points. First, the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge asked about the fact that part II arrangements are included in the drafting of the clause and about our intentions in that regard. That has been done to allow the scope, if it were decided that we should do so, for streamlining part II arrangements for cross-border GPs who—this is analogous to the commissioning of care for patients—work to two different Red Books for two different sets of patients. The drafting of the Bill would enable that to be streamlined, but I must stress for the record that we have not decided to go down that road and we have not even begun any consultation with the GPs, health authorities or health boards affected. We would certainly want to do so before moving in that direction. The extension to part II would allow that change to take place.
  Mr. Hammond: I thank the Minister for that clarification. If he has made no moves in that direction and has not begun any consultation, what changed between the date of his letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) the week before last and his tabling of the new clause last week?
  Mr. Denham: The answer to that question is that the clause was tabled after further examination of the issue and the provision that we should make.
  I have always regretted the introduction of new clauses at a late stage in a Bill, as I did when we were in opposition. During the passage of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Bill, which was considerably less lengthy and complex than this Bill, three times as many new clauses were introduced on Report than have been introduced for this Bill, which I thought regrettable. I recall Conservative Members making speeches from the Government Benches that deprecated the fact that so many new clauses were introduced—well, I would like to think that I can recall that, but I think that they overlooked the matter at the time.
  The final and most important question concerns the funding arrangements. I do not intend to debate the entire Barnett formula, save to note again that hon. Members who have suddenly discovered its existence seemed to be silent about its dire consequences throughout most of the 18 years of the previous Administration.
  We intend that the allocations of the health authorities and boards concerned will be adjusted to reflect the new arrangements and through that the different level of funding. It is intended that the adjustment should affect the actual level of spending on the patients concerned as is reflected in current commissioning arrangements.

  73
  For example, the allocation of an English health authority or primary care trust would be increased to reflect the current levels of spending on any Scots on the GP list. There is no question of money being lost to Scots patients because of the arrangements.
  However, that is not to push the concept of capitation funding too far. It is not as though each individual is entitled to a fixed amount, which flows—ultimately—from the Barnett formula. Even under the previous Conservative Administration, the health service was not divided up with a fixed sum per head. A health authority, a health board or a primary care trust will use its funds to respond flexibly to the needs of its local population—whatever level of capitation each individual may, notionally, have attracted. That applies on both sides of the border.
  It is worth bearing in mind that the existing arrangements have their drawbacks, which is why we want to take this action. Those arrangements take up time, energy and resources that might better be devoted to patient care. For example, at present, practices have to provide different arrangements for their English and Scottish patients. As I pointed out earlier, one practice reported having to liaise with six different teams of community staff to cover its scattered population.
  A question was put about the letter from my predecessor to Dr. John Chisholm of the GPC—part of the British Medical Association. When my predecessor wrote that letter, the then Minister at the Scottish Office with responsibility for health wrote to the BMA in Scotland and gave similar guarantees. I am advised that those were repeated in guidance issued to local health care committees in Scotland on 8 February this year.
  Mr. Hammond: Does the Minister know whether the assurances given by Scottish Ministers in this Parliament have been repeated by Ministers in the Scottish Executive since that body came into being?
  Mr. Denham: I have no knowledge of that, although I shall look to the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), for information on that point. That matter is clearly not my responsibility.
  I confirm that, fortunately for geography teachers and students throughout the country, there is no debate on which areas of England and Scotland lie adjacent to the border. There is no option in that matter. The English health authorities defined in the Bill will be North Cumbria and Northumberland and the Scottish health boards will be Borders and Dumfries and Galloway.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

  CRITERIA FOR APPRAISALS BY THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EXCELLENCE
  'The Special Health Authority known as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence shall make its appraisals of different treatments and clinical interventions on the basis of clinical efficacy or relative cost—effectiveness compared with alternative treatments or clinical
  74
  interventions for the same symptoms, but not on the basis of their affordability in relation to the funds available to the National Health Service.'.—[Dr. Harris.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. Evan Harris: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 14—National Institute for Clinical Excellence (duties and consultation with public)—

  '.—(1) The Special Health Authority known as the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (the "Authority") shall meet in public.

  (2) The Authority shall publish annually a report on its activities during the preceding calendar year which the Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament.

  (3) The Secretary of State shall establish a public consultative committee in relation to the Authority, which shall have the duty of advising the Authority on the public's view on the priority to be accorded to different treatments and clinical interventions within the NHS.

  (4) The constitution and membership of the committee mentioned in subsection (3) shall be such as the Secretary of State may determine in Regulations.'.

  New clause 16—Protection of doctors' clinical freedom to prescribe appropriate drugs—
  '.—The Secretary of State shall not exercise his powers to include a drug in schedule 11 to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 (as subsequently amended) in such a way as to restrict the circumstances in which the drug may be prescribed by reference to the different underlying causes of the symptoms for whose treatment it is clinically effective.'.
  New clause 17—Cost or affordability not to be criteria for restricting prescribing of drugs—
  '.—In issuing guidance on prescribing, or in exercising his powers to include a drug in schedule 10 (drugs and other substances not to be prescribed for supply under pharmaceutical services) or schedule 11 (drugs to be prescribed under pharmaceutical services only in certain circumstances) to the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 (as subsequently amended), the Secretary of State shall not base his decision on the criterion of either the cost or the affordability of the drug in question.'.
  Dr. Harris: I hope to introduce the new clauses relatively quickly, but at this point it is appropriate to pay tribute to the work of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond), who in Committee paid great attention to the detail of our proposals—as I am sure he will do to these proposals. He did so assiduously during the Bill's Committee proceedings, while simultaneously fathering a child—or rather overseeing the birth of a child—[Interruption.]—There was some confusion as to that point in Committee.
  More than mere scrutiny of the Government is involved in the new clauses. Like the other groups of amendments that we shall discuss in the near future, they show that some critical issues must be decided. On this occasion, the Liberal Democrats are raising those issues—of rationing in this group of new clauses; and of the hours worked by junior doctors and discrimination in the national health service in later groups. For more than three hours, we debated the border provisions in Scotland and we shall probably have a long debate on this and future groups of new clauses. One cannot help but think that the contributions of hon. Members—I am sure that those

  75
  contributions were always in order—were lengthy because of hon. Members' chagrin that they had not tabled such important new clauses as those that we are now discussing.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: I shall do so in a moment.
  It seems strange that, at the rate that we are carrying out our scrutiny of the Bill, we may well be discussing the hours of junior doctors in the middle of the night and spending a great deal of time discussing other matters that were covered at length in Committee. Nevertheless, although the House will want to discuss those issues, for those outside the House, it should be pointed out that something is going on—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We should not be worrying about what is to come; we need to worry only about the new clauses before us.
  Dr. Harris: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was keen to point out that I will attempt to keep the substance of my remarks brief, because I know that Conservative Members will want to contribute—probably at length.
  Mr. Hammond: I point out to the hon. Gentleman that any chagrin felt by Conservative Members is due entirely to the fact that the Government have allowed only one day for Report. We consider that to be wholly inadequate in view of the Bill's importance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We need not go into those matters; we need only to worry about the group of new clauses before us.
  Dr. Harris: The new clauses are about what the Government should and should not do in the rationing of treatment.
  Mr. Bercow rose —
  Dr. Harris: I should be grateful if the hon. Gentleman would be patient so that I can get into the substance of my speech. I shall then willingly give way to him. On this Bill, we have a spirit of giving way—liberally, if he will excuse the expression.
  New clause 4 provides that the National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  "shall make its appraisals of different treatments and clinical interventions on the basis of clinical efficacy or relative cost-effectiveness compared with alternative treatments or clinical interventions for the same symptoms, but not on the basis of their affordability in relation to the funds available to the National Health Service."
  That is a key point and the new clause states the matter clearly. It goes to the heart of rationing, priority setting or managing the resources of the health service—whichever term we use.
  New clause 14 refers to the need for openness and accountability and for public participation in whatever decisions are appropriately made through NICE.
  Mr. Bercow: I welcome the fact that the hon. Gentleman is introducing this group of new clauses.
  76
  He has a long-standing interest in, and some considerable knowledge of, the plight of many of our constituents throughout the country as a result of rationing. However, will he tell the House why, when he is introducing these important new clauses, he is accompanied by only two of his hon. Friends? Is that because most Liberal Democrat Members are unconcerned about the problem of rationing and do not suffer its consequences?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I certainly do not want to hear a debate about the party make-up in the Chamber at present. We must discuss the new clauses.
  Dr. Harris: I was going to say that I am aware of the interest of the hon. Gentleman in rationing. As he has acknowledged, he is aware of the interest of at least two Liberal Democrat Members who have raised that matter in Adjournment debates. They will be following the proceedings carefully.
  New clauses 16 and 17 consider rationing of the drug Viagra from two different approaches. We take the Government to task for what has happened, in a way that is analogous to that in which the courts and the Government, by their own admission, feel that the issue has been mishandled. We also want to help the Government by introducing a measure to ensure that those mistakes are not repeated and that such rationing decisions are made fairly and rationally, rather than irrationally.
  As I did in Committee, and as is customary, I declare an interest. I have a non-declarable interest as a fellow elect to a pharmaceutical company, under the Industry and Parliament Trust scheme, which gives Members of Parliament experience of private sector companies. I am attached to Glaxo Wellcome plc for that purpose, although I receive no remuneration. In addition, my interest in rationing took me on a study trip to the United States with NHS commissioners and clinicians to study the details of the association with the American Society of Clinical Oncologists, and the trip was funded by a pharmaceutical company.
  We hope not to have to press new clause 4 to a vote, important though the issues are, because we raise those issues in a spirit of constructiveness and in a workmanlike manner. We hope that the Government will be able to reassure us that our fears are unfounded. Our great concern is that NICE will be a means for the Government to ration treatments, which is the term we use, or to deprioritise treatments out of the NHS in a way that is not politically accountable. The Minister knows that I have raised these concerns before, so his answer will be well rehearsed, but I seek specific undertakings from him.
  7.30 pm
  I hope that the Minister recognises that my approach to the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness is not unreasonable.
  Mr. Hammond: Clinical Excellence.
  Dr. Harris: Sorry, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. When I referred to the National Institute for Clinical Effectiveness, I was thinking of the Government's original press release on the special health

  77
  authority with that name, which was corrected from cost-effectiveness to clinical effectiveness, and then to clinical excellence.

  The Liberal Democrats accept that treatments should be used only when they are likely to be efficacious and when they are effective. We have no time for an NHS that wastes money on prescribing drug treatments or carrying out operations that are not of clinical benefit to the patient, or where the adverse effects of the medication are likely to outweigh any clinical benefit that the patient may receive. Clearly, there is a need for national standards, not only to get rid of what the Government rightly describe as unacceptable variations in the delivery of treatment, but to ensure that treatments that are a waste of money are not carried out through best practice not being disseminated sufficiently widely.
  We would go further on the issue of cost-effectiveness. We recognise that the NHS has limited funds, although we would argue that it should be better funded than even the Government have managed over the past two years. Given that funds are limited and that there is a great need for services, it would be wrong for health authorities, trusts and clinicians to prescribe drugs or offer treatments that are more expensive than other treatments for the same condition or symptoms, but no more effective. It is sensible to consider the relative cost-effectiveness of treatments and to ensure, given the NHS's limited budget, that money is not spent needlessly. I hope that that is common ground between us.
  We have two concerns, however, on which the Government have yet to reassure us. The first is whether the measure of cost-effectiveness will be wide enough and, if it is sufficiently wide, whether it will be fair, especially to pharmaceutical companies and in respect of drug treatments that are relatively new. Our second concern is that, even if the test of cost-effectiveness is met, the Government will use NICE to ration on the basis of affordability drugs that are highly effective, efficacious and relatively cost-effective, but whose widespread effective and cost-effective use would have implications for NHS budgets. We acknowledge that there is a need for tough decisions to be made on those issues, but the Government must publicly announce those decisions, not shelter behind NICE.
  We are concerned that, so far, the Government have not ruled out NICE making its recommendations on the basis of affordability, even in respect of treatments that are effective and cost-effective. We are also concerned that the chairman of NICE, Professor Rawlins, in his evidence to the Select Committee on Health, did not rule out the possibility that he might be forced—against his will, I am sure—to make recommendations based on affordability in respect of treatments that would otherwise pass the effectiveness and relative cost-effectiveness tests. I see that the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge shares my concern.
  The issue of efficacy is not all plain sailing, which is why it would be of great benefit to the House if we had a debate on NICE. However, I shall not take up time considering such matters in detail now. In respect of the efficacy of new treatments, it will be difficult for NICE to be fair to patients and to treatment providers. There are several new treatments whose efficacy dawned on the NHS rather late. For example, some of the new HIV treatments were never felt to be particularly effective on their own; but, a significant time after their introduction,
  78
  they were found to be highly effective and cost-effective if used in combination. If their use on the NHS had been prevented, NHS patients would never have benefited from that combination therapy and, in this country at least, doctors might never have found out that the drugs were so useful in combination. There are significant concerns about the way in which NICE will judge the efficacy of new drugs.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: I, too, should declare an interest in that, from time to time, I advise Novartis, although I am not sure that that company would agree with the question that I am about to ask. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the approach taken today, whereby such decisions are being made by dozens of individual units around the country, is not necessarily superior to having one body deciding centrally? Does he also agree that it is difficult to consider the question of cost-effectiveness completely separately from that of clinical effectiveness, because it is only one of several factors? It is rather artificial to expect NICE completely to ignore that aspect.
  Dr. Harris: I think that I have already covered the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question. As for his first point, it is not a question of centrally set guidelines versus the relatively quick or slow uptake of new treatments in various parts of the country. Clearly, having NICE lay down what should or not be prescribed and then insisting on its guidelines being followed—incidentally, the level of insistence is not clear—will mean that a treatment is either quickly introduced everywhere or not introduced anywhere. My concern is that the data on which that uniform, NHS-wide decision is based will not be complete and that the wrong decision will be made and its effect last for all time, or for a significant period of time until the decision is re-examined. Such an approach might well have held back the introduction and use of the HIV drugs to which I referred.
  Although we support the idea that NICE should examine efficacy, costs and prescribing practices in respect of new drugs and treatments, we recognise the difficulties with data on efficacy. Another example of that is ACE—angiotension converting enzyme—inhibitors. They were felt to be of limited clinical use when they were first introduced, and certainly when I was a medical student, but were later found to be highly effective for conditions other than those for which they were originally used. That discovery would not have been made had they not been prescribable on the NHS on the basis of more limited evidence.
  There is concern that the way in which NICE will consider cost-effectiveness will be too pure—that it will not consider "relative cost-effectiveness", which is the wording in the new clause, but will use some pure measure of cost-effectiveness without stating how that measure should be arrived at. There are many measures of cost-effectiveness, such as the numbers it is necessary to treat in order to achieve a valuable clinical effect in one patient, or the cost of a treatment, perhaps combined with the costs per life-year saved or per quality adjusted life-year. There is a series of such measures, but the NHS is not experienced in assessing them.
  Patients, patient groups and the pharmaceutical industry are concerned that NICE will seek large amounts of data that are not readily available. The new clause makes it

  79
  clear that we should be considering "relative cost-effectiveness", where it is measurable, against existing treatments. When the data are poor, the new treatments should be given the benefit of the doubt.
  An example is the drug erythropoetin, which is used to stimulate the production of red blood cells in patients who are anaemic and suffering from renal failure. That treatment was very expensive when it was first introduced. It was believed not to be cost-effective, and its availability was extremely limited. However, it proved to be relatively cost-effective in preventing hospital re-admissions and negated other costs associated with chronic renal failure. The early prevention of that drug's prescription may have hidden its relatively high cost-effectiveness.
  Our main concern is which budgets NICE will examine when measuring cost and benefit. For example, the new anti-psychotics—the so-called atypical anti-psychotics—used to treat schizophrenia are much more expensive than the old reliables, such as haloperidol. There is no justification, on a purely cost basis, for prescribing the atypical anti-psychotics. However, it is now well recognised that the side-effects of the older drugs are so great that compliance is poor. Patients do not take them; they then suffer acute relapses and require hospitalisation, which generates more costs. The new drugs are tolerated better, and should therefore be prescribed.
  We are concerned that the cost-effectiveness data will comprise only NHS drug budgets, not broader NHS treatment budgets. In the case of Alzheimer's disease, we are concerned that the measure will be NHS budgets rather than the wider social care budgets. Even if wider budgets across the health and social care fields were examined and the data were available—it may be difficult to obtain without investment in research and development, which the Government have cut in the first few years of this Parliament—there is concern that NICE will not take account of social security budgets and the benefits to the nation of having healthy people working and paying taxes.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman not consider that there are parallels with a cost-benefit analysis that the Government should undertake regarding the free provision of nicotine replacement therapies in order to reduce the cost to the national health service of treatments for cancer and pulmonary and other dysfunctions caused by tobacco smoking?
  Dr. Harris: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. My point is reinforced by Stephen Thornton, who is quoted in an excellent booklet produced by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and authored by Chris Mihill, a well-regarded former medical correspondent on The Guardian. Stephen Thornton, the chief executive of the NHS Confederation, is reported as saying that he
  "doesn't think the savings from other budgets, such as social services or social security, will revert to the health service, even if they could be fully quantifiable."
  The booklet quotes him as follows:
  "If patients go back to work and pay taxes, the money goes to the Treasury, and when does the health service see that? It's an argument the Health Department must have with the Treasury,
  80
  that investment in the health service produces economic benefit. But at the moment, from a GP and trust point of view"—
  I think he also means from a commissioning point of view—
  "if it's outside the health sector, it's money which we can't have."
  Mr. Thornton argues that that cost-effectiveness calculation should not be made, or is not currently being made. I fear that the wider arguments that would prevent false economies will not be made unless the Government pay particular attention to the workings of NICE.
  7.45 pm
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman has largely dealt with the point that I proposed to raise. Does he agree that, on the basis of ministerial pronouncements thus far, it would appear that Ministers intend to adopt a very narrow interpretation of cost-effectiveness? Although they have not excluded the consideration of social factors, the Minister has attempted to play them down on several occasions. That is a worrying portent for the future.
  Dr. Harris: I have read the Minister's responses to Adjournment debates about multiple sclerosis, and I have listened carefully to his comments in previous debates. I remain optimistic that he will recognise the concerns that we have highlighted and will confirm now that, in their response to the consultation on NICE, the Government will give the institute adequate resources so that it may undertake true cost-effectiveness work. Narrow cost-effectiveness measures will not be fair to patients or to those seeking to develop new treatments.
  Regardless of how the Minister deals with the problem of cost-effectiveness, I hope that it is clear to all—I trust the Minister will agree—that it cannot be right for NICE to set out guidelines preventing or advising against use by the NHS of a drug or other treatment when it is effective and cost-effective but when the take-up of that treatment would adversely affect the NHS budget. That is a consideration for Ministers, but NICE would be abusing its power if it were to restrict the use of cholesterol-reducing drugs, for example, that would prove both effective and cost-effective in the long run by reducing cardiovascular mortality and morbidity simply because it would have significant cost implications for the NHS.
  If such restrictions must be made, the Government should say that the NHS cannot afford to provide the treatments out of current resources. We could then debate publicly how much the Government should spend on the NHS or, as the Conservatives would have it, how much use those who can afford to should make of the private sector in order to create more space in the NHS. We believe equity dictates that there should be much more funding for the NHS, but that is a matter for another debate. The key point is that the public have a right to consider that issue. Even if new clause 14—to which I shall turn in a moment—is agreed to, I do not think the public will have much of an idea about the pronouncements of academics and others from NICE.
  I believe that the Government adopted the correct position on Viagra. That was a pure case of rationing on the grounds of affordability, and the Government were right not to impose restrictions through a covert health service circular or through some quango, although there were some problems. I seek the Minister's assurance—we

  81
  have not received such an assurance from the chairman of NICE—that the institute will not apply the criterion of affordability when considering effective and relatively cost-effective drugs. I will be happy if the Minister will provide that assurance. I know that many, if not all, clinicians, as well as those who take a sensible and mature approach to the difficult question of prioritisation and deprioritisation, will be relieved to hear that the Government are taking a responsible view of where political accountability lies.
  We discussed proposed new clause 14 in the Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation on 10 March this year, when I asked the Minister whether meetings of NICE would be open to the public. He said that I was
  "right to say that the regulation as drafted does not require public acc ess to meetings of the institute's board. There is a case for that in the climate of openness and transparency, as he said, although he also acknowledged that issues of confidentiality would need to be protected."
  He continued:
  "If the matter proved in practice to be a problem, it could be dealt with by further regulation."
  I say to the Minister that it is not a question of whether there is a problem in practice, but making public access subject to matters of commercial confidentiality should be a default principle. The Government should ensure that meetings are held in public unless there is a reason why they should not be. I look to the Minister to reassure us that the public will normally be admitted to the board's meetings and that the Government will introduce regulations to ensure that, so that I will not need to press that part of new clause 14.
  Subsections (3) and (4) of new clause 14 set out a way in which the public can be involved in decisions relating to NICE. It is important that the public have a say in the issues that the institute should consider because we have to find a way to involve the public in decisions on rationing.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful point about public involvement and the need for accountability. Does he agree that the machinery of consultation and public involvement is likely to be effective only in so far as there is a guarantee from the Government that there will not be private words between Ministers and NICE, the purpose and effect of which will be to disregard the outcome of the consultation and, in other words, to make it a sham? Do we not need to be reassured that under no circumstances will that happen?
  Dr. Harris: That is a very important point. The decisions about which treatments, processes and drugs the institute should consider should be made openly. There should not be seen to be collusion between what is supposed to be a semi-independent health service body—a special health authority—and Ministers. If Ministers are to give directions, which they may feel is their right, they should do so openly and in consultation with the public.
  Many people have called for the public to be more involved in such decisions. In the Standing Committee that considered the statutory instrument, to which I have already referred, the Minister said:
  "I confirm that it is important that patients' interests are represented in all NICE's work. From a patient's point of view, quality has sometimes been neglected in the drawing up of
  82
  professional guidelines in the past."—[Official Report, Third Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation, 10 March 1999; c. 18–19.]
  By having not only lay representatives on the institute's board but a public consultative committee for the authority, we shall ensure that the institute's deliberations are seen to be publicly accountable in a way that, with the best will in the world, one could not guarantee if there were only a cosy arrangement between the Minister and the institute.
  Mr. Hayes: The hon. Gentleman is making a good case for a wider debate about this matter, and he is right to do so because some of the institute's judgments will not be clinical but ethical or moral in a broad sense. Is that open and public debate helped by Ministers' continual denials that those restrictions are not already operating? The truth is that there is already rationing. One can euphemistically call it strict management of resources, as the hon. Gentleman has done—I understand why he has done so—but continual denials that those choices are already being made does not help the process of public, open and honest debate that the hon. Gentleman is advocating.
  Dr. Harris: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and both Opposition parties have initiated debates on that. There is scope for a separate debate on the workings of the national institute, but I am keen to make progress now. I hope that by making points that hon. Members agree with, I shall enable them to restrict their comments so that we can make quicker progress.
  On public accountability, the Consumers Association's magazine Health Which? pointed out that, in its survey, three quarters of the people who were interviewed felt that the public should have a say in which services were available on the NHS, but only a third of the 35 health authorities surveyed made any mention of public consultation in their material.
  Oxfordshire has a priorities forum that is open to the public, and I attend that forum to find out exactly what is happening in health service rationing. I can assure the Minister that the word "rationing" is used by all the people in that forum, whether they are professionals or lay people. I know that Buckinghamshire and other health authorities try to involve the public. However, that is not sufficient public involvement. There should be a national scheme to mirror those local arrangements. We support the Consumers Association's call for wider public involvement.
  I press on now to new clauses 16 and 17, which relate to the way in which the Government have used the scheduling procedure in the National Health Service (General Medical Services) Regulations 1992 to restrict the availability of drugs on the NHS, particularly Viagra. I make two criticisms of the Government in speaking to those new clauses. My reasons for tabling new clause 17 echo my arguments about the Government using affordability as a criterion for using schedule 10 or 11 of those regulations on the basis of cost or affordability.
  Schedule 10 relates to drugs that are not available on the NHS, and schedule 11 relates to drugs that are available only under limited conditions. Since their introduction, those procedures have traditionally been used, in the case of schedule 10, for drugs that are not

  83
  efficacious, or are no more efficacious, than cheap alternatives and, in the case of schedule 11, for drugs that are effective only in treating certain conditions. It is not the case that certain conditions are specified to control cost. The use of those schedules has been based on effectiveness and, even if drugs are effective, on strict relative cost-effectiveness.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman have a view, as his party's spokesman or as a former houseman in a hospital, on the effect of prescribing generic drugs that may be cheaper but have side effects very different from those of the main drug for which they are a substitute?
  Dr. Harris: I do have views on that, but I shall not express them in this debate. If the hon. Gentleman sees me afterwards, I will be happy to go over those issues. There are issues of generic substitution but they do not relate to these new clauses.
  Mr. Fabricant: They do.
  Dr. Harris: No, they are different, and controversial, issues, although I understand the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make.
  Dr. Stoate: I seek clarification from the hon. Gentleman. He seems to be telling us that drugs that are proscribed from being used for certain conditions under schedule 11 are simply not effective in treating those conditions, but that is not the case and it is not borne out by my knowledge of medicine. For example, a severe case of sunburn may be due to overexposure to the sun or to photosensitivity. Sunblock will work in both conditions, but schedule 11 specifies that sunblock should be prescribed only in clear cases of photosensitivity and should not be prescribed as a cosmetic treatment to allow people to spend more time in the sun. Another example is scaly scalp condition—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should know that interventions should be brief, so perhaps he will allow the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) to respond to that point.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman is making the same point as I am. The scheduling of drugs for certain conditions is based on their effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. I agree with the examples that he has given. Those schedules do not include drugs that are effective and relatively cost-effective for a recognised clinical condition and have never been used for that purpose. However, that is exactly what the Government plan to do from 1 July for Viagra. There is no doubt that the Government accept that Viagra is effective and also relatively cost-effective, but the increased demand for an acceptable and cost-effective treatment creates problems of affordability for the NHS. The Government are misusing schedules 10 and 11 for such a drug.
  As I have said before, if the Government suspect budget implications as a result of increased need for a drug, it is right that they make an announcement. Our concern is not that the Government made such an announcement, but that they did so irrationally. Part of that irrationality was
  84
  the misuse of schedules 10 and 11. The criteria should have been based on effectiveness and relative cost-effectiveness, not on pure cost or affordability. That is why we have tabled new clause 17. My criticism of the Government on that matter has been shared by many clinical authorities.
  8 pm
  Mr. Fabricant: I do not like to press the hon. Gentleman—he is very reasonable—but surely the very new clause that he has tabled relates to generic substitution. The Government would argue at times that cost-effectiveness could be secured by prescribing a substitute for a drug at the expense of clinical side effects that may be detrimental to the patient.
  Dr. Harris: I do not want to be drawn into the question of generic substitution simply because it is controversial whether the differing availability of generic drugs and patented drugs causes side effects. That is a drug-specific matter. Regardless of the details of generic substitution, I am talking about the general principle—I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept this—of the Government's misuse of schedules on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness in order to get themselves off a hook.
  As the Government may know, new clause 16 is a direct criticism of the way in which they chose to ration Viagra. If accepted, it would prevent the Secretary of State from doing what he did with respect to Viagra. I think that the NHS, lawyers and the Department of Health would be grateful for such legislation, since the Government would be prevented from breaching what I consider to be a doctor's ethical duty: to prescribe a drug that he or she considers to be effective, regardless of the origin of the complaint from which the patient suffers, if, in each situation, the drug is equally effective.
  The Minister will know that there was a court case concerning the interim guidance and that the final guidance that the Government are producing under schedule 11 almost certainly cannot be challenged legally. New clause 16 is not about the legal judgment but about whether the Government are rational in saying to a group of patients, "However effective and cost-effective this drug may be in treating your recognised condition, you will not be given it because your condition stemmed from"—for example—"cardiovascular or psychiatric causes." As a result of the Government's creating two lists and direct discrimination, a diabetic, for whom the drug may be less effective and cost-effective, may well qualify for the drug.
  We shall come in due course to another group of new clauses that address discrimination. The Government have said that they do not believe that the NHS should be discriminating irrationally. We have agreed, I hope, that where such rationing occurs, there should be a clinical basis for it. In the case of Viagra, the basis was cost. The Government wanted to ensure that only 15 per cent. of potential patients were treatable, and therefore chose conditions that accounted for only 15 per cent. of patients.
  It would have been more rational to give hospitals, primary care groups or individual GPs a budget, enabling them to use their clinical judgment to treat the 15 per cent. of patients who would benefit most from such treatment. The Government should not lay down rules. To give them credit, they did say that only 15 per cent. of potential

  85
  patients would be treated; that is part of the openness and accountability in rationing decisions about which we talked earlier. It was entirely wrong, unfair, inequitable and discriminatory for the Government to do what they did over Viagra.
  In Committee, I pressed the Minister on this point and asked whether, if such a situation arose again, he or his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State would use the same technique in order to ration. He reassured me partially that he thought that unlikely—I think we were still awaiting the outcome of the legal matter at that point. I should be grateful if the Minister confirmed that discrimination on the basis of cause of condition rather than effectiveness of treatment will not be the basis on which future rationing decisions are made. If that reassurance cannot be given, we shall press new clause 16 to a Division.
  Mr. Fabricant: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the Minister, just like his boss the Secretary of State, will not allow the word "rationing" to cross his lips? They will not even admit the existence of rationing in the health service, so any reassurance that the hon. Gentleman may have been given would have certainly omitted that word.
  Dr. Harris: The hon. Gentleman knows that I agree with those sentiments, which have been expressed before by other hon. Members. I hope that we shall not have a long discussion on the Government's refusal to use the dreaded "R" word, although I fear we will. Despite the fact that the Government refuse to call a ration a ration, I am trying to make a constructive point. I very much look forward to the Minister giving an assurance that prioritisation or deprioritisation or resource management, or whatever he calls it, will not be conducted on such an irrational basis again, and to his accepting the principle of new clause 16.
  The new clauses go to the heart of the rationing issue. They identify many of the key points that the Government have not yet clarified, despite hours of debate both in Committee and on the Floor of the House. I know that the Minister has a deep understanding of these issues, so I look forward to his offering considered reassurances. The matter is set out clearly on the amendment paper. He will be judged by the health profession and those involved in the NHS on the satisfactory nature of his answers.
  Mr. Hammond: It is very appropriate that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) ended on an explicit discussion of rationing and whether we should call it by its name, because this debate on Report is on the question of rationing. Many hon. Members present will regard the question of rationing and the attempts to rationalise rationing without ever admitting that it exists as one of the most important issues to address in considering this Bill.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend so very soon in his peroration, but does he not find it ironic that it took a High Court judge to tell the Secretary of State that rationing—in that case of Viagra—was wrong, but that the Secretary of State still cannot bring himself to use the word?
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is entirely right. I shall return to that matter in a moment.
  86
  I thank the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon for acknowledging the role that the Conservative Opposition played in Committee in seeking to widen the debate on this Bill to embrace the very important issue of rationing. It was not as easy as one might have expected. Although the clauses before us deal specifically with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which is indeed a key part of the Government's machinery for rationing service delivery in the NHS, many hon. Members who have not had the privilege of serving on the Committee that considered the Bill, and perhaps may not have studied the Bill in great detail, might be rather surprised to discover that NICE is not a child of the Bill. It was introduced by the Government by means of a statutory instrument. Therefore, it is only by means of new clauses such as new clause 4, which seeks to restrict the scope of NICE' s operation, that we can use this Bill in any way to bear on those very important issues.
  Mr. Bercow: Given my hon. Friend's deserved reputation as an intellectual giant in the House, I wonder whether he can clarify a matter that has puzzled me for some time, upon which I feel sure that he has dwelt in reflecting on the Bill. In his judgment, what is the difference between rationing, which the Government disavow, and prioritisation of resources within a finite budget, of which they apparently approve?
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend asks a very good question—one which I put to the Minister of State—
  Mr. Fabricant: Another intellectual giant.
  Mr. Hammond: Indeed, as another intellectual giant. My hon. Friend asks a question which I put to the Minister in the Committee on the statutory instruments that introduced NICE. I feel a little sorry for Ministers who have to deal with this question time and again, because they are intelligent people who well understand the situation in which the NHS operates. They understand as well as we do, as well as the BMA, as well as the royal colleges, as well as the Patients Association, that of course there is rationing in the national health service. That is nothing to be ashamed of. We should accept and acknowledge that, and then we might have a sensible debate about how best to ensure that that rationing occurs in a way that is fair, transparent and rational.
  The absurd situation that we all find ourselves in this evening is that the Government have created, in NICE, a mechanism that will make more rational the imposition of rationing in the national health service, but they cannot proclaim that success because they will not admit that there is any rationing in the NHS. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), after an exchange at the Dispatch Box a few months ago, asked the Minister for Public Health outright the question,
  "Is there rationing or is there not?"
  and the answer came,
  "No."—[Official Report, 15 December 1998; Vol. 322, c. 746.]
  We cannot have a more explicit statement of Government policy from a Minister at the Dispatch Box

  87
  than that, and yet, absurdly, although every commentator—qualified or not—recognises that there is rationing in the NHS, the only party that does not is Her Majesty's Government.
  In defence of the Minister of State, I am certain that he and his colleagues—the Minister for Public Health and the Under-Secretary—privately recognise, in their own intellectual analysis of the situation, that of course there is rationing, and find having to keep denying it publicly deeply embarrassing.
  Miss Widdecombe: In case my hon. Friend was prepared to be generous and felt that the Minister for Public Health was put on the spot by my question and said no by accident, would he now like to consult written answers in which he will find that the Secretary of State has said that there is no rationing in the health service?
  Mr. Hammond: I was not suggesting for a moment that the Minister for Public Health might have answered no through inadvertence or for some other reason. I am saying that, having dealt with the Minister of State for several months on many issues and having had a chance to appreciate his rational and analytical approach, I cannot believe for a moment that he really believes that there is no rationing in the NHS. I was merely pointing out that I find it deeply embarrassing that Ministers have to keep repeating the nonsense that there is no rationing—but not so deeply embarrassing that I shall not ask them that question again in due course.
  Mr. Bercow: On the "pedantry pays" principle, I am anxious that we should be accurate as regards the record of oral questions. Am I right in thinking—my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) will probably correct me if I am wrong—that the Minister for Public Health insisted that there was no rationing, not once in answer to one question, but on no fewer than three occasions in answer to three questions from my right hon. Friend? My photographic memory is not serving me on this occasion.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right, and that assurance that there is no rationing has been repeated by the Minister of State and the Secretary of State. However, I have not yet come across any other body—I mean that in the literal sense—that shares that view. Almost everyone else that I have come across accepts and acknowledges that there is rationing and believes that we should be discussing how to deal with that rationing.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Fabricant: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Hammond: If I may, I should like to pay tribute to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon for raising those issues tonight. He has done us a service in doing so. They are important issues, and the hon. Gentleman is well qualified to raise them. Apart from being instantly recognisable as the only member of the Liberal Democrat party not yet to have declared himself in the leadership race, he is a former junior doctor so he speaks with some authority on such matters.
  88
  Opposition Members have noticed that the Bill is about separating power and responsibility: about moving power upwards to the Secretary of State through an ever more centralised system of directions and determinations, so that the Secretary of State has more and more power at his fingertips to control every minute part of the operation of the NHS, while at the same time delegating down responsibility for the results of actions over which the bodies held responsible have a decreasing amount of power or influence.
  We have been very focused on the issue of rationing. The new clauses that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has introduced tonight focus us on the wider issue of rationing. In that context, he has picked two specific examples of rationing as it currently exists and is proposed to exist—the role of NICE and the use by the Government, in dubious circumstances, of schedules 10 and 11. I shall disappoint some of my hon. Friends by pronouncing "schedule" as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon did—with a hard c—but it is a habit that I, too, find difficult to drop.
  It might be useful if we look at that bogey word, "rationing", because it is not really as awful as Ministers' constant denials of it might have us believe. Conservative Members believe that there is no shame in acknowledging that there is rationing within the NHS. There has always been rationing within it. For the record, there was rationing within the NHS during the period of the previous Conservative Government. We do not deny it, and have not sought to deny it.
  Mr. Denham: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman would explain a question that has been worrying me, which is why, for 18 years under Conservative Governments, not a single Conservative Minister—or, as far as I know, Conservative Member of Parliament—said that there was rationing in the health service.
  Miss Widdecombe: I did.
  Mr. Hammond: My right hon. Friend says from a sedentary position that she did. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman did not ask the right questions. I regret that I was not here at that time to observe what was going on.
  Those of my hon. Friends who happened to be watching last night's television coverage of the results of the Euro-elections may have seen Peter Snow conjure up a rather whizzy little graphic that showed the change of the Government's popularity rating on various different issues, and the issue on which the Government's confidence rating among the British population had declined the most since May 1997 was health. The graphic showed that very neatly.
  The Minister might reflect upon the extent to which reiterating a statement that the vast majority of the British public know from experience to be untrue, and which the vast majority of the professions involved know to be untrue, may have, in no small part, led to the significant decline in the British public's confidence in the Government's health agenda.
  Rationing is an undeniable fact. Professor Sikora of the World Health Organisation stated that terminally ill cancer patients have to pay thousands of pounds for life prolonging drugs because of lack of cash. It has long been the case that doctors prioritise cancer cases on the chances

  89
  of an effective cure or a lengthy prolongation of life, but the Government still deny that cancer services are rationed.
  Breast cancer patients are paying £12,000 for a six-month course of Taxol. Many hon. Members have examples from their constituency correspondence of constituents who have had to go to extreme lengths, in some cases having to sell houses, to pay for life chance-enhancing drugs that are not available from the health authority where they live.
  Patients with cancer of the colon are paying £8,000 for a course of Ironotecan. One of the hazards of engaging in a debate on rationing with people who have a specialist knowledge, such as the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) is that one must wrestle with the pronunciation of such unpronounceable words. Lung cancer victims must find £6,000 for a course of Gemcitabine.
  Professor Thomas from the university of Surrey, which is close to my constituency, and a specialist cancer referral centre that serves cancer patients from my constituency, states that she has cash disputes with the NHS on behalf of patients every two or three weeks.

  The concerns that have been voiced regarding drugs for the treatment of people with psychotic illnesses, as we heard, are even more notable. In many cases, drugs developed in the 1950s are preferred not only over the latest atypical anti-psychotics, but even over drugs developed in the 1970s, such as Clozapine.
  Mr. Hayes: That highlights the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) in his intervention—the definitions of efficacy and of effectiveness. When we speak about effectiveness, we may be speaking of a cure, but we should also consider the route to the cure, and the effect on the patient during treatment. In measuring effectiveness, we must take such aspects into consideration, and the Government are simply not doing so.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend raises an interesting question, which could take us still wider on the issue of rationing: what are we measuring when we look at the outcomes? What are we measuring as a benefit—extension of life, or extension of life with a certain quality attached to it, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon said? It is legitimate to ask such questions, and it would be legitimate for us all to engage in a sensible debate about them, but we cannot do so while the Government insist that no rationing exists.
  Mr. Fabricant: May I ask my hon. Friend a philosophical or historical question? Does he recall that in the 19th century, many great medical schools were unable to offer cures for certain dysfunctions, but they thought it important to diagnose a dysfunction such as diabetes, for which no cure was known until the 1920s? Without being able to identify a problem, one cannot seek a solution. Until the Government identify the fact that rationing exists, there cannot be a sensible debate about how we solve that problem.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend's suggestion of using an evidence-based medical approach to the Government's problem of acknowledging rationing is interesting, but, as
  90
  I said, I imagine that the Government have already identified the problem, but have boxed themselves into a corner. They cannot acknowledge it and engage in a sensible debate. I expect that, to their credit, many Ministers greatly regret that they are in that position. When they could be addressing the issues, they must instead deny the fact that rationing exists at all.
  Beta interferon is a favourite example in the House whenever rationing is debated. Many hon. Members have harrowing tales of availability that is often limited by crude numbers, so that patients who need treatment with beta interferon may have to wait for someone else to die before they can get on to a course of that treatment.
  Rationing has manifested itself in many other ways throughout the NHS. Operations for many minor procedures in many health authorities have ceased to be available. Operations on lipomas, sebaceous cysts and non-acute varicose veins are unlikely to be available in many health authorities across the country. West Hertfordshire health authority has a list of 32 operations and treatments that it will not provide other than in exceptional circumstances.
  The waiting list is a form of rationing—rationing by inconvenience. Reducing the convenience of the service provided and making people wait for the provision of a treatment constitutes an additional form of rationing.
  In the NHS that the Government are seeking to create through changes in primary care, increasing pressure will be directed at general practitioners to restrict their prescribing practices to meet the budgetary needs of the primary care trusts or primary care groups of which they are members, or to fall into line with prescriptive guidance from mechanisms such as NICE.
  Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that because Ministers are not prepared to acknowledge the indubitable fact that rationing exists, that has led them down the dark alley of making invidious comparisons of relative cost-effectiveness? Does he agree that even at this, the 59th minute after the 11th hour, it would be helpful if they would abandon that pretence so that a genuine and meaningful debate, rather than a bogus one, about the relative cost-effectiveness of different treatments could take place?
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point. There is a place for the important debate on relative cost-effectiveness. Although we need to examine the overall resource constraint under which the NHS labours, we all have a duty to ensure that the money available in the NHS, whatever the amount is, is spent in the most effective way.
  Where there are different treatment approaches to the same symptoms, and one of them can be shown to be more cost-effective than another, that is precisely the sort of issue that a dispassionate, apolitical, technical institute should consider and report on. That is quite different from allowing that institute to recommend that a treatment should not be available at all because it is too expensive to the NHS and cannot be afforded.
  The new clause specifically draws that distinction between what I think of as the technical function of assessing the relative cost effectiveness of different alternative treatments or clinical interventions for the same symptoms and assessing the affordability of a given

  91
  treatment or intervention in relation to the overall total funds available to the national health service. I would characterise that as a political rather than a technical function.
  That is what I had in mind when I mentioned that there is a trend or a tendency within the Bill to devolve power upwards to the Secretary of State and responsibility downwards to other NHS bodies. The technical process of evaluating the relative cost-effectiveness—I emphasise relative—of different treatments or clinical interventions is properly something that the Secretary of State can devolve to a body such as NICE. In an environment where the Secretary of State acknowledged that there was overall rationing and that there was a resource constraint that limited the amount of treatment available, the input from the institute would be vital information in moving to the next stage, which is to ask who gets what within the overall resource constraint.
  8.30 pm
  We are concerned because, given the Government's refusal to acknowledge that there is an overall resource constraint, the role of NICE, which should be a technical, dispassionate and apolitical one, exactly as the new clause suggests, risks becoming politicised, with the institute being encouraged or forced to make judgments about what should or should not be available on an absolute basis, in the context of assessing treatments and drugs against the overall budget that the NHS has available to it.
  Mr. Hayes: The dilemma that my hon. Friend is describing—the contradiction in the structure—coupled with the lack of clarity or openness in the debate, will encourage the public to blame NICE or, more likely, the local hospital or the local GP, rather than taking a view that the Government should have made wider strategic judgments. The Government are not simply setting up something that is contradictory and paradoxical. Instead, they are passing the political buck. People will be angry and they will direct that anger at professionals rather than at politicians. My hon. Friend is putting the case in an informed way, but I will put it rather more bluntly when dealing with my constituents in my case work.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. If he reads the medical press, he will see that general practitioners have rightly recognised that they are being lined up to take responsibility for rationing decisions and to bear the brunt of the complaints and criticisms that he anticipates his constituents will raise with him. My hon. Friend is right to identify the issue.
  Power resides with the Secretary of State throughout the Bill, but it is someone else's responsibility to answer for the delivery of the service. That is the antithesis of transparency and openness in government, where power and responsibility should be seen clearly to reside together. The overall issue of rationing and how the available resources within the NHS are to be allocated is intrinsically a political decision. There is no shame in making it, but it is not a decision that can be shunted off on to an institute that has been set up to make evaluations and to report on the relative merits of one thing or another.
  Neither is it a decision that can be made by doctors on the basis of clinical priorities without a political framework being placed around them so that they know
  92
  the context in which they are required to make that clinical prioritisation. It is relatively simple to ask doctors to place in order of priority a group of patients in terms of who is the most needy or deserving of treatment in a particular circumstance. However, it is not reasonable to ask doctors to determine where the cut-off point should come in allocating the available resources. The amount of the available resources is, of course, a political decision. The determination of the level of those resources must reside with the Government. There responsibility must also reside for deciding how the impact of rationing will fall.
  The new clause correctly defines the role of NICE if we take the Government entirely at face value and if we take their assertions that the institute will spread best practice and will examine the relative cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of different treatments and interventions so that the NHS can operate in a more logical and rational way, so that it does not waste money on things that are relatively ineffective or expensive for a given outcome.
  If the Government are to be believed, and if their assertions about their intentions for NICE are to be taken at face value, they should have no difficulty in accepting new clause 4, but we have long believed that they have another agenda for NICE. They intend to create through NICE a quasi-clinical respectability for the rationing decisions which increasingly will have to be made.
  As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has already pointed out, we have to consider not only Viagra and other well-known drugs that are already available, at least in the technical sense, but drugs that we all know are coming along, although they are not yet even theoretically available on the market. Such drugs will be very expensive, but they could change quite radically the outcomes for people in certain disease groups or with certain conditions.
  The chairman of NICE, Professor Michael Rawlins, has already openly admitted that the institute may have to recommend that a treatment or a drug should not be available on the NHS because of the overall constraint on resources and the impact that such a product or treatment would have on the NHS budget.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is making an important point and I should like to clarify one aspect of it before he moves on. Does he agree that the only way in which the Government can refute the charge that he has made about their reasoning in creating NICE is to confirm this evening that there will be no private discussions between Ministers and the chairman of NICE and that their content will be disclosed publicly?
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. That would be one way in which the Government could provide some reassurance about their intentions for NICE, but I say again that NICE, despite its rather overblown title, was conceived as a vehicle for assessing clinical and cost effectiveness, which was a sensible idea. However, what happens with that information afterwards might become dangerous. That is essentially a matter for the politicians and it is extremely important that we keep the distinction between what they decide and what information the

  93
  technical experts and advisers can bring to us, better to inform our debate about the way in which to use the limited resources available to the NHS.
  Mr. Swayne: On the suggestion of the chairman of the national institute that it might have to recommend that a treatment is too expensive, the current situation is that many health authorities have made such a decision, which has given us the horror of treatment by post code. By transferring that responsibility to the national institute, we are in effect ensuring that such treatments will be available within no post code whatever.
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is exactly right. The Government have said that they want to reduce regional disparities, but they are unable to put forward a convincing argument that the advice of NICE, properly implemented, will not inevitably mean a levelling down of services.
  The Government have not said that they will make funds available—they have been given plenty of opportunities to give us that assurance—to enable best practice on every drug to be followed nationally as a result of the initiative to eliminate regional disparities. If the budget is not to be expanded, and if the service is to be increased in other areas, it is logical that the availability of some treatments will inevitably be reduced. The Government cannot have it both ways: they cannot eliminate regional disparities and also assure us that the purpose of their reforms is a levelling up of service.
  I accept new clause 4 for what it is, and I think that NICE works well in that role. However, my criticism of new clause 4 is that it begs the question whether we should assess treatments, interventions or drugs that are available for a condition if there are no alternative treatments against which they can be appraised for clinical and cost effectiveness.
  That brings us right back to the original question of how we are to make rational rationing decisions in the NHS, recognising the overall resource constraint. Beyond the role that new clause 4 would cast for NICE—that of assessing the relative clinical and cost effectiveness of different solutions to the same problem—we would need to debate the question of how we go about assessing which areas should or should not be prioritised if there is only one solution to a problem and it is very costly and there are a number of such problems and not enough resources to allow all the demands for treatment to be met. There may be many answers to that question, but the position is pretty clear to anyone who has considered the scale of the problem and the funding gap were there to be—as Ministers would like to believe—no rationing in the NHS. The problem could certainly not be solved with the product of 1p on income tax, which is the standard Liberal Democrat response to these difficult questions.
  The technical input of NICE would be extremely welcome and useful in that debate if we could solve the political questions of how the total budget should be divided up and how we should deal with the overall resource limitations. If we had a good mechanism for doing that, it would presuppose that the Government recognised that there was an issue to be addressed. Politicians should not shunt decisions on to NICE. We must set the framework, and then let the experts deal with the technical questions.
  94
  I cannot be quite so complimentary about new clause 14. New clause 4 is worth while, but its provisions would be unravelled by new clause 14. The first two subsections are unexceptional. They require NICE to meet in public and to publish a report annually. Both themes were pursued in Committee, with the objective of making the processes by which difficult decisions are made more transparent and understandable to the public, who feel the impact of those decisions.
  Subsection (3) of new clause 14 proposes:
  "The Secretary of State shall establish a public consultative committee in relation to the Authority, which shall have the duty of advising the Authority on the public's view on the priority to be accorded to different treatments and clinical interventions within the NHS."
  I was disappointed to read that, because it goes against the grain of new clause 4, which would make NICE an objective and technical body that weighed up the clinical efficacy and cost effectiveness of treatments. Feeding the result of a public consultation exercise into NICE's decision-making process would be dangerous, because it would introduce an element of subjectivity that is properly the domain of politicians. It would be better for NICE to consider the relative cost and clinical effectiveness of various treatments and for another body to consult public opinion. Both those strands of information could feed into the political decision-making process. The Secretary of State must ultimately make the decisions.
  8.45 pm
  Mr. Hayes: As well as compromising the empiricism of that professional body, might not the notion of public consultation that my hon. Friend describes be interpreted by the Government—but no one else—as an alternative to a proper, full and open public debate? Is not the proposal a sop to public consultation rather than the proper debate that should be taking place in the wider community and in this place about the key priorities that my hon. Friend identified earlier?
  Mr. Hammond: My hon. Friend is right. We must never be trapped into believing that, because NICE exists and will examine the issues objectively, there is no need for a wider debate on the rationing of resources in the NHS.
  The experience of public consultation in prioritising health care is not particularly happy. Most people who are interested in the subject will think immediately of the Oregon experiment. I suspect that none of us was impressed by the priorities that the public in Oregon gave for publicly funded health care. A straw poll of Members of Parliament would probably put cosmetic breast surgery a lot further down the list than the citizens of Oregon did. I caution the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon about the usefulness of a crude public consultation exercise.
  New clauses 4 and 14 appear to contradict each other. New clause 4 rightly emphasises that NICE should stay out of the political debate, but new clause 14 would send it straight to centre stage.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is invariably courteous in exchanges in the House. Perhaps I can try to decipher what he is saying. Is he telling the House, in his

  95
  extraordinarily polite fashion, that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is guilty, in new clause 14, of vulgar and unworthy populism?
  Mr. Hammond: I leave it to my hon. Friend to decide whether it is vulgar and unworthy. In fairness, the desire for public consultation at all stages and on all issues is almost a mantra with the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. In some cases, we have disagreed with him because he has suggested taking that process too far. He has a genuine desire to have some public input into the debate and we believe that that will be required, but we also feel strongly that their input should not be to NICE but should run in parallel with its work and inform the political process.
  Mr. Hayes: Is my hon. Friend saying that although the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is implicitly unworthy by being a Liberal Democrat, he is personally incapable of vulgarity?
  Mr. Hammond: I shall move on from that subject. I detect a certain muddle in the juxtaposition of new clauses 4 and 14. None the less, new clause 4 has served a useful purpose in allowing attention to be drawn to the gap between the role that the Government have consistently implied for NICE and the one that we fear may evolve, by design or by chance, and which its chairman has acknowledged will be a potential issue.
  New clauses 16 and 17 deal with a separate issue that is another example of the working of the rationing agenda. The two new clauses, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon acknowledged, have been driven by the public debate over Viagra, which has raised awareness in the popular press and the public mind about some issues that might have remained obscure had they been discussed only in connection with beta interferon and the other drugs that were mentioned earlier.
  By focusing the debate on Viagra, the popular press has moved forward the overall debate about rationing and the mechanisms by which rationing decisions are made. As has been mentioned, the courts have become involved in the debate about the availability of Viagra and have sent a message to the Secretary of State for Health about what he may and may not do in the exercise of his powers.
  It is important for hon. Members who were not present in Committee and have not had the opportunity to consider the Bill in as much detail as the rest of us to set this issue in the context of wider concern among general practitioners about the undermining of their freedom to prescribe and threats to their independent status. As we move from GP fundholding to the new system of primary care groups and, ultimately, primary care trusts, it becomes important to maintain the confidence of GPs that the system will protect the important role that they play.
  The Government have implicitly recognised the concerns and apprehensions of GPs. The first sign of that was when the former Minister of State wrote the now famous letter to the chairman of the general practitioners committee, and there have been various attempts since—not least by the Minister himself a few weeks ago—to reassure GPs about what the transition to primary care trusts would mean for them.
  96
  GPs have never before come up against such an explicit act of rationing as the Secretary of State implemented with his decisions on Viagra. He may have chosen Viagra deliberately as the ground on which to hold the debate, because it is not a drug which has a life-saving effect. However, I should say immediately that it deals with a condition that can be distressing and costs the NHS a lot of money to treat in other ways. If I did not say that, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon would jump up and say it for me.
  The Secretary of State has moved the debate on rationing forward another notch. A couple of weeks ago, Doctor magazine ran the headline "Rationing: it's official". The Secretary of State may not have used the word "rationing", but everyone in the medical profession knows that a Rubicon has been crossed. For the first time, he has proposed making a drug or treatment available to some people only, on a basis other than need. That is a significant change. It may not touch many lives as long as it is limited to Viagra, but we, and most commentators, would expect that, as other innovative drugs become available, the methodology tested with Viagra will be more and more widely employed.
  Mr. Bercow: I am confused about the stances of different members of the Government. How does my hon. Friend reconcile—if it is possible—the stated position of the Secretary of State in respect of Viagra and the oft quoted remark of the Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting that there would be more and better sex under Labour?
  Mr. Hammond rose—
  Mr. Denham: He is embarrassed.
  Mr. Hammond: I am somewhat at a loss. I thought that my hon. Friend was going to challenge me to reconcile the actions of the Secretary of State with the remarks of the Minister for Public Health; I am afraid that he has thrown me a little. I must confess that I cannot reconcile the Secretary of State's actions with that rather unwise promise.
  This is a matter of significance and not merely something for the tabloid press to titter at. Until September 1998, when the Government introduced their interim guidance on Viagra, treatment for erectile dysfunction was fully funded throughout the NHS. The Government may have been panicked by media stories exaggerating the likely demand for Viagra when it became available in the United States; the Secretary of State has said that the stories were material considerations in formulating the policy. It has subsequently appeared that such stories were exaggerated both here and in the United States.
  The Government issued interim guidance advising general practitioners that they should not prescribe Viagra other than in exceptional circumstances—which were not properly defined. The High Court recently found that guidance to be illegal on the grounds that it contravenes both the doctor's professional duty to treat his patient and the requirements of European Union law. You see, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I was not being facetious when I mentioned Brussels earlier.
  There have been attempts to suggest that erectile dysfunction is different—that it is somehow less worthy than other conditions and so automatically of lower

  97
  priority. However, the Secretary of State has admitted that it is a distressing condition, that it has serious medical consequences for sufferers and their partners and, interestingly, that 85 per cent. of cases result from underlying organic disease rather than from psychological problems.
  9 pm
  Mr. Fabricant: Does not my hon. Friend find it worrying that several Labour Members have said that the problem is a life style issue? Is not it far from being that?
  Mr. Hammond: That is right, and some of the early scaremongering in the popular press focused on that. However, in fairness to the Secretary of State, he has made it clear that erectile dysfunction is a serious medical condition with serious consequences. Until recently, its treatment was fully funded under the national health service, but an arbitrary decision has been made to cease that funding for all patients. The result will be discrimination between groups of patients.
  I suspect that the medical profession's outrage at the Secretary of State's decision to use schedule 11 to the 1992 regulations to limit the prescription of treatments for erectile dysfunction is what has caused the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon to take action. The British Medical Association said that the Secretary of State's action was arbitrary and that it would exclude people with genuine clinical need. It is important to recognise the significance of that: for the first time, official policy has acknowledged that people in genuine clinical need will be denied a treatment. That is a change in the ethos of the national health service, and deserves serious exploration.
  New clauses 16 and 17 would make it impossible for the Secretary of State to resort to the mechanism that he has used previously to limit the availability of such a drug. If the Minister could bring himself to recognise the rationing that exists, he might say that the proposal from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon is not the best way to deal with the matter. He might admit that a mechanism is needed to resolve the problem posed when a clinically effective but increasingly expensive drug is available for use but cannot be afforded within the national health service's resource constraints. Both I and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald has been saying that for the past year, but there cannot be a sensible debate until the Government acknowledge that rationing exists.
  The real objection, which we share with many clinicians, is to the fact that the Government make rationing decisions on grounds of costs—and it is clear that the decision about the availability of Viagra is one such—but then try to justify them on pseudo-medical grounds that are quickly disowned by authoritative medical opinion. One of the important issues to flow from the recent decision is the question of discrimination in the NHS, a matter to which we shall come in a later debate. However, that discrimination will not be for reasons of gender, race, sexual orientation or age. People with a given condition will suffer discrimination based on how they came to have the condition.
  That is equivalent to accident and emergency departments being asked to treat people with broken arms differently depending on whether the limb was broken in the course of work or leisure. Instinctively, we find that inappropriate, and new clauses 16 and 17 would make it impossible in the future.
  98
  The Government's approach to the treatment of male erectile dysfunction has shown the reality of the existence of rationing. There are, however, numerous examples of so-called post code rationing, when health authorities themselves have decided that they will or will not fund something. That is incompatible with the Government's expressed desire for universality in the NHS and their commitment that doctors should be free to treat patients according to clinical need. Given the resource constraints of the NHS, the Government must explain how they will square their desire to eliminate unjustifiable regional variations—a form of discrimination—with the lack of any significant additional resources to enable levelling up.
  We would have been delighted if the Government had accompanied the introduction of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence with an announcement that it would provide a levelling-up process so that the best and most clinically effective practice would be made universally available. That would have been good news for many patients, but it would have raised questions of how the improvement would be paid for and how the wider debate over rationing would be dealt with.
  Rationing is one of the most serious problems faced by the NHS, and the Government and Parliament, rather than institutions with powers and responsibilities devolved by the Secretary of State, must confront it. It is, and must remain, intrinsically a political issue. As new clause 4 implies, NICE must remain an advisory body, and Ministers must take the hard decisions.
  Although new clause 4 usefully highlights the rationalisation potential of NICE and the Government's unwritten agenda of using it as a rationing device, it does not fully answer the problem of rationing. With the greatest respect to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, that is not compatible with new clause 14.
  New clauses 16 and 17, by contrast, go to the heart of rationing, demanding a coherent response from the Government and something more than the mantra that rationing does not exist—a denial which does not move the debate a millimetre forward. Despite the Minister's consistent assurances that he is anxious to engage in constructive debate, the denial that rationing happens continues to prevent sensible debates that would benefit our constituents and the people of the UK. Instead, the Government have condemned themselves to continual stonewalling and have boxed themselves into an absurd position.
  Mr. Bercow: I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on the presentation of his argument. As my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) observed, there are flaws in his position and in that of his party. There is not a complete identity of view between the stance of the Liberal Democrats and that of the official Opposition. However, I respect the hon. Gentleman's medical experience, in spite of the occasional eccentricity of his political viewpoint. A good deal of the rationale behind his arguments will have commended itself to hon. Members and to people outside the House. In so far as it attempts to flush out the Government's position and to deny them the opportunity of continued obfuscation, it is welcome.
  The contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge was typically succinct. It was a remarkable performance for my hon. Friend to confine

  99
  his remarks to one hour in the interests of the progress of the debate. His lucidity and eloquence are such that we should have been happy to listen to a continued exposition of the arguments for considerably longer. I can only assume that his natural concern that others should get in on the debate caused him to relent and resume his seat.
  At the heart of this debate and essential to any meaningful discussion of new clause 4, and certainly to discussion of new clauses 14, 16 and 17, is the concept of rationing. We come back to that central issue time and again.
  Without giving him any advanced warning, I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge what he considered to be the difference between rationing and the prioritisation of resources, or at least the allocation of resources, within a finite budget. My hon. Friend legitimately chose not to answer directly. He cannot be expected to surmise exactly what Ministers are thinking. Much of the time their thoughts are impenetrable and their expression of whatever thoughts they have, still more so. It is not reasonable for my hon. Friend to be expected to decipher exactly what Ministers—in their statements or lack of them—intend us to infer. However, the Minister has the opportunity to tell us tonight his understanding of the difference.
  For the avoidance of doubt, the challenge is simple. What is the difference between rationing and the prioritisation of the allocation of resources within a finite budget in the national health service? I cannot conceive of a way in which the question and the challenge could be more simply put. I appeal to the hon. Gentleman to answer that question tonight.
  Also, I ask the Minister to confirm that he is content absolutely with the reply on rationing offered by his right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on 15 December 1998 at Health Question Time, which is in Hansard, column 746—it is important to be precise about these matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) challenged the right hon. Lady as to whether there was rationing in the NHS. On that occasion, the Minister for Public Health looked like a rabbit caught in front of the headlights. I say that with no disrespect to the right hon. Lady. Her predicament was understandable. My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald scares the living daylights out of me and she is my right hon. Friend, so it is perfectly imaginable that she would have caused terror in the heart and mind of the Minister for Public Health. Nevertheless, the right hon. Lady was obviously frit. She did not know what to say and thought that the shortest possible answer was probably the best escape route. She unwisely replied to the challenge of whether there was rationing in the NHS, "No." Moreover, she did not content herself with giving that answer once. Working on the assumption, I think, that having said it once it was best to stick to it and say it as many times as necessary, she repeated that answer on two further occasions in response to challenges from my right hon. Friend.
  That begs the question that if there is not rationing in the NHS, what does the Minister believe is happening daily in our health service when, because of a lack of funds, the availability of treatment is limited and people are either denied it altogether because of the absence of
  100
  funds or are told that they will have to wait longer than they otherwise would for that treatment, until further funds are available? If that is not rationing, the Minister must explain the intellectual distinction between rationing, which he disavows and claims is not occurring, and the denial of treatment because of an insufficiency of resources, which he cannot disavow and that he knows is occurring.
  9.15 pm

  I am sure that the Minister will be interested to hear the official definition. I have taken the trouble to find out that, on page 2482 of "The New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary"—copies of which are available for consultation in the Library during the drier parts of my speech—the verb "to ration" is defined as follows:
  "to limit to a fixed allowance."
  The dictionary helpfully continues with another definition of the verb:
  "to share out in fixed quantities."
  I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) for suggesting that ratios are involved in this matter. To ration implies the existence of ratios. I hope that, at least on that point, there can be unanimity among the parties in the Chamber. Does the Minister accept those meanings of the word "ration", or is this new Labour Government so arrogant that they believe that they know the definition of words better than the distinguished sources who compiled the "New Shorter Oxford English Dictionary". We know not. Perhaps we shall be told. I hope that we shall hear about that before the conclusion of the debate.
  Mr. Swayne: Is not the attitude and the new-speak of the Labour Government made manifest in the Bill by NICE, CHIMP and PRODIGY?
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. In previous reflections on these matters, I have challenged the Government as to the profusion of those new bodies and the peculiarly inelegant titles that Ministers have conferred on them. Indeed, on one occasion I regarded it as a particular pleasure to reel off no fewer than six such bodies during a question to the former Minister of State at the Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), now the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I should like to trouble my hon. Friend for further details, but fear that I should try your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I did so tonight.
  I should be happy to give way to the Minister at any point in my remarks, if he feels inclined to answer this central question: if there is no rationing, what is happening now? If there is no rationing, why does almost everyone in the United Kingdom—intelligent, unintelligent or of varying degrees of intelligence—believe that there is? Why is it that the Government are right about this question, even though they are in a tiny minority and are disbelieved, but that everyone else is wrong?
  Sir Richard Body: Surely, the origin of rationing was to give to five people what was normally available for four—hence the word "ratio". In relation to the health service, in most of our

  101
  constituencies, although five people are lining up for operations, there is time to carry out only four operations. Resources are available only for four operations, but five people want an operation.
  Mr. Bercow: Rationing can take a variety of different forms. It is not in dispute that, because of the constraint of insufficient resources, if people cannot receive treatment, or cannot receive it until a certain period has elapsed, that constitutes a form of rationing. My hon. Friend is right to describe another form of rationing, but if people cannot have treatment now because there is no money to pay for it—or there is money to pay for treatment for only four people, rather than for five—manifestly, in ordinary, everyday parlance, we must conclude that that constitutes a rationing of the available treatment.
  I hope that the Minister will agree with that. I look to him, with beads of sweat upon my brow, in eager anticipation of a straightforward answer to a straightforward challenge. He sits there, he cogitates, he looks down at his notes—
  Mr. Brady: He sweats.
  Mr. Bercow: I am not in a position to confirm the accuracy or otherwise of that observation. I simply ask the Minister to confirm that he accepts—so far, because I want to take him step by step through this issue—the validity of what I have said. Does he accept the definition of rationing that I have given?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I am sure the House will agree that we have now dealt adequately with the definition of rationing. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now move on.
  Mr. Bercow: I am happy always to be guided by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I immediately accept your ruling that we have adequately debated the definition of rationing for tonight and that to avoid tedious repetition and defiance of the rules of order we cannot continue to have that debate on this occasion, there will be ample opportunities in the course of this Parliament for debate to be rejoined.
  I say to the Minister of State in the friendliest spirit, he should not imagine that he can get away with avoiding an answer to my question tonight, because we shall be back. We shall be back before breakfast, before lunch, before tea, before dinner and before we consume the bedtime Ovaltine to harangue him on this issue. He knows that all of those present in the Chamber are assiduous attenders of parliamentary debate, as is my hon. Friend the Member for Boston and Skegness, and we shall pursue the issue at every opportunity.
  New clause 4, moved by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, specifies that clinical efficacy or relative cost effectiveness should be the criterion on which treatments are prescribed. He suggests that overall cost or the possibility of additional cost to the NHS should, of itself, not be a criterion. However, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that there have to be limits to total expenditure. We would argue an absurdity if we were to suggest that there could be limitless expenditure.
  102
  I have reflected carefully on this issue. I have reflected carefully on the unpopularity of rationing: it is almost the inadmissible sin of the operation of the NHS. It is to the great credit of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge and my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald that they have tried to cut the Gordian knot of that debate. They acknowledge that there are, of course, limitations of resources within which judgments have to be made, but that ordinarily clinical judgments should be respected and once there is a budget known, Ministers should not retreat into arguments about resources when to do so negates the power and clinical freedom of, for example, in the field of multiple sclerosis, neurologists.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon referred to the debate about beta interferon. He and I are currently engaged in a correspondence on this important matter, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House with genuine concern about multiple sclerosis sufferers have raised with Ministers the question of the funding of beta interferon and its continuing provision.
  My concern is that the Government are not being up front and saying that resources are of the essence and that it is a lack of resources that is causing them to think about ways in which to restrict the availability of the drug. Even though to make that admission would give rise to some hostility and considerable debate, the admission would be honest. I would go so far as to wager—and I believe that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald would concur with me on this—that the Government would win respect for candour and openness. In respect of beta interferon, it is their pretence that factors other than limitations on resources are uppermost in their minds that leads sufferers from that chronic neurological disease to distrust them.
  I would go so far as to say that there are some who despise the attitude of the Government because it is not frank, candid or open. The Government treat the people of this country and the sufferers of the disease who know about it and feel it in a way that none of us can emulate as stupid: they simply consider that they cannot grasp the issue. That is unfair.
  Let us take the particular case of the provision of beta interferon to sufferers of multiple sclerosis. The House will be aware that there are four forms of multiple sclerosis, of which the two most commonly debated in the Chamber are the relapsing-remitting and the secondary progressive forms of the disease. There is a limited number of manufacturers of the drug beta interferon, of which perhaps the most notable is Schering Health Care plc. It currently supplies beta interferon to those who suffer from the relapsing-remitting form of the disease, but it has recently been granted a licence—I believe I am correct in saying that it is currently the only manufacturer to have been granted such a licence—to supply that version of the product that treats the secondary progressive form of the disease.
  Ministers have acknowledged that there has been some testing of the efficacy of the drug, but, either deliberately or inadvertently, they have sought to convey an impression of ambiguity. The Minister will acknowledge that he does not have medical expertise—if I am mistaken, he can correct me. I am not trying to score a point against the hon. Gentleman because I do not have medical expertise either. However, consultant neurologists have such expertise, as do those who undertake the trials of this

  103
  drug, and of others. I hope that the Minister will accept—I have made this point before—that there have been so far no fewer than four independent and separate trials of the clinical effectiveness of beta interferon. I shall come to the question of cost in due course.
  I suggest that those separate, independent trials have proved conclusive. They have shown—the Minister acknowledged this recently in reply to an Adjournment debate introduced by me on 14 May this year—that treatment for the relapsing-remitting form of multiple sclerosis with beta interferon can reduce the rate of relapse by up to 30 per cent. as well as the severity of the relapses. Treatment with the drug over a period of three years can reduce the speed of deterioration in the condition by up to one year.
  Mr. Fabricant: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want the House to think that it is only beta interferon that the Government claim has clinical deficiencies. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government also claim that Taxol, an excellent drug used in the treatment of certain cancers and in the reduction of certain malignant tumours, should be restricted not because of its cost but because of its efficacy? However, clinical oncologists argue that Taxol is an effective means of treating certain forms of cancer.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I was not aware of that point. My hon. Friend has now enlightened me and, in so doing, he underlines the fact testified to by my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that this problem applies across the board.
  If there were just one disease to which the Government's rather curious attitude applied, our argument might not be conclusive. It is a fact that for many diseases there is a drug that clinicians believe will be effective but over which Ministers hesitate, and that is a serious problem. Ministers claim that their decisions are based on the fact that the efficacy of the drug is unproven. We suspect, and patients are convinced, that a reluctance to fund is at the root of the Government's constant prevarication.
  9.30 pm
  Mr. Fabricant: Would my hon. Friend care to speculate that the Government would earn respect not only among parliamentarians but among those in the medical profession if they came clean and said, "Yes, there is rationing. That is not surprising. There ought to be rationing because, whether we like it or not, there are limited resources. Given that there is rationing, let us approach the problem logistically, logically and systematically and try to find a solution"? The fact that they deny that rationing takes place and that they try to deceive the electorate and patients means that they earn the disrespect of this House and those who know that the NHS is not safe in Labour's hands.
  Mr. Bercow: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. That lack of candour applies across the board. I appeal to the Minister to abandon his nescience and to admit that the Government are trying to present the issue in a way that
  104
  clouds the facts instead of clarifying them. [Interruption.] I am sorry if the Minister is uncertain about the word "nescience". The late parliamentarian of 37 years' standing, the right hon. Member for Down, South—and, before that, the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West—once said to the Member for Harrow, East, who was so unwise as to claim that Mr. Powell had used a word that did not exist, that if, during the drier parts of his speech, the hon. Gentleman would like to avail himself of a copy of the Oxford English Dictionary in the Members' Library, he might look up the word "transfretation", and he would find it all right. I say to the Minister that if he looks up "nescience" in the dictionary, he will certainly find it. I shall not help him because he should learn by discovery and the effort required to consult the dictionary. He will benefit from that.
  The Minister acknowledges that there is a patchwork of provision of beta interferon throughout the country. That point is common ground between us. In the debate on 14 May, he reiterated what he had said at health questions some 10 days earlier. He said that there are great disparities between what health authorities in different parts of the country provide. We agree on that.
  Dr. Dennis Briley, consultant neurologist at Stoke Mandeville hospital, which serves many thousands of my constituents, has described that situation as treatment by postcode. He disapproves of that, I disapprove of it and the Opposition disapprove of it. The Minister of State implies that he disapproves of it and contends that the Government's proposals for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will lead to increasing provision and greater equality of provision throughout the country. I am not sure that their proposals will deliver anything of the sort because I subscribe to the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge that NICE is being set up in a way that will give the Government an excuse to ration while avoiding the blame for its effects. They intend NICE to carry the can.
  I am concerned, and my concern is reinforced because the Minister of State has on several occasions given a bogus reason for the disparities in treatment. I will not accuse him of bad faith.
  By the standards of a Labour Minister, and at the risk of causing grave embarrassment and damage to his future, I shall go so far as to say that I have always thought the hon. Gentleman the closest approximation to a normal human being on the Government Benches whom I have encountered since 1 May 1997. I do not think that he is advancing such a reason deliberately. I think that he genuinely believes that difference of opinion among consultant neurologists is the reason for the disparity in provision of beta interferon across the country.
  On 4 May, in answer to a question from me, the Minister suggested that differences of opinion among consultant neurologists explained the variations in the amount of treatment provided by different health authorities.
  Mr. Denham: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman giving way on this very important point. I believe that the record will show that I indicated that it was one of the factors that influenced the differences in prescribing.

  105
  To my recollection, I certainly did not indicate that it was the only explanation of differences in prescribing policy in different parts of the country.
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful for that assurance. The Minister is edging his way towards a more satisfactory position. He will forgive me for saying so, but when he made that point before, he did so with some emphasis. The impression which many of us gained, including my constituents who suffer from the relapsing, remitting form of multiple sclerosis, was that he was taking refuge behind clinical differences of opinion. I do not say that unkindly to the Minister, but my constituents, Caroline Cripps, who is 28 years old and from Westcott, and 31-year-old Mr. Marc Smith from Buckingham, both believed that the Minister was trying to use that point as an excuse for the variations in provision. If he is assuring me now that it is but one of the factors and that it is by no means the major factor, I am very grateful. The debate has already advanced if he is prepared to make that admission.
  I should like to take the debate a stage further. If the Minister is to advance difference of opinion among consultant neurologists as an explanation—not necessarily a justification—for the disparities in treatment, he is duty bound to consider the position when no such disagreement exists, but, rather unanimity of view.
  I cannot expect the Minister, much as I would like him to do so, to recall word for word the exchanges between us during an Adjournment debate on 14 May. He may recall that I reminded him of the position in the south-west of England, where all 18 consultant neurologists had decided that the provision of beta interferon for particular multiple sclerosis sufferers would be clinically effective. Despite that unanimity of view, such treatment was for long periods not made available. Therefore, it is simply not good enough for the Minister to talk about differences of opinion as an explanation for the provision of treatment.
  When there is unanimity of view among the people whom we all accept are the experts, and still the funding is not made available, we must conclude that other factors are at work. Either a political decision has been made or financial factors explain the unwillingness to fund.
  Mr. Swayne: Is not the very purpose of new clause 4 to ensure that the national institute takes a considered view on the basis of positive science as to the efficacy of a treatment such as beta interferon? The danger, as evidenced by the statements of the chairman of the national institute, is that NICE may well decide that such treatment should not be available simply on the ground of cost.
  Mr. Bercow: That possibility does exist. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that it emphasises the importance of having the maximum discussion in public of what the priorities should be, the criteria upon which judgments are made, and the mechanisms to review those judgments.
  There is no shame, even for a commission, in making an honest mistake. There is only shame in failing to acknowledge the possibility of having done so. It is precisely because we can get it wrong from time to time, and clinicians can make mistakes, that there must be review mechanisms. The magnifying glass of publicity,
  106
  which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon mentioned in different terms, is important in that process. The more private discussion and confidentiality there is, the less confidence there will be. The more public discussion and openness there is, the greater confidence there will be in the propriety of the decision-making process.
  Mr. Brady: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a matter of concern that, in the pursuit of cost saving through the activities of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, there may be a reduction in communities' ability to have an input into the priorities for health care, and that, in pursuing uniformity, NICE may be the enemy of good provision because, at the moment, some communities may set different priorities from others?
  Mr. Bercow: There is a respectable argument for the view that my hon. Friend is expressing. I think that, essentially, his thesis is that, if there is competition and local flexibility, the best will tend to drive out the worst, or, at least, that the better will tend to drive out the worse. Is that what he is suggesting?
  Mr. Brady: That would tend to be the case, but, more fundamentally, it is appropriate for local communities to have some input into the decision-making process, and for a health authority to be able to set priorities different from those of a neighbouring health authority if the population that it serves wishes.
  Mr. Bercow: There is an argument for that. However, it is important that, if such arrangements are to be instituted, the forum in which such decisions are taken does not become dominated by the activist who is willing to attend most regularly. There must be a check on the idea that, simply by packing a particular meeting, for example, one view can hold sway, even if the validity of that view turns out, on later inspection, to be outweighed by that of another. I am not averse to what my hon. Friend is suggesting, but I think that we could get into difficulty unless we very carefully consider the constraints within which such local discretion is operated.
  Mr. Swayne: Will my hon. Friend bring his precise use of language and analysis to bear on the problem in the way that I suggest it is defined now? The easy bit is to decide, on the basis of positive science, whether a treatment is clinically effective. The question whether it can be afforded is a normative question, requiring a normative judgment, and our difficulty is finding the forum in which that normative judgment can be made. In putting together the Bill, the Government have run those two functions together into NICE, and it is entirely inappropriate for that one body to try to fulfil both the positive and the normative role.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend makes a powerful point. There is no sense in which we can honestly say that a specific treatment cannot be afforded. In fact, although we might not realise it, it constitutes bad faith so to argue. In practice, the Government do not go bankrupt any more than local authorities, the creations of statute, do, so it follows that, in the final analysis, the judgment is about whether we want to afford a specific treatment or whether we prefer resources to be directed to the provision of an

  107
  alternative treatment for the same condition or for an entirely different one. Therefore, I accept the thrust of what my hon. Friend is saying.
  9.45 pm
  I have spoken about a situation in which there is unanimity of clinical judgment that is ignored or, worse, scorned by administrators or politicians. However, the argument can be taken a stage further. I have made the point to the Minister before. I do not recall that he had an effective response to it, which rather suggests to me that he did not. If he had, I think that I would remember it. I do not, so I do not think that he possessed such an answer.
  What about a situation in which there is no unanimity of view, but individual clinicians are advising what they think is right for their particular patients? In the debate on 14 May, in which I raised the problems of multiple sclerosis sufferers in Buckinghamshire, the Minister said quite reasonably to me and to the House that he recalled that the four neurologists in Buckinghamshire who were consulted about the efficacy of beta interferon disagreed. He said that given the difference of opinion among the four consultants, it was not surprising that a decision to fund on a significant scale by the Buckinghamshire health authority had not yet been made.
  I see the hon. Gentleman's point, but I hope that he will not use the fact of differences of opinion among respected consultant neurologists as a justification for the denial of funding. In short, just because one neurologist does not think that the treatment is generally effective, or concludes from his analysis that it would not be efficacious for his particular patient, that does not mean that it should be denied to others.
  If another neurologist, readily accepting the drug's inappropriateness for other patients, said, "Ah, yes, I accept that, Minister, but beta interferon will be efficacious for my patient", does the hon. Gentleman accept that that judgment should be respected? Does he agree with the proposition that where the neurologist judges that the provision of beta interferon will be clinically effective, it should ordinarily be prescribed? The hon. Gentleman does not answer. He is mute. The position is fixed. The head does not move. There is no flicker of emotion or indication of stance from the hon. Gentleman. I shall wait patiently for his winding-up speech.
  I have on previous occasions worried that at a late hour, Ministers might inadvertently neglect to respond to the points that my hon. Friends have made.
  Mr. Eric Forth: No. Surely not.
  Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend cavils at the suggestion that a Minister might inadvertently fail to respond to a point. I have the highest regard and affection for my right hon. Friend. Not every hon. Member or every current Minister can match his high standards. Just because he has instant recall, never forgets a point that is put to him, and is unfailingly effective and courteous in his response to any challenge, does not mean that he can demand or expect the same high standards of members of the new Government. My right hon. Friend had a number of years experience—[Interruption.]
  108
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) says from a sedentary position that my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) may expect such high standards. He might expect them, as my right hon. and learned Friend points out, but he assuredly will not get them. It is possible that Ministers will neglect to respond to particular points.
  I challenge the Minister, when he replies to the debate, to give me an answer to this question: does he agree that where a consultant neurologist believes that the provision of a treatment is clinically appropriate, it should ordinarily be prescribed? If he does agree, the hon. Gentleman will have made an important admission. The fact of differences of opinion does not mean that the judgment of an individual consultant neurologist in respect of a particular patient at a given time, possibly for a limited period, should not be respected. Rather, it tends to imply that that judgment should be respected and translated into practice.
  I challenged the Minister on 14 May to make it clear beyond peradventure that the period between now and the issue of new guidance by NICE should on no account be used by any health authority to justify the reduction, still less the withdrawal, of funding of beta interferon. That goes to the heart of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon.
  I believe that the Minister gave a categorical assurance on that point, saying that until the new guidance comes forward the November 1995 guidance in the Government's circular should be honoured. I was grateful for that. So we assume that, for the time being, on the basis of a judgment about clinical effectiveness, neurologists should be free to prescribe and the drug should be available.
  We now come to the question of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and how it will operate. I should like to think that the institute will be absolutely independent, free to make judgments about clinical appropriateness and not subject to public or private pressure of any sort from Ministers or officials in the Department of Health.
  It was because I wished to establish the status of NICE and the freedom that it would have to make recommendations and to issue guidance that I challenged the Minister on this point on 14 May. I asked whether NICE would be genuinely independent. I was not encouraged by the hon. Gentleman's reply. He told me that NICE would operate on the basis of a framework agreement with the Department.
  I am a new Member and, on the whole, I am inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt. I have not yet been afflicted by the world-weary cynicism that characterises my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. However, I smelt a rat. I detected a desire by Ministers to ensure that the institute would not be fully independent. I did not like the talk of a framework agreement. It seemed to me that the Department of Health would be saying to the institute, "You will volunteer to agree with the Government", with the proverbial gun being held to its head.
  Mr. Forth: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Bercow: I shall readily give way to my right hon. Friend, who is wearing a particularly fetching tie.
  Mr. Forth: If a word from the very old to the very new would be helpful, may I point out to my hon. Friend—he seems uncharacteristically to have missed this opportunity—that any Minister must have regard to the financial aspects of his policies? Therefore, it must be inevitable that real financial constraints must be placed on the policy that we are discussing from the outset. My hon. Friend seems to be suggesting that "framework" is being used to disguise real financial constraints, which will inevitably operate on the apparent clinical neutrality of the new organisation.
  Mr. Bercow: This evening, there have been competing attractions. There has been the opportunity to enjoy a congenial dinner. There has been the option, which I admit is much the lesser of the two, of listening to my oration. My right hon. Friend was absent during the earlier part of my speech in which I said that it would be welcome if the Government would be candid, if they would say, "Yes, financial factors are at stake. Monetary judgments have to be made. There is not enough money and we cannot afford everything. We shall restrict the supply of some treatments because of cost limitations."
  I pay tribute to the candour of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. They have acknowledged the existence of rationing and they are not afraid of it. They are principled conviction politicians. They are not scurrying around and retreating into the dark, afraid to admit the inevitable. The great British public are not stupid. They know that there is not a bottomless pit. They know also that there is a limit to what the public purse can afford. They know that judgments about what can be managed have to be made. It is a case of demand always exceeding supply. With a service that is free at the point of consumption, that will always be the position.
  So, my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right: if Ministers would only say that there will be financial restrictions on what NICE can do, we would know that they were being honest. They could say, "The chairman of the institute takes one view. We, who have to apply the cash limits throughout the public sector, take another. We will insist that our view holds sway and the chairman of NICE will be shown the door if he does not like it." However, they are simply not prepared to do that.
  Ministers want to give the impression that an independent body will make the judgments. If that independent body—knowing of the framework agreement and of the limitation on resources—declines to provide a particular treatment or reduces the quantity of that treatment in a given year, Ministers will retreat behind the fiction that that is an independent judgment decided by the national institute. Why do not they say, "There is a lack of funds. We politicians have to balance the books and we are restricting the freedom of NICE to do as it wishes"? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said, there is nothing dishonourable in imposing some constraints on the freedom of NICE, but there is something dishonourable about denying the intention to do so.
  Mr. Forth: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. Is it not at least possible that, in framing the terms of reference for that body, the Government could arrive at some compromise in which they would charge it with investigating clinical excellence while having regard to the
  110
  availability of resources? Perhaps they could use another term of art, something with which we are all too familiar. Does he accept that that would at least be a way forward for the Government, even though it would effectively reduce the independence of the body that is being set up?
  Mr. Bercow: That would reduce the independence of the body that is being set up and it would of course entail an acknowledgement by the Government that they hold the purse strings.
  The absurdity of the present position is that, although we all know that Governments fund the NHS, Ministers would like to give the impression that responsibility for funding will in future lie with NICE. We know that to be a monstrous fiction; it is such an absurd proposition that, as the late and great parliamentarian Enoch Powell would have said, only an extraordinarily clever person could fail to see the point.
  Mr. Brady: I fear that, for once, my hon. Friend is missing the point. The Government do not want NICE to be seen as controlling funding. They want to be seen as providing funding, but they want NICE to be seen as restricting the treatments available.
  Mr. Bercow: That would be a tortuous position for the Government to adopt. I do not rule out the possibility that that is what lurks in the inner recesses of what passes for the mind of a Minister in the new Labour Administration, but that does not make it a satisfactory position. Such a position is wholly unacceptable—it is dishonourable, it lacks candour and it flatters to deceive.
  The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, in addition to a number of other important points that he flagged up in this brief debate, raised the issue of the appraisal of treatments. [Interruption.] We are delighted at this stage of our proceedings to be joined by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson)—the Secretary of State for Health himself. As Lord Archer of Weston-super-Mare, when Member of Parliament for Louth, said to Prime Minister Harold Wilson, "Good of him to drop in."
  We are delighted to see the right hon. Gentleman, but it is a pity that he has not attended the debate. I would like to say that it has been left in good hands, but I fear that that would not be correct. The Minister is a genial fellow, but he is finding it all a bit too much to take. We do not know whether a response from his lips will be forthcoming, but I hope that he will confirm in the short time that remains that the appraisal of the efficacy of a treatment will consider not only clinical costs, which have been referred to, but the wider costs entailed such as loss of tax revenues because of unemployment and help with adaptations to the home—for sufferers from extreme conditions such as multiple sclerosis, for example. All those factors must be considered in the equation and I would welcome an unequivocal assurance from the Minister that they will always be taken into account.
  This is a debate of the utmost importance. Before the Bill creeps on to the statute book, we need to know what Ministers really intend for NICE.
  It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.
  Debate to be resumed tomorrow.

Business of the House
10 pm
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): With permission, I should like to make a short business statement. The business for tomorrow will now be the consideration of a timetable motion relating to the Health Bill and to the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which will be followed by the conclusion of the remaining stages of the Health Bill and progress on the remaining stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The remaining stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill will be brought to a conclusion on Wednesday as previously announced.
Sir George Young: When the right hon. Lady announced this week's business only last Thursday, there was no mention of a timetable motion on either the Health Bill or the Immigration and Asylum Bill. The House will want to ask her what has happened between last Thursday and today to precipitate these announcements if it is not the Government's disastrous performance in the European elections. Will the right hon. Lady tell the House how many hours of debate she proposes for these two Bills? With regard to the Health Bill, we note that the Secretary of State for Health did not appear until a few minutes ago and had not attended the debate for the past few hours.
Is not the Immigration and Asylum Bill being guillotined to curb criticism from the Government's own supporters on the Labour Benches—criticism of a Bill that has few friends outside the House? Is that not further evidence of a Government who lost votes over the weekend and are now losing their nerve?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. Gentleman says that I announced this business only last Thursday, and that is true, but that was the third occasion on which I had announced that a full day's debate would be held on the Health Bill, and on none of those occasions did the Opposition say that there was any difficulty with that. I announced this business on 20 May, 26 May and last Thursday.
I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for asking me what has happened between then and now. I draw his attention to two things. First, the Opposition were offered a programme motion for the Health Bill to ensure that it was adequately debated in the time allowed, and for the remaining stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, but that opportunity was rejected for both pieces of legislation.
Secondly, this afternoon the House has spent three hours debating new clause 18, which relates to a relatively minor, technical and uncontroversial matter, about which the Opposition parties were forewarned in Committee in a letter from the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). It was so uncontroversial that they did not even vote on it. If we were to continue at that pace, it would take us until the end of the week to conclude proceedings on the Health Bill alone, and that does not seem to us to be reasonable. If we are to allow time tomorrow to conclude proceedings on the Health Bill, which is only right, that will have an
112
impact on the two days that I had announced for the remaining stages of the Immigration and Asylum Bill, so that is the reason for this motion.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Will the Leader of the House confirm that there have been 85 Government amendments and new clauses to the Health Bill? Will she also confirm that the Bill was extensively discussed in the other place, so the late arrival of those amendments and new clauses is unacceptable. Will she give us further information on precisely what discussions have taken place with members of the Conservative Front Bench on an agreed programme motion? Was that proposal turned down on principle, or were the details of the programme motion that the Government proposed to put before the House unacceptable to the Conservatives? Do the Government accept that both Bills are very important, excite great public interest and attention and deserve much more careful attention in the House on a proper programme motion? A guillotine motion is certainly not the best way. It is a sledgehammer to achieve nothing.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not dispute the hon. Gentleman's last point. The Government would have much preferred to have a sensible programme motion. We have been driven to fall back on the guillotine because that was not possible. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the Bill has already been extensively debated. It had 42 hours in the House of Lords and 77½ hours in Committee. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that there are a large number of amendments. Most of them are minor and technical. Indeed, most were asked for during earlier consideration. Finally, the hon. Gentleman asked whether it was on a matter of detail or on principle that the Conservatives rejected a programme motion. We never got as far as details. The hon. Gentleman will understand why the Government have found it necessary to propose a guillotine motion.
Mr. Peter Luff (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the Leader of the House acknowledge that in the past three weeks we have had one week of recess and two weeks of exceptionally light business by any standards? If she had had the decency to give the House a reasonable amount of time to debate the Bill, the difficulties that we have had tonight would not have arisen. Does she understand that many of us feel that the three weeks of light business were intended to give Labour Members time to campaign in the European elections, and much good it did them? Their arguments were rejected by the voters. Does she understand that her running shy tonight of a proper debate on the Health Bill shows that the Government are fearful of having the arguments on the Bill properly tested in the House of Commons?
Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Gentleman's points about the previous business and the recess are irrelevant. If there was a problem with the time allowed for the Bill, it could have been raised on the past three occasions when I announced the time available. It was never raised by the hon. Gentleman or anyone else. The Bills could not have been considered earlier, because they have both just come out of Committee. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has been in the Chamber this evening. If he had—I beg

113
his pardon if he has—he would have known that people have been wasting time and the House of Commons does not have time to waste.
Mr. John Hayes: Given the right hon. Lady's difficulties over the past week or so, particularly since Sunday, and her problems with ordering the business of the House effectively, which are clearly becoming profound, will she make time for an early statement on the Government's position on proportional representation for this House?
Madam Speaker: Order. That is totally irrelevant to the statement that has just been made.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is the Leader of the House bringing the same deft management to organising the business of the House that she brought to organising the Labour party's strategy for the recent elections? If so, will she answer the question put to her by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and explain why the Government were prepared to mark time in the House of Commons for the past two or three weeks, but are now trying in indecent haste to ram through controversial and difficult business? Why cannot the Government face up to difficult issues and give the House of Commons a proper amount of time to deal with them instead of scurrying around trying to hide the difficult issues while wasting time in the lead-up to what was a disastrous election for them?
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman can have been listening or paying attention. I have already said that the Government were prepared to discuss a programme motion for both Bills. The right hon. Gentleman always attends business questions. I pay tribute to him for being an assiduous attender. Not once has he or any Conservative Member said that the time allowed for debate on the Health Bill was inadequate. It is too late to say it now.
Mr. Ian Bruce: Will we have an opportunity during the debate on the Health Bill to talk about the £21 billion that the Prime Minister keeps talking about? The Leader of the House may have noticed that, for some reason, it was claimed as a great plus for Labour's candidates during the European elections. Will she confirm that that £21 billion is only £3.5 billion extra a year: £3.5 billion in the first year; £7 billion in the second year; £10.5 billion in the third year? We have to add them together to get £21 billion. Surely the country has found out about the Government's health policies and we need plenty of time to highlight what is going on.
Mrs. Beckett: I am sorry to say to the hon. Gentleman that no matter how much time we have, the Opposition are incapable of doing anything sensible with it, judging by their performance this evening.
Dr. Evan Harris: While I regret that the Leader of the House has had to make this statement, does she agree that part of the explanation for the behaviour of the increasingly extremist Conservative party is the fact that it has failed to provide opposition on the Immigration and Asylum Bill or on the Health Bill? On the issues of junior doctors' hours, rationing,
114
discrimination and the work force crisis, it was Liberal Democrat amendments that would have been discussed tonight before the Tories' futile behaviour intervened.
Mrs. Beckett: I do not think that it is for me to intervene in a private fight on the other side of the House, but I share the hon. Gentleman's view that we have not spent time discussing the Bill this evening.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: The right hon. Lady will know that, as Leader of the House, she has a role to take into account the interests of the House as a whole and not exclusively those of colleagues on her own Front Bench. Does she understand the concern felt by Conservative Members that what she has just announced may substantially reduce the overall time available for the debate on the Immigration and Asylum Bill? Can she give the House a guarantee that there will be no reduction in the time available for that debate?
Mrs. Beckett: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is right to say that I have a responsibility to the House. My responsibility is to see that the House has the opportunity sensibly and properly to debate the issues that come before it. It is not my responsibility to find time for time wasting.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Leader of the House will know from her experience of running a campaign over the past three weeks, during which she attempted to deal with every other issue than those that were the proper subject of that campaign, that it is on the issue of her stewardship of the health service that the public estimation of the Labour Government has fallen most rapidly. There was no complaint about the lack of time available for debate because there was plenty of time available. I and many other Conservative Members were looking forward to exploring the Government's attitude on rationing throughout the night. Why is the Leader of the House not prepared to do that? Is she tired or just frightened?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I have already pointed out that at the rate of progress achieved so far it would have taken to the end of the week to conclude proceedings on the Bill and I did not feel that that was a useful expenditure of the time of the House.
Mr. John Bercow: Does not the Leader of the House recognise that she is guilty of ignorance and uncharacteristic discourtesy to the House in describing the new clauses and amendments as minor and technical? Does the right hon. Lady seriously think that the issues of clinical freedom, discrimination in the NHS, health and energy efficiency schemes, the regulation of independent hospitals and the partnership between the public and the private sectors, to name but a few, are minor and technical? Is that illustrative of the contempt that she feels for the national health service which she claims to uphold?
Mrs. Beckett: Uncharacteristically, the hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I said and I am sure

115
that he would not wish to do so. I did not say that the issues in question were minor and technical but that the amendments were.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Would the right hon. Lady be kind enough to answer a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and tell us how much time will be allowed for the Health Bill? Why is it necessary to guillotine the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which the House has not even begun to discuss and about which many Labour Members have strong views, as we know? In answer to the question posed by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), will she tell us how long we shall have for that Bill?
Mrs. Beckett: The motion will be tabled following the conclusion of this business statement. There will be sufficient time for the debates and the Government have given proper consideration—as we would have done if we had been able to discuss a sensible programme motion—to allowing the House adequate time to debate these matters.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Northern Ireland (Emergency and Prevention of Terrorism Provisions) (Continuance) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 13th May, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Question agreed to.

TRUSTEE DELEGATION BILL [LORDS]
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 90(6) (Second Reading Committees), That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Question agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

DEFENCE
That the draft Army, Air Force and Naval Discipline Acts (Continuation) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]i
Question agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No.118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE
That the draft Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Clinical Scientists Board) Order of Council 1999, which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]
The House divided: Ayes 314, Noes 136.

Division No. 202]

[10.16 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Ainger, Nick

Dalyell, Tam

Alexander, Douglas

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Allen, Graham

Darvill, Keith

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Davidson, Ian

Ashton, Joe

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Atkins, Charlotte

Dawson, Hilton

Barnes, Harry

Dean, Mrs Janet

Barron, Kevin

Denham, John

Beard, Nigel

Dismore, Andrew

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Dobbin, Jim

Begg, Miss Anne

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Donohoe, Brian H

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Doran, Frank

Bennett, Andrew F

Dowd, Jim

Berry, Roger

Drew, David

Best, Harold

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Betts, Clive

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Blackman, Liz

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Edwards, Huw

Blizzard, Bob

Efford, Clive

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ennis, Jeff

Bradshaw, Ben

Fisher, Mark

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Browne, Desmond

Flint, Caroline

Buck, Ms Karen

Follett, Barbara

Burden, Richard

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Burgon, Colin

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Foulkes, George

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Galloway, George

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gapes, Mike

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Gardiner, Barry

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Gerrard, Neil

Cann, Jamie

Gibson, Dr Ian

Caton, Martin

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Cawsey, Ian

Godman, Dr Norman A

Cawsey, Ian

Godman, Dr Norman A

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Godsiff, Roger

Chaytor, David

Goggins, Paul

Chisholm, Malcolm

Golding, Mrs Llin

Clapham, Michael

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Grocott, Bruce

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Grogan, John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hain, Peter

Clelland, David

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clwyd, Ann

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Coaker, Vernon

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hanson, David

Cohen, Harry

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Coleman, Iain

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Colman, Tony

Healey, John

Connarty, Michael

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Corbett, Robin

Hepburn, Stephen

Corston, Ms Jean

Heppell, John

Cousins, Jim

Hesford, Stephen

Cranston, Ross

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hinchliffe, David

Cummings, John

Hoey, Kate

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Hope, Phil

117

Hopkins, Kelvin

Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Mountford, Kali

Howells, Dr Kim

Mudie, George

Hoyle, Lindsay

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hurst, Alan

Norris, Dan

Hutton, John

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jamieson, David

Olner, Bill

Jenkins, Brian

O'Neill, Martin

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Palmer, Dr Nick

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Pearson, Ian

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Pendry, Tom

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Pickthall, Colin

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Pike, Peter L

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Plaskitt, James

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pond, Chris

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pope, Greg

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Pound, Stephen

Kemp, Fraser

Powell, Sir Raymond

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Khabra, Piara S

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Kidney, David

Prescott, Rt Hon John

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Primarolo, Dawn

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Prosser, Gwyn

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Purchase, Ken

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Quinn, Lawrie

Laxton, Bob

Rammell, Bill

Lepper, David

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Leslie, Christopher

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Levitt, Tom

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Rooker, Jeff

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Rooney, Terry

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Linton, Martin

Rowlands, Ted

Livingstone, Ken

Roy, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Ruane, Chris

Lock, David

Ruddock, Joan

McAllion, John

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McAvoy, Thomas

Ryan, Ms Joan

McCabe, Steve

Salter, Martin

McDonagh, Siobhain

Savidge, Malcolm

Macdonald, Calum

Sawford, Phil

McDonnell, John

Sedgemore, Brian

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Shaw, Joanthan

McIsaac, Shona

Sheerman, Barry

Mackinlay, Andrew

Short, Rt Hon Clare

McNulty, Tony

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

MacShane, Denis

Skinner, Dennis

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

McWalter, Tony

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

McWilliam, John

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Soley, Clive

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Squire, Ms Rachel

Martlew, Eric

Steinberg, Gerry

Maxton, John

Stevenson, George

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Meale, Alan

Steward, Ian (Eccles)

Merron, Gillian

Stinchcombe, Paul

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stoate, Dr Howard

Miller, Andrew

Stott, Roger

Moffatt, Laura

Strange, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stringer, Graham

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Morley, Elliot

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

118

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Watts, David

Temple—Morris, Peter

White, Brian

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Wicks, Malcolm

Tipping, Paddy

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Todd, Mark

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Touhig, Don

Wills, Michael

Trickett, Jon

Winnick, David

Truswell, Paul

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Wise, Audrey

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Wood, Mike

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Worthington, Tony

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Vaz, Keith

Walley, Ms Joan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Ward, Ms Claire

Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

Wareing, Robert N

Mr. Keith Hill.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Horam, John

Allan, Richard

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Amess, David

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Hunter, Andrew

Baldry, Tony

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Ballard, Jackie

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Jenkin, Bernard

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Keetch, Paul

Bercow, John

Key, Robert

Beresford, Sir Paul

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Body, Sir Richard

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Boswell, Tim

Kirkwood, Archy

Brady, Graham

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Brazier, Julian

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Lansley, Andrew

Browning, Mrs Angela

Letwin, Oliver

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Burnett, John

Lidington, David

Burns, Simon

Livsey, Richard

Butterfill, John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Cash, William

Loughton, Tim

Chope, Christopher

Luff, Peter

Clappison, James

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Cormack, Sir Patrick

McLoughlin, Patrick

Cran, James

Madel, Sir David

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Maples, John

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Day, Stephen

May, Mrs Theresa

Duncan, Alan

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Duncan Smith, Iain

Moore, Michael

Evans, Nigel

Moss, Malcolm

Faber, David

Nicholls, Patrick

Fabricant, Michael

Norman, Archie

Fearn, Ronnie

Page, Richard

Flight, Howard

Paice, James

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Paterson, Owen

Fraser, Christopher

Pickles, Eric

Garnier, Edward

Randall, John

Gibb, Nick

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Gill, Christopher

Rendel, David

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Gray, James

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Green, Damian

St Aubyn, Nick

Greenway, John

Sanders, Adrian

Grieve, Dominic

Sayeed, Jonathan

Hague, Rt Hon William

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Hammond, Philip

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

Harris, Dr Evan

Soames, Nicholas

Harvey, Nick

Spring, Richard

Hawkins, Nick

Spring, Richard

Hayes, John

Steen, Anthony

Heald, Oliver

Streeter, Gary

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Stunell, Andrew

119

Swayne, Desmond

Waterson, Nigel

Syms, Robert

Webb, Steve

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Wilkinson, John

Tredinnick, David

Willetts, David

Trend, Michael

Willis, Phil

Tyler, Paul

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tyne, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Viggers, Peter

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Wallace, James

Tellers for the Noes:

Walter, Robert

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Wardle, Charles

Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE
That the draft Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Speech and Language Therapists Board) Order of Council 1999, which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]
The House divided: Ayes 337, Noes 110.

Division No. 203]

[10.30 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Ainger, Nick

Cann, Jamie

Alexander, Douglas

Caton, Martin

Allan, Richard

Cawsey, Ian

Allen, Graham

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Chaytor, David

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Chisholm, Malcolm

Ashton, Joe

Clapham, Michael

Atherton, Ms Candy

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Atkins, Charlotte

Ballard, Jackie

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Barnes, Harry

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Barron, Kevin

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Beard, Nigel

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Clelland, David

Begg, Miss Anne

Clwyd, Ann

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Coaker, Vernon

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Cohen, Harry

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Coleman, Iain

Bennett, Andrew F

Colman, Tony

Berry, Roger

connarty, Michael

Best, Harold

Corbett, Robin

Betts, Clive

Corston, Ms Jean

Blackman, Liz

Cousins, Jim

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cranston, Ross

Blizzard, Bob

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cummings, John

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Bradshaw, Ben

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Dalyell, Tam

Browne, Desmond

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Buck, Ms Karen

Darvill, Keith

Burden, Richard

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Burgon, Colin

Davidson, Ian

Burnett, John

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Butler, Mrs Christine

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Dawson, Hilton

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Denham, John

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Dismore, Andrew

Dobbin, Jim

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Dobson, St Hon Frank

120

Donohoe, Brian H

Keeble, Ms Sally

Doran, Frank

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Dowd, Jim

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Drew, David

Keetch, Paul

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Edwards, Huw

Khabra, Piara S

Efford, Clive

Kidney, David

Ellman, Mrs Louise

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ennis, Jeff

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Fearn, Ronnie

Kirkwood, Archy

Fisher, Mark

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Flint, Caroline

Laxton, Bob

Follett, Barbara

Lepper, David

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Leslie, Christopher

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Levitt, Tom

Foulkes, George

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Galloway, George

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gapes, Mike

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Gardiner, Barry

Linton, Martin

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Livingston, Ken

Gerrard, Neil

Livsey, Richard

Gibson, Dr Ian

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Lock, David

Godman, Dr Norman A

McAllion, John

Godsiff, Roger

McAvoy, Thomas

Goggins, Paul

McCabe, Steve

Golding, Mrs Llin

McDonagh, Siobhain

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

Macdonald, Calum

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McDonnell, John

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McIsaac, Shona

Grocott, Bruce

Mackinlay, Andrew

Grogan, John

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Hain, Peter

McNulty, Tony

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

MacShane, Denis

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

McWalter, Tony

Hanson, David

McWilliam, John

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Mallaber, Judy

Harris, Dr Evan

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Harvey, Nick

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Healey, John

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Martlew, Eric

Hepburn, Stephen

Maxton, John

Heppell, John

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Hesford, Stephen

Meale, Alan

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Merron, Gillian

Hinchliffe, David

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hoey, Kate

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Miller, Andrew

Hope, Phil

Moffatt, Laura

Hopkins, Kelvin

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Moore, Michael

Howells, Dr Kim

Moran, Ms Margaret

Hoyle, Lindsay

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Morley, Elliot

Humble, Mrs Joan

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hurst, Alan

Mountford, Kali

Hutton, John

Mudie, George

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Mullin, Chris

Jamieson, David

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Jenkins, Brian

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Norris, Dan

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Olner, Bill

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

O'Neill, Martin

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

121

Palmer, Dr Nick

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pearson, Ian

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pendry, Tom

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pickthall, Colin

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pike, Peter L

Stott, Roger

Plaskitt, James

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Pond, Chris

Stringer, Graham

Pope, Greg

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Powell, Sir Raymond

Stunell, Andrew

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Temple—Morris, Peter

Purchase, Ken

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Quinn, Lawrie

Tipping, Paddy

Rammell, Bill

Todd, Mark

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Reid Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Touhig, Don

Rendel, David

Trickett, Jon

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Truswell, Paul

Rooker, Jeff

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rooney, Terry

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Rowlands, Ted

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Roy, Frank

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Ruane, Chris

Tyler, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Vaz, Keith

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wallace, James

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Walley, Ms Joan

Ryan, Ms Joan

Ward, Ms Claire

Salter, Martin

Wareing, Robert N

Sanders, Adrian

Watts, David

Savidge, Malcolm

Webb, Steve

Sawford, Phil

White, Brian

Sedgemore, Brian

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Shaw, Jonathan

Wicks, Malcolm

Sheerman, Barry

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Willis, Phil

Skinner, Dennis

Wills, Michael

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Winnick, David

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wise, Audrey

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Wood, Mike

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Worthington, Tony

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

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Soley, Clive

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Southworth, Ms Helen

Squire, Ms Rachel

Tellers for the Ayes:

Steinberg, Gerry

Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

Stevenson, George

Mr. Keith Hill.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Amess, David

Cran, James

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Baldry, Tony

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Bercow, John

Day, Stephen

Beresford, Sir Paul

Duncan, Alan

Body, Sir Richard

Duncan Smith, Iain

Boswell, Tim

Evans, Nigel

Brady, Graham

Faber, David

Brazier, Julian

Fabricant, Michael

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Flight, Howard

Browning, Mrs Angela

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fraser, Christopher

Burns, Simon

Garnier, Edward

Butterfill, John

Gibb, Nick

Cash, William

Gill, Christopher

Chope, Christopher

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Clappison, James

Gray, James

Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

Green, Damian

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Greenway, John

Grieve, Dominic

122

Hammond, Philip

Pickles, Eric

Hawkins, Nick

Randall, John

Hayes, John

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Heald, Oliver

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

St Aubyn, Nick

Horam, John

Sayeed, Jonathan

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Spring, Richard

Jenkin, Bernard

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Key, Robert

Steen, Anthony

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Streeter, Gary

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Swayne, Desmond

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Syms, Robert

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lansley, Andrew

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Letwin, Oliver

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Tredinnick, David

Lidington, David

Trend, Michael

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Tyrie, Andrew

Loughton, Tim

Viggers, Peter

Luff, Peter

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Walter, Robert

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Wardle, Charles

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Waterson, Nigel

Whitney, Sir Raymond

McLoughlin, Patrick

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Madel, Sir David

Wilkinson, John

Maples, John

Willetts, David

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

May, Mrs Theresa

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Moss, Malcolm

Yeo, Tim

Nicholls, Patrick

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Norman, Archie

Page, Richard

Tellers for the Noes:

Paice, James

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Paterson, Owen

Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

PROFESSIONS SUPPLEMENTARY TO MEDICINE
That the draft Professions Supplementary to Medicine (Paramedics Board) Order of Council 1999, which was laid before this House on 18th May, be approved.—[Jane Kennedy.]
The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 109.

Division No. 204]

[10.43 pm

AYES

Ainger, Nick

Betts, Clive

Alexander, Douglas

Blackman, Liz

Allan, Richard

Blears, Ms Hazel

Allen, Graham

Blizzard, Bob

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Ashton, Joe

Bradshaw, Ben

Atherton, Ms Candy

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Atkins, Charlotte

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Ballard, Jackie

Browne, Desmond

Barnes, Harry

Buck, Ms Karen

Barron, Kevin

Burden, Richard

Beard, Nigel

Burgon, Colin

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Burnett, John

Begg, Miss Anne

Butler, Mrs Christine

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Bennett, Andrew F

Berry, Roger

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Best, Harold

Campbell—Savours, Dale

123

Cann, Jamie

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Caton, Martin

Grocott, Bruce

Cawsey, Ian

Grogan, John

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Hain, Peter

Chaytor, David

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clapham, Michael

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hanson, David

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Harris, Dr Evan

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Healey, John

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Clelland, David

Hepburn, Stephen

Clwyd, Ann

Heppell, John

Coaker, Vernon

Hesford, Stephen

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Cohen, Harry

Hinchliffe, David

Coleman, Iain

Hoey, Kate

Colman, Tony

Hoon, Geoffrey

Connarty, Michael

Hope, Phil

Corbett, Robin

Hopkins, Kelvin

Corston, Ms Jean

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Cousins, Jim

Howells, Dr Kim

Cranston, Ross

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Cummings, John

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Hurst, Alan

Dalyell, Tam

Hutton, John

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Darvill, Keith

Jamieson, David

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Jenkins, Brian

Davidson, Ian

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Dawson, Hilton

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Dean, Mrs Janet

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Denham, John

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Dismore, Andrew

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Dobbin, Jim

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

Keeble, Ms Sally

Donohoe, Brian H

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Doran, Frank

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Dowd, Jim

Keetch, Paul

Drew, David

Kemp, Fraser

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Khabra, Piara S

Edwards, Huw

Kidney, David

Efford, Clive

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

Ennis, Jeff

Kirkwood, Archy

Fearn, Ronnie

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Fisher, Mark

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Fitzsimons, Lorna

Laxton, Bob

Flint, Caroline

Lepper, David

Follett, Barbara

Leslie, Christopher

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Levitt, Tom

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Foulkes, George

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Galloway, George

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Gapes, Mike

Linton, Martin

Gardiner, Barry

Livingstone, Ken

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Livsey, Richard

Gerrard, Neil

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Lock, David

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

McAllion, John

Godman, Dr Norman A

McAvoy, Thomas

Godsiff, Roger

McCabe, Steve

Goggins, Paul

McDonagh, Siobhain

Golding, Mrs Llin

Macdonald, Calum

Gordon, Mrs Eileen

McDonnell, John

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McIsaac, Shona

124

Mackinlay, Andrew

Salter, Martin

Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

Sanders, Adrian

McNulty, Tony

Savidge, Malcolm

MacShane, Denis

Sawford, Phil

Mactaggart, Fiona

Sedgemore, Brian

McWalter, Tony

Shaw, Jonathan

McWilliam, John

Sheerman, Barry

Mallaber, Judy

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Skinner, Dennis

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Martlew, Eric

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Maxton, John

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

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

Meale, Alan

Soley, Clive

Merron, Gillian

Southworth, Ms Helen

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

Steinberg, Gerry

Miller, Andrew

Stevenson, George

Moffatt, Laura

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Moore, Michael

Stinchcombe, Paul

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stoate, Dr Howard

Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

Stott, Roger

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

Stringer, Graham

Motley, Elliot

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Stunell, Andrew

Mountford, Kali

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Mudie, George

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mullin, Chris

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton s)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Temple—Morris, Peter

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Norris, Dan

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Tipping, Paddy

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Todd, Mark

Olner, Bill

Tonge, Dr Jenny

O'Neill, Martin

Organ, Mrs Diana

Touhig, Don

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Trickett, Jon

Palmer, Dr Nick

Truswell, Paul

Pearson, Ian

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Pendry, Tom

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Pickthall, Colin

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Pike, Peter L

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Plaskitt, James

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Pond, Chris

Tyler, Paul

Pope, Greg

Vaz, Keith

Powell, Sir Raymond

Wallace, James

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Walley, Ms Joan

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Ward, Ms Claire

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Wareing, Robert N

Primarolo, Dawn

Watts, David

Prosser, Gwyn

Webb, Steve

Purchase, Ken

White, Brian

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Quinn, Lawrie

Wicks, Malcolm

Rammell, Bill

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Willis, Phil

Rendel, David

Wills, Michael

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Winnick, David

Rooker, Jeff

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Rooney, Terry

Wise, Audrey

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Wood, Mike

Rowlands, Ted

Worthington, Tony

Roy, Frank

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Ruane, Chris

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Ruddock, Joan

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

Ryan, Ms Joan

Mr. Keith Hill.

125

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Amess, David

Lidington, David

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Baldry, Tony

Loughton, Tim

Bercow, John

Luff, Peter

Beresford, Sir Paul

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Body, Sir Richard

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Boswell, Tim

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Brady, Graham

McLoughlin, Patrick

Brazier, Julian

Madel, Sir David

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Maples, John

Browning, Mrs Angela

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

May, Mrs Theresa

Burns, Simon

Moss, Malcolm

Butterfill, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Cash, William

Norman, Archie

Chope, Christopher

Ottaway, Richard

Clappison, James

Page, Richard

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Paice, James

Paterson, Owen

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Pickles, Eric

Cran, James

Randall, John

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Day, Stephen

St Aubyn, Nick

Duncan, Alan

Sayeed, Jonathan

Duncan Smith, Iain

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Evans, Nigel

Soames, Nicholas

Faber, David

Spring, Richard

Fabricant, Michael

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Flight, Howard

Steen, Anthony

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Streeter, Gary

Fraser, Christopher

Swayne, Desmond

Garnier, Edward

Syms, Robert

Gibb, Nick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Gill, Christopher

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Gray, James

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Green, Damian

Tredinnick, David

Greenway, John

Trend, Michael

Grieve, Dominic

Tyrie, Andrew

Hammond, Philip

Viggers, Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Walter, Robert

Hayes, John

Wardle, Charles

Heald, Oliver

Waterson, Nigel

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Whittingdale, John

Horam, John

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Wilkinson, John

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Willetts, David

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Jenkin, Bernard

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Key, Robert

Yeo, Tim

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Tellers for the Noes:

Lansley, Andrew

Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

Letwin, Oliver

Mr. Tim Collins.

Question accordingly agreed to.

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

GLOBAL NAVIGATION SATELLITE SYSTEM
That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 6528/99, a Commission Communication: Galileo—involving Europe in a new generation of satellite navigation services; and endorses the Government's prudent approach to the Commission's proposals as set out in the Explanatory Memorandum.—[Jane Kennedy.]
Question agreed to.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. Joe Benton be discharged from the Education and Employment Committee and Mr. Bill Rammell be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

NORTHERN IRELAND AFFAIRS COMMITTEE
Ordered,
That Mr. Ken Livingstone be discharged from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee and Mr. Stephen Pound be added to the Committee.—[Mr. McWilliam, on behalf of the Committee of Selection.]

Care in the Community
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Jane Kennedy.]
10.56 pm
Mr. Archie Norman: I am delighted to have this opportunity to raise the question of the care of the mentally handicapped—or as we now know them, people with learning disabilities—in the community. I am delighted not just because it gives me a break from the world of corporate mergers and takeovers but because it is a subject in which I have a very personal interest.
I have a brother who is mentally handicapped. He used to be accommodated in a national health service hospital and is now cared for in the community. The subject is also topical in my constituency because The Pines care home was recently threatened with closure. I want to raise the question of The Pines because it illustrates so many of the dilemmas and problems facing us concerning policy on the care of those with learning disabilities in the community.
The Pines was built only 11 years ago. At the time, the 24 residents, who are accommodated in clustered bungalows around their therapy centre, were assured that it would be a home for life, as were their relatives. Most of the residents were moved out of a major NHS hospital. Despite the home's being only 11 years old and ideal accommodation for the relatives and those who live there, it is threatened with closure by the area health authority.
It is not that there are not good arguments for closure or movement; there are of course two sides to every case. This case illustrates the extent to which local authorities and officials are pursuing a policy of accommodating people which to many seems doctrinaire—the policy of normalisation, pushing people with acute learning disabilities and mental handicap into
"ordinary houses in ordinary streets",
despite the fact that, very often, such accommodation is uneconomic and wholly unsuitable for such people. The case also illustrates the lack of involvement of parents and relatives of people with learning disabilities. They are in many ways without any rights; there is a real sense of helplessness when faced with officialdom and official policy.
The Pines is not unique; similar situations arise in many areas across the country. The problem is growing, and is bound to, because, over the past 20 or so years, we have, for understandable reasons, closed so many long-stay beds in NHS hospitals for people with learning disabilities. The numbers have declined from 65,000 in the mid-1960s to 3,000 today. At the same time, the number of care in the community places has only risen from 7,300 to 36,000. By definition, therefore, many of the people previously accommodated in some permanent care of the state are now resident elsewhere.
There is already a shortfall in places. Restcare estimates a shortfall of some 25,000 residential places for people with mental handicap. An increase in demand is forecast for the next two decades because people with a handicap of one kind or another are expected to live longer. Many of these people are currently accommodated with ageing relatives, on whose death those residents will have to be moved into community care.
128
Now is the time for a thorough review of our whole approach to care in the community of those with learning disabilities. It is time to flush out and to tackle the dogma that has grown up following the abolition of the major residential hospitals, the understandable and absolutely correct move away from institutional care—the dogma that is all about normalisation, moving people into ordinary homes in ordinary streets. It is time to bring back a much more individual approach to care, and to create clustered homes in communities, which I believe to be the way of the future. It is time to create a framework of rights for those people who are, in a real sense, dispossessed by the health services and by the state. These people are in the possession of the state; they are totally dependent. They and their relatives need rights. It is time to clarify responsibility for these people as between the national health service, social services and local authorities.
Mr. John Burnett: I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman is aware of the judicial review of the case of Marden house in Exeter, in which the actions of the North and East Devon health authority were successfully challenged in the High Court—the case is now going to the Court of Appeal. A home just like the home that the hon. Gentleman described has been challenged successfully in the High Court. I wonder whether he is aware of that case, and whether that might be of some—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The hon. Gentleman must be careful, because some matters are sub judice.
Mr. Burnett: I take that point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you. The case is going through the courts, but it does illustrate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the matter is going through the courts, it is not a matter for us to discuss this evening.
Mr. Norman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for mentioning the case, which shows that the problem is prevalent throughout the country, and that the case in Tunbridge Wells is far from unique.
It is time to end the dogmatic approach and the view that there is one right solution: normalisation. It is time to bring back an investment in communities of people with a learning disability within which they can have a sense of companionship, belonging and role. I believe that there is a great deal more dignity for people with a learning disability if they can live together, if they can choose their friends within a community and if they can find a role in that community, than if they are in a sense isolated in an ordinary street, where they have very little contact with their neighbours and those who live locally.
The time has come to move to medium-sized and clustered homes and away from single houses in relative isolation. It is time to concentrate on care in the community, not dissipation in the community. Many residents today—
Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I should like to comment on some of the things that the hon. Gentleman has said. He mentioned the dogma of care in the

129
community. As the mother of a daughter with a learning difficulty, not a mental handicap—a term that I find wholly offensive—as someone with a sister with a learning difficulty and some physical difficulties and as, until recently, the daughter of a person who has quadriplegia, I very much welcome the inclusion of my relatives in a community, instead of the ghettoisation that the hon. Gentleman seems to be advocating. I believe that the latter would be a return to the past.
Most of us who are striving to get the best, not necessarily for an individual's parents, but for that individual, very much welcome the ethos that now pervades the social services. My experience of my community is that, at all times, it has tried to do the very best for the individuals whom I love and care for.
Mr. Norman: I thank the hon. Lady for enabling me to clarify the point. I am certainly not advocating a return to the past. The move away from the large, isolated institutions was absolutely right, but we must have the right policy for each individual. There are individuals—relatively able people with relatively slight learning disability—who are well accommodated and can be integrated in local communities and be cared for best in that way. There are problems with that approach—we understand that—but that may be right for some individuals. However, in the case of those with a more acute learning disability who need 24-hour care and attention, it is my experience and belief, which are shared by residents of The Pines and their relatives, that they value being part of a slightly larger community where their choices are greater.
Living in such a community enables people to select their friends from a wider circle. All too often, when they are moved into small homes, with perhaps only three, four or five residents, their friends and companions for life are selected by the state or by the local authority. That cannot be the right approach.
Very small homes are a much more expensive mode of care. There are various estimates of the cost, but it is clear from all those estimates that clustered homes where specialist care and facilities can be shared are likely to be more economic. In a document entitled "The Case for Residential and Village Communities" and prepared for the Rannoch Trust, Baroness Cox and Lord Pearson mentioned that Government figures for annual revenue costs for 1994 showed that it can cost £74,000 a year to support an individual in the community, whereas a place in a congregated village community with all services included can cost £25,000 a year.
There are questions about those calculations, but it is clear that some sharing of facilities is likely to be more economic. There will be a huge problem for the funding of such care, and the most important priority is that in future we should be able to finance the care that all people with a learning disability deserve.
It is estimated that 50 per cent. of those with an acute learning disability require more or less full-time or continuous medical support. It is much easier to provide such support in a slightly larger community.
It is important to remember that people put into ordinary houses in ordinary streets are totally dependent on their professional carer. There is no doubt that many carers are fantastic people who are devoted to the residents, but others have no great qualifications for the
130
role. They are working with people who have complex problems and need complex help and often medical support as well. There is an increased risk to residents who are in the hands of someone relatively unqualified for 24 hours a day. Grouping and clustering in village communities allows much better quality support.
The issue is not whether Government policy supports one form of care or another, but that we need clarification of the right circumstances for the individual. As the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis—Thomas) mentioned, it is a matter of finding the right situation to meet individual requirements. It is not clear how that should be done, although it is clear that, in different local authorities, different solutions are adopted.
Dr. Maurice Brook, vice-chairman of the National Society for Mentally Handicapped People in Residential Care, points out that all too often these people do not have much help or support. Many cannot make decisions without a great deal of help. Some have relatives who can stand up for them, but others do not. They are entirely in the hands of local officials. In many cases, as Dr. Brook states,
"choice is often denied because of locally based officials."
He continues:
"The most important test is the quality of life of an individual, not any ideological assumption about what model of care is best."
Whatever people may say, it is the experience of many that there is an official dogma regarding the best approach.
Dr. Brook goes on to state:
"The views of parents and relatives should be treated as the views of an individual. In too many areas the Local Authority tries to impose their views. Those who are able to impose decisions that are in conflict with the wishes of parents and relatives are not democratically accountable."
I believe that many relatives across the country share that feeling. The time has come to review the entire framework.
The second major issue concerns the rights of those with a learning disability who are resident in homes supported by the NHS or social services. Although there is much talk of rights, in practice the experience of people such as the residents of The Pines and their relatives and the residents of many other homes across the country is that the reality does not match the talk. In too many instances, changes are made without adequate consultation, and where that consultation takes place it is often ignored. I shall illustrate that with the instance of The Pines. I have a letter in my possession written to residents by Kelsey Care, which is a sub-contracted care organisation. In most respects, it is a fine organisation. The letter is dated November 1990. It asks what would happen if ever there was a need or desire to move the residents elsewhere:
"As the residents of The Pines will have either a tenancy agreement or a licence giving them a certain security of tenure, any decision would have to have the agreement of the persons concerned, parents or relatives, members of staff and the health authority."
In reality, that has turned out to be entirely untrue. Today, The Pines is threatened with closure. If it were not for the action taken by residents, many people would argue that it could be in the process of closure now, without adequate consultation and certainly without the permission of the relatives.

131
Is it not time that people who are so vulnerable and dependent on support from the state and residing in homes maintained by the national health service or by social services had an established set of rights of their own within a clear framework? A process should have to be followed before their lives can be entirely disrupted, before they can be taken to locations to live with people whom they might not know and not of their own choosing, and before they can be moved miles away from their relatives and their families? Is it not time that we established a basic framework that will prevent those things happening without the appropriate permissions and consents of those who are closest to them?
Is it not time there was a more effective process to encourage the involvement of parents and relatives? All too often, the system works to alienate those who should be supportive of people with learning disability in care. That applies not to those who have lived and been brought up at home with support, but in many instances to those who have been institutionalised and have lost touch with relatives.
One illustration concerns financial support. As parents age, people with a learning disability have to move into homes. It would be desirable if parents felt able to leave them bequests or moneys in other forms to provide enhanced support in future. Unfortunately, they fall into the classic means-testing trap whereby if the parents leave them money, that bequest represents a tort in terms of paying for their benefits. As a general practice, the making of bequests and the leaving of moneys in other forms is not done as much as it should be.
Should it not be an explicit part of the Government's policy and programme to involve parents and relatives more substantially and provide them with an on-going involvement or participation in the running of homes? Should not that be part of the new framework?
Is it not time to clarify responsibility for those with severe learning disability? Over the past 20 years, we have seen a huge transition from the NHS and the great NHS hospital institutions into local authority care. However, local authorities vary substantially in their approach to the problem and the way in which they make provision. It is well understood by those who are close to these matters that the level of benefits provided varies as well. Provision is patchy. The danger is that as local authority funding is squeezed, particularly in those areas where the cost of support and of property is much higher, it is the residents who will end up suffering.
Is it not time that, as we make the transition into local authority care and support from social services, the role of the NHS in terms of medical support should be clarified? An NHS Confederation document dated 14 June states:
"There is a lack of core understanding of what the NHS is responsible for. This hampers service development. Access to general healthcare such as general practice, dental and ophthalmic services is poor."
It goes on:
"There is no up-to-date national government policy on health services for people with learning disabilities. The last policy document was published in 1992 and is in urgent need of updating."
132
I know that some work is being done on updating that policy, but it is high time we had an outcome.
I believe that the time has come for a wholesale review of the framework of policy for those with learning disabilities who are cared for in the community. At times, it is hard to avoid forming the impression that that part of our community is a forgotten corner of society. All too often—as the great institutions are being closed, and rightly so, and as people emerge into the community—there is a risk that they will be dissipated in that community and lost in it; that parents will be disfranchised; and that the most vulnerable people will not be given the rights that we want to afford to them and which we would afford to the average citizen.
11.15 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) on his choice of subject for this debate. The issues that he has raised, although they arise from a particular situation in his constituency on which I shall comment in a moment, go much wider and are important for all people with learning disabilities and their parents, relatives and friends.
Health and social services play an important role in the lives of people with a learning disability, because many of them will rely on those services throughout their lives. We need to ensure that they are delivered in ways that are responsive to them as individuals, enabling them to develop their full potential and to be as independent as possible, yet providing appropriate support and protection for those who need it.
The hon. Gentleman raised the particular issue of the future of the Pines in his constituency. As I am sure he would acknowledge, decisions about the provision of services in a particular locality are rightly a matter for the local statutory authorities. Health and local authorities are best placed to make such decisions in the light of their knowledge of local needs and resources, taking into account departmental guidance and the needs and wishes of the local people with learning disabilities and their relatives.
I understand that West Kent health authority has no immediate plans to close The Pines. Choice Consultancy Services, which was employed by the health authority to review learning disability services in the southern part of west Kent, concluded that the service provided at The Pines in some respects fell below currently applied standards. The health authority is therefore unable to give a firm assurance at the moment that reprovision of the service at The Pines will not be considered at some time in the future. It has, however, confirmed that any possible reprovision will involve full consultation with residents and their relatives and will take account of individual needs. That is as it should be.
Services for people with learning disabilities are becoming increasingly responsive to individual needs. Many people with learning disabilities have a greater choice of living, work and leisure opportunities open to them than ever before, giving them a far better quality of life than was possible in the institutions of the past. The hon. Gentleman recognised that in his contribution.

133
Many health and local authorities are finding that the aspirations of people with learning disabilities and their families are changing and that what might have been acceptable forms of reprovision in the early days of hospital closures need to be replaced by even more integrated and individualised services.
I have visited services—a village community in Berkshire—and have talked to people with learning disabilities and their relatives. Many would prefer to live in ordinary houses in ordinary streets, and we need to try to respond to that wish when it is clearly expressed. Others would prefer to live in larger units or residential or village communities. It is important that, in planning and commissioning the services to be provided in any given area, health and local authorities take decisions based not on rigid ideology, but on what is best for the individuals concerned. I agree strongly with much of what the hon. Gentleman had to say on that point.
People with learning disabilities and their families have a wide range of needs and an equally wide range of views about the best ways of meeting those needs. It is therefore important that, as far as is practicable, individuals and their relatives should be offered real choices.
Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Will my hon. Friend please clarify one point'? The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) mentioned financial considerations and said that running a communal home costs substantially less than furnishing an independent home in a normal street. Will my hon. Friend confirm that financial considerations are not given any notable significance in decisions about what constitutes an appropriate home for an individual?
Mr. Hutton: The Department's current guidance to authorities on developing health and social services for people with learning disabilities is quite clear on choice. It states that the aim should be
"to arrange services on an increasingly individual basis, taking account of age, needs, degree of disability, the personal preferences of the individual and his or her parents or carers, culture, race and gender."
The guidance gives authorities considerable flexibility over the provision of services, including residential services. There is nothing to prevent authorities from commissioning, or providing places in, supported living arrangements, group homes, residential or village communities or indeed any other form of provision if they deem that to be appropriate. What is important is what will best meet the assessed needs and wishes of the individual and his or her relatives within the resources available.
Guidance issued in relation to the 1992 directions on choice also made it clear that there should be a general presumption in favour of people being able to exercise choice over the residential services they receive, and that accommodation should not be deemed unsuitable simply because it does not conform to the authority's preferred model of provision. That is an important point.
To help authorities decide on the most appropriate pattern of residential services for their area, the Department of Health commissioned an independent evaluation of the cost and outcomes of various forms of residential provision for people with learning disabilities. This complex research compared
134
dispersed housing, such as supported living and group homes, with NHS residential campuses and village communities. I hope that the results will be published later this month, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis—Thomas) will read the research findings with great interest.
Residential services are not the only services used by people with learning disabilities, and the Department continues to monitor progress in implementing the guidance on learning disability services published by the previous Administration in 1992. In 1997, a national inspection of learning disability services in eight local authority areas found that significant progress had been made in developing more responsive services, such as an expanding range of accommodation, more diverse day services, employment schemes, respite care, domiciliary care services and specialist services for special groups, including those with additional disabilities.
However, the inspection also showed that, despite those significant improvements, services vary both between and within areas, and the range and quality of services currently provided for people with learning disabilities do not yet meet the needs and aspirations of users and carers. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would agree with me that that is not acceptable. More work needs to be done if we are to provide better services in this important area.
We are taking wider initiatives, which, if I had time, I would go into in more detail. The main thrust of those initiatives, which we outlined in our White Paper "Modernising Social Services", is to raise the quality of services across the board for people with learning disabilities and for other users of social services. We want to ensure that those arrangements are properly enforced, which is why new regional care commissions will operate to national regulatory standards. I hope that that will make a significant contribution to raising the quality and consistency of services.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the provisions in the Health Bill that will allow for closer working arrangements between the NHS and social care. Our proposals for pooled budgets, lead commissioning and integrated provision should make it easier for those two statutory authorities to work more closely together. That will be very important, and is of special relevance to services for people with learning disabilities. The provisions in the Health Bill will offer exciting new opportunities for service development.
I shall quickly deal with some of the learning disability initiatives that the Government currently have under way. One of our first steps has been to obtain a clearer picture of current services and of the progress made in implementing the guidance on learning disability services issued in 1992. Officials have studied the plans for the closure of the remaining old long-stay hospitals. To supplement the information obtained from the national inspection, we have undertaken a survey of 21 local authorities and their matching health authorities. The results, which will be published shortly, will provide much useful information to help both local and central decision making.

135
We have also been working to improve health services for people with learning disabilities. Last year, we published "Signposts for Success", which is good practice guidance on meeting the health needs of people with learning disabilities. That was followed up by regional workshops, and this year we have published "Once a Day", a handbook for primary health care staff. Further work in this area is planned. We are also concerned to improve the skills and competencies of front-line NHS and social care staff.
The needs of users and carers are central to all our thinking. To help us, we have set up a user group for people with learning disabilities and a learning disability advisory group, whose members include users and relatives as well as representatives of the statutory and non-statutory sectors. The groups provide an important forum in which to discuss the many issues surrounding the development of services for people with learning disabilities.
136
It has not been possible in the time that I have had available to go into some of the subjects to the extent that I would have liked, but I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for raising this important subject and for the way in which he couched his remarks. The Government will continue to seek improvements in the quality and responsiveness of services for people with a learning disability. In doing so, we intend to work closely with all those who share our ambition to ensure better services for that vulnerable client group. I should be happy to make sure that the hon. Gentleman is kept fully abreast of any policy developments. We are committed to a first-class NHS and first-class social care for all the people of our country. People with learning disabilities will not be left out of the process.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Eleven o'clock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Electricity Trading Arrangements
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what changes in primary legislation will be required to implement the revised arrangements for wholesale electricity trading; [86880]

  (2) what has been the reason for the revised date for the planned completion of the Review of Electricity Trading Arrangements; [86881]

  (3) what is the cost of the Review of Electricity Trading Arrangements; [86882]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the additional costs which will arise in (a) establishing and (b) running a revised electricity wholesale trading market; and who will bear these costs. [86883]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government are committed to introducing legislation to implement new wholesale electricity trading arrangements and will do so as soon

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Total UK use of renewable sources of energy (thousand tonnes of oil equivalent)

  2,079

  2,142

  2,103

  2,320

  2,649

  UK use of renewable sources as a percentage of primary inland consumption of energy

  0.95%

  0.97%

  0.90%

  1.02%

  1.15%

  Total UK generation of electricity from renewable sources (GWh)

  7,306

  7,237

  6,053

  7,378

  9,322

  UK generation of electricity from renewable sources as a percentage of total electricity generation

  2.25%

  2.17%

  1.74%

  2.14%

  2.62%

  Source:

  Digest of United Kingdom Energy Statistics 1999 (to be published on 29 July 1999)

  As is said in the discussion paper "New and renewable energy, Prospects for the 21st century", we expect the proportion of electricity from renewable sources to rise to 5 per cent. by 2003. The Government are working towards a target of renewable energy providing 10 per cent. of UK electricity as soon as possible and hope to achieve this by 2010.

  City Flyer Express
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to announce his decision in respect of the proposed acquisition of City Flyer Express Ltd. by British Airways; and if he will make a statement. [86869]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish the Competition Commission's report on British Airways' proposed acquisition of City Flyer Express Ltd. as soon as is practicable.
  2
  as parliamentary time permits. Consequently the earliest feasible date that new trading arrangements could be introduced is October 2000. The purpose of legislation would be to provide the powers to introduce conditions into electricity licences necessary for the implementation of the new electricity trading arrangements.

  Offer's 1999–2000 budget for the Review of Electricity Trading Arrangements programme is £11.2 million. Preliminary estimates of annual costs to implement new electricity trading arrangements for each of the first five years are £10–£20 million for the central set-up, £60 million for participants' set-up, and £30 million for participants' operating costs. These implementation costs will be met by market participants. Against this, the Government's overall programme of electricity market reforms is expected to lead to a reduction in wholesale electricity prices of at least 10 per cent. over the medium term.

  Renewable Energy
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the(a) amount and (b) percentage of energy consumed in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years that came from renewable sources. [86664]

  Mr. Battle
  The amount and percentage of energy consumed in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years that came from renewable energy sources is given in the following table. The table also shows the amount and percentage of electricity generated from renewable sources:

  Milk
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to publish his decisions on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report into the supply of milk before the end of June. [86875]

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to announce the date of the publication of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the supply of raw cows' milk in Great Britain. [86974]

  Dr. Howells
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry will publish the MMC's report as soon as is practicable. He has said in the House that he expects to be able to publish before the House rises for the summer recess.

  Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the total amount of financial support for capital investment provided by (i) the United Kingdom Government and (ii) the European Union to
  3
  (a) the manufacturing sector, (b) manufacturing companies established by inward investment and (c) the textiles and clothing sector in the last five years. [86861]

  Mr. Battle
  Financial support for capital investment is provided in various forms, including through grants, guarantees, tax allowances and general industrial support. One of the main programmes is regional selective assistance which over the last five years in Great Britain has provided offers of grant of £1.6 billion to the manufacturing sector as a whole, of which £935 million was offered to foreign-owned companies and £51 million to the textiles and clothing sector.

  Many other UK Government and EU programmes provide direct or indirect financial support for capital investment but information on the total is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Retail Petrol Market
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many written or verbal complaints were received by his Department and the Office of Fair Trading in each year from 1996 to date about (i) unfair agreement terms being applied by oil companies to operators of retail petrol sites and (ii) the actions taken by the oil companies which did not conform to the agreement signed by the operators. [86710]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department and the Office of Fair Trading have received a number of complaints about agreements between oil companies and petrol retailers during 1996–99. The cost of providing an accurate breakdown of these on a year-by-year basis would be disproportionate.

  The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for investigating complaints about anti-competitive behaviour. He does not however have a locus to intervene in contractual disputes unless these raise competition concerns.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the review of the petrol undertakings by the Office of Fair Trading will be completed; if he will publish the findings of the review; and if he will make a statement. [86767]

  Dr. Howells
  The timing of the review is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. My right hon. Friend and I will receive advice from him when the review is complete. I will announce my decision in due course.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list by number and grade the officials employed full-time in monitoring the UK retail petrol market and the departments to which they belong. [86768]

  Dr. Howells
  No officials in the Department of Trade and Industry or the Office of Fair Trading have responsibility for monitoring the UK retail petrol market on a permanent full-time basis.

  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons the Office of Fair Trading's inquiry into the retail petrol market, published in May 1998, did not include an examination of retail petrol stations located on motorway service areas. [86769]
  4
  Dr. Howells
  The content of the report is a matter for the Director General of Fair Trading. The report, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House, examined the supply of petrol by all retail outlets. However, I understand that motorway service areas were not referred to specifically as they were not considered to be in a separate market.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many (i) post offices and (ii) post offices run by sub-postmasters, there were at(a) at the latest available date, (b) in 1997, (c) in 1989 and (d) in 1979. [86930]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that the numbers of post offices in total and of sub-post offices at the dates requested were as follows:

  Total

  Sub-post offices

  End April 1999

  18,707

  18,107

  End March 1997

  19,251

  18,645

  End March 1989

  21,030

  19,537

  End March 1979

  22,793

  21,213

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the number of post offices, indicating separately those run by sub-postmasters, which operate in rural areas. [86931]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  I understand from the Post Office that the total number of post offices at the end of April 1999 was 18,707, of which 8,842 were in rural areas and operated by sub-postmasters.

  Regional Aid
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to announce his policy on regional aid. [86860]

  Mr. Wills
  Reviews of the Assisted Areas and Structural Funds maps are currently underway. We will announce the proposals which we will send to the Commission shortly.

  Proposals for the re-focusing of the Regional Selective Assistance scheme, as announced in the Competitiveness White Paper, are still under consideration and the changes will be announced in due course.

  Trade Union and Employment Law
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he last met the Institute of Directors to discuss trade union and employment law reform. [86840]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry met representatives of the Institute of Directors in February, March and May to discuss various matters.

  ICL/Pathway Consortium
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the ICL/Pathway consortium will be liable for losses arising from fraud when the Post Office barcode technology is in use. [85859]
  5
  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The exact details of the contracts between the Post Office and ICL/Pathway are commercially confidential but I understand that there will be penalties built into the contracts for failure to perform.

  Horizon Project
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what modifications have to be made to the computer terminals installed in post offices as part of the Horizon project to make them compatible with(a) smart card and (b) barcode technology. [85865]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The system is already fully compatible with both smartcard and barcode technology.

  Plutonium Sea Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what communications he had with the relevant United States authorities in respect of the relevance of the United States Government's threat assessment to the sea shipment of plutonium prior to concluding the safety and security plan for such shipments from the United Kingdom to Japan. [85822]

  Mr. Battle
  During preparation of the transport plan, a number of meetings took place between officials from the Governments of Japan, France, the United Kingdom and the United States to discuss all aspects relating to the arrangements for the sea shipment of MOX fuel from Europe to Japan, including safety and security considerations.

  Environmental and Social Reporting
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action he is taking to promote environmental and social reporting by British companies; and if he will make a statement. [86864]

  Mr. Battle
  There are a number of related issues in this area. For example, the DTI is working with the DETR to meet the objectives of the national Sustainable Development Strategy to develop standards and guidance for environmental reporting and to encourage all UK companies to report publicly on their environmental performance.

  In March 1998, the DTI launched a fundamental review of company law which is being taken forward by an independent Steering Group. The Steering Group is considering a wide range of issues concerning the company's relationship with its wider interests, including the potential for company law to promote corporate transparency. The role of non-financial reporting, including on environmental and social issues, forms part of this consideration.

WALES

  Refrigerants (NHS)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will estimate the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if hospitals and other NHS facilities in Wales used not-in-kind refrigerants. [86167]
  6
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information from which to estimate the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if NHS bodies used not-in-kind refrigerants is not collected centrally.

  The Welsh Office is fully supportive of the Government's commitment to running its operations and buildings in accordance with best environmental practice as an integral part of its contribution to the UK's sustainable development strategy.

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

  NHS Disciplinary Procedures
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many disciplinary hearings have been heard under Welsh Health Circular WHC(96)22 Disciplinary Procedures for Hospital and Community Medical and Dental Staff; what has been the length of time taken to hear and resolve each of the cases; and how many such cases were discontinued. [86276]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Records of the number of disciplinary hearings held under WHC(90)22 are not held centrally. There is no requirement to notify the Welsh Office of any case unless the proceedings exceed 6 months. The Department has been notified of only one such case, which took over 4½ years to reach a negotiated settlement.

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

DEFENCE

  Defence Medical Training Organisation
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Defence Medical Training Organisation for 1999–2000. [87142]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the DMTO for financial year 1999–2000 as follows:Key Target 1—Academic Success (Quality and Quantity)
  To achieve the following academic success rates:

  Percentage

  Common Core Course (CCC)

  94

  Specialist Registrars (SpR)

  96

  Pre Registration Nurses (Pre Reg Nurses)

  96

  Key Target 2—Academic Success (Timeliness)The following percentage of trainees achieving academic success to be delivered on time agreed with the customer:

  Percentage

  CCC

  196

  SPR

  96

  Pre Reg Nurses

  98

  1 Remainder within 6 weeks

  Key Target 3—Individual Medical Services Training Establish and agree with customers the baseline requirement for external medical services training by 31 march 2000.7Key Target 4—Agree Annual Training Requirement To achieve 1.5 per cent. efficiency gain in matching capacity to the Agreed Annual Training Requirement.Key Target 5—Systems Approach to Training To ensure comprehensive application of the Systems Approach to Training, to a minimum of 33 per cent. of all appropriate courses.

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the quinquennial review of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment will start. [87143]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Performance Evaluation phase of Quinquennial Review of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment (RAFSEE) started on 17 May 1999 and is expected to be complete by 30 July 1999. This phase will review the performance of the Agency since its launch in November 1994. The forward-looking Options Phase will start today and is expected to be complete by 29 October 1999. The Options Phase will consider RAFSEE's role and core functions against the background of the formation of the Defence Logistics Organisation, of which RAFSEE is now part. This phase will assess whether Agency status remains appropriate for each of the functions undertaken by RAFSEE or whether there are other more cost effective means of delivering RAFSEE's outputs.

  Comments and contributions from those with an interest in RAFSEE and its work would be welcome and should be sent to, Air Commodore K. J. M. Procter, RAFSEE Review Team, Room G50, Headquarters Logistics Command, RAF Brampton, Huntingdon, Cambridgeshire, PE18 8QL.

  Satellite Dishes
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 8 June 1999,Official Report, column 211, on satellite dishes, for what reason there will be a 12-hour delay between transmission and viewing by ships' crews. [86874]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The transmissions are received by RN ships using existing military satellite communications equipment, which was not designed to take video transmissions. The band width required for normal video transmission is considerably greater than that available on our military satellite system. However, recent developments in transmission technology now allow for the broadcast of compressed video transmissions over such systems. The time taken to transit the information in this way is dependent on the available band width. The drawback of this system is that the images cannot be viewed until all the video information has been received. On occasions where there is heavy use of the system for military communications, which have priority, only a reduced band width is available for video transmission. This means that there could be delays of up to 12 hours before one hour of material for viewing can be made available to the ships' crew. The advantage of utilising the military satellite system is that coverage is achieved over sea and land, whereas commercial satellite transmissions are generally directed towards land only. Large satellite dishes can provide limited coverage for vessels at sea, such as cruise ships, but there is no room to fit such dishes on frigates.

  Dimming Sun Exercise
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons the nuclear weapon exercise Dimming Sun has been postponed; when this exercise is now due to be held; and what costs have been incurred by his Department to date in organising this exercise. [86295]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The decision to postpone the joint UK/US Exercise Dimming Sun was taken in the light of present commitments in the Balkans, including the possibility that civil agencies in Norfolk who will participate in the exercise, might receive refugees from Kosovo. This decision will ensure that key exercise objectives can be met at a later date whilst ensuring that the conduct of the exercise does not interfere with our support to NATO operations in the Balkans. As yet, no new date has been set for the exercise.

  As for costs relating to Exercise Dimming Sun, I have nothing to add to my letter of 27 November 1998 to the hon. Member, a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

  Official Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 5 May 1999,Official Report, column 381, if he will list the meetings which his Special Adviser and the Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (Support) held with United States Department of Defence officials on 5 March, the location of each meeting, and the names of the US officials at each meeting. [86298]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The meetings held on 5 March with Department of Defense officials to discuss defence industrial co-operation were both held at The Pentagon in Washington DC. The names of the US officials at each meeting are as follows:Meeting 0900 hours—1215 hours
  Mr. A1 Volkman, A/DUSD (International and Commercial Programmes).
  Ms Susan Ludlow-MacMurray, D/International Security Programmes.
  Mr. Marvin Winkleman, D/Foreign Transfers.
  Mr. Vic Ciardello, D/Finance and Economic Analysis.
  Cdr Ronald Neubauer, Assoc Deputy Gen Counsel (International Affairs).
  Mr. Dominic Cipicchio, Dep Director Foreign Contracting, (D/Defense Procurement).
  Captain Richard Lewis, International Programmes Office.
  Mr. Bill Leonard, Prin Director Security and Intelligence Office.
  Meeting 1215 hours—1415 hours
  All above plus:
  Dr. Jack Gansler, Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition and Technology).
  Mr. James Bodner, Under Secretary Defense (Policy).
  Mr. Steven Grundman, Acting Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Industrial Affairs and Installations).
  Mr. Harvey Nathan, Deputy General Council of Acquisition and Logistics.
  Mr. Paul Gebhard, Assistant Chief of Staff to Dr. Gansler.

  Bloody Sunday Inquiry
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money has been spent to date by his Department in financing the legal costs of former members of the Parachute Regiment called to give evidence to the Bloody Sunday inquiry; and what forecast he has made of the total cost. [86684]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The cost to my Department of financing the legal costs of potential military witnesses at the Inquiry as at the end of April 1999 was £1,144,707.61. Due to the way in which legal assistance is being provided, it is not possible to break out the costs relating to former members of the Parachute Regiment. It is also not possible to estimate the likely final cost.

HEALTH

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if hospitals and other NHS facilities used not-in-kind refrigerants. [86168]

  Mr. Denham
  Information from which to estimate the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if National Health Service bodies used not-in-kind refrigerants is not available centrally.

  The Department is fully supportive of the Government's commitment to running its operations and buildings in accordance with best environmental practice as an integral part of its contribution to the United Kingdom's sustainable development strategy.

  The NHS is making good progress in achieving the 20 per cent. energy efficiency improvement targets from the 1991–92 base year to March 2000, as set by Green Ministers. Additionally, progress is being achieved against the wider Government objective (agreed as part of the Kyoto Protocol) to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–2012, with a domestic target of 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions by 2010.

  Dental Anaesthesia Services
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional money he plans to make available to health authorities to establish hospital-based dental anaesthesia services for dental general practice. [86160]

  Mr. Denham
  A review of general anaesthesia and sedation with dental treatment is currently underway under the leadership of the Chief Medical Officer and the Chief Dental Officer. The review is due to report by the end of the summer. When we consider the report we will also consider any funding issues.

  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received regarding the arrangements for dental anaesthesia in dental community services. [86159]

  Mr. Denham
  Records show that since the General Dental Council's amendment of their ethical guidance last November the Department has received ten letters from 10
  hon. Members and seven other letters. There have also been five questions from a Noble Lord about the impact of the General Dental Council's amended guidance.

  Hospitals (Sunderland)
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the NHS has in(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001 to 2003 to (i) reduce the number of hospital beds and (ii) close hospitals in Sunderland; and if he will make a statement. [86279]

  Mr. Hutton
  In 2000–01 the Ryhope Hospital will close and all services will move to the Sunderland Royal Hospital site as part of the redevelopment of the site. This will reduce the fragmentation of acute services, improving clinical configuration and access to specialist equipment, in high quality purpose-built accommodation. We are committed to modernising the National Health Service and this redevelopment will offer better quality treatment. There is no planned reduction in numbers of patients being cared for, although it will be possible to achieve this in very slightly fewer beds than at present (931 from 942) because of the improved acute bed facilities.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Etherington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those health authorities that have implemented career start schemes to attract medical students to general practice indicating the (i) start date, (ii) duration, (iii) number of places available and (iv) annual cost of each scheme. [86161]

  Mr. Denham
  There is no national career start scheme. We are encouraging health authorities to develop schemes which address particular problems with recruitment in their locality.

  Junior Doctors
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 11 May 1999,Official Report, column 136, on junior doctors, when he expects the decision to be made on the extension of Council Directive 93/104/EC relating to junior doctors. [86032]

  Mr. Denham
  A unanimous decision was made at the European Social Affairs Council on 25 May to propose a thirteen year implementation period for extending the provisions of Council Directive 93/104/EC, the "Working Time Directive", to cover previously excluded groups, including junior hospital doctors. The Council has proposed a transposition period of four years from the date of adoption before new Europe-wide minimum standards apply. These standards will provide a statutory limit to the maximum average working week. There will be a staged period of nine years after transposition, during which interim targets will apply, before the 48 hours limit is reached.

  The decision formally to adopt this amendment to the Directive is subject to co-decision between the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, which is due to re-assemble this autumn.

  The Government remains fully committed to implementation of the New Deal on junior doctors' working hours. We have no intention of raising the 56 hour limit which is part of the current agreement.
  11
  We need to plan and implement the move to 48 hours carefully over a reasonable period of time, and in such a way that does not jeopardise patient care and the training needs of juniors.

  Radiotherapy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when the national report on reviewing radiography equipment will be sent to him; when it will be published; and if he will make a statement; [85694]

  (2) if he will list those cancer centres in the UK which do not have two linear accelerators; and if he will make a statement. [85693]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report of the review of radiotherapy provision will be sent to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shortly for consideration. Information on the number of linear accelerators in cancer centres has not been collected centrally but will be contained in the review of radiotherapy provision.

  The Calman/Hine Report recommended that radiotherapy should normally be confined to cancer centres but in some remote areas a cancer unit could provide radiotherapy services in collaboration with a centre. The radiography equipment in a cancer centre will depend on the population served and the pattern of service available in local cancer units.

  NHS Staff (Disciplinary Hearings)
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many disciplinary hearings have been heard under existing disciplinary procedures for hospital and community medical and dental staff; what has been the average length of time taken to hear and resolve each case; and how many such cases were discontinued in each of the last 10 years. [86273]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally. Disciplinary action is the responsibility of local National Health Service employers.

  A and E Departments
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to monitor the number of incidents of patients waiting on trolleys in accident and emergency departments. [86029]

  Mr. Denham
  Times to admission through accident and emergency departments are already monitored under the Patient's Charter and published quarterly in the National Health Service Magazine.

  Reinstated Doctors
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors have been reinstated by the General Medical Council in the last 10 years; and what has been the average length of time between their being struck off and reinstated. [86307]

  Mr. Denham
  The removal of doctors from the Register of Medical Practitioners and their subsequent reinstatement are matters for the General Medical Council.

  Kidderminster Hospital
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the persons and organisations he met when he visited Kidderminster hospital. [86441]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not visited Kidderminster General Hospital in the recent past. When I visited Kidderminster on 28 May, I met the following people:

  Mrs. A. Brinton, Chairman, Kidderminster Health Care NHS Trust (KHCT)

  Mrs. C. Wells, Chief Executive, KHCT

  Mrs. C. Playn, Director of Operations and Nursing, KHCT

  Mr. N. Ahmed, Medical Director, KHCT

  Mr. C. Tallents, Clinical Director for Surgery, KHCT

  Mr. K. Poyntz, Surgery Directorate Manager, KHCT

  Mrs. J. Matthews, Nurse Specialty Manager, KHCT

  Dr. A. Miller, Clinical Director for Medicine, KHCT

  Mrs. C. Jones, Medical Records Manager, KHCT

  Sister W. Hayes, KHCT

  Mr. N. Kumar, Accident and Emergency Consultant, KHCT

  Sister M. Steadman, KHCT

  Mr. C. Bexley, Director of Information, KHCT

  Dr. J. Ball, Chairman, Health Concern Worcestershire

  Dr. R. Taylor, Chairman, Save Kidderminster Hospital Campaign

  Mr. F. Baillie, Independent Councillor, Wyre Forest Council

  Mr. D. Barton, Independent Councillor, Wyre Forest Council

  Ms M. Shineton, Independent Councillor, Bridgnorth Council, South Shropshire.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what notice was given to local interest groups in advance of his recent visit to Kidderminster hospital; [86442]

  (2) what assessment he made prior to his visit to Kidderminster of the availability of local interest groups for meetings; [86439]

  (3) which (a) persons and (b) organisations representing communities in Shropshire he met when he visited Kidderminster hospital. [86440]

  Mr. Hutton
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not visited Kidderminster General Hospital in the recent past. The purpose of my visit to Kidderminster on 28 May was twofold: to visit Kidderminster Hospital following a commitment to the hon. Member for Wyre Forest in an adjournment debate and to participate in the national announcement of new funding for accident and emergency services from the modernisation fund.

  The visit was organised at short notice due to the latter. Despite this, local interest groups were invited to attend, and I met a delegation including the Chairman of Health Concern, the Chairman of the Save Kidderminster Hospital Campaign and Councillors from Wyre Forest District Council.

  I also met Ms M. Shineton, an independent councillor from Bridgnorth council, who represented the community of South Shropshire.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how, where pre-publication approval of specific
  13
  advertisements has been undertaken by the Medicines Control Agency secretariat, the MCA will ensure that pre-approvals by them do not unduly influence decisions by the same officials following a complaint after publication of the advertisement on whether that advertisement is in breach of the Medicines (Advertising) Regulations; [86660]

  (2) how, under the new procedures to be adopted by the Medicines Control Agency under the provisions of the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations 1999, he will ensure that the precedents needed to ensure consistency in future advertising decisions are routinely made publicly available; [86659]

  (3) under what circumstances a notice, a threat of a notice or a request to cease advertising will be made by Ministers or Medicines Control Agency officials under the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations 1999; and if the Independent Panel will have the right to consider whether such a notice, threat of issue of notice or request has been properly issued; [86658]

  (4) what legal advice he has received in connection with the legality under the Human Rights Act 1998 and the European Convention on Human Rights of the new procedures to be adopted by the Medicines Control Agency under the provisions of the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations 1999; and if he will place a copy of that legal advice in the Library; [86661]

  (5) if the new procedures to be adopted by the Medicines Control Agency under the provisions of the Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations 1999 give a company, to which the Agency issues a notice that it is minded to take action, the right to a full oral hearing before the Independent Review Panel at which all evidence can be challenged and questioned. [86662]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines (Advertising and Monitoring of Advertising) Amendment Regulations clarify and strengthen existing procedures in the control of medicines advertising. The Medicines Control Agency undertakes pre-publication assessment of advertising in exceptional circumstances only and has no intention of extending that role. Any opinion given on the suitability of the advertisement for publication is based on the information provided by the company and the current scientific knowledge and is issued without prejudice to any action the MCA may have to take against a future complaint. In the unlikely event that a complaint is received about an advertisement which officials have previously agreed is acceptable for publication the advertisement will be reconsidered taking any new information into account in reaching a decision.

  We have clear legal advice that the proposals are compatible with both Community law and the European Convention on Human Rights. To publish the advice itself would break with the long-standing and important principle that legal advice given to Ministers is privileged. This is reflected in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information (2nd Edition (1997) para. 4(d)
  14
  which provides that information covered by legal professional privilege, such as Counsel's Opinion, is exempt from disclosure under the Code.

  There are specific circumstances under which notices may be issued to advertisers under the procedures in the amending Regulations. These are:
  Under paragraph 1—to request a copy of an advertisement
  Under paragraph 3—to advise an advertiser that Health Ministers are "minded to" make a decision that an advertisement is in breach of the Advertising Regulations,
  Under paragraph 4—to advise an advertiser that an advertisement would not be in breach, and
  Under paragraph 5—to advise an advertiser that, after consideration of the advice of the Independent Review Panel Health Ministers have decided an advertisement is in breach.

  Notices under paragraphs 1 or 3 may require an advertiser to cease advertising on an interim basis. At any stage the recipient of a notice can seek judicial review of the decision to issue that notice.

  The issue of notices under the Schedule will not be automatic—the MCA will continue, as now, to discuss problems with advertising with the company concerned so as to secure acceptable changes. There is no provision for, or purpose in, threatening to issue a notice. The formal procedures will come into play only when informal negotiation fails to reach an appropriate outcome.

  The remit of the Independent Review Panel will be to consider written representations from advertisers who have been issued with a notice under paragraph 3 and advise Health Ministers on the compatibility of the advertisement in question with the Advertising Regulations. The Panel will not consider the issue of notices or other procedural matters. The amending Regulations provide for the making of written representations by the company concerned but do not preclude oral hearings where these are considered appropriate by the Panel. We have no objection to the reports of the Review Panel meetings being made publicly available. Furthermore, the Medicines Control Agency has already established a working group, the Medicines Advertising Liaison Group, to provide a forum for all regulatory and self-regulatory bodies concerned with the advertising of medicines to exchange information and opinions on advertising issues.

  Special Hospitals (Advocacy Services)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made on establishing independent advocacy services in each of the three English special hospitals; and when he expects the services to be in operation. [86431]

  Mr. Hutton
  Independent Patients' Advocacy Services are already operating at Ashworth and Rampton Hospitals, and a process has been agreed which will lead to the introduction of a service at Broadmoor Hospital to be operational from September this year.

  Ligament Operations (West Country)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times are for(a) cruciate ligament

  15
  operations and (b) consultations relating to them (i) in hospitals in Devon and Cornwall and (ii) in the Princess Elizabeth Orthopaedic Hospital in Exeter; and if he will make a statement on the time taken to provide treatment for Mr. Jason Ganney of Buckfastleigh. [86426]

  Waiting time experience before operation of orthopaedic inpatients—Quarter 4 1998–99

  Percentage

  National Health Service trust

  Total number

  0–2 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  9–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  South Devon Healthcare

  1,260

  47

  27

  16

  8

  3

  0

  Plymouth Hospitals

  2,080

  37

  26

  16

  9

  7

  4

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals

  1,453

  42

  32

  14

  8

  3

  1

  Royal Devon and Exeter

  2,132

  45

  26

  15

  9

  5

  1

  Northern Devon Healthcare

  581

  51

  27

  12

  7

  3

  0

  Exeter and Community

  30

  87

  10

  3

  0

  0

  0

  Note:

  Figures may not be 100 per cent. due to rounding

  Waiting time experience before first appointment of orthopaedic outpatients—Quarter 4 1998–99

  Percentage

  National Health Service trust

  Total number

  0–3 weeks

  4–12 weeks

  13–25 weeks

  26 weeks plus

  South Devon Healthcare

  1,036

  15

  33

  33

  19

  Plymouth Hospitals

  1,065

  25

  71

  1

  3

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals

  1,661

  26

  31

  14

  29

  Royal Devon and Exeter

  1,378

  34

  36

  21

  10

  Northern Devon Healthcare

  494

  15

  24

  32

  30

  Exeter and Community

  160

  13

  57

  17

  14

  Cornwall Healthcare

  42

  62

  36

  2

  0

  Note:

  Figures may not be 100 per cent. due to rounding

  A patient's position on the waiting list is determined by their clinical priority.

  Details of an individual's treatment are governed by the rules of patient confidentiality.

PRIME MINISTER

  Royal Hospital, Haslar
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Prime Minister how many letters he has received concerning the future of the Royal Hospital, Haslar; and of these, how many supported its closure, and how many opposed it. [85554]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence published the Government's proposals for the reorganisation and restructuring of Defence Medical Services in a written answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) on 14 December 1998,Official Report, columns 328–29. The proposals are subject to consultation with the local community and others.

  The restructuring of secondary care arrangements is a key component of the Government's proposals. These include the establishment of a new Centre for Defence Medicine as a centre of excellence for research and training, and a new Ministry of Defence Hospital Unit in Portsmouth. It is intended that the Royal Hospital, Haslar should only close once the new arrangements in Portsmouth are in place.
  16
  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not collect information on individual procedures. The latest information available on inpatient and outpatient orthopaedic waiting times for Devon and Cornwall is shown in the tables:

  Since December 1998 my office has received an average of four letters per week regarding the future of the Royal Hospital, Haslar. The vast majority were against the proposed closure.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures he is planning as part of a general settlement on Kosovo, to guarantee the (i) security and (ii) rights of non-Albanian ethnic groups in the province. [86366]

  The Prime Minister
  KFOR has been tasked with establishing a safe environment for all people in Kosovo, regardless of their ethnic group. It will be an important task for KFOR to ensure that all communities understand KFOR's role and that they are there to protect them. NATO Secretary-General Javier Solana, made it clear in his statement of 10 June that this is an opportunity for peace and that violence by any party will not be tolerated.

  The interim administration under UN auspices will establish and oversee the development of provisional democratic self-governing institutions to ensure conditions for a peaceful and normal life for all inhabitants in Kosovo. Plans for a civilian peace force are also under way.

  Echelon System
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations the Government have received from European Community institutions regarding the deployment of the Echelon system; and if he will make a statement. [86725]

  The Prime Minister
  None.

  Privy Council
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister what the criteria will be for recommending the appointment of Ministers in the devolved administrations to the Privy Council; and if he will make a statement. [86648]

  The Prime Minister
  Appointments to the Privy Council will continue to be made in order to ensure that the Queen is suitably and properly advised on all matters which come before her in Council. In future, I expect this to include members of devolved administrations.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to publish the Social Exclusion Unit's report on teenage pregnancies; and if he will make a statement. [87096]

  The Prime Minister
  Last summer, I asked the Social Exclusion Unit to develop an integrated strategy to cut rates of teenage parenthood, particularly under-aged parenthood, towards the European average and propose better solutions to combat the risk of social exclusion for vulnerable teenagers and their children. I am publishing its report today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The UK has the highest rate of teenage births in Western Europe. Teenage parenthood is a problem that affects every part of the country, but it is far worse in the poorest areas and among the most vulnerable young people whose expectations and aspirations are low. The health and social outcomes for teenage parents and for their children are stark and worrying.

  The Social Exclusion Unit has undertaken a rigorous review of the evidence both nationally and internationally. It has found that three key factors contribute to our internationally high rates of teenage conceptions: low expectations of the future among many young people; ignorance about contraception and the reality of life as a parent, and mixed messages from adults about sex and relationships.

  The report sets out a national programme with two specific goals: to halve the rate of conceptions among under 18 year olds in England by 2010 and to lessen the risks of young parents suffering the consequences of social exclusion by getting more teenage parents back into education, training or employment. A £60 million package has been put together within existing departmental resources to support the programme for the period of this spending review, and further funding will be considered in the next spending review.

  At a national level, a new task force of Ministers, led by the Minister for Public Health, will be responsible for co-ordinating the policy across Government supported by an implementation unit in the Department of Health. There will also be a National Advisory Group to advise Government and monitor the success of the strategy. Locally, every Health Authority and Local Authority will be tasked to work together in preventing pregnancy and in supporting pregnant and parenting teenagers, setting local benchmarks for progress. Areas with high rates will be eligible for resources from a local implementation fund of £26 million.
  18
  There will be a national publicity campaign to reinforce the report's key messages. New guidance will be issued to improve sex and relationships education in school with an emphasis on enabling teenagers to resist pressure to have sex too early. There will be better inspection of sex and relationships education and better training for teachers. Parents will be consulted and informed more fully about sex education in schools and given more support in talking to their children about sex and relationships. Special action will be targeted on prevention for the most vulnerable groups including children looked after by a local authority, those excluded from school and young offenders.

  The NHS will improve access to contraceptive and sexual health services for teenagers, including young men. New guidelines will set out the counselling that should accompany contraceptive treatment for under 16 year olds and there will be publicity to tell young people that they can talk to health professionals about sex and contraception in confidence.

  For those teenagers who do become pregnant we will pilot a new approach to support and childcare—'SureStart Plus' pilots based in areas covered by both SureStart and Health Action Zones. In addition, five pilots outside SureStart will test other ways of providing child care for 16–17 year olds to enable them to return to education or training.

  Under 16 year old mothers will be required to return to education. 16 and 17 year olds will be included in the ONE pilots (formerly Single Work Focus Gateways) and will have a personal adviser to look at their options, with the emphasis on a return to education. 16 and 17 year old parents will be able to take part in the Education Maintenance Allowance pilots from September 1999. By 2003 all 16 and 17 year old mothers who cannot live with their parents or a partner will be offered supervised semi-independent housing with support, not a tenancy of their own.

  The right to be a parent carries with it the responsibilities of parenthood. The Child Support Agency will vigorously pursue the non-resident parents of children born to teenagers to reinforce the message that, regardless of age, they are financially responsible for their children.

  The target the Government have set to reduce teenage pregnancy is ambitious, but it is the least that we should set ourselves if we are to tackle a problem that has been neglected for too long.

  Council of Europe/WEU
  Mr. Terry Davis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the latest Information Bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union covering the period October 1998 to April. [87100]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to send a substantive reply to the letter dated
  19
  11 May from the hon. Member for Aldershot concerning former members of the 1 Battalion, The Parachute Regiment. [86685]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Luxembourg on 10 June; and if he will make a statement. [87099]

  Mr. Morley
  The Fisheries Council met in Luxembourg on 10 June. I represented the UK together with my noble Friend, Lord Sewel, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Scottish Office.

  The Council adopted proposals introducing and allocating in 1999 two new Total Allowable Catches (TACs) for North Sea spurdog and Northern prawn. It also allocated for 1999 two existing TACs for blue whiting fished in Western waters and the Bay of Biscay. The UK secured an 81 per cent. share of the Spurdog TAC and 27 per cent. of the Northern Prawn TAC. On blue whiting we negotiated an increase of 5,000 tonnes in the proposed UK allocation. A further 7,000 tonnes was allocated to the UK under the Bay of Biscay TAC with the option of taking this in Western waters as a linked stock. This makes an effective total allocation of over 42,000 tonnes and gives the UK a 24 per cent. share of the two TACs, the highest of any Member State. The introduction and allocation of these TACs will enhance the conservation of stocks in the North Sea and Western waters.

  Review

  Costs incurred to date (£000)

  Report published

  Date report published

  Review of the Milk Development Council

  Nil

  No formal report published. Announcement made on 29 October 1997

  n/a

  Review of Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers

  289

  Bovine Tuberculosis in Cattle and Badgers Report to the right hon. Dr. Cunningham MP

  16 December 1997

  Review of the Rates and Structure of Aid to Farmers under the Organic Aid Scheme

  Nil

  Review of the Organic Aid Scheme. A Report by Agriculture Department

  2 April 1998

  Review of the Home-Grown Cereals Authority

  Nil

  Final Report

  12 May 1998

  Review of the Future Funding of Regulatory Arrangements for Pesticides

  Nil

  No formal report published. Outcome notified to all interested parties on 1 September 1998

  n/a

  Review of the Current Rules of Quarantine on Imported Pet Animals

  355

  Final Report

  23 September 1998

  Review of Food From Britain

  Nil

  Food From Britain Efficiency and Effectiveness Review

  1 October 1998

  Review of Public Analyst Arrangements in England and Wales

  5

  Final Report

  28 October 1998

  Review of Raw Cows' Drinking Milk Policy

  Nil

  No formal report published. Announcement made on 20 January 1999

  n/a

  Review of Arrangements for Enforcing the Rules on the Welfare of Animals Exported Live to the Continent

  Nil

  No formal published report. Final outcome of review reported in News Release on 27 September 1997

  n/a

  20
  I drew the attention of the Council to the significance of forthcoming scientific advice sought by the Commission from the International Council from the Exploration of the SEA (ICES) on the need for precautionary restrictions on fishing activity to protect vulnerable seabird populations which depend on sandeels. The Commission promised to work quickly on appropriate measures once the ICES advice was available.

  The Commission introduced its second annual report on progress in the EU in following up on the Recommendations of the 1997 Bergen Intermediate Ministerial Conference on the integration of environmental concerns in fisheries management in the North Sea. This report was remitted for further study.

  The Commission made an interim report on the cost benefit study it is undertaking of the EU's Third Country Fisheries Agreements and the Council adopted Conclusions urging the Commission to pursue talks with Morocco on co-operation in the fisheries sector following the expiry in November of the present EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement.

  After lengthy discussion, a Presidency compromise on the reform of the structural funds in the fisheries sector failed to secure a Qualified Majority. This issue will fall for further consideration by the Council in October.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what(a) reviews, (b) task forces and (c) advisory groups have been established by his Department since 1 May 1997; what costs they have incurred to date; and what reports they have published. [71518]

  Mr. Morley
  The following tables set out the details of Reviews, Task Forces and Advisory Groups established by my Department since 1 May 1997, the costs they have incurred to date and the reports they have published.
  21

  Review

  Costs incurred to date (£000)

  Report published

  Date report published

  Review of the UK Legislation Controlling the Disposal of Animal Waste

  Nil

  No formal published report. Consultation paper on the review of the animal by-products legislation issued on 6 October 1997. Consultation paper on a proposed Animal by-Products Order issued on 12 November 1998. Animal By-products Order 1999 Came into force on 1 April 1999.

  n/a

  Review of the Sugar Beet Research and Education Council

  Nil

  No formal report published. Consultation document issued on 29 January 1998. Outcome of consultation notified in MAFF News Release 492/98 on 18 December 1998

  n/a

  Review of Fishing Vessel Licensing

  Nil

  Review of the Licensing of UK Registered Fishing Vessels: Report of a Joint Departmental/Industry Working Group

  March 1999

  Review of the Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances Scheme

  Nil

  No formal report published. Consultation document on the new Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances Scheme issued on 23 April 1999.

  n/a

  Review of Funding Mechanisms for Flood and Costal Defence

  Nil

  Non-Review ongoing

  n/a

  Review of the Hill Farming Advisory Committee for England, Wales and Northern Ireland

  Nil

  Non-Review ongoing

  n/a

  Review of the Meat Hygiene Appeal Tribunal

  Nil

  Non-Review ongoing

  n/a

  Salmon and Freshwater Fisheries Review Group

  57

  Non-Review ongoing

  n/a

  Review of the Access provisions Under the Agri-Environment Schemes

  Nil

  Non-Review ongoing

  n/a

  Review of Nitrate Sensitive Areas Scheme

  Nil

  None-Currently being prepared for publication

  n/a

  Review of Environmentally Sensitive areas, Stage IV

  Nil

  None-Currently being prepared for publication

  n/a

  Costs incurred (£000)

  Report published

  Date report published

  Advisory Group

  The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle Tuberculosis

  134

  Interim Report—Towards a sustainable policy to control TB in Cattle—A Scientific Initiative

  17 August 1998

  Ministers Agricultural Advisory Group

  Europe's Agriculture. A Case for Change

  18 January 1999

  Task Force

  Official Group on Organophosphates

  Nil

  Official Group on OPs—Report to Ministers

  25 June 1998

  Meat Hygiene Service (Charges)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussions he has had with abattoirs and their representatives to review the current regime for charging. [85133]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 25 May 1999]Since the beginning of this year, my right hon. Friend and I have separately met representatives of the Federation of Fresh Meat Wholesalers (now the British Meat Federation) and jointly met a delegation of small plant operators led by an all party group of hon. Members. I have also had meetings with a representative of turkey producers, the National Farmers Union, Dr. Richard North, and most recently a further meeting with representatives of the all party Parliamentary group. These meetings included discussions on charging, but they were not set up specifically to review the current regime.
  22
  In addition all Ministers in the Department have had issues of charging raised with them when attending functions around the country.

  Fishing
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his decision to discontinue safety grants for fishing vessels applies in Scotland; and what consultations he has held on this with his Scottish counterpart. [85908]

  Mr. Morley
  The MAFF funded Fishing Vessels (Safety Improvements) (Grants) Scheme 1995 enabled payments to be made in all parts of the United Kingdom. The closure of the scheme to new applications on 21 May 1999 also applies to Scotland. The EU funded Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance (FIFG), which also provided fishing vessel safety grants, was effectively
  23
  closed in Scotland on 9 April when the Scottish Fisheries Minister announced the final round of awards to the Scottish industry. These EU awards fully committed the balance of FIFG funds available for Scottish projects.

  The decisions relating to MAFF expenditure were taken in the context of the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) which examined the most effective use of public money across and within all Departments.

  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what arrangements he is making for the English fishing industry to be consulted on proposals for the Scottish Executive to develop distinctive management measures for Scottish waters. [85907]

  Mr. Morley
  Issues relating to consultation will be covered in the concordat between the Scottish Executive and MAFF. It will be for the Scottish Executive, in the first instance, to ensure that it consults all interests likely to be affected by proposals for local fisheries conservation measures to be applied in the Scottish zone of British Fishery Limits.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many people in his Department and its associated bodies and agencies have benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage. [86095]

  Mr. Morley
  The introduction of a national minimum wage on 1 April 1999, benefited 569 permanent and 263 casual staff in clerical, typing and support grades in my Department. I have asked Chief Executives of my Department's agencies to reply separately with information on their staff.

  Letter from Dr. J. M. Rutter to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 14 June 1999:
  The Minister has asked me to reply to your question asking how many people employed in the Veterinary Medicines Directorate (VMD) have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage.
  All staff at the VMD were paid above the national minimum wage on 1 April 1999 and its introduction had no effect.

  Letter from Professor P. I. Stanley to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 14 June 1999:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Central Science Laboratory, to your question concerning the number of staff within the Agency who benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage on 1 April 1999.
  I can confirm that one member of staff in CSL benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage.

  Letter from Johnston McNeill to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 14 June 1999:
  As Chief Executive of the Meat Hygiene Service (MHS) your question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food requesting information on the number of people who benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage has been passed to me for reply as regards this Executive Agency.
  All MHS staff were on salaries above the national minimum wage prior to its introduction on 1 April 1999. No MHS staff therefore benefited from its introduction.
  24
  Letter from P. W. Greig-Smith to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 14 June 1999:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply to your question on the benefits to staff of the introduction of the national minimum wage. I am replying on behalf of the Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science (CEFAS).
  I can advise you that seven Administrative Assistants benefited from the national minimum wage introduction.

  Letter from T. W. A. Little to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 14 June 1999:
  The Minister has asked me to respond to your question about how many people in the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and its associated bodies and agencies have benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage.
  All staff in the Veterinary Laboratories Agency (VLA) were in receipt of a full-time equivalent salary higher than the National Minimum Wage (NMW) before it was introduced. There were, therefore, no staff who benefited from the introduction of NMW at VLA.

  Letter from Sarah Nason to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 14 June 1999:
  The Minister has asked me to respond, in respect of the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA), to your question about the number of people in his Department and its associated bodies and agencies who have benefited from the introduction of a national minimum wage.
  The introduction of a national minimum wage on 1 April 1999 benefited one member of staff (a sandwich course student) in FRCA.

  Letter from G. K. Bruce to Mr. Ted Rowlands, dated 14 June 1999:
  The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has asked me to reply, in respect of the Pesticides Safety Directorate (PSD), to your question concerning the number of staff within the Agency who benefited from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage on 1 April 1999.
  I can confirm that 22 staff in PSD benefited from the introduction of the National Minimum Wage.

  Cattle Movement Service
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what were the total costs of the introduction of the British Cattle Movement Service. [85771]

  Mr. Rooker
  The cost of setting up the BCMS is provisionally estimated at £21.4 million. The total set up costs have been offset by receipts in EC aid and VAT recovery of around £4.2 million.

  Cattle (Ear Tagging)
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to propose changes to EU Regulation 820/97 regarding ear tagging of cattle. [85777]

  Mr. Rooker
  It would be for the European Commission, not the UK, to make formal proposals to change the European legislation on cattle identification (Council Regulation 820/97). I am aware that some—but not all—farmers are suffering high loss rates of plastic cattle eartags. My Department is looking into why this is the case. Such plastic eartags, although relatively new for the UK, have been in use for some time in other European countries.

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what tests have been conducted in the UK on genetically modified(a) soya, (b) maize and (c) tomatoes; when they were held; by whom were they conducted; where they were held; if any were carried out on mammals; and in which scientific journal the results were published. [86422]

  Mr. Rooker
  Genetically modified (GM) soya, maize and tomatoes were rigorously assessed for safety by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP) under a voluntary scheme, which was in operation prior to the introduction of the Novel Food Regulations in May 1997. The safety assessment for GM soya was conducted in 1994; GM maize was assessed in 1995, 1996 and 1997; and GM tomatoes in 1994, 1995 and 1997. Equivalent bodies in other member states have also assessed these foods.

  All the data used in these assessments have been deposited in the British Library and the relevant information to enable this to be consulted together with details of the safety assessments are contained in the respective ACNFP annual reports, copies of which can be found in the Library of the House. In addition, details of the regime operating at that time are contained in the ACNFP Annual Report for 1994. We have no information concerning other places where the data may also be found.

  The ACNFP conducts the safety assessment of all novel foods on a case-by-case basis. The Committee require mammalian tests where it judges this is necessary to establish the safety of a particular food. In this context, tests on mammals were reviewed by the ACNFP as part of the safety assessment for GM maize and soya.

  Since May 1997, all novel food assessments have been carried out by the ACNFP in accordance with guidance produced by the European Commission's Scientific Committee on Food, which applies to all member states. A copy of this guidance, which does not differ in any significant way from the regime operated under the voluntary scheme, may also be found in the Library of the House.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to ensure that all members of the EU are constrained by the same rules and regulations as those in the UK with regard to testing of genetically modified foods. [86423]

  Mr. Rooker
  All member states are subject to the EC Novel Foods Regulation and are required to conduct safety assessments of all novel, including genetically modified, foods in accordance with the guidance produced by the European Commission's Scientific Committee for Food that supplements this regulation.

  Milk (Health Effects)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set up an inquiry into the possible link between the growth factor IGF-1 in milk and breast cancer and prostate and colon cancer; and if he will make a statement. [86424]

  Mr. Rooker
  A Working Group of the Veterinary Products Committee (VPC) has considered human and animal safety aspects of the use of recombinant bovine 26
  somatotropin in dairy cows, including the effects of IGF-1. The Group has completed its task and is reporting its findings to the VPC. The VPC will advise Ministers when it has considered the report and it is our intention to publish the VPC's advice.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research his Department has conducted into the effects on human health of using genetically engineered growth hormones to stimulate the production of milk. [86484]

  Mr. Rooker
  An applicant wishing to obtain authorisation to market such a product must satisfy statutory criteria of safety, quality and efficacy under veterinary medicines legislation. It is for the applicant to provide the necessary research data to meet these requirements. There is a moratorium in the European Union on the use of recombinant bovine somatotropin (BST), which is to be reconsidered by the end of this year. The moratorium allows member states to carry out limited practical tests to obtain any further scientific data that might be taken into account by the Council of Ministers when taking a final decision. No such tests have been conducted in the UK.

TREASURY

  Motorists (Taxation)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much was collected in taxation in respect of(a) private motorists and (b) commercial vehicles in the most recent year for which figures are available. [86673]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]The breakdown of taxation into private motorists and commercial vehicles is not possible.

  The estimated amount of tax collected in respect of cars, light vans and motorcycles for 1997–98 was £30 billion, and that for other vehicles was £5 billion.

  These figures include all excise duties, VAT, Insurance Premium Tax, Vehicle Excise Duty, and Inland Revenue taxes (including National Insurance Contributions).

  Housing Finance
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the extent of pension mortgage mis-selling; [86936]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of people in Britain who have (a) endowment mortgages, (b) pension mortgages, (c) ISA mortgages and (d) interest-only mortgages without any repayment vehicle; and if he will make a statement. [86937]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Treasury does not compile statistics on housing finance. However, the Council of Mortgage Lenders' quarterly economics journal No 42 of May 1999 includes the following information on the percentage number of loans granted in 1998 by repayment method type of advance.
  27

  Percentage

  Repayment

  43

  Interest only of which

  56

  Endowment

  34

  PEP

  3

  Pension

  1

  Other

  19

  Other

  1

  FSA has reported no systematic evidence of mis-selling of pension mortgages.

  Vocational Training Relief
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what consultations took place with the UK training industry prior to the decision to remove Vocational Training Relief from April 2000. [86284]

  Mr. Milburn
  Vocational Training Relief will be abolished in 2000. The incentives announced for Individual Learning Accounts will provide a better means of targeting support from public funds, so that in future more help will go to those who have the greatest need to improve their skills and qualifications.

  The Department for Education and Employment has been discussing the details of Individual Learning Accounts with interested parties, including training providers for many months.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the suitability of individual learning accounts as a replacement for Vocational Training Relief. [86285]

  Mr. Milburn
  Individual Learning Accounts will promote lifelong learning and encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own training and development. The incentives announced for Individual Learning Accounts provide a better means of targeting support from public funds than Vocational Training Relief. In future more help will go to those who have the greatest need to improve their skills and qualifications, rather than subsidising expensive activities which, though they may be vocational for a few, are for the most part undertaken as hobbies.

  EU Taxation
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made on the repayment by the Italian Government of the tassa per L'Europa; and what assessment he has made of the legality of the tax within the Maastricht framework. [86727]

  Ms Hewitt
  EUROSTAT decided that the tassa per L'Europa was a new tax and, as such, it was recorded as a receipt reducing the deficit. The Chancellor of the Exchequer has made no representations on the partial repayment of this tax.

  Personnel Services Companies
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps the Inland Revenue will take to inform recruitment consultancies and clients of personnel services companies if they default on commitments in relation to tax and national insurance; [86462]28

  (2) what procedures the Inland Revenue and Contributions Agency will follow when a certified personnel service company enters voluntary liquidation or arranges an S.852 dissolution, with particular reference to the informing of agencies and other potential clients; [86463]

  (3) if non-certified agencies supplying personnel services will be required by the Inland Revenue to install new software for assessment purposes. [86464]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 8 June 1999,Official Report, columns 286–87.

  BCCI
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will(a) make a statement on the publication on the website of the Association of Accountancy and Business Affairs of the Sandstorm report by Price Waterhouse on BCCI and (b) place a copy of the report in the Library. [86322]

  Ms Hewitt
  No.

  Customs and Excise Staff (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many staff, by post and grade, of HM Customs and Excise have been made redundant in Northern Ireland in 1999. [86709]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No members of HM Customs and Excise in Northern Ireland have been made redundant in 1999.

  Petroleum Product Smuggling (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who is responsible for preventing the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [86715]

  Ms Hewitt
  HM Customs and Excise are responsible for preventing the smuggling of petroleum products into Northern Ireland.

  Both the Government and Customs are aware of this problem and recognise that it is serious in revenue terms and, just as importantly, disadvantages legitimate traders. Customs are deploying resources and actively mounting investigations against those involved to counter the threat posed to the revenue and to the Northern Ireland business community.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will exempt Northern Ireland from the climate change levy or energy tax until such time as electricity costs are comparable to average electricity costs in Great Britain. [85896]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are aware of the nature of, and the prices prevailing in the energy market in Northern Ireland. These issues were considered, alongside a number of other factors, in determining the scope and design of the climate change levy.
  29
  The introduction of the climate change levy will entail no increase in overall burden of tax on business as a whole, as the revenues from the levy will be fully recycled to business via a 0.5 per cent. reduction in the main rate of employers' National Insurance Contributions. Business will also benefit from an additional £50 million for schemes aimed at promoting energy efficiency and support for renewable sources of energy, such as solar and wind power.

  Landfill
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer under the landfill tax credit scheme, which landfill operators have contributed to environmental bodies; and if he will list those environmental bodies, including contact details, which have received support from landfill operators. [86148]

  Ms Hewitt
  Information obtained by Customs and Excise from landfill operators about contributions made to environmental bodies under the landfill tax credit scheme is confidential. I regret, therefore, that I cannot disclose such information.

  The information requested about which environmental bodies have received contributions is best provided by the Regulator for the environmental bodies credit scheme, ENTRUST Ltd. I have asked ENTRUST to write to my hon. Friend.

  Women's National Insurance Entitlements
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what conclusions he reached about the quality of information supplied with regard to women who continued to pay reduced National Insurance contributions after 1977 about national insurance entitlements; and what plans he has to assist those affected. [86195]

  Dawn Primarolo
  There have been two major publicity campaigns about the married women's option; one in the late 1970s and another in the late 1980s. Leaflets CA09 and CA13 were made available at the time from the Benefits Agency locally. I am currently considering whether a further information campaign is necessary.

  Public Libraries Act 1850
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans Her Majesty's Government have to issue a coin to commemorate the forthcoming 150 anniversary of the Public Libraries Act of 1850. [87113]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  Her Majesty The Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that next year a special design should be adopted for the reverse of the fifty pence in order to mark the 150th anniversary of the Public Libraries Act, 1850. Collector versions of the coin will be available from the beginning of the year and the coin will also be available, later in the year, at face value from banks and post offices.

  Pension Transfers
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has concerning the treatment of the pensions of public servants transferring to private sector employers. [87160]
  30
  Mr. Milburn
  The key principles are that staff transferring to private sector employers under PFI and other PPP deals should continue to have access after the transfer to a good quality occupational pension scheme, under which they can continue to earn pension benefits through future service on a basis which overall is materially at least as good as they had in the public sector; and that they should have the option of transferring their accrued pension benefits to the new employer's pension scheme on terms which give them a full credit for their past service.

  I am issuing new guidance to Departments and Agencies today which reinforces these principles and ensures that they will be applied consistently and openly to all transfers of Government staff.

  The new guidance will be adopted immediately by Government Departments and Agencies. I hope that other employers in the public sector will also apply its principles to contracting arrangements where staff transfer to the private sector, and the Government will encourage and facilitate that outcome. This does not affect arrangements being made in respect of PFI and other PPPs which are already underway.

  Copies of the new guidance, and the associated Statement of Practice by the Government Actuary, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Delayed Operations
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has carried out on the cost to his Department of delays to operations in the NHS, with particular reference to the consequent continued payment of benefits. [86427]

  Mr. Milburn
  None.

  Business Taxation
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the UK tax measures currently under examination by the EU Code of Conduct Group (Business Taxation). [84913]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 21 May 1999]The work of the Code of Conduct Group is directed at the examination of potentially unfair tax practices across Europe. Such practices can distort competition and artificially attract investment and jobs away from member states such as the UK which have more neutral tax systems. The Code should help British businesses to compete on more even terms, protect UK employment and encourage investment here.

  The UK measures which were on the Group's initial list are: International Headquarters Companies; special measures for the film industry; enterprise zones; 100 per cent. first year capital allowances for SMEs in Northern Ireland and roll-over relief for balancing charges arising on the disposal of ships. The current list also includes a measure relating to Independent Investment Managers, which applies to non-residents who carry on a trade of dealing in investments in the UK through an independent agent; 100 per cent. capital allowances for expenditure on Scientific Research and 40 per cent. first year allowances for SMEs.
  31
  The Government are clear that none of the measures is harmful and is robustly making that case in the Code Group.

  Financial Advice (VAT)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will remove VAT on fee-based financial advice. [86935]

  Ms Hewitt
  No. VAT liability depends upon what service is provided and whether it is paid for. Financial advice for which a charge is made is liable to VAT at the standard rate. This is a requirement of European law.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will publish the latest agenda of the ECOFIN meeting of 14 June, prior to the meeting. [86832]

  Ms Hewitt
  There is no meeting of Ecofin today. The next meeting is scheduled for 12 July. The agenda will be made available to the Scrutiny Committees when determined by Coreper, approximately one week before the meeting. Copies of the agenda will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Ministerial Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what was the purpose and location of his meeting with William Kennard of the United States Federal Communications Commission on 16 September 1998. [86287]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I met Commissioner Susan Ness and Commissioner Michael Powell of the Federal Communications Commission, not William Kennard. The meeting took place on 17 September at the FCC offices in Washington and discussions centred around the programme for the introduction of digital television and the proposals for the switch off of the analogue system in the United States. Censorship and the V-chip were also discussed.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Panel 2000
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those recommendations from Panel 2000 upon which he is planning to implement; and if he will list the costs accrued to date by Panel 2000. [86456]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Panel makes recommendations aimed at better co-ordination between all organisations whose work affects perceptions of Britain overseas. In terms of Government practice they entail further improvements in the way Departments and official bodies work together in this area, and enhanced co-operation with the private and voluntary sectors. A number of detailed steps have been taken and others are being considered. Panel 32
  members receive no remuneration. Panel costs consist of reimbursement of travel costs incurred by members in their Panel duties. These total approximately £2,280.

  Modernisation Group
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the five working groups of the Modernisation Group; and if he will deposit copies of their(a) mailings and (b) recommendations in the Library. [84505]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  The Modernisation Group is an informal group of staff set up at my instigation, to offer an additional perspective on modernisation of the Foreign Office.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disablement Benefit (Backdating)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to remove the three month limit for backdating payments under successful posthumous applications for disablement benefit introduced in the Social Security (Miscellaneous Amendments) (No. 2) Regulations 1997. [85302]

  Mr. Bayley
  There are no plans to remove the three month backdating limit for posthumous claims to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. We will, however, review the backdating rules to this benefit as part of our ongoing commitment to modernise and reform the welfare state.

  Year of the Elderly
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans his Department has to be involved in the United Nations 1999 Year of the Elderly; and if he will make a statement. [86191]

  Mr. Timms
  The UN Year provides a valuable opportunity to raise awareness and change perceptions about issues surrounding older people. It also provides a vehicle to consult older people themselves. This Department is a member of the UN Year reference group of voluntary organisations and government departments who have planned the UK programme, and a DSS official chairs the supporting facilitation group on Citizenship. I am taking a keen interest in the International Year, and will take part in a number of the events being organised.

  As part of the programme, this Department has taken a leading role with Cabinet Office and the UK Secretariat of the International Year of Older Persons to develop a series of ten "listening to older people" events between May and November. The events will be hosted by non-governmental organisations supporting the year, with Ministers from the Ministerial Group for Older People, which I chair, taking part.

  These events will provide the Government with valuable information and feedback which will help decide priorities and shape the policies to meet them. I launched the programme at a website "virtual" event organised by Age Resource on 25 May and will be attending the first physical event in Belfast tomorrow.

  Payment Cards
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what forms of technology he is evaluating as a replacement to the magnetic strip of the benefit payment card; and what the projected savings are. [85862]

  Angela Eagle
  We will begin replacing the existing paper-based methods of payment with a more modern, efficient and secure method of paying benefits using the existing automated credit transfer system in 2003. In addition to an increase, compared with the benefit payment card, of potential savings from the elimination of fraud associated with paper instruments of payment, this move is expected to provide a significant increase in administration savings.

  It is the Post Office's intention to automate its network by the end of 2001 and to enter into commercial arrangements with a number of high street banks so that those people who wish to receive their benefits at post offices should continue to be able do so.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what savings were achieved due to the operation of the benefit swipecard in the 250 post offices where it was operating prior to renegotiation of the BA-Pocl Horizon contract; [86926]

  (2) what plans he has to continue operation of the benefit swipecard in the post offices where the system is currently operational. [86927]

  Angela Eagle
  In the 204 post offices automated as part of the system trial savings from the payment card to April 1999 amounted to £97,000. Over the same period and in the same post offices the Order Book Control Service, which uses bar coded order books to tackle benefit fraud, achieved savings of £1.7 million.

  We have decided that the project to automate post offices and benefits payments will no longer include the introduction of the benefit payment card. The vast majority of benefit customers will be unaffected, and those currently using the benefit payment card as part of the system trial, around 30,000 people, will see no interruption of their payments. The cards presently in use will be discontinued and we will be contacting customers to help them change to one of the alternative methods of payment.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what percentage of benefit payments are currently made through Automated Credited Transfer into bank accounts; [86924]

  (2) what income was generated for post offices as a result of benefit payment transactions in the last year for which figures are available; [86925]

  (2) what proportion of benefit claimants do not have a bank account. [86928]

  Angela Eagle
  As at May 1999, 16 per cent. of benefit payments were made through Automated Credit Transfer into bank accounts.

  The transaction fees payable by this Department to the various agents who supply benefit payment services are commercial in confidence and cannot be disclosed.
  34
  Estimates of the number of benefit claimants who do not have a bank account vary widely. The various sources of information available suggest the figure to be in the region of 10–20 per cent.

  Jobseeker's Allowance
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is the effect on the benefit of a Jobseeker's Allowance claimant who is participating on a European Social Fund course of training, if the course provider makes payments directly to(a) a childminder and (b) a person providing accommodation in circumstances where the child care or accommodation needs are directly related to participation on the course. [85751]

  Angela Eagle
  In these circumstances the Jobseeker's Allowance regulations allow for such payments to be ignored.

  European Social Fund (Training)
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if recipients of(a) Incapacity Benefit and (b) Severe Disablement Allowance can participate on a European Social Fund course of training without loss of benefits. [85756]

  Mr. Bayley
  People undergoing certain Government training courses for which they receive a training allowance cannot also receive Incapacity Benefit or Severe Disablement Allowance. People who participate in training funded out of the European Social Fund do not receive a training allowance and may therefore continue to receive Incapacity Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance provided they continue to satisfy the other conditions of entitlement.

  However, young people under age 19 cannot get Severe Disablement Allowance if they are undergoing non-advanced education for 21 or more hours a week, not including time spent on a course specifically designed for disabled students.

  Pension Legislation
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for reform of the legislation which prevents transfers of protected rights from a contracted-out money purchase pension scheme; and if he will make a statement. [86308]

  Mr. Timms
  There is no general prohibition on transfers of protected rights from contracted-out money purchase pension schemes. The conditions under which transfers of protected rights may be made are contained in SI 1996/1461 the Protected Rights (Transfer Payment) Regulations 1996.

  We have received a number of representations about these rules and will consider whether any changes are needed to this legislation.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what progress is being made with the introduction of the system of periodic inquiry into entitlement to Disability Living Allowance; and if he will make a statement. [87144]
  35
  Mr. Bayley
  The new system of periodic inquiry into entitlement to Disability Living Allowance is being developed in close and continuing consultation with organisations of and for disabled people. These discussions have taken particular account of issues such as the appropriateness of the literature to be used, and the treatment of very sensitive cases, where special attention is required to ensure that the process meets the needs of the individual contacted. The consultation has been constructive and I can announce that inquiry action is now starting, with the first inquiries being issued today. Cases involving people with mental health problems and cases made on behalf of children will not be included in the inquiry process until special arrangements have been discussed with relevant organisations and appropriate training delivered to staff. The inquiry process will be closely monitored and initial evaluation will commence after six months of operation, in January 2000.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what measures he is taking relating to benefit decisions which depend upon national insurance contribution issues; and if he will make a statement. [87145]

  Mr. Timms
  Two key initiatives are behind the changes we introduce today. The Department's reform of decision making and appeals is the first stage of our modernisation programme, intended to provide real improvements in the service we provide to Social Security and Child Support clients. Similarly the transfer of the Contributions Agency to Inland Revenue is part of extensive work to align the tax and benefits systems more closely.

  I am laying regulations to support a flexible and effective dialogue between the Department and the Inland Revenue for the purposes of Social Security decision-making, helping to bring the two organisations closer together in their day-to-day operations. The regulations ensure that where a contribution issue arises in connection with a benefit decision, dispute or appeal, that issue will be decided by Inland Revenue. The provisions protect a client's rights of appeal and ensure we continue to take decisions in the most efficient and effective manner.

  Benefit Entitlement
  Mr. Pound
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to deal with changes in a person's medical condition which effect benefit entitlement; and if he will make a statement. [87146

  Mr. Bayley
  An important part of our programme of welfare reform is the need to ensure the amount of benefit paid to claimants is correct and remains correct, and that changes which could affect benefit entitlement are properly taken into account. This means having a system of review which is fair, appropriate and sensitive to the needs of individual claimants.

  We have recently made changes to the Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations which, from 1 June, introduced a common test of reasonableness for both misrepresentation of, and failure to disclose information about disability-related changes. These changes applied to Disability Living Allowance, Attendance Allowance and
  36
  benefits for people incapable of work and are intended to protect vulnerable, disabled people from an unfairness in the application of the overpayment recovery rules. They recognise that it is often very difficult for claimants to understand that gradual improvements in their medical condition, or response to new treatment which helps alleviate their problems, might have an effect on benefit. Unless it is considered that the claimant could reasonably have been expected to be aware of a fact or to have reported a change in circumstances, any resultant change in entitlement which has the effect of removing or reducing benefit will not be applied retrospectively.

  Today I am laying regulations to ensure that the same provisions to benefit sick and disabled people are carried into the new system for decision making and appeals. In addition they will be extended to cover people claiming Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit and Severe Disablement Allowance.

  The regulations also deal with the circumstances in which a decision based on a determination about incapacity for work can be reconsidered. They make it clear that when deciding whether a person continues to be entitled to a benefit awarded on basis that they are still incapable of work, the decision maker may use the findings from carrying out a further All Work Test as grounds to make a new decision. The regulations provide that where the decision maker has clear information from a new medical report provided by the Department's examining doctor, that the person no longer satisfies the conditions for entitlement, the award of benefit can be changed.

  This approach is in line with past practice which was called into question by a decision of the Social Security Commissioners. It is not expected that there will be any impact in the outcome of decisions in individual cases.

  Habitual Residence Test
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on the future of the habitual residence test. [87147]

  Angela Eagle
  We have now concluded the review of the habitual residence test and have identified a package of measures to produce a fairer and more efficient test. The test was introduced by the previous Government to tackle the perceived phenomenon of 'benefit tourism'. However, to date the majority of people adversely affected have been UK nationals.

  It is right that our Social Security system should be safeguarded from abuse by people with little or no connection to the UK and we will continue to do this. Clearly though it is also important to ensure that income-related benefits are available to UK nationals and other nationals who have strong and legitimate links to this country.

  We believe that the package will address these two concerns. We have accepted a recent judgment of the European Court of Justice which has made it clear that people returning to the UK from an EU member state and re-establishing their ties here should be treated as habitually resident immediately upon their return.
  37
  However we believe it would be wrong to limit this important principle to people returning from a member state of the EU and have issued guidance to staff administering the test advising them to extend the effect of the judgment to people returning from any country overseas and re-establishing their ties here.

  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. Otherwise, subject to any guidance which may be given by the House of Lords in Nessa v The Chief Adjudication Officer (1) The Secretary of State for Social Security (2), a decision on which is awaited, the habitual residence test will continue to apply to seek to prevent abuse by those who do not have the appropriate ties to this country.

  We intend also to reduce the period when habitual residence inquiries are made from five years to two years and to introduce administrative improvements.

  We will trial a standard proforma, with a view to national implementation, to facilitate a more consistent approach to information gathering and decision making on cases requiring habitual residence action. We will also monitor the effects of how the test now operates.

  Taken together we believe these measures will result in fairer access to income-related benefits and will streamline the administrative process, while ensuring security against possible abuse of the benefits system by those with no real links to the UK.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Road Accidents
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of(a) road accidents and (b) road accidents involving fatalities occur on country lanes; and in how many such accidents speed was identified as a major contributor factor [86057]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The national reporting system for injury road accidents does not specifically record whether an accident took place on a "country lane". However, in 1997, the most recent year for which figures are available, 5 per cent. of injury road accidents occurred on minor1, single-carriageway roads with a speed limit greater than 40 mph. Seven per cent. of fatal road accidents occurred on these roads.

  Around 1 per cent. of all injury accidents and of fatal road accidents occurred on minor, single-track roads (single-lane with two-way flow) with a speed limit greater than 40 mph.

  The contribution of speed to these accidents is not comprehensively recorded. However, it is estimated that speed is a contributory factor in one-third of all road accidents on all roads.

  No information is available for damage-only accidents.
  1For the purposes of this answer minor roads are defined as C roads and unclassified roads.

  Driving Tests
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps will be taken to ensure satisfactory levels of public service in areas where driving test centres have been closed. [86262]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency will monitor local test waiting times and seek to ensure that service standards are delivered.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what means the Driving Standards Agency deals with complaints from(a) the general public, (b) approved driving instructors and (c) hon. Members; and for what reasons records are not kept of the nature and numbers of check test complaints from driving instructors. [86256]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency has a service standard that 97 per cent. of written complaints receive a reply within 10 days and the remainder within 15 days. The Agency does not record the number of complaints about ADI check tests such as to indicate individual cases. The overall number of such complaints is small and the Agency has not felt it necessary to keep a consolidated analysis. However, in view of increasing concerns, the Agency plans to review the way complaints about check tests from individual instructors are recorded and monitored.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to re-open previously closed driving test centres. [86248]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are no plans to re-open any previously closed driving test centre. The re-opening of a centre in the same locality could be considered if the need arose.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what forecasts the Driving Standards Agency has made of future demand levels. [86246]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Forecast demands for driving tests are published in the Driving Standards Agency's Business Plan. This forecasts nearly 1.4 million applications for practical driving tests and just over 1 million applications for theory tests in the financial year 1999–2000.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on the basis of what factors or criteria the Driving Standards Agency will decide to re-open a previously closed test centre. [86258]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Re-opening a previously closed test centre would be most unlikely, unless it was a temporary closure for operational reasons. In the majority of situations the property would have been re-used by the landlord. The re-opening of a centre in the same locality could be considered if the need arose.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions on what criteria the guidelines for the maximum distance which a test candidate should have to travel to a test centre are set. [86251]
  39
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The guideline distances were based on information from customer surveys and drew on the experience of establishing the theory test centre network.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what opportunities exist for local communities to participate in the consultation process prior to a driving test centre closure. [86259]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  There are several opportunities for participation as public consultation about a proposed test centre closure involves the local authority, local driving instructors, and the local Member of Parliament. The Driving Standards Agency usually holds a public meeting and notifies the local media when a closure is proposed.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions by what means the Driving Standards Agency intends to improve and expand its consultation processes to ensure information and proposals reach approved driving instructors who do not belong to any of the national associations. [86266]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency publishes a quarterly magazine and sends a copy to all approved driving instructors. This provides briefing on a wide range of matters relating to driver training and testing. Driving instructors have the opportunity to give their views via regular customer satisfaction tracking surveys. Local consultative meetings are held regularly with instructors, and driving examiners responsible for conducting check tests hold weekly surgeries with instructors. The Agency sends copies of relevant consultative documents to local driving instructor associations. Since July 1998, the Driving Standards Agency has posted copies of its consultation papers on a Departmental Internet website, and the Agency plans to open its own website soon.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reform the consultation process for driving test centre closures. [86264]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency has recently improved its procedures to enhance the consultation arrangements. We have no further current plans to change the consultation process, but we are open to suggestions for improvement. We shall continue to try to maximise the amount of time given to interested parties for them to comment.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of the closure of driving test centres on demand. [86221]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Following the closure of a driving test centre, the Driving Standards Agency monitors demand at neighbouring centres. Should waiting times give cause for concern, additional examiners are allocated to maintain customer service standards.
  40
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps he intends to take to ensure the establishment of a formal appeals procedure against the result awarded on a check test. [86250]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  An appeals process already exists against a decision to remove an instructor's name from the Register of Approved Driving Instructors. The current arrangements contain safeguards for the instructor, who is not normally removed from the Register unless he or she has failed three successive check tests, the final one being conducted by an Assistant Chief Driving Examiner. After that, the Registrar's decision to remove an instructor from the Register is subject to the appeals process. Appeals are considered by an independent panel. There are no immediate plans to introduce separate arrangements to appeal against the professional judgment of an examiner conducting a check test.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans the Driving Standards Agency has to(a) change the criteria for check tests, (b) limit their frequency and (c) ensure examiner consistency. [86265]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A two-year research project is underway, considering the way car driving instructors are trained and tested. This will report next year, and we shall consider the criteria used for check tests thereafter. Organisations representing driving instructors are kept informed of the emerging results and there is ample opportunity for them to have input to the research. The Driving Standards Agency changed the frequency for Grade 4 instructors to be check tested from one year to two years from 1 October 1998. Consistency of assessment in the conduct of check tests is provided by training and supervision of the examiners conducting the tests.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the impact of the introduction of the theory test on the numbers of people learning to drive. [86255]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The introduction of the separate theory test added a step to the process of learning to drive, but we have no information whether or how it has affected the numbers of people wishing to learn to drive.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the opinion of driving instructors of the check testing regime. [86267]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency regularly surveys driving instructors to assess their satisfaction with the services provided by the Agency. In the most recent surveys during 1997–98, over 85 per cent. of those instructors who responded said they were satisfied with the way their check test was handled.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps the Driving Standards Agency takes to provide a local service when it decides temporarily to close a local test centre. [86260]
  41
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency would provide a local testing service during a temporary closure if there was not a neighbouring test centre that could ensure customer service standards were maintained, and providing there was sufficient time to arrange a temporary centre. Planning consent and time factors are critical in considering the viability of making alternative arrangements.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further steps the Driving Standards Agency intends to take to ensure that all those who pass the theory test apply for the practical test. [86254]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since August 1998, theory test pass certificates have been printed showing the expiry date. Also, in April 1998, the Driving Standards Agency wrote to candidates holding theory test pass certificates who had not passed a practical test after 14 months reminding them that their theory test certificate had a two-year life. The Agency is considering a further mailshot to candidates who have held a theory test pass for a significant period and who may let it lapse by mistake.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason no consultation is undertaken when a driving test centre is closed temporarily for operational reasons. [86220]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Driving Standards Agency consults interested parties about test centre closures when time allows. Temporary closures for operational reasons are generally caused by events outside the control of the Agency, such as roadworks or road closures or health and safety issues affecting the property. Prior consultation in these circumstances is not always possible.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what level of qualification and experience is required before an examiner may check test an approved driving instructor. [86249]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Examiners who conduct check tests are especially selected from the existing examiner workforce for the purpose. They have to successfully complete a six-week training course covering the theory and practice of driving instruction. After qualification, their professional development is supported by supervision by senior staff to ensure consistency and fairness.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what impact current trends in demand are having on the Driving Standards Agency's cashflow; and what plans the Agency has to respond to the impact of these trends. [86243]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Demand for driving tests is stable and the Driving Standards Agency's cashflow is satisfactory. The Agency is controlling costs in line with forecast demand, and in accordance with the rules for Government bodies operating with Trading Funds.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what alternatives are considered to closures of driving test centres. [86222]
  42
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Driving test centre closures are proposed when a centre is no longer needed or no longer viable. If a centre is needed to meet demand, but a particular property has become unsuitable or unavailable, other properties are sought. A relevant consideration is the availability of local alternative facilities in line with customer service standards.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of the issuing of reminders to those who have failed to apply for their practical driving test. [86253]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have not sought to distinguish between those who specifically responded to the reminder and those who would have applied for a practical test anyway.

  Road Transport System Costs
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the total costs of the road transport system in the UK in the most recent year for which figures are available, broken down by(a) road building and maintenance, (b) traffic law enforcement, (c) pollution and (d) congestion; and if he will make a statement. [86111]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The latest estimate of expenditure in England on road building and maintenance are set out in the table. Costs incurred in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are the responsibility of the respective devolved authorities.

  Expenditure in 1998–99

  £ million

  Road building

  Road maintenance

  Trunk roads in England

  580

  652

  Local Authority roads in England

  162

  1,938

  The deployment of police resources to different functions are operational matters for individual chief constables, and information on expenditure on traffic law enforcement is not collected centrally. Even at a local level it can be difficult to make such assessments, since traffic officers spend a good deal of their time dealing with ordinary crime and crime prevention, while officers assigned to general beat duties act against breaches of road traffic law.

  Estimates of the levels of pollution caused by road traffic are published on a regular basis. The latest estimate of CO2 emissions from road transport in the UK in 1997 is 32 million tonnes of carbon, some 21 per cent. of total UK CO3 emissions1. We do not currently attempt to place an economic value on these.

  As part of the Department's work on revisions to the 1997 pre White Paper National Road Traffic Forecasts, alternative ways in which congestion costs could be estimated are being explored. As yet, however, there is no agreed basis for such calculations. A number of external estimates have been made, these include an estimate of

  43
  £15 billion in 1989 by the CBI (increased to £20 billion in 1996); and £7 billion in 1996 by National Economic Research Associates.
  1Source:
  UK Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory estimates of emissions at source.

  Railway Rolling Stock
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has received on the future of mark 1 rolling stock from the HSE; and if he will make a statement. [86190]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Deputy Prime Minister has received advice from the Chairman of the HSC recommending that all mark 1 rolling stock on the network should be modified by 2003 and replaced by 2007. Ministers are considering the recommendations, and an announcement will be made shortly.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions who will be participating on the scientific steering group overseeing the farm-scale trials of genetically modified crops; and when they plan to meet. [85949]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]Membership of the scientific steering committee overseeing the ecological studies which are part of the farm-scale evaluations of genetically modified crops was announced on 25 May and is as follows:

  Professor Christopher Pollock, Research Director of the Institute of Environmental and Grassland Research (Chair);

  Professor Mick Crawley, Imperial College, London;

  Dr. David Gibbons, Head of Conservation Science at the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds;

  Dr. Nick Sotherton, Director of Research for the Game Conservancy Trust;

  Dr. Nicholas Aebischer, Director of Biometrics at the Game Conservancy Trust;

  Dr. Alistair Burn, English Nature; and

  Jim Orson, Director of the Morley Research Centre.

  Dr. Brian Johnson, of English Nature, representing Statutory Nature Conservation Agencies, will also be participating on the group. The Secretariat will be provided by officials from my Department. Officials representing the research contractors, the Departments funding the ecological studies and SCIMAC (Supply Chain Initiative on Modified Agricultural Crops), who are funding the growing and management of the crops, will also attend meetings; not as advising members of the steering group, but to provide information to the members on progress with the ecological studies and the farm scale evaluations and listen to their advice.

  The first meeting of the steering committee is to take place on 14 June 1999.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if all aspects of the scientific design of the field-scale evaluations of the ecological effects of genetically modified crops will be subject to the scrutiny of members of the Scientific Steering Group. [86176]
  44
  Mr. Meacher
  Yes.

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that genetically modified crops will be tested in EU countries only once the timetable, rules and regulations with regard to conducting those trials have been agreed by the Council of Ministers. [86415]

  Mr. Meacher
  All consents for the deliberate release into the environment of Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) are issued on the basis of the procedures laid down in Council Directive 90/220/EEC, which are now being reviewed in the context of the revision of this Directive. Part B of the Directive sets out the procedures for the deliberate release of GMOs for research and development purposes.

  Deer (West Sussex)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to conduct a deer count in West Sussex. [85774]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 June 1999]Visual censuses have been conducted in the West Sussex area for a number of years by the local Deer Management Group. However, this method of census is notoriously inaccurate and the Forestry Commission have been investigating alternative methods. As part of these trials the study area in West Sussex between Eatham and Buriton was surveyed at night during April 1999 using thermal imaging equipment. The results are currently being analysed and will be available shortly.

  Petrol (Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether)
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether in petrol was authorised in the United Kingdom. [85869]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) has been used in petrol in the United Kingdom as an octane enhancer at very low levels for many years. Directive 85/536/EEC, which came into effect in domestic legislation on 24 April 1989, stipulates that member states may not prevent, restrict or discourage the production, marketing and free movement of blended petrol which contains 10 per cent. or less MTBE by volume. Directive 98/70/EC sets a maximum limit of 15 per cent. MTBE by volume applicable from 1 January 2000. Not all petrol sold in the UK contains MTBE; where it is used the concentration typically averages less than 1 per cent.

  Household Projections
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish the data to substantiate the recently revised household projections. [86357]

  Mr. Caborn
  The technical volume giving the main results and methodology for the 1996 based household projections is due to be published later this summer.

  Transport Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the latest agenda of the Transport Council of 17 to 18 June, prior to the meeting. [86829]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The proposed agenda for the 17 June Transport Council comprises the following items:

  1. Adoption of the agenda

  2. Approval of "A" points

  Maritime transport

  3. Shore waste reception facilities

  Air transport

  4. Delays in air transport in Europe

  Measures concerning all modes of transport

  5. Year 2000 computer problem

  6. Revision of Trans-European Network guidelines

  7. Satellite navigation systems ("Galileo")

  Land transport

  8. Working time in road transport

  9. Railway policy

  10. Other business.

  Roads and Transport Expenditure
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much was spent on(a) roads and (b) public transport by the Government in the most recent year for which figures are available. [86672]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]The most recent breakdown of the expenditure for the Department of Environment Transport and the Regions and its associated departments is given on page 15 of the Department's Annual Report 1999 [Cm 4204]. An analysis of the estimated outturn for 1998–99 on Main Programmes shows that:

  (a) the estimated amount spent on roads is £1.8 billion; and

  (b) the estimated amount spent on public transport is £2.6 billion.

  These amounts are for programme spend only, and exclude any apportionment of Departmental running costs.

  Right to Roam
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what economic assessment he has carried out of the impact of the right-to-roam proposals on hill farmers; and if he will make a statement. [86418]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department commissioned independent consultants, Entec UK Ltd., to undertake an assessment of different approaches for securing greater public access to open countryside. The study included an assessment of the effects on landowners and occupiers including agricultural enterprises such as sheep and cattle farms. Copies of the report, "Appraisal of Options on Access to the Open Countryside," have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Countryside (Access)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to fund any increased costs of dealing with wider access to the countryside(a) by increasing resources to and (b) from existing budgets of (i) the Countryside Agency, (ii) English Nature and (iii) English Heritage. [86419]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's proposals for giving people greater access to the countryside are set out in our "Framework for Action" which my Department published on 8 March this year. We do not expect them to have major financial consequences but we have made clear that, where appropriate, resources will be made available to the relevant statutory agencies to cover costs arising from the new legislation.

  Rights of Way
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to amend the law governing rights of way; and if he will make a statement. [86420]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department expects to publish a consultation paper on rights of way shortly.

  Vehicle Lights
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the safety impact of compulsory use of vehicle lights during daylight hours; and if he will make a statement. [86938]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Research into the effectiveness of daytime conspicuity lights on vehicles has been conducted for the Department by the Transport Research Laboratory. This work indicated that conspicuity lights could be of benefit in certain weather conditions, however, in clear weather, no obvious safety benefits were apparent.

  The European Commission is presently considering the possible costs and benefits of the use of vehicle lights during daylight hours. The negative environmental impact of the use of vehicle lights in daytime is being considered as part of this work. No formal proposals to regulate in this area have yet been put forward but the UK continues to play its part in discussions with the European Commission and other member states.

  New Household Projections
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the report on the New Household Projections to 2021. [86425]

  Mr. Caborn
  The technical volume giving the main results and methodology for the 1996 based household projections is due to be published later this summer.

  Workplace Violence and Bullying
  Mr. Touhig
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to introduce measures to tackle workplace violence and bullying. [85590]
  47
  Mr. Meacher
  I strongly condemn workplace bullying. It has no place in a decent society. The Government have already in place measures to protect workers. Some instances of workplace bullying may well constitute an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. Where workplace bullying presents a risk to a worker's health, health and safety inspectors could in principal use powers under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974 to require an employer to take action to protect the employee's health. No further legislative measures are planned.

  I am very concerned about workplace violence. I have therefore asked the Health and Safety Commission (HSC) to consider options for further action that would make a significant impact on preventing assaults, verbal threats and abuse in the workplace. Any plans I make to introduce measures will be based on HSC's advice.

  River Tweed
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has received from English Nature concerning the notification of the River Tweed as a candidate special area of conservation under the European Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora; and if he intends to proceed to notification. [86868]

  Mr. Macdonald
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government have no plans to propose the River Tweed to the European Commission as a candidate Special Area of Conservation.

  From 1 July 1999 the selection of Special Areas of Conservation in Scotland will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Kosovo (Refugees)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has made for the co-ordination of refugee return to Kosovo. [86480]

  Clare Short
  The UNHCR has been given the lead responsibility for co-ordinating the arrangement for the return of the refugees to Kosovo. We are trying to assist them to strengthen this capacity to carry out their role as efficiently as possible.

  The refugees will be provided with information about the conditions in Kosovo when the details become available, including the presence of mines, booby traps and unexploded ordnance. Arrangements for orderly return are being discussed with refugee leaders.

  Kosovo (Land Mines)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what money she has allocated for the process of de-mining in Kosovo. [86481]

  Clare Short
  To date £250,000 has been allocated for de-mining, including a mine awareness programme, in Kosovo. We expect to allocate more once the needs are 48
  clearer. Education, about the danger and location of mines, and unexploded ordnance, for refugees inside and outside of Kosovo, will be a priority.

  Death Penalty (Caribbean)
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will itemise and state the value of (i) aid and (ii) trade preferences provided, respectively by the United Kingdom and the European Union, for(a) Trinidad and Tobago, (b) Jamaica and (c) each of the other Caribbean Commonwealth countries which have the penalty of capital punishment. [86408]

  Clare Short
  Net figures for official development assistance (oda) provided in 1997 (the latest year for which full figures are available) to those Commonwealth Caribbean Countries which retain statutory provision for capital punishment are as follows:

  £ million

  UK

  EC

  Antigua and Barbuda

  0.3

  0.8

  Barbados

  0.3

  3.5

  Belize

  1.0

  2.7

  Dominica

  5.2

  -0.4

  Guyana

  91.9

  4.0

  Jamaica

  -2.9

  45.6

  St. Kitts and Nevis

  0.2

  0.8

  St. Lucia

  1.4

  6.9

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines

  0.2

  0.1

  Trinidad and Tobago

  0.4

  20.4

  Note:

  Negative figures are the result of repayments on past oda loans. The UK oda figure for Guyana is particularly high because of a large debt relief payment made in 1997.

  As with other non-EU members of the Lomé Convention, the Caribbean benefits from Lomé trade preferences including those relating to commodities. It would not be possible to quantify the value of these preferences to the countries in question without disproportionate cost.

  Balkans (Reconstruction)
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the resources required for refugee return and longer-term reconstruction of Kosovo and the Balkan region. [86482]

  Clare Short
  Most of the refugees are likely to return if their long-term security is guaranteed by an international security presence in Kosovo with NATO at its core. This is one of the conditions that has now been accepted. Arrangements for the withdrawal of all Yugoslav security forces, and the early entry of the international security force into Kosovo are currently being finalised. The immediate tasks are de-mining, and the provision of emergency relief for those who had remained in Kosovo and those returning (shelter, food, medicine, emergency rehabilitation of infrastructure).

  In co-ordination with the lead agency, the UNHCR, we are preparing for the reception of refugees when they return to Kosovo. We have a team positioned in Skopje ready to provide a rapid assessment of the resources required to begin the process of planning provision of

  49
  humanitarian relief repairs and rehabilitation. As I have stated previously, our objective remains as it has always been to assist as many refugees to return to Kosovo as quickly as possible.

  Recent donor meetings have assessed the impact of the Kosovo crisis on neighbouring countries and highlighted action needed to deal with the consequences. We continue to work closely with the International Community to help these countries.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money is allocated by her Department for the return of Kosovan refugees and the longer-term reconstruction costs in the Balkans. [86479]

  Clare Short
  Since 24 March 1999, the Government have committed £40 million for humanitarian assistance to the region. We are working with the EU member states, IMF, the World Bank and regional banks to determine the resources required for the return of the refugees and the longer-term reconstruction in the Balkans. We expect to make an appropriate contribution to the reconstruction effort.

  World Bank Loans
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what negotiations her Department has had with the World Bank about protecting the poor from the effects of financial crises; and if she will press for an external evaluation of the effectiveness of the protection measures which are supported with World Bank loans to be conducted and to be published. [86941]

  Clare Short
  We are working closely with the World bank to ensure its programmes pay particular attention to protecting poor and vulnerable groups from the effects of financial crises. We have been working to try to ensure that the bank and the IMF work more closely together on emergency adjustment programmes to ensure that the needs of the poor are taken fully into account. At the 1998 Annual Meetings of the Bank and Fund, the Chancellor of the Exchequer also called for a development of a Code of Good Practice on Social Policy to help guide countries in dealing with the social consequences of global economic problems. Work on this is underway, and the Bank will report on progress at the 1999 Annual Meetings in late September.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Occupational Therapists
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate she has made of the number of occupational therapists required in Northern Ireland to reduce the waiting time for assessment of need to(a) six months and (b) three months. [85874]

  Mr. McFall
  No estimate has been made of the number of occupational therapists required to reduce the waiting times for housing adaptation assessments.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time occupational therapists are employed in Northern Ireland. [85875]
  50
  Mr. McFall
  At 31 December 1998 the number of qualified occupational therapists employed in the Northern Ireland Health and Personal Social Services, across the full range of hospital and community services, was as follows:

  (a) Full-time—339

  (b) Part-time—127.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps she is taking to recruit and train extra occupational therapists in Northern Ireland. [85887]

  Mr. McFall
  Training of occupational therapists in Northern Ireland is carried out in the University of Ulster. At the request of the Department of Health and Social Services the University has since 1992 increased the annual student intake level from 36 to the current level of 50. Recruitment of occupational therapists is a matter for individual Health and Social Services Trusts.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is the average waiting time for a home visit and assessment by an occupational therapist in Northern Ireland. [85873]

  Mr. McFall
  Information is not available in the form asked. The table shows the number of assessments commenced during the quarter ended 31 March 1999 and in each case the time waiting from referral.

  Priority cases

  Number

  Less than 2 weeks

  2,833

  2 weeks to under one month

  698

  One month and over

  645

  Total assessments commenced

  4,176

  Other cases

  Number

  Less than 3 months

  2,735

  3 to 6 months

  1,424

  6 months and over

  1,407

  Total assessments commenced

  5,566

  Note:

  Figures do not include Newry and Mourne Health and Social Services Trust due to a computer problem

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will estimate the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if hospitals and other NHS facilities in Northern Ireland used not-in-kind refrigerants. [86170]

  Mr. McFall
  Responsibility for the subject in question has been delegated to the Health Estates Agency under its chief executive, Mr. Ronnie Browne. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from R. H. Browne to Mrs. Helen Brinton, dated 11 June 1999:
  I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question regarding the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if hospitals and other NHS facilities in Northern Ireland used not-in-kind refrigerants.
  Data is not readily available on the use of refrigerants in hospitals and other Health and Personal Social Services (HPSS) facilities in Northern Ireland, and information in the form requested could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  51
  The Department of Health and Social Services (Northern Ireland) is fully supportive of the Government's commitment to running and operating its estate in accordance with best environmental practice as an integral part of its contribution to the UK sustainable development strategy. All HSS Trusts are in the process of implementing GREENCODE, an environmental management system designed specifically for the Health Service.
  The HPSS has made significant progress in reduction of greenhouse gas emissions and up to March 1998 achieved a reduction in CO2 emissions of 22.21 per cent. against the base year of 1990/91. This exceeds the Government's target of 20 per cent. reduction by year 2010 against the same base year.
  I hope you find this information helpful.

  Fort Whiterock
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which organisations are represented on the Whiterock Steering Group to examine development proposals for the former Fort Whiterock army base on Springfield Road, Belfast. [86152]

  Mr. Ingram
  The members of the Whiterock Steering Group represent the Industrial Development Board (IDB), Making Belfast Work (MBW), the Local Enterprise Development Unit (LEDU), the West Belfast Partnership Board, the Upper Springfield Development Trust and the local MP.

  Glencree Reconciliation Centre
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what authority the Government fund the Glencree Reconciliation Centre in Co. Wicklow, Republic of Ireland. [86150]

  Mr. McFall
  The Glencree Reconciliation Centre receives project funding from a global grant body in the Republic, under the Cross-Border Community Reconciliation Measure of the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation. The project involves school children in the Border Counties and in Northern Ireland. The measure is jointly administered by the global grant body and the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. The latter contributes to the funding of this project, given its cross-border nature, and the EU funding element attracts a matching contribution from Government.

SCOTLAND

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if hospitals and other NHS facilities in Scotland used not-in-kind refrigerants. [86169]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The specific information required to estimate the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions if NHS in Scotland (NHSiS) bodies used not-in-kind refrigerants is not collected centrally.

  The NHSiS already has operational mechanisms in place to ensure that no ozone depleting substances are vented into the atmosphere by refrigeration appliances and plant. This is achieved via the specification of suitable alternatives to products which contain such substances, by
  52
  regular servicing and ensuring that they are recovered for recycling or destruction in accordance with all current statutes and codes of practice.

  Additionally, against the wider Government obligation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 12.5 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2008–12 and their domestic target of a 20 per cent. carbon dioxide reduction by 2010, the NHSiS has reduced carbon dioxide emissions by 30 per cent. in the eight years from 1989–90 to 1997–98. Carbon dioxide is recognised as the principal contributor towards the "greenhouse effect".

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

  Buchanan Centre, Glasgow
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the total rateable value of the new Buchanan Centre in Glasgow; how much would have been paid in rates by the centre during the current financial year had all units been open and occupied at the start of the financial year and occupied throughout the year; and how much and what percentage of the total raised would be made available to Glasgow City Council. [86396]

  Mr. Macdonald
  This information is not available. The local Assessor is responsible for determining rateable values and no entries have as yet been made in the valuation roll for this new property.

  Homeopathy
  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps are being taken to recognise at consultant level those practitioners with extensive experience in homeopathic medicine gained before 1 January 1997; [86325]

  (2) what provision there is for the training of orthodox physicians in their conventional path of accreditation in homeopathy and complementary medicine. [86328]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]There is currently no statutory training path for doctors in homeopathy in the UK, although consultants in homeopathy have been appointed in the NHS. Since 1 January 1997 it has been a requirement to be on the GMC' s Specialist Register in order to be eligible for appointment as a substantive or honorary NHS consultant. Doctors holding substantive NHS consultant appointments in homeopathy before 31 December 1998 were able to apply for inclusion in the Register under transitional provisions in the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995 (as amended). New consultants in homeopathy would ordinarily expect to be trained in another medical specialty recognised for the purposes of specialist registration, as well as in the non-statutory requirements for homeopathy.

  The requirements for specialist medical education are governed by European Directive 93/16/EEC. The practice of homeopathy varies greatly across the EEA, and there is no provision within the Directive to recognise homeopathy for the purposes of medical training. The Faculty of Homeopathy has previously indicated its intention to develop a nationally recognised training programme in homeopathy. In order to do so, the Faculty

  53
  would need to satisfy the Specialist Training Authority of the Medical Royal Colleges (STA) that the training programme met the requirements of Directive 93/16/EEC. It would then be for the STA to apply to the Secretary of State for Health for inclusion of the specialty in the European Specialist Medical Qualifications Order 1995 (as amended).

  In Scotland trainees are able to undertake sessions in homeopathy at the Homeopathic Hospital in Glasgow during their training in General Medicine, provided that they fully comply with the Joint Committee on Higher Medical Training curriculum in General Medicine. At present the North Glasgow Acute Trust, of which the Homeopathic Hospital forms part, has two consultant physicians with an interest in homeopathy. It also has one higher medical trainee who is undertaking sessions in homeopathy. Two general professional trainees (Senior House Officers) are also based at the Homeopathic Hospital. In the west of Scotland registrars in general practice are funded to attend courses in homeopathy if they wish, but numbers who request it at that stage are small. Once they are in independent practice, however, demand increases and homeopathy courses are accredited for reimbursement by the NHS through the Postgraduate Education Allowance for GPs.

  Mr. Tredinnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many patients are currently on the waiting list of the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital. [86324]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 11 June 1999]On 31 March 1999 the number of patients waiting for inpatient/day treatment at the Glasgow Homeopathic Hospital was 37.

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

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many times (i) the Lord Chancellor and (ii) the Minister of State in the Lord Chancellor's Department have met members or officials in the United States Government since 1 June 1998; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the US departments involved on each occasion, and the names of the US members and officials at each meeting. [86294]

  Mr. Vaz
  Neither the Lord Chancellor nor the Minister of State have had any official meetings with members or officials in the United States Government since 1 June 1998.

  Legal Aid (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when it is intended to publish a consultation paper on legal aid reform in Northern Ireland. [87141]

  Mr. Vaz
  A consultation paper on legal aid reform in Northern Ireland has been published today. Copies of the consultation paper have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Annual Report
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the method by which the contents of his Department's Annual report are determined. [85582]

  Mr. Straw
  The Home Office Annual Report conformed to the requirements and followed guidance laid down by Her Majesty's Treasury for all Departmental reports. It describes the aims and objectives of the Department, its policies and programmes, and details of the Department's expenditure plans.

  Jury Trial
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding proposed curtailment of the right to trial by jury. [85583]

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representation he has received concerning his plans to restrict the right to trial by jury. [85587]

  Mr. Boateng
  The recommendation of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice 1993 and the Narey Review of Delay in 1997 was subject to a public consultation exercise last year. 133 responses covering a range of views were received during the consultation exercise. Consultation has not, in our view, weakened the case for abolishing the ability to elect for trial in either way cases.

  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the bill to restrict the right to trial by jury in criminal cases. [R] [85592]

  Mr. Boateng
  A bill to remove the defendant's ability to elect for Crown Court trial in either way cases will be published and introduced when Parliamentary time allows.

  Drug Dealers (Seized Assets)
  Mr. Ronnie Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the value of assets seized from drug dealers in the last year for which figures are available. [85584]

  Mr. George Howarth
  In 1997–98, courts in England and Wales made 1,510 confiscation orders for drug proceeds totalling just over £15 million. During that period, assets totalling £5 million were realised by the enforcement of drug trafficking confiscation orders.

  We are considering proposals for strengthening confiscation legislation, including wider civil forfeiture powers and a National Confiscation Agency, on which we recently consulted.

  Fire Cover
  Mr. John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress his Department's review of fire cover has made; and if he will make a statement. [85585]
  55
  Mr. George Howarth
  It was agreed last year to trial in a number of brigades new fire cover arrangements based on proper risk assessment and flexibility of response. We expect the trials will be completed by the end of next year.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to review the work and case load of probation service staff. [85586]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The work of the probation service was reviewed last year as part of the Comprehensive Spending Review, which resulted in an extra £127 million current grant being made available to the service over the three years 1999–2000 to 2001–02. It is a matter for probation services and the probation committees that employ them to decide how to make the best use of the resources available, including distribution of work and how staff should tackle that work.

  Fines (Enforcement)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve the enforcement of fines. [85588]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are committed to the better enforcement of financial penalties imposed by the courts. The Access to Justice Bill, currently before this House, contains provisions which will give civilian enforcement officers and approved enforcement agencies employed by the courts wider and clearer powers to execute warrants issued against fine defaulters and those who have breached community penalties. This will enable responsibility for such work to be transferred from the police to the magistrates' courts, allowing the police to concentrate on fighting crime.

  Also, the Government's Crime Reduction Programme includes a project which will fund work to extend successful fine enforcement techniques and encourage courts to make greater use of fines.

  The courts will be expected to give a high priority to the prompt and efficient enforcement of the penalties they impose. As a result, more money—including compensation for the victims of crime—will be collected.

  Police Overtime (Millennium Public Holidays)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review police overtime pay for the millennium public holidays. [85589]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have no plans to review police overtime pay as police regulations already provide for public holiday working.

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the role of the voluntary sector in tackling social exclusion. [85591]

  Mr. Boateng
  The voluntary and community sector has a key role to play in tackling social exclusion. The Government recognise that many voluntary and community organisations have particular skills and 56
  knowledge across a range of subject areas and service provision. That is why the Government have entered into a new spirit of partnership with the sector and the Policy Action Teams established to take forward the work on social exclusion issues include representatives from a range of voluntary organisations.

  Police Custody Officers
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he will take to ensure that all police custody officers are fully trained before being allocated their custody duties. [85594]

  Kate Hoey
  National Police Training (NPT) has developed a two-week training course for Custody Officers for delivery by forces. The course is subject to regular updating and was revised last year in the light of the recommendations of the report by the Police Complaints Authority. It is due to be revised again this summer to take account of emerging good practice and the findings of the recently published report of Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary's thematic inspection of police training, "Managing Learning".

  It is for Chief Officers to decide on the nature and timing of the training to be undergone by their officers. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) recognise the value and importance of the Custody Officer training package, and continue to work with NPT in strongly promoting the use of this course by all police forces. My right hon. Friend would encourage any initiative to ensure that training is provided prior to taking up Custody Officer duties.

  Disclosure Rules (Rape and Domestic Violence)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the disclosure rules in cases of(a) rape and (b) domestic violence. [85595]

  Mr. Boateng
  The aim of the disclosure provisions, which apply to all offences, is to ensure that all relevant unused prosecution material is disclosed to the defence. In response to concerns about their operation, the Director of Public Prosecutions has initiated a programme of work, focusing on the essential principles of disclosure, with a special emphasis on the duty of the prosecution to ensure a fair trial. In the light of this work Home Officials have been asked to consider what further needs to be done.

  Changes to the Crown Court procedures for obtaining material from third parties came into force on 1 April 1999 with the aim of focusing applications on requests for relevant material. In addition the law on disclosure of a defendant's previous convictions is under review by the Law Commission.

  Crime and Disorder Partnerships
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment the Government have made of the role of voluntary organisations as partners in combating crime and disorder. [85596]

  Mr. Boateng
  Voluntary organisations have an important crime prevention and reduction role. That is why the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires a wide range of voluntary bodies to be invited to participate in the work of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships.
  57
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with his counterparts in the Department for Education and Employment to ensure that schools are fully involved in local partnerships to combat crime and disorder. [85601]

  Mr. Boateng
  Following agreement with Ministers in the Department for Education and Employment, we have designated schools as bodies with which local authorities and police forces must co-operate in partnership to develop and implement crime and disorder reduction strategies.

  Police Manpower
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Association of Police Authorities to discuss police manpower. [85597]

  Mr. Straw
  My hon. Friend and I meet the Association of Police Authorities regularly both at the Home Office and at police events when a range of issues are discussed, including police resources.

  The Association is fully aware that, under legislation passed by the previous Government, the number of police officers in each force is a matter for local determination.

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress has been made in resolving the problems arising from the move of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. [85598]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have established a project team, working to tight deadlines, to plan and deliver urgent measures to ensure the Directorate improves its quality of service.

  Animal Experimentation
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met members of the Animal Procedures Committee; and what discussions took place on licences. [85599]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I last met members of the Committee when I attended its meeting on 9 December 1998. I also met their Chairman, Professor Michael Banner, on 10 November. I had very worthwhile discussions on both occasions, although these did not specifically touch on the issue of licences, or on particular applications for licences, under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986.

  The Government greatly value the Committee's advice.
  I keep in touch with the Committee on a regular basis and expect to meet members again soon.

  Metropolitan Police Force (Ethnic Minorities)
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to enhance the recruitment, retention and promotion of Black and Asian police officers in the Metropolitan police force. [85600]
  58
  Kate Hoey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to a Question from the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) on 26 April 1999,Official Report, column 69.

  Sex Offences Review
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to conclude his review of sex offences. [85602]

  Mr. Boateng
  The review of sex offences is aiming to produce recommendations at the end of the year.

  Dangerous Driving Deaths
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the law relating to the causing of death by dangerous driving. [85603]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government have no current plans to review the law relating to causing death by dangerous driving. We believe that the courts have adequate powers to punish those who are convicted of this offence.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review his policy on charging individuals for checks made by the Criminal Records Bureau. [85566]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no plans to review the policy. We considered very carefully whether it would be possible for the Criminal Records Bureau to provide free checks for volunteers but concluded that this would be unfair to other deserving groups such as school leavers, the unemployed and disabled people seeking work, for whom the level of fees payable would be increased as a result of the need for the Bureau's income to meet its costs.

  Scottish Prisoners (Deportation Orders)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons awaiting deportation in 1998 were detained in Scottish prisons; and what was the average length of such detentions. [85567]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The average number of people detained at any one time in Scottish prisons solely under Immigration Act powers last year was in the range of 20 to 25. Consolidated records are not kept, neither do our records distinguish between detainees who are liable to deportation and those liable to removal as illegal entrants or having been refused entry at a port. This information, together with the average length of detention, could be established only by reference to each individual case record.

  Macpherson Report
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if all the persons within Government who had sight of the Macpherson report before its publication were required to account for their movements during the period within which a copy was shown to a journalist and whether any checks were made of their account. [86115]
  59
  Mr. Straw
  The conduct of the inquiry into the leaking of parts of the Macpherson report was a matter for the independent investigator. Establishing who would have been in a position to leak the material is an integral part of investigations of this kind.

  Home Detention Curfews
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answers of 27 April 1999,Official Report, column 110, 18 May 1999, Official Report, column 295 and 26 May 1999, Official Report, column 149, on home detention curfews, what powers he has to revoke the licences of the 14 curfewees who were charged with an offence during the period of curfew and who remained on home detention curfew. [86058]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Secretary of State's powers to revoke the licence of any person subject to home detention curfew are set out in section 38A(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991, which provides that:"If it appears to the Secretary of State, as regards a person released on licence under section 34A(3) above—

  (a) that he has failed to comply with the curfew condition;

  (b) that his whereabouts can no longer be electronically monitored at the place for the time being specified in that condition; or

  (c) that it is necessary to do so in order to protect the public from serious harm from him,
  the Secretary of State may, if the curfew condition is still in force, revoke the licence and recall the person to prison."

  In addition, on 1 January 1999, the Government implemented section 103 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. This means that a curfewee whose original offence was committed on or after 1 January 1999 and who is charged with a new offence committed during the home detention curfew period will be liable to have his licence revoked by the Secretary of State under section 39 of the Criminal Justice Act 1991.

  The 14 curfewees referred to in the question are not liable to have their licences revoked by the Secretary of State under section 39 of the 1991 Act, as their original offences were committed prior to 1 January 1999, and there are no grounds for recall under section 38A(1) of the 1991 Act. However, breaches of licence conditions not covered by these provisions may be dealt with by the courts under section 38 of the 1991 Act and may result in a fine and/or recall to prison.

  Inside Out Charity
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the work of the Inside Out charity in prisons. [86203]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Inside Out Trust has been involved in the provision of work to prisons since 1994. All the work is charity based. Activities include Braille transcribing, repair of wheelchairs and artificial limbs, sewing and a wide range of arts and crafts work. The Trust supplies materials and arranges for transport of goods to and from prisons. The Prison Service supplies staff, accommodation and equipment.

  The Trust has also set up a Charity link scheme, which has been operating since 1996, which aims to link each prison with organisations which can make the best use of the facilities prisons offer, such as making badges for flag days or re-labelling collection boxes.
  60
  Prisoners, particularly those involved in bookbinding and Braille transcribing, are also given the opportunity to qualify for proficiency exams.

  The Trust makes a valuable contribution to work for prisoners who might otherwise be unoccupied. Prisoners are enabled to help other disadvantaged groups through work for charities including Oxfam, Barnardos, the Royal National Institute for the Blind and Victim Support.

  Judicial and Police Co-operation
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what documents have been published relating to the activities, financing and powers of Europol; what agreements need to be made prior to the commencement of operations of mixed national police teams, under its supervision within national states; and if he will state the name of the replacement committee concerning all matters of police and judicial co-operation in Title VI of the Treaty on European Union, the frequency of planned meetings and the nature and number of the representatives of the European Commission on that committee. [86226]

  Kate Hoey
  Europol produces an annual report that outlines the activities undertaken during the reporting period and includes a section on finance. A copy of the report for 1998 will be placed in both Libraries of the House shortly. A copy will also be sent to the European Parliament. The powers of Europol are outlined in the Europol Convention.

  The principal role of Europol will be to support competent authorities of member states in their action against crime. Any decision to set up "mixed national police teams" would be for the member state principally concerned.

  The senior level official committee concerned with Justice and Home Affairs issues has no formal title, but is known informally as the "Article 36 Committee". The Presidency of the day will decide how frequently it should meet. It has met once since the Treaty of Amsterdam came into effect and eight meetings are currently planned under the Finnish Presidency. The European Commission is represented at official level on the Committee; the nature and number of their representatives are matters for the Commission.

  Crimes of Violence (Armed Forces)
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the number of former members of the armed forces in Her Majesty's prisons and into the possibility of a relationship between crimes of violence and active service; and if he will make a statement. [85663]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information requested is not available. There has been no research into the number of prisoners who have served in the armed forces and the possibility of a relationship between crimes of violence and active service.

  Prisoner N18072
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when prisoner N18072 will be
  61
  subject to parole review; how long he has been custody; when he was reduced to category C status; when F75 reports were completed on him; if the Director General has responded to the request for information on the prisoner from the Chief Inspector; if the report writers at HMP Kingston recommend open conditions; and how many letters from the Worthing outside probation officer to his Department are unanswered. [86353]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Prisoner number N18072 is due to have a Parole Board review in October 2000. He has been in custody since 13 October 1983 and was convicted of murder on 28 January 1985. He was reduced to category C status on 12 April 1996 and his most recent F75 reports were completed in December 1996. None of the report writers at Kingston prison recommended a move to open conditions.

  The Director General of the Prison Service wrote to the prisoner on 30 May 1999 in response to a request for information from Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons.

  The Prison Service lifer management and lifer review units have no indication that any letters from the Worthing outside probation officer remain unanswered, nor is Kingston prison aware of any such letters.

  Firearms (Amendment) Acts
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the procedures adopted by the police in dealing with handguns and ancillary equipment handed in under the Firearms (Amendment) Acts; and what proportion of the equipment is(a) destroyed and (b) resold. [86452]

  Mr. Boateng
  It is a matter for individual chief officers of police to decide on the procedures necessary to deal with surrendered handguns, ammunition and ancillary equipment taking account of operational factors and local circumstances. Information on the procedures adopted by individual police forces was not collated centrally.

  Surrendered equipment which qualifies for compensation is destroyed by the police when the associated compensation claims are resolved. No equipment is resold. Any items of equipment surrendered to the police but subsequently found not to qualify for compensation may be returned to their owners.

  Fire Safety
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a bill to modernise fire safety provision; and if he will make a statement. [86387]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham), on 17 May 1999,Official Report, column 264. We intend to bring forward general legislation to consolidate and rationalise fire safety law along the lines proposed in our consultation document "Fire Safety Legislation for the Future", when Parliamentary time permits.

  National Coroner Service
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a national coroner service; and if he will make a statement. [86386]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The coroner service is at present provided for the community by the relevant local authority. We have no plans to put the service on a national basis for England and Wales.

  Managerial Suspensions
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers of chief constable rank and their deputies are currently suspended on full pay; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of such officers. [86879]

  Mr. Boateng
  There are currently two deputies who are suspended on full pay which is 2.2 per cent. of the total of 92 chief constables and deputies, including the Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Service and the City of London Police and the Assistant Commissioners and the Deputy Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police Service.

  High Security Hospitals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convicted offenders were transferred from prison to high security hospitals in the last(a) six months and (b) three months of their sentences in each of the past five years. [86432]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The available relevant information has been extracted from centrally held statistics and relates to the number of convicted prisoners who were transferred in the years 1995, 1996 and 1997.

  Convicted offenders recorded as being transferred from Prison Service establishments to high security1 hospitals as restricted patients, by period before release date

  1995

  1996

  1997

  Within 3 months of release date

  1

  8

  8

  Within 6 months of release date

  4

  11

  8

  Determinate sentence with date of release not recorded

  0

  2

  2

  Total transferred from Prison to high security1 hospitals

  47

  55

  34

  1Ashworth, Broadmoor and Rampton

  The figures relate to transfers, by order of the Secretary of State, of prisoners serving a sentence in a Prison Service Establishment made under sections 47 and 49 of the Mental Health Act 1983. The imposition of a restriction under section 49 has the effect of requiring the Secretary of State's consent on all matters relating to leave of absence, transfer or discharge.

  Soar, Devon (Sale)
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will invite bids for the redundant building and land formerly the Home Office Regional Government Headquarters at Soar, Malborough, Kingsbridge, Devon; and if he will make a statement as to the timetable for such a sale. [86430]
  63
  Mr. George Howarth
  We have instructed our agents to arrange for the early sale of this land and building by tender on the open market. Our current expectation is that the sale will be completed by the end of September. This timetable is subject to the resolution of some outstanding issues with the owners of adjourning land.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Universities (Suspensions)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many vice-chancellors and their deputies in British universities are currently suspended on full pay; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of such persons. [86876]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department does not hold this information. However, we have made inquiries and understand that no vice-chancellors or their deputies are currently suspended.

  Further Education Colleges (Suspensions)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many chief executives and their deputies in further education colleges are currently suspended on full pay; and what this figure is as a percentage of the total number of such persons. [86877]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Department does not keep this information. However, we have made inquiries and understand that one chief executive and no deputies of the 435 further education colleges in England are suspended currently.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will investigate the impact on school budgets in Worcestershire of the proposed increase in water charges. [86871]
  64
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Under schedule three of the Financing of Maintained Schools Regulations 1999, local education authorities (LEAs) are free to determine factors—based on either actual or estimated costs—for the delegation of funds to schools for charges for water and sewage via budget shares. It is therefore a matter for Worcestershire LEA to devise such factors within its formula.

  School Transport
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he proposes to take to ensure that the rate support grant for rural local education authorities takes into account the cost of home to school transport with particular reference to Cornwall. [86680]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The sparsity factor in the Standard Spending Assessment methodology delivers more funding to local education authorities in rural areas such as Cornwall, to help meet the extra costs of home to school transport. The Government will be reviewing the details of the formula over the next few years.

  Standards Fund
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he intends to take to prevent adverse effects on core school budgets as a result of pressure on local education authorities to find the matching funding necessary for the Standards Fund. [86681]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The requirement for Local Education Authorities to contribute to the Standards Fund was allowed for in the 5.7 per cent. increase in the Education Standard Spending Assessment for 1999–2000 announced in December. Cornwall County Council's own Education Standard Spending Assessment increased by 6.2 per cent. Local Education Authorities have accepted over 99 per cent. of the Standards Fund allocations offered to them, with Cornwall accepting 100 per cent. Around two-thirds of the Standards Fund must be devolved to school level, contributing to the funds available to schools.

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

Young Offenders
Lord Hurd of Westwell Lord Hurd of Westwell asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made in involving the family in planning the sentencing of young offenders.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn):My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring that the families of young offenders take responsibility for their behaviour. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 introduced the parenting order, which is currently being piloted. For young offenders, this Session's Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill introduces the referral order. That will involve them and their families attending a youth offender panel to work together to devise a programme to prevent further offending behaviour.
Lord Hurd of Westwell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he confirm that experience so far indicates that it is useful to involve the family in plans for the nature of custody of a young offender and in the plans for his release, given that they have to "pick up the pieces" afterwards? I have two specific questions. Are the Government thinking of moving that same principle up the age scale to include
2
young adult offenders? On a smaller, practical point, has the Minister resolved the question of who should pay for transport to and from prison for that purpose?
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords. I unreservedly endorse the noble Lord's first proposition. All informed research—and I pay tribute to the Prison Reform Trust, of which he is the distinguished patron—indicates that the road to criminal behaviour starts at a very early age for most delinquent offenders, and that the sooner we assist them, the better. I wish to keep an open mind on taking the scale up in terms of age. We are presently doing a degree of work in that connection with welfare-to-work schemes in prison for 18 to 25 year-olds. That can involve family contact. In respect of paying for transport to and from prison, in the context of the Crime and Disorder Act and youth offender panels, such expenditure would not be covered. There are schemes for assisting family visits to prisons. They are reasonably well publicised, not least by the Prison Reform Trust.
Lord Janner of Braunstone:My Lords, I thank my noble friend for the steps that the Government are taking on this matter. Does he accept that young offenders' institutions really amount to prison for children and young people? Does he agree that it is better, where possible, for young people to be dealt with and, where necessary, to make recompense for their offences, outside institutions? Should not the community accept responsibility wherever possible?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I accept that if at all possible, especially in the case of young offenders, one seeks restorative justice whereby first-time offenders in particular have to make restoration to the victim, achieve reintegration into the community and, fundamentally, take responsibility for the consequences of their own behaviour. Unfortunately, it will be necessary for some to be trained in closed circumstances. Huntercombe young offenders' institution, for example, is doing remarkable pioneering work—and with the assistance of generous donations

3
from firms in the private sector such as Nissan and Kwikfit. Good work is being done; however, I agree that, if at all possible, we should seek to nip offending in the bud at an earlier stage.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, is the Minister aware of research in the United States indicating that prisoners without family support are twice as likely, or even six times more likely, to offend than those who have family support? Is that not also the case with juvenile offenders? Most young offenders who come before the courts in this country are from broken families. Will the Government ensure that the central part of the new juvenile regimes that have been established will provide for the thorough involvement of the family?
Lord Williams of Mostyn:My Lords, I am happy to agree with the theme identified by the noble Lord. The indicators for crime are known. They are: poor or broken family circumstances; families which have themselves been engaged in criminal activities; lack of work; and alcohol and drug abuse. It is important to view these matters on a wide spectrum. The work that my right honourable friend Mr Blunkett is doing in the education context is also of fundamental importance. Both the measures to which I referred—the 1998 Act and the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill—put into effect the themes identified by the noble Lord.
Lord Elton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the experience of restorative justice schemes, such as that run by the Thames Valley police force, reveals that the involvement of the family in identifying the criminality and the wrongness of the deeds of the young creates a framework in which they are better able to avoid criminality in the future? Would the incorporation of that process in sentencing for "custodiable" offences reduce the number of sentences taking a custodial form, thus reducing the probability of future offending by those young people?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I absolutely agree. I believe that the work done on the Thames Valley pilot scheme is first rate. It is based on the principles of restorative justice of which I spoke a moment or two ago. We believe that these measures assist families, some of whom have neither inner resources nor outward help. I believe that they are key to the problems with which we are wrestling; namely, the reduction of crime particularly among young offenders.
Lord Laming: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the facilities for family visiting at some young offenders' institutions are less than adequate? Can the Minister say whether the criticisms made by the inspectorate are now being addressed?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, in my experience, provision for family visits is patchy and variable. That should not be tolerated. The work that the chief inspector does is extremely helpful in pointing out
4
deficiencies. But I stress, as I did with regard to Huntercombe a few moments ago, that some of the work being done is extremely effective and encouraging.

Schizophrenia: Treatment
2.44 p.m.
Lord Williamson of Horton Lord Williamson of Horton asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, since some of the new and effective medicines for the treatment of schizophrenia, the atypical anti-psychotic drugs, are not being made available by some health authorities due to funding difficulties, they will seek to ensure that this situation is corrected as soon as possible.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman):My Lords, we have commissioned guidance to enable mental health professionals to provide the most effective treatment for people with schizophrenia. As part of the new money that we are making available for mental health in 1999–2000, we have allocated an extra £2.5 million for the new anti-psychotic medications.
Lord Williamson of Horton:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and action. A recent survey shows that rationing of these medicines is widespread. Does the Minister agree that greater account should now be taken of the long-term savings through fewer hospital admissions because of these drugs?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that the cost-effectiveness of treatment should be looked at in the round rather than simply comparing the cost of one drug as against another. That is why we have commissioned the British Psychological Society and the Royal College of Psychiatrists to produce guidelines, which will be published later this year, on effective treatment for schizophrenia that cover both drug and non-drug treatment. I hope that that will be one of the driving forces to challenge unacceptable variations in access to care.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Department of Health's recent paper Safer Services on homicides and suicides by those with mental illness made clear how important was the availability of so-called atypical drugs to ensure compliance. Can the Minister say specifically what action the department is taking in that respect?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the major new report on suicide and homicide by psychiatric patients is very important and highlights changes that could improve the safety of mental health care. There is often a perception that suicide and homicide by people with mental illness cannot be either predicted or prevented. I believe that the report of Professor Appleby in particular shows that there are lessons to learn and steps to be taken to help reduce those tragic incidents. I hope that the national

5
service framework for mental health will allow us to ensure that everyone is working on accredited guidelines and understands the effective treatments in this area.
Lord Skelmersdale:My Lords, that leads me very nicely to my question. Will the late lamented CHIMP, now re-christened CHIM (the Commission for Health Improvement)—because "CHIMP" sounded a bit silly—be studying schizophrenia treatments of this kind, and will the Government encourage them?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, the role of the commission will be to monitor the performance of health service providers in providing high quality care. One of the matters that it will look at is the guidelines that are being implemented and the adherence to accredited advice. One role for the commission is to look at the national service framework and to monitor, through clinical governance and inspections, how that is being implemented. There is also a role for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence in looking in particular at the cost-effectiveness and clinical effectiveness of the new treatments as they come on stream.
Lord Thurlow:My Lords, while I warmly welcome what the Minister has said about the prospect of a new national framework for guidance, which I believe can make an enormous difference, is she aware that 91 per cent of psychiatrists would like to prescribe the new atypical drugs but are virtually rationed, and that to treat all new patients with them would increase the total bill for mental health medication by only 1 per cent?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, I am aware of considerable support among the mental health professional community, although we should not regard this as a panacea. The new anti-psychotics are very effective in some patients but not necessarily more effective than standard treatment nor are they necessarily without side effects compared with present treatments. I return to the evidence base on which funding decisions should be taken. That is why we believe that the guidelines, which we hope will be published later this year, will be very important in ensuring that we all work from a common set of data.
Lord McNair:My Lords, is not one of the lessons to be learned that the side effects of the drugs prescribed are a major cause of the problem to which the report refers? Does the Minister accept that there is a growing interest among users of mental health services in alternative and complementary methods of treating mental illness symptoms, in particular as regards nutrition? Does she agree that that may provide the opportunity for the cost savings which the questioner seeks?
Perhaps I may recommend that the Minister reads the article, Complementary therapies, in the 10th June issue of Mental Health Care, Volume 2.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion; I shall look at the article.
6
The noble Lord is right to highlight that we cannot consider individual issues in totally self-contained compartments. The noble Lord, Lord Williamson, made that point. A range of treatments may be effective. That is why we specifically asked for the guidelines to consider non-drug as well as drug treatments
Earl Howe:My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that when the range of anti-psychotic treatments is examined by the national institute for clinical excellence the issue of affordability of newer types of drugs, as distinct from their clinical or cost effectiveness, will play no part whatever in its deliberations?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, we have not yet announced the programme of work for the national institute for clinical excellence. I should not like to pre-empt that. We have stated clearly that that organisation will look to provide advice based on the issues of cost effectiveness and clinical effectiveness.

Dental Clinics: Standards
2.51 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What authority will be responsible for the maintenance of standards of dental treatment provided for patients in the mixed private and National Health Service dental clinics now opening in large retail premises and whether controls and consumer rights will differ between the NHS treatments and those provided privately.
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, large retail premises are no different from any other mixed dental practice. The General Dental Council is responsible for both the professional conduct and fitness to practise of all dentists in the United Kingdom. Additionally, health authorities and the Dental Reference Service of the Dental Practice Board are responsible for the maintenance of standards of treatment for consumers within NHS dentistry.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes:My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. As an elected member of the General Dental Council I discovered that its responsibility is to issue the educational curriculum and to pick up problems which have reached an impossible point, perhaps then having to take someone off the dental register. Does the Minister believe that there is a great gap between those two areas? Does she agree that an independent assessment system should be available—either run privately or provided by the Government at a cost? Many individuals now have private dentistry treatment either because they cannot obtain such treatment under the National Health Service or because they choose to do so. They should have some

7
means of being assessed independently. Few patients have any idea technically whether they are being treated well, badly or indifferently.
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, the noble Baroness pinpoints an important issue. As are several other regulatory bodies, the General Dental Council is concerned that its powers and abilities are not as wide or sensitive as it would wish. It has proposed a number of amendments to the Dentists Act, including proposals for a private complaints procedure, which I think would be helpful, and a performance review scheme. That could be achieved through the order-making power to strengthen professional self-regulation in the Health Bill, which returns to your Lordships' House this week. There are opportunities for improvement there.
We shall shortly issue a consultation document on regulating private and voluntary healthcare. We shall seek views on whether the current exemptions from regulatory arrangements, including exemption for premises primarily used by dentists for treatment, should continue. I think that there are opportunities for improvement in this area.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the Minister aware that the issue is being overshadowed by the fact that the dental service is rapidly becoming a two-tier service under the present national health arrangements? Some attention will have to be given to that fact. Hard choices are now having to be made by people who can least afford to make them.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is right to point out that we inherited a situation which was the result of the promises of the former government, who did not invest in dentistry and allowed the rundown of dental services. That led to the inequalities and difficulties which are highlighted in some parts of the country. We have taken positive and successful action to tackle some of the worst areas by investing in dentistry and through personal dental services pilots. Twenty-four new pilots were announced as part of the Government's vision of a more flexible, accessible and convenient health service.
However, there is a great deal to do here. It would be wrong to suggest that we can put the matter right overnight. I hope that the strategy which we shall publish later this year will take us further along that road.
Lord Clement-Jones:My Lords, the Minister referred to drop-in centres that were announced recently. The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred to retail developments. Are not these taking place in somewhat of a vacuum? The Minister referred to the strategy document being published later this year. The original intention to have a strategy was referred to in April 1998. Is it not high time that the strategy paper was published—and very soon?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that we shall publish it before too long. But the most important aspect
8
is to get the strategy right. We need to ensure that that strategy reduces inequalities in oral health status, improves access to NHS dental services, builds on the success of investing in dentistry and personal dental services, guarantees high quality services, and ensures that all members of the dental team can make the fullest contribution to improving services for patients. The major job is to get the strategy right, if we are to cover all those areas effectively. As I have said, I hope that the document will be published later this year.
Lord Rix:My Lords, is the Minister aware that according to the Office for National Statistics survey of 1997, 96 per cent of all non-disabled children attended for an annual oral check while only 72 per cent of children with a learning disability did likewise? Similar figures apply to adults with and without learning disability. What safeguards and standards are being set for the new-style clinics in regard to the reception, treatment and encouragement to attend of people with a learning disability, both adults and children?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, the noble Lord highlights that in our strategy we need to make sure that we reduce some of the inequalities in oral health status which apply to different groups in the population, including the learning disabled, and in different areas of the country. We have to look overall at access to dental services from different groups which have particular difficulty. Community dental services in some parts have done good work in that field. I shall make sure that the points the noble Lord raises today are taken into account in consideration of the issue.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes:My Lords, does the Minister agree that, welcome though a complaints procedure may be—I am sure that it would be widely welcomed in consumer quarters—it is important that anyone involved in such proceedings should be expert but completely independent so that the advice he or she gives would give the additional help implied; and that, above all, the procedures should be easily available to those who may have to use them?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, the noble Baroness is right. The procedures should be transparent and independent.
Earl Howe:My Lords, regardless of the position that the Government state they inherited, is the Minister aware that the number of adults registered with a dentist in the UK was 22.3 million in December 1997? However, the figure had fallen to 19.7 million by December 1998, a reduction of 2.5 million? What are the Government doing to make NHS dentistry more available to the many people who are unable to find an NHS dentist?
Baroness Hayman:My Lords, my noble friend suggests I say that we should not and would not have started from here. The problem created by the withdrawal from NHS dentistry will take time to turn around. However, we have received 282 bids for

9
funding from investment in dentistry, which have been approved to the value of more than £8 million. That will enable more than 650,000 new patients to receive NHS care. However, some areas of the country have been complete deserts for NHS dentistry for some time and it will take some time to build them up and stop that being the case.

Military Intervention: Justification
3 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, in the light of the conflict in Kosovo, it is appropriate to intervene in countries where governments are acting violently against sections of the population by methods which themselves cause injury and death and destroy the means of urban life and communication.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean):My Lords, NATO military action against the FRY was justifiable as an exceptional measure on the grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. It was never part of NATO's agenda to attack civilian targets, nor to wear down the civilian population.
Lord Jenkins of Putney:My Lords, does my noble friend remember the saying of Archbishop Tutu: "If we can get rid of apartheid we can also get rid of war"? Is it not time, in this age of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear and otherwise, to decide that war has become too dangerous to start and that all disputes with nations and within nations must be settled by other means?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I am sure that everyone in the House wishes that it had not been necessary to take the military action that we had to take. But we have to remember that our quarrel was not with the people of Serbia, not with those who have suffered inadvertently in this terrible military action, but with the barbaric policies of President Milosevic. I repeat to the noble Lord that it has never been part of our objective to attack civilians. All our attacks were limited to military objectives as defined under international humanitarian law.
I reiterate to the noble Lord, as I have done previously in your Lordships' House, that of course we regret civilian casualties and we have made every effort to avoid them.
The Earl of Lauderdale:My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether the Security Council has yet passed the resolution which will legitimise our performance and make an honest woman of us all?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I am sorry, but I did not catch the end of the noble Earl's question. The Security Council has certainly passed a resolution, but he asked me something specific about it.
The Earl of Lauderdale:My Lords, we understood from a Statement made last week that the Security
10
Council resolution to be passed would embrace us all and give an overdue legitimacy to our action and—as I put it in a simple phrase—make an honest woman of us all.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I do not believe that we needed a Security Council resolution to make an honest woman of us all. as the noble Earl puts it. But he is right in saying that a Security Council resolution was passed last week. There was one abstention from China. We are all delighted that we were able to reach that degree of unanimity, albeit without China, on the Security Council.
Lord Richard:My Lords, in my view, the Government deserve great credit for their actions in Kosovo in the past few weeks, as do our Armed Forces. It is right that that should be put on record. However, my noble friend in answering spoke of the doctrine of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. Will she recognise that if that doctrine is in international law, it has a serious effect on Article 2(7) of the Charter of the United Nations which states that no activity within the borders of an individual state shall be challengable by outside intervention.
I do not seek to argue whether it is right or wrong, but if we are moving into a time when overwhelming humanitarian necessity is a justification for outside intervention, will my noble friend recognise that it has to be done gradually and by agreement? Will Her Majesty's Government therefore take the initiative in, the United Nations to ensure that the doctrine of humanitarian necessity is properly discussed by the international community?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I believe that on a number of occasion:4 in your Lordships' House we have addressed the evolving nature of the legal basis of such action. I stress to my noble friend that every means short of force was taken to avert the situation. Your Lordships will remember the number of times we discussed the matter in June and October last year, when the Rambouillet talks were taking place. So this matter has not come out of the blue; it is something we have had to face up to. We were not alone in our judgment of the legality of what we were doing; 19 allies of NATO took the same view. We do not believe that we in any way offended against the Geneva Convention. We have also discussed that in your Lordships' House. However, I agree with my noble friend that these issues must be discussed openly and we have made a useful beginning in doing that in passing the UNSCR last week.
Lord Wright of Richmond:My Lords, while fully endorsing the congratulations to the Government and the Armed Forces on their role in Kosovo, and the role of our NATO allies, is the Minister aware that public opinion in some NATO countries has still swallowed Serb propaganda; that the suffering of the Kosovars is the result of NATO's intervention? Can she say what

11
the Government are able to do to correct that impression in other NATO countries and perhaps to some extent in this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean:My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Wright, for his kind words about the Government and the military. I am sure your Lordships will wish to join in his comment about the Armed Forces. I stress that we are not there yet; there is still much to do in Kosovo. The noble Lord said that there is a job to be done in a number of different NATO countries. It is remarkable that we have gone through this period of military action, 19 countries together, with all those countries holding together. We all know that there are differences; we all live in democracies and have a free press. People are entitled to say what they like about what happens, which is different from the case in Kosovo.
However, I suspect that as we go into Kosovo during the next few days we shall see not only more evidence of the dreadful atrocities which took place but shall learn more about what took place. I believe that everything we said about the displacement of people last year, about the 2,000 deaths of innocent Kosovars which took place before the bombing began, will come into focus and people will see that the bombing was a reaction to that and not the cause of it.

Business
Lord Carter:My Lords, at a convenient moment after 4.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement being made in another place on Kosovo.

Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
Read a third time.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg):My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Hacking:My Lords, perhaps I may intervene briefly before the Bill passes from this House. In doing so, I renew my congratulations to my noble and learned friend not only on bringing forward this important law reform, which has been in the wings for more than 100 years, but also on guiding it through your Lordships' House. I hope that the noble and learned Lord can hear what I am saying because a number of noble Lords are now leaving the Chamber and it is a little noisy.
I repeat to my noble and learned friend that this is a good Bill and a good measure to have brought forward. However, I have continued concerns that both the legal
12
profession and the judiciary will have difficulty in construing the Bill, particularly the terms under which a third party takes its benefit.
Perhaps I may briefly remind your Lordships of Clause 1(4) which reads:
"This section does not confer a right on a third party to enforce a term of a contract otherwise than subject to and in accordance with any other relevant terms of the contract".
That will not be difficult for the legal profession and the judiciary if the promisor and the promisee in the contract spell out in detail the terms under which the third party is to take its benefit. It may be that there will be difficulties if, in the contract, the promisor and promisee agree that not only disputes between themselves should be adjudicated by arbitration but also those between themselves and the third party should be adjudicated by arbitration. Here again my noble and learned friend has come to the rescue. He tabled an amendment in response to representations that I made that a third party will be able to use the arbitration clause in a dispute if it so wishes.
However, in other circumstances, when the promisor and the promisee do not set out in the contract the terms under which the third party is to take the benefit, the difficulty will be how and under what terms the third party receives its benefit. I had a solution which I proffered in the form of tabled amendments on Report; but, my noble and learned friend thought that I was going too far. I certainly received no support from any quarter in the House and I had the noble Lord, Lord Renton against me. That was a little disappointing as I have been his apostle on law reform for years and I thought that I was being his apostle in tabling those amendments.
My solution was that unless the contrary was expressed in the contract, the third party should take his benefit under the same terms as existed between the promisor and the promisee in the contract. As I indicated just now, my amendment was rejected. My noble and learned friend felt that I was taking the matter too far and that the amendment would infringe the freedom of contract.
I therefore ask my noble and learned friend if he could give assistance. He has already kindly indicated that he will look afresh at the Explanatory Notes to the Bill and see if they can be expanded. At the moment, as my noble and learned friend knows, they are somewhat bald in the assistance that they give to Clause 1(4). They read as follows:
"Subsection (4) clarifies subsection (1). The teen being enforced should not be construed in isolation from the rest of the contract".
That is somewhat bald. I should be grateful if my noble and learned friend could think of ways in which the Explanatory Notes could be expanded. I am perfectly well aware that concerns have been expressed about the use of explanatory notes. If, for example, an explanatory note was contrary to the terms of a Bill, now a statute, or went further than just giving guiding notes, of course it should have no influence on the courts. However, I believe here it would be of great value in giving guidance to the judiciary, and to the legal profession who are asked to construe these measures, if the

13
guidelines in the Explanatory Notes could be further developed. I should be grateful to have some assistance oil that from my noble and learned friend.
As the Bill now leaves your Lordships' House, perhaps I may ask my noble and learned friend what further plans he has to bring forward other Bills based on Law Commission reports. As he will recall, one of his noble and illustrious predecessors, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, set up the Law Commission. If I remember rightly, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Scarman, was its first chairman. The Law Commission has produced a number of reports over the years. However, the number which have been neglected and have not found their way into statutory reform is disappointing. I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, expressed that view. My noble and learned friend indicated that he wishes to bring forward more measures based on the recommendations of the Law Commission. I should be grateful, therefore, if he could give some further indication of his plans in that respect.
Finally, perhaps I may personally thank the noble and learned Lord for accepting so many of the amendments that I have tabled. I have never had so many amendments accepted by any government minister, let alone by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I am flattered and extremely grateful to him. I wish the Bill all good speed through the other place and congratulate my noble and learned friend on bringing it forward.
3.15 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor:My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, for his supportive observations and for his contribution during the passage of the Bill, upon which he has just remarked. That certainly led to some important improvements. I should also like to thank other noble Lords who participated in the proceedings, including the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilberforce, the noble Lords, Lord Meston and Lord Renton, and my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon.
Perhaps I was unwise to concede so much to the noble Lord, Lord Hacking, because, as a result, I appear not to have satisfied him entirely and perhaps to have whetted his appetite. However, I am grateful for his appreciation for what I agreed to.
The reform effected by the Bill has been widely welcomed. I should take the opportunity to express my gratitude to the Law Commission for the excellence of the report on which the Bill is based. I am grateful to Professor Burrows for his continued assistance during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. It is primarily thanks to the Law Commission and to your Lordships that this valuable and well-polished piece of law reform is able to begin its journey to another place.
The noble Lord, Lord Hacking, raised a particular point about the benefits conferred on third parties which third parties will be able to enforce when the Bill passes into law. The principle of the Bill is that third parties have the right to enforce the benefits, to which otherwise
14
they would not be entitled, which the parties to the contract have agreed they should receive. So, the extent of the benefit will depend upon the terms of the contract and, as ever, that will be a matter for the courts, as a court of construction, to determine.
My noble friend asked questions about Law Commission reports generally. First, I believe that we are doing rather well this Session. Two Bills from the Law Commission are going through; that is, this Bill and the Trustee Delegation Bill. No one is more supportive than I am in endeavouring to get upon the statute book as quickly as possible Law Commission reports and draft Bills which are plainly beneficial and uncontroversial. However, it is very often asserted of Law Commission reports that they are not controversial when your Lordships' House disagrees Typical areas in which the Law Commission has been very busy in times past and no doubt will be busy in the future, are family law, divorce law and the criminal law Quite frankly it can be asserted as often as those who support the proposition choose that what they propose is uncontroversial. Your Lordships will not find it uncontroversial; your Lordships will. find it highly controversial and such legislation has to take its place in the competition for scarce parliamentary time.
However, I am endeavouring to take certain initiatives and the Law Commission's recent practice of producing a policy paper in advance of the final report is greatly welcomed because it enables the Government better to plan ahead. I am also seeking to give a new priority to establish, through discussion between government departments, priorities in relation to areas in which Law Commission work could more usefully be focused; in particular, areas where the Government would be likely to desire to legislate.
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Greater London Authority Hill
3.20 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty):My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [The Authority]:
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("or imposed")
The noble Baroness said I should perhaps apologise to the Committee for the fact that such a substantial Bill has attracted as its first amendment something that is not a bang and is barely even a whimper. The bangs, I am sure, will come later.
Amendment No.1 seeks to leave out of Clause 1(3) the term "imposed"—it is a term used in a number of places in the Bill—and to leave Clause 1(3) providing that,
"The Authority shall have the functions which are transferred to, or conferred",
on it, but not those which are "imposed" on it. The amendment seeks to do no more than understand whether the term "imposed" imports some other meaning than transferred or conferred. I suspect that it may be to do with responsibilities as distinct from powers, but the implication of the term "imposed" suggests that functions may be laid upon the authority against its will. I simply seek to understand what the Government mean by the term. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty:The noble Baroness stole my line about "bangs" and "whimpers" which we shall no doubt experience as the Bill progresses. There is nothing sinister about the wording. The term "imposed" is quite frequently used in legislation. It reflects the fact that the word "functions" includes powers and duties. It is common as a matter of drafting to refer to "conferring" powers and "imposing" duties. For example, the same wording was used without any great controversy in the Government of Wales Act in respect of the functions of the National Assembly for Wales. In short, it means that the Assembly will have the functions that Parliament decides from time to time that it should have.
I understand the noble Baroness's anxiety that governments should consult. No doubt this consultative and inclusive government will always consult on such matters. Nevertheless, at the end of the day, for this and for future governments, it is a matter for Parliament what duties shall be undertaken by local authorities, including the Greater London Authority. How those duties are imposed will therefore reflect the intentions of the government and Parliament at the time, but no doubt from time to time Parliament will impose duties as well as confer powers.
I hope the noble Baroness will not seek to press the matter further. There is adequate precedent for using the word "impose". I hope that she accepts that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes:I feel I must comment on the word "imposed". Legislation constantly imposes duties upon local authorities and now on regional authorities but never gives or guarantees the necessary funding to match the impositions. I feel that that point should be made.
Earl Russell:I understand the point the Minister makes. However, can the Government see their way to making it in less imposing language?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour:I did not speak on Second Reading but I am interested in this Bill and hope to join in debates from time to time. I felt that the
16
Minister replied in a very casual way. What would happen if the authority refused to have the power imposed?
Lord Whitty:I am not sure I can better the comment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Obviously my original intervention was not sufficiently imposing for the noble Baroness. I hope it was not casual. It is a matter of convention that the term "imposed" is used in relation to local authorities.
I accept in part the more general point that when we impose we should seek to ensure that we provide the resources to ensure that the duty is carried out. That is certainly this Government's intention with regard to the Greater London Authority. However, the word "imposed" is not inappropriate here. We use it in other areas of local government. In this devolution debate it is right that this Parliament should impose functions on local authorities and other assemblies within our devolved constitution.
The sanctions available if an authority refused to carry out the function would depend upon what function we were talking about. There are some sanctions in local authority legislation; there are others where the sanction is left to the electorate. It depends very much on how we draft the legislation. There are different powers within this Bill with regard to different functions. I am trying to resist the implication that the word "imposed" by definition is a draconian measure. It is not. It is one frequently used by the draftsman over the years.
Lord Avebury:I understood the Minister to tell the Committee that in all legislation it is usual to "confer" functions and "impose" duties. In this subsection there is no mention of duties. If we wish to impose something on a local authority, as we may well do, not just in this legislation but also in future legislation, should they not be duties and should not those duties be mentioned in the subsection as well as the functions?
Lord Whitty:This grammatical debate is taking some time. In my initial reply I said that "functions" subsumed both powers and duties, and that indeed is the case. The normal terminology therefore is to "confer" powers and to "impose" duties. In individual areas of this and other Bills, that is the terminology used.
Baroness Hamwee:My noble friend made the point I had in mind; that is, whether "functions" really does subsume powers and duties or responsibilities. When the Minister said he hoped I would not take the matter further, my noble friends, in a chorus, said, "Why not?". That was perhaps being a little mischievous. This may be an occasion—not to set a precedent for the rest of the Bill—when I can say that, although I shall read the Minister's answer, I do not believe I shall want to bring the matter back later. I thank him for his explanation and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 2.
Page 1, line 12, at end insert—
("(4) In this Act, the Greater London Authority shall be referred to as "the Authority.")
The noble Lord said: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, we are beginning this massive task with quite a small matter, but it is nonetheless important.
I must confess that on reading through the Bill, which consists of 328 pages, 330 clauses and 27 schedules, I found it occasionally difficult to remember what I had read before and the relationship between the individual parts. That may be inevitable, but the need for the amendment arose when I read Schedules 18 and 19, which relate exclusively to Clause 112.
Schedule 18 commences with the word "Interpretation" and gives various meanings in a list that fills nearly a page: it goes from a borough scheme to a charging area, to traffic signs and trunk roads. There is no mention of the authority.
On previous occasions when I have looked at legal documents I have always referred to the list of definitions. and everything that is required to be defined has been contained in that section. Therefore, I was surprised, having read the list in Schedule 18, to come across the words "the Authority". I had just read a page of definitions, but "the Authority" was not defined. The same situation applies in regard to Schedule 19.
The Bill is full of references to different authorities: all of the London boroughs are authorities; the Common Council of the City, the Police Authority, the London Fire and Emergency Planning Authority; and even Transport for London can be called an authority. I could not recall anywhere in the Bill where "the Authority" was defined as meaning the Greater London Authority.
My initial reaction was to put down one amendment to Schedule 18 and a separate one for Schedule 19; but I have to confess to the Committee that I could not remember with sufficient accuracy 'whether wherever the words "the Authority" were used in the Bill they were used exclusively and precisely to mean the Greater London Authority, and that they could not mean anything else wherever they had been used.
I invite the Minister to consider the matter and ask him to give me an assurance that wherever the words "the Authority" have been used, they mean the Greater London Authority and nothing else. That would make me a very happy man. If he is unable to give that assurance, perhaps he can accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee:I understand why the noble Lord has raised this point because it is often difficult to see whether definitions relate to part or all of the Bill, and it is a bit like a treasure hunt. I am not sure that it is for me to make the noble Lord very happy, but is he not satisfied with the definition contained in Clause 329 which applies to the whole of the Bill?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton:I am grateful to the noble Lord and even more grateful to the noble
18
Baroness, Lady Hamwee. I trust that the Committee will accept that the amendment is unnecessary in so far as noble Lords will be pleased to note, together with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that Clause 329 of the Bill is an interpretation clause which sets out the meaning of various terms. In common with normal legislative practice, there is a consolidated interpretation clause in which definitions are brought together. Clause 329(1) states:
"In this Act…'the Authority' means the Greater London Authority".
I hope that reference meets the concerns spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith:I am delighted to receive that assurance. The amendment arose out of what I regard as a logical necessity to put definitions at the beginning rather than the end so that one knows what ground one is standing on before one starts. That is why it slipped my memory. I apologise to the Committee and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Membership of the Authority and the Assembly]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No.3.
Page 1, line 15, after ("London;") insert—
("() the Deputy Mayor;")
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 3, 9, 10, 15, 17, 60, 61, 153, 64, 65 and 68 together. It is not such a formidable list because all of the amendments revolve around one key point; that the deputy mayor should be elected and not merely nominated by the mayor and plucked out of the ranks of the assemblymen. Other amendments are consequential on this amendment. Other amendments rectify the omission to refer to the deputy mayor in places where it would have been appropriate, unless it was the Government's intention that the duties of the deputy mayor were intended to be largely ornamental. I hasten to say that I do not believe that that is the case.
I shall deal first with the principal amendments in this group, which are Amendments Nos. 9, 10 and 15. If the deputy mayor is not just to be an ornament, standing in at an engagement when the mayor is double-booked, we propose that the deputy mayor should be directly elected by the citizens—or should I say the people of London—in the same way and at the same time as they elect the mayor.
All the arguments that the Labour Party used for the election of the mayor I believe apply equally to his or her deputy. Electing the deputy will give hint not only status but a greater degree of authority than he can expect if he is merely selected from among the assemblymen. Furthermore, if he were to be selected from among the assemblymen there would be a grave danger of a conflict of interest should the mayor and

19
assembly disagree, as they are bound to do at some point, even assuming that the mayor is of the same party as the majority in the assembly.
Since the mayor and the deputy will not be running on a single ticket, theoretically—although it is unlikely—the mayor and his deputy might not be of the same party, and this of course would make for exciting times in the authority.
For the first time in a statute there is a separation of powers between the executive, in the form of the mayor, and the legislature in the form of the assembly. The mayor is elected on his own manifesto and carries out his own policies. The assembly is there to scrutinise how he does this, and only to a limited extent to exercise a check in circumstances where it disagrees. That check and balance disappears when one of the legislature of 4 per cent—to be facetious—has a dual role as a member of the legislature and as a member of the executive—poacher and gamekeeper simultaneously. I do not understand why the Government are opting for the choice of a nominated deputy mayor. Perhaps they are drawing on an analogy with the Cabinet, which has a Deputy Prime Minister who has absolutely no constitutional status or duties save for those that the Prime Minister may temporarily and revocably hand to him. The members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, draw their authority from their manifesto and majority in the House of Commons. The authority of the mayor comes directly from having been elected as an individual. The Government's whole raison d'être for having a directly elected mayor is to secure his total independence. Yet here they are tying him into the assembly.
Clause 41(2) states:
"The Deputy Mayor shall have such functions as may be conferred or imposed upon him by or under this Act or any other enactment, whenever passed or made".
What are those functions? One such function is that the deputy mayor will be a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. He can have some of the mayor's functions which are delegated to him to if the mayor chooses. Those are defined in Clause 31. While he is performing those duties, how will he simultaneously find the time to perform his duties as an assembly man? Most important, he temporarily acts in place of the mayor if a vacancy occurs, but with extremely circumscribed powers. Those powers are so circumscribed that there may be a virtual hiatus in many of the functions of the mayor's duties until a replacement is elected. There is no provision in the Bill as to what is to happen if the mayor is incapacitated for a while.
If the deputy mayor is to perform some of the mayor's functions either because the mayor delegates them to him or because the mayor becomes incapacitated in some way, or perhaps because the Secretary of State gives them to him under some residual power or other, then the voters are entitled—I stress "entitled"—to know in advance who that deputy will be. Indeed, they should choose him for themselves.
With a properly elected deputy who has the authority which I have already mentioned of being elected by the voters, it would be natural for him to take over the office on a permanent basis in the event of a vacancy or during the mayor's long-term incapacity. In a way, that is just like the vice-president of the United States of America. It would also avoid the rigmarole and expense of a by-election if a vacancy occurred in the office of the mayor.
I acknowledge that if the main amendment is accepted, many amendments will be needed to other parts of the Bill. However, if that must be done to get right the status and functions of the deputy mayor, the extra effort will be a price worth paying. I certainly pledge my co-operation in working out what needs to be done.
I referred to the possible need for amendments to other parts of the Bill if the main amendment is accepted. I do not believe that the Government would complain about that, for the Bill has already grown from 267 clauses and 21 schedules when it was first introduced in the other place to the 330 clauses and 27 schedules which the Committee is now being asked to consider. Legislate in haste and amend at leisure.
That brings me to what I described as consequential amendments, although some stand on their own irrespective of whether the Committee accepts the principle of an elected deputy mayor. Amendment No. 38 makes it clear that the authority consists of the mayor, the deputy mayor and the assembly. Omitting a reference to the deputy mayor from the list is demeaning to the office of deputy mayor, even though the Government's plans were that he should merely be a nominee of the mayor, with very limited powers and duties. Perhaps that omission underlines the absence of status and, perhaps I may say, dignity to which I referred in my earlier remarks.
Whether or not he is directly elected, there is no justification for making him a virtual non-person in the definition of the authority. I hope that the Government will accept this amendment as being right and proper. Amendment No. 17 relating to the term of office of the deputy mayor and Amendments Nos. 60, 61, 63, 64 and 65 relating to the disqualification of persons from being deputy mayor are dependent on it being agreed by the Committee that he should be directly elected. Amendments Nos. 66 and 68 are also entirely dependent on an agreement to elect the deputy.
I hope that the Government will accept that the direct election of a deputy mayor is far more democratic than the mayor selecting his own deputy without the assembly or the electors being able to gainsay it. Perhaps that last thought will make the Government pause and reflect on the matter and accept this and the consequential amendments to which I have just spoken. I beg to move.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee:I am not sure whether in this group of amendments the noble Baroness proposes that the deputy mayor should be elected on a joint ticket with the mayor or whether a separate vote is involved. If it

21
were to be on a joint ticket, then the electors would not be presented with any additional choice. If anything, the matter would become rather more confusing and difficult for the electors.
The manifesto on which the mayor will be elected will be very much the mayor's manifesto. I believe that that is right, given that the model which is proposed in this Bill is that it is for the mayor to create and revise strategies and to put forward policies. The proposal that the deputy should be directly and separately elected may be rather confusing. The noble Baroness compared the situation with the US presidency, but the situation in the United States is different in that there the deputy would take over and literally has the possibility of having his finger on the button for the rest of the four-year term. These proposals would involve a by-election. Therefore, we are not comparing like with like.
To my mind, the most important point is the possibility of the choice of a deputy mayor from out of the assembly, which allows for a pluralist approach and a reflection of the diversity of the assembly which is likely to be created, given the form of elections that we shall have. It may well be that there will be no political majority in the assembly and even if there is, the culture of the authority—comprising the mayor on the one hand and. the assembly members on the other—will be co-operative, consultative, cross-party and extremely constructive. To allow for the appointment of the deputy from among the men and women who make up the assembly may be one factor which helps to encourage that.
Lord Whitty: This is a rather novel proposal by the noble Baroness. She may be at a slight disadvantage because it may be slightly more logical for the amendment to be taken with other amendments to be taken later which deal with the assembly being only effectively a delegate body from the London boroughs. The noble Baroness will not be surprised that we intend to resist that amendment. But were the totality of the Conservative vision for the structure of the authority to be adopted, there may have been some scope for discussing whether the deputy mayor should be designated as a member of the assembly.
However, with an elected assembly and a directly elected mayor, I do not believe there is much of an argument, whether on a joint ticket or a parallel election, for a directly elected mayor. I am not aware of a similar situation being pursued elsewhere in local and city government. The noble Baroness tried to give two analogies to the Committee. The first in relation to the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister is not entirely correct. The Deputy Prime Minister currently has a wide range of powers, as the Committee will know because I represent him in this Chamber. However, this is an entirely different situation, with a directly elected mayor and an assembly whose main role is one of scrutiny.
Nor is the analogy with the United States entirely appropriate. Indeed, from the early history of the United States, it seems that the case for a directly elected mayor is fraught with difficulties. The Committee may recall that in the early years the vice-president was not elected
22
on a joint ticket but separately, or in effect as the runner-up. One of the early vice-presidents became fed up with the president. He ran off and tried to declare Louisiana independent. Gore Vidal wrote an interesting although probably not entirely accurate book on the man. Subsequently, John C. Calhoun almost went on, as Vice-President, to declare South Carolina independent—after he had fallen out with his President. Vice-Presidents running on a separate ticket are not a particularly good analogy—unless the noble Baroness wants Hendon or wherever declaring UDI within the Greater London Authority.
If the mayor were to run on a separate ticket, the deputy mayor would clearly have a separate but equal mandate. If they were running on the same ticket, what would be the difference between the mayor designating his or her own deputy and the mayor having a running mate? It certainly would not increase the range of choice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said. It is possible that, if there were parallel elections, the deputy mayor would receive a larger number of votes than the mayor—which would create an interesting problem. Because of the allocation of functions, it is clear that the mayor's view would prevail. Were there to be an equal or arguably higher legitimate vote for the deputy, how would that appear?
If the two were elected on a joint ticket and subsequently fell out over policy, how would that problem be resolved? The whole administration could soldier on but there would be a degree of political stalemate and the authority's energy would be diverted to in-fighting and stand-offs because the mayor would be unable to sack or replace his or her deputy with someone who shared his or her views or whose support the mayor needed in the assembly. That seems a recipe for chaos.
As to whether or not the deputy mayor appointed by the mayor should be a member of the assembly, the whole rationale is that there is some division of powers between the assembly and the mayor. The deputy mayor will, in a sense, be a bridge between the two parts of the authority—so that they have a shared sense of purpose and work together for the people of London as a whole. That is a reflection of consensual politics among the institutions in the authority. We propose one or two specific roles for the deputy mayor, including that he or she must sit on the new police authority. That would provide a vital link between the assembly, mayor and new democratic policing structure that we are putting in place. That link would be undermined by the amendments.
The Opposition argue that if the deputy mayor were an assembly member, the role of the assembly would be blurred. That is not the case. The assembly would have clearly defined powers to call to account the mayor, deputy mayor and other members of the Administration. The mayor would have to answer to the assembly and justify actions and reasons. Other than the deputy mayor, no assembly member would have executive functions. The rest of the assembly's scrutiny role, therefore, would not be compromised. The assembly will be seen to be at the heart of the mayor's

23
accountability. The deputy mayor will perform functions that would help the mayor link to the assembly's priorities and procedures.
Were the mayor to be separately elected there would be considerable constraints on the mayor's ability to act throughout his or her term of office. Were a deputy mayor to be designated by the people, the mayor would not be free to structure his administration as he saw fit—which may change during the course of the period of office. The mayor could not, therefore, appoint a new deputy in mid-term whatever the circumstances. The amendment would rule out that possibility, which would seriously constrain the mayor's freedom of action.
The noble Baroness will see that there are many difficulties in the concept of a parallel and directly elected deputy mayor. She herself indicated that there would have to be a large number of consequential amendments, although I congratulate her on spotting the number that she did in this group. Given the structure that we are proposing, which the House and the London electorate have endorsed, a directly elected deputy mayor would not be sensible. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Young: Before my noble friend decides, I want to take up some of the arguments used by the Minister. I was surprised when he said that there is no such arrangement in local government. There is no such arrangement as a directly elected mayor in local government anyway, so we are talking about something quite different. As we are entering into an arrangement that is uniquely introduced into British local government for the first time, it is right and proper that my noble friend should raise the points she has.
In my days in local government, the deputy lord mayor played an important role. Reading the Bill, it seems extraordinary that the office of deputy mayor of London is not stated and made. That office must be a significant part of the governance of London. The Minister said the intention was that the deputy mayor would sit on the new police authority and be the link person. That clearly indicates the importance that the Government attach to the office.
The Minister made much of the argument that the amendment might present the opportunity for conflict. From my reading of the Bill and understanding of the assembly's structure, I would have thought it was a recipe for conflict. All the way through, there are to be two lots of directly elected people in London. There are bound to be endless conflicts between the boroughs and the mayor's department—all directly elected and all arguing for different things. If the Minister is in doubt, any of us with experience in local government outside London knows perfectly well that there are conflicts at this very moment between districts and counties. That will be repeated in London.
The question for the Committee is what is likely to make for the most effective form of government in London, on the assumption—it is certainly mine—that we want this set-up to work and be in the interests of Londoners and good government in London. I do not
24
think that has been thought through by the Government. My noble friend has a real point about the importance of the deputy mayor. I fail to see any reason why he or she should not be directly elected.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I apologise to the Committee and particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that I did not make it clear that the proposal was for an election on a joint ticket—not a separate election.
The Minister commented on my remark that extra drafting would be necessary. I was trying to make the point that since the Bill left the other place there has already been an enormous amount of redrafting, with 67 new clauses. The Minister said there was more redrafting to come. That is symptomatic of recent Bills. For example, one hardly recognised the Employment Relations Bill when it reached here from the other place. Redrafting is no reason for not being concerned.
The Minister did not answer my point that this is very much a new way of doing things. This is the first statute to attempt to divorce the executive from the legislature. That has to be done carefully and without muddying the waters. Clause 41 definitely muddies the waters. On the one hand, there is an assembly whose duty it is to scrutinise the work of the mayor. Then all of a sudden, the deputy mayor appears to be selected from the assembly. That weakens the whole idea of a separation of powers and must be looked at again.
The other point that I should like to raise with the Minister, because he did not seem to answer it, is one made by my noble friend Lady Young relating to Amendment No. 3. The amendment refers to Clause 2(1) of the Bill, which says:
"The Authority shall consist of— the Mayor of London; and an Assembly for London, to be known as the London Assembly'.
The point I was making was that the wording should read:
"The Authority shall be the Mayor of London, the Deputy Mayor of London and the Assembly".
Whether or not it is decided that the deputy mayor should simply be someone chosen from the assembly, the point is that if the deputy mayor is going to have these roles and functions to stand in for the mayor in certain designated areas under the subsection that I mentioned earlier, he will be an important part of the authority and should be so named. I shall be most grateful if the Minister can comment on that amendment.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister responds, perhaps he could answer some of the questions posed by my noble friend Lady Young. I believe that he was about to do so before my noble friend rose to speak. I shall be most interested to hear his answers. I should like to say to my noble friend Lady Miller that I do think it makes all the difference in the world that she meant that the mayor and deputy mayor should be on a joint ticket. I was picturing the kind of

25
disagreements that might arise if they were elected separately. I did not rise to support my noble friend because I could not see that working.
However, if it is a joint ticket, that would be a very different thing. No doubt it would be seen by some as a dream ticket, but these two would doubtless work together in tandem satisfactorily because they would have been elected to do so. It is a much more serious amendment if it is a matter of a joint ticket. Therefore, I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say in reply, especially to the points raised by my noble friend Lady Young.
Lord Whitty: I was going to intervene on the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, in two senses. First, I believe that she misunderstood my reference to equivalence. I was talking internationally in terms of local government or of city governments. To my knowledge, there is no equivalent where you have a separately elected deputy mayor. But I also think that the case is probably true on a joint ticket if there is a mayor and he then appoints the members of his administration. That is how we envisage it.
Secondly, I did not quite follow the noble Baroness, Lady Young, when she said that there is already conflict of authority, if not legitimacy, here between two lots of directly elected people when you interpose a third directly elected person with slightly different functions. The point of the deputy mayor from our point of view is threefold. First, he will be deputy in the strict sense of the word. Once appointed, he can take up duties which the mayor requests him to do. Secondly, there are some specific roles, in particular in relation to the Metropolitan Police, where I believe it would probably not he appropriate for the mayor to be on the authority. But it would make sense for a clear link between the mayor, the assembly and the police authority. The general roles of deputy mayor are outlined to a large extent in Clause 41 of the Bill.
Thirdly, our intention is that the deputy mayor should act as a link between the two directly elected bodies, one of which is there primarily for scrutiny while the other is there primarily as the executive. There is an area of conflict clearly envisaged in that demarcation/separation of powers. Giving the deputy mayor some specific recognition will not make him the equivalent of the mayor, with the equivalent legitimacy of the mayor, as perhaps would apply if one included him in every phrase where, if one referred to the mayor, you put instead "the mayor and the deputy mayor". I believe that that is the logic of the noble Baroness's position.
However, it does give a separate position which, on the authority of the mayor and on the authority of the legislation, can provide a bridge between the two parts of this authority. That is unique. I argued against the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, saying that her position was unique, but this is pretty well a unique link that we are establishing here. It is an innovative position to provide separately for an executive power in local government and for the scrutiny power in local government. Therefore, it is important that we also provide mechanisms which give a link between the two.
26
In our view, the deputy mayor is one of the ways in which that function can be carried out. I believe that that would apply whether we were on a joint ticket or whether there were separate elections. Clearly it would apply even more strongly if there were a separate election, but it would also apply were the deputy mayor effectively to achieve the same degree of legitimacy by being on a joint ticket.
Baroness Young: Perhaps I may pursue that point with the Minister. I listened with great interest to what he said. He has revealed a great deal more about what the Government intend should be the role of the deputy mayor. The deputy mayor is obviously an extremely important person. Not only is he the link with the police authority but, if I understood the Minister correctly, he will also be the link person between the executive and the—I am not quite sure how to describe this—assembly of the new authority. Indeed, I should have thought that the parallel with an American vice-president would in fact become stronger, although it is not one that I would have drawn at the beginning of the debate.
Far from actually strengthening the Government's case, I believe that the argument that the Minister has made out has strengthened the case of my noble friend Lady Miller. If you are to have someone who will be so powerful in this organisation, surely that person ought to be linked with the mayor on a joint ticket for the election so that everyone knows; otherwise, you will have an election and the most important person after the mayor will be chosen presumably by the mayor—or possibly by a few of his colleagues, but how are we to know because the procedure is not laid down?—for a position which will be extremely important. I should have thought that that undermined the democratic element involved: the right of electors to know who they are getting for this important job. I wonder whether the Minister would like to think about this again.
Lord Whitty: There are two points I should like to make, one of which I suppose is the trump card that I was keeping up my sleeve. First, the deputy mayor as described in this legislation and as envisaged for this authority would be an important figure. He would be able to represent the mayor, but he would be a member of the mayor's administration. He would not be of equal or of virtually equal legitimacy to the mayor in democratic terms. It is true that he would perform a hybrid role as a member of the assembly and as a member of the executive; indeed, he would be the only person who would be able to do so as distinct from the current pattern of local government within this country. Therefore, it is a new structure. However, if you put on that very important person the additional power of direct election equivalent to the mayor, you would actually be building in a recipe for further rather than less conflict.
Secondly—I hope that this will not be regarded as a throw-away point—we did of course pass an Act in this Chamber for a referendum. The people of London did vote on the structure of the GLA and that had

27
two directly elected components, not three. Therefore, were we to raise the spectre of a third directly elected element within this constitution at this stage of the proceedings, I think it would be possible to argue that that would undermine what the voters of London had already indicated they were prepared to accept. Indeed, from the overwhelming endorsement that that referendum had, it was very much welcomed. If nothing else, I hope that that will help convince the noble Baroness not to pursue the matter.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: As the Minister continued with his response, I have to confess that I became even more confused, especially when he threw down his trump card about the deputy mayor being part of the administration. The point I was trying to make was that either we have separation of powers or we do not. It is my view that this muddies the water. However, at this stage I shall take the matter away and read in Hansard with great care what the Minister said. Perhaps he will consider the arguments that we have put forward today so that we can pursue the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 2, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
("(2) The Assembly shall consist of 33 members comprising—

(a) one nominated representative from each London borough; and

(b) one nominated representative from the Corporation of London.

(3) The Mayor shall he returned in accordance with the provisions made in or by virtue of this Act for the holding of elections and the filling of a vacancy in the office of Mayor.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 4 I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 21 and 38. They all revolve around another point that would certainly alter the constitution of the assembly. It is, I admit, a pretty forlorn hope that having expended so much effort and parliamentary time on the present set-up, the Government will have second thoughts now and allow the sensible and logical set-up that we propose. I understand the difficulties for the Government. However, I hope that by some miracle the light of reason breaks through and the Government accept some of the amendments and some drastic rewriting of other parts of the Bill that would consequently be required.
However, as I have already pointed out, the Bill has been drastically rewritten once since it started life in the other place. Although further changes would involve more investment of parliamentary time I believe that it would be a sound investment compared with the time that would be needed at some future date to resolve the problems that will face our capital city under the present unsatisfactory scheme. I believe that this Chamber is entitled to an explanation from the Minister as to why the Government have chosen this particular mixture of constituencies and PR.
28
The Labour Party promised us when in opposition to bring local government nearer to the people. Its manifesto stated:
"Local decision making should be more accountable to local people".
Yet the Government have created another complete layer of government. The 14 elected constituency members are to represent 14 new giant super constituencies that have no historical connection other than that parts of them happen to border on others. How is bigger better?
There are then 11 members elected on the notorious party list system. If they have any ambitions to stay as members of the assembly from one election to the next, to maintain their position as high up the list as possible, they will need to put party loyalty before concern for the welfare of London. They will, of course, represent no constituency and no constituents. So how are they closer to the people? If recent newspaper reports are correct, the Prime Minister has turned the whole concept of representative government on its head. He is reported as reminding some of his Members of Parliament that their job is not necessarily to represent the views of their constituents but to see that the constituents have current Labour Party policy explained to them and to ensure that they understand it.
The 14 super constituencies are by no stretch of the imagination coterminous with any of the London boroughs. Suppose there was a conflict over some issue between two neighbouring boroughs. How would the constituency assemblyman represent the different interests of the two boroughs in his constituency? The ideal solution, as we have consistently proposed from the outset of the consultation and the legislation, is one member of the assembly for each borough, including the City of London. nominated by the borough that he or she represents. That gets rid of the paraphernalia of electing the assembly and the complicated machinery of elections and by-elections because it can be assumed that the party with the majority in a local council will choose to have someone from within that party to represent its borough. That is democratic enough. The only problem that could arise would be in a borough with no overall control where a certain amount of hard bargaining might be needed.
The Government's answer to the question of why each assemblyman cannot represent a single, historically identifiable borough is that he would be too parochial. That word was mentioned many times in the other place. So much for subsidiarity. So much for bringing local government closer to the people. The Government say that they want the members of the assembly to think strategically, not parochially. The Minister in the other place said that he did not want members of the assembly to push forward their case at a local level but to think of London as a whole. My honourable friend in the other place described that idea as "complete twaddle". He added:
"It ignores human nature but even worse it is an attempt to rewrite the democratic process".
He puts my case precisely.
A survey in the Evening Standard early in 1998 showed that 10 out of 19 town halls were opposed to the Government's proposals on constituencies. The Minister's response on Second Reading in the other place was to trot out a letter dated the day before the Second Reading which stated that the view that the assembly should consist of representatives of the boroughs was,
"not a view shared by a majority of boroughs in the Association of London Government".
I hope that the Minister does not mind my pre-empting part of his response by anticipating that he might quote from the same letter. It will save my having to point out that the view expressed in that letter was not mooted at an actual meeting of the ALG. According to my honourable friend it was mentioned at the leaders' committee several months previously. No vote was taken and there was no debate on it. I shall not take up more of the Committee's time in arguing this matter. I do not believe that I have to make a case for the assembly that I propose. I believe that it is for the Government to justify the peculiar and ramshackle set-up they have constructed. I beg to move.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I advise the Committee that, if this amendment is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 5 to 16 inclusive.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: That is not the reason why I do not agree with the noble Baroness with regard to this group of amendments. We think it is essential that the new authority takes a strategic approach. I accept that the noble Baroness has included that in her "job description" in this group of amendments. However, I believe that the model which she proposes would make it difficult for the members to approach their job strategically.
I believe that the assembly will be rather on the small side easily to permit a mix of constituency and London-wide views. The noble Baroness talked passionately about the need to support the different parts of London and the different boroughs. I do not argue against that. However, I think it is particularly important that the members achieve the right mix of a pan-London approach in their work with an understanding of the particular parts of London. The Government's model proposes that the constituency members will have that mix: other members will have it simply through their backgrounds. I do not think it is necessary for each member to represent one identified, discrete borough in order to achieve the understanding and feel for different parts of London which I believe will be a part of the job.
The remit of the assembly is to be scrutiny, not policy making. I suspect that to have direct borough representation could well be counter-productive to the fulfilment of that role. On considering this group of amendments I wondered whether borough representation might even stand in the way of a good relationship between the authority and the boroughs. It is important that the authority has regard to the views of the boroughs and that it liaises with them. I believe
30
that it should liaise with them direct, not through the representatives who are members of the assembly. In other words, we should not have the situation where individual members attend a meeting of the assembly and speak for the boroughs as that in itself could be a block to the right relationship between the authority and all the London boroughs.
One reason for the need for that relationship may be because any given borough will wish to put forward not just a single, simple view on each issue. Some boroughs will not be under the control of one political party, but even if that is not the case I hope that there will be the scope for all council members who have sensible things to say in dialogue with the authority to be able to put their views forward. I believe that to have a single representative might represent something of a block to that. I can even envisage a situation where representatives of the boroughs, as assembly members, could get sucked into the decisions of the authority. One can see that happening from time to time. That would make it even more difficult for such members to argue a distinct borough position.
We on these Benches believe that London needs a London government. The success of the GLA will in part be measured by reconciling the interests or different parts of London—the different geographical parts, different social parts, people in different types of employment and so on; the list is quite long. To sum up, the GLA should reconcile and take forward the interests of the various communities of London, of which we are all members. Those communities need to be pulled together at a strategic level and not taken over from the boroughs. I stress that in making these points we are not concerned to block borough interests—quite the opposite—but the GLA should be more than a collection of boroughs; in our view, the whole must be more than the sum of the parts.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support the amendments moved by my noble friend. On page 9 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill it states that there will be 14 members directly elected under the first-past-the-post system and an additional 11 under the d'Hondt formula. As I understand it, that system was used for the European elections. In my constituency in Oxfordshire, under that system, the Liberal Democrats closed list was so closed that we were not sent the names of the candidates. I found that fascinating.
Any borough se-up would be better than the way suggested in the Bill. Even in the 14 constituencies which are to have direct elections, the candidates will be selected, presumably, on a party basis. I do not think the party selection process is as good as a system of direct election. Under the compromise put forward by my noble friend in these amendments, whereby each borough would nominate someone for the assembly, at least the people nominated would have been directly elected by constituents in the boroughs concerned. They will have been through a direct electoral process, which is much preferable to the d'Hondt system. Can the

31
Minister assure us that the Government are prepared to look at an alternative way? This half PR system seems to me to be only half good.
Baroness Young: I was interested when the Minister referred to the referendum on London government. Although he did not say that he was going to play it as his trump card, he clearly regarded it as very important. If my memory serves me correctly there was a very low poll then of approximately 35 per cent; hardly an overwhelming majority. The likelihood is that, except for about 25, hardly any of those voting actually understood the intricacies of the proposed voting system.
I am even more surprised that the Minister can defend such a system after our experience of the European elections last Thursday. Even in the polling station the ballot paper was regarded as a joke. I do not consider it funny at all; it is extremely serious that such a totally discredited system should be employed in London. I do not live permanently in London, but I would not wish on London that kind of an election. Whatever else the Government do or do not do, they should reconsider the whole system, which has been thoroughly discredited.
Lord Avebury: The noble Baroness has used the word "discredited" on a couple of occasions. Is that simply because of the low poll? If so, would not she then apply the same etiquette to elections which have been held for local government in the past, where polls as low as 10 per cent have been recorded? Does not that discredit also her system as well?
Baroness Young: I have fought a number of local government elections and the poll—although, admittedly, not as high as I wished—was always between 40 and 50 per cent. A figure of 23 per cent throughout the country is a very low poll. I dislike what happened because of the number of people who said to me, "Who are we voting for?" From much of the literature which dropped through one's door, one did not know for whom one was voting. Therefore, although we have representatives in the European Parliament, there will be absolutely no means of communicating with them. That seems to me a "discreditable" election and I stand by that word. The Government should think again.
A further difficulty is that the new constituencies are not coterminous with the London boroughs. Perhaps I may make a very serious point about local government. In my experience of local government, one of the great difficulties—I do not think it has yet been resolved; it is a matter about which all local governments are concerned—is the lack of coterminous areas for the different functions which affect the population at large. In local government there are police authorities, water authorities and so on, all operating under different areas. It is very difficult for people to understand. The idea that this will somehow be made more transparent simply is not true. It is a recipe for conflict.
32
If we are to have a system of voting similar to that of last Thursday, there will be an even lower poll than at the European elections. People will have no idea for whom they are voting or what they are supposed to be doing. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is looking for splendid people who are able to take an overall view of the needs of London and at the same time understand the intricate local details of the London boroughs. She is looking for paragons. If she found them, it would be a triumph of hope over experience. We are unlikely to find people able to fulfil both tasks.
A very complicated structure is being created for London which by no means can be described as democratic in the way that we have always understood. It will have a built-in conflict between the boroughs and the assembly and the party list people. For instance, transport is one of the most difficult issues with which to deal, particularly when one is dealing with road schemes, bus lanes and other matters of public transport. There will be two groups interested in that subject—the new authority and the boroughs—and each group will be represented by different people on different boundaries. It is most improbable that that will be more efficient. The Minister should look again at some parts of this package.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister previously indicated that the Government were not too keen on Amendment No. 4 and the notion of nominated members. If he is to tell us that, will he at the same time give his attention to the notion that there should be 33 members of the authority? Even if the Minister insists on direct election to the authority, if there were to be one member from each authority—and here I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee—it would be an enormous advantage to the person taking the strategic view to have been elected from the authority which will have to put matters into practice.
When I was a councillor—it was some time ago; I am not pretending I am up to date but I believe matters have not changed—I was a member of the strategic authority. I came from one of the lower authorities. I would talk to the lower authorities; I would consult them; I knew exactly how the strategic decisions would affect them, but that did not mean that I was not detached when I made a decision.
To be elected from two or two-and-a-half authorities, which is what will happen, is a fairly strange idea. There is something to be said for having 33 members of the authority, even if they are elected. I wonder whether the noble Lord will consider that part of the amendment even if he will not accept all of it. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington of Ribbleton, who has enormous experience of local government—she knows a great deal more about it than I do—will be able to help him on this matter; perhaps not at the moment, but as time goes on. I think it is one that he should consider.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Perhaps I may express one or two doubts about the amendment to add to those more serious ones raised by my noble friend. If I understand the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, correctly,

33
she is suggesting that the 33 members will be nominated. Yet the processes for the election of London and individual members are not omitted entirely; they are merely modified. So at the end of the day I am not sure whether we are talking about election or nomination.
Perhaps I may respond briefly to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Young. It is true that there is a conflict of interest in a county council between one's duty to consider the well-being of the county council and one's desire to represent one's constituents. However, as I understand the Bill, the position will not he the same under the new authority where the assembly members will have a strategic role but will carry out very little day-to-day detailed administration of individual projects.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I wish to ask the Minister some questions. Why was the figure of 25 chosen? Why has that 25 become a division of 14 and 11? I ask the Minister to take seriously the points made by my noble friends Lady Gardner and Lady Young.
I was in Ireland over the weekend. On the lamp-posts, in the streets and in the houses were names and pictures of human beings who wished to represent that country in Europe. I was very struck by that because the European elections have been the first I remember in 30 years where I hardly saw a poster from one end of Britain to the other. Could that possibly be because no one knew who they were voting for? Is it too late for us to acknowledge that the turnout of 23 per cent was not good? Is it too late for him to go back to the Deputy Prime Minister and say that perhaps strategically it is wise to have 25 and perhaps there is a reason for not having 32, but would it not be wise for those 25 all to have to stand in front of the electorate and state that they wish to be elected to the assembly? Is it too late to ask the noble Lord not to stand at the Dispatch Box and say, "Frankly, we have decided. We have not taken any notice of what happened in last Thursday's election. We will go back and we will reconsider. It is possible that we may even have made a mistake"?
Lord Tope: The noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, has once again provoked me to intervene. I was interested in his experiences in Ireland during the recent European elections. I therefore look forward to his support later on today when we move amendments for elections by the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies, a system identical to that which he has just been praising in Ireland. We look forward to his support later today.
Most of today's debate has been about the shortcomings, or the perceived shortcomings, of the Government's proposals. I have considerable sympathy with much of what has been said about the present system. We will be raising our concerns and our alternative proposals a little later on. However, what I wish to deal with are the amendments before us, which is what I think we should be debating, and the proposals coming from the Conservative Benches. I suppose that I have an interest to declare because the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, and I are the only two
34
Members of your Lordships' House who could benefit if these amendments were passed by being in the fast-track to the Greater London Assembly, because we have been elected as members of London borough councils. For that reason, I believe that these amendments are absolute nonsense.
I was elected to Sutton Council to represent the people of my ward on Sutton Council. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, would say the same of his authority. I have not been elected, yet, to the Greater London assembly. There is an important difference. We have seen something of the effect of indirect nomination in Greater London over the past 13 years. For example, we see it on all the joint bodies that have been trying to run London. For a few years I served, for my sins, on the London Fire and Civil Defence Authority which is, as its name suggests, an authority. It comprises representatives of each London borough and the City of London. It does its best to do a good job. In saying this I do not wish to criticise the authority, but it is not the same as having an authority which is able to take a strategic view of London. Every year the London Fire and Civil Defence. Authority has a battle over its budget, every year there is a battle over which fire stations to close or which pumps to remove, and every year the borough representatives, absolutely correctly, fight for their borough interests. Of course they do. They were elected to their borough councils, and that is what they are there to do.
There is an important difference between the proposed assembly and any authority in that the assembly will not be an operational body. IL will not have powers like that. But if people go there directly from their borough councils—not directly elected by the people, but appointed by their borough councils, as was said when the amendment was moved—appointed by the majority party, in those cases where there is a majority party, they will be there and will be expected to be there fighting for the particular interests of their borough, and even more particularly for the interests of their borough council, which is not necessarily always the same thing.
We strongly believe that the Greater London assembly and the Greater London authority must take a strategic view. We have concerns that the 14 proposed constituencies would inhibit that. I am certain that if we go there simply as representatives nominated by our borough councils, as if we were appointed to any other outside body, as every council does at its annual meeting every year—perhaps this authority is slightly more important than some of the others—it will be very difficult indeed even for the paragons of virtue that will form this assembly to take a strategic view for London overall. While I do not support the Government's proposals, I think that the alternatives suggested in the amendments are the worst possible, and we will oppose them.
Lord Whitty: In replying to the debate, I, like the noble Lord, Lord Tope, would like to address the amendment that is before the Committee. We have so far ranged rather widely in the debate. The proposition of the noble Lord, Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare,

35
and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, are not to be found on the Marshalled List either in relation to this group of amendments or in relation to the next ones. Many of the issues which lie behind their questions are better considered in relation to later groupings.
This group of amendments directly confronts the issue of whether the assembly should be appointed or elected. That is a fairly simple question. The wider implications that have been raised may well arise when we discuss the mechanics of election once we have disposed of these amendments. Of course, if we were to carry the amendments, we would never reach that point. I trust that noble Lords will appreciate that what we are proposing with regard to election is not precisely the same as that used for the European elections. I hope noble Lords will understand that on today of all days I do not wish particularly to dwell on the European elections. They were, however, very similar to those successfully conducted in Scotland and Wales.
So far as this group is concerned, what is proposed is that the London borough authorities should take one of their number from each authority and make them into the assembly. As the noble Lord, Lord Tope, said, the councillors for those boroughs, worthy and effective though they may be, were not elected for that job. They were elected to look after, not the strategic interests of London, but the interests of their electorates in a particular borough.
Moreover, the people of London have clearly pronounced on the principle here. The referendum was pretty clear: are you in favour of the Government's proposal for a Greater London Authority, an elected mayor and a separately elected assembly? I do not think there is any ambiguity there. If your Lordships now wish to overturn the referendum decision and what was in the Act passed by this Parliament, then we are getting into difficult waters. I think it is clear that there is a different role for the assembly. The assembly must concentrate on representing the electorate of London over strategic decisions affecting the whole of London. It is not a delegated body, with representatives delegated to represent the individual boroughs.
We clearly want to differentiate between the parochial—perhaps in the best sense—interests of the boroughs and the strategic planning for transport and other powers that we are investing in the authority. That requires a direct relationship with the people through directly elected assembly members. They do not need to be indirectly nominated by the London boroughs whose members were elected for a different purpose. This principle has already been endorsed by Parliament and the people of London. We should therefore reject these amendments and proceed to perhaps a more interesting although more complex issue—the method of election to the assembly. I hope that the noble Baroness recognises that she is attempting to reverse decisions already taken. That is not profitable in this context and perhaps we should move on.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I am sorry that I did not explain myself properly. I did not mention proportional representation. I was talking about this amendment and
36
asking the noble Lord whether, if he intended to reject the idea of nominated members, as he has done—and I understand why—he would look at the fact that it might be advantageous to have 33 members, one from each area, coterminous with the authority. I clearly put my question in a muddled way, as I often do. However, there may be something in the amendment which the noble Lord can think about with advantage. I think it worth considering that for a whole host of reasons.
Lord Whitty: I hope that the noble Baroness does not think I was being discourteous. The point I was making was that this amendment clearly includes the word "nominated." As to the size of the assembly, there is an amendment down later suggesting 40 rather than 33, and this question will come up more logically with the next group. I thought therefore I would not deploy the argument here. I apologise to the noble Baroness if she thought I was being discourteous in not directly replying to her point.
Baroness Hamwee: I wonder if I could add one word to what my noble friend Lord Tope said about borough representatives rightly fighting the cause of their own borough. I would have an additional concern: the time and the energy that borough representatives could put into their role on a strategic body. I have had experience of this myself. I have seen the enormous difficulties that borough council members have in carrying out a strategic role. When I chaired a London-wide committee for a number of years, I was impressed by the efforts that were made by individual borough members. I was also very conscious of the great difficulties they had in running the two roles at the same time. It was not for want of interest, but they always had to put their boroughs first. If we got to a point in a meeting where an important decision was coming up, if they had to be back in their own borough for a meeting that evening they would have to go back there. It is not only the balance of interest which would weigh with individual members when approaching the job. There is also a particular difficulty in actually running the two roles.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I served on the regional authority, the Greater London Council, and for eight years at the same time on a local authority. I never had any difficulty. So the generalisation made by the noble Baroness cannot be taken to apply to everyone.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Young: I know exactly what my noble friend means. The serious point—and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will clarify this—is whether she and her colleagues are seriously suggesting that the new Greater London Authority should override the wishes of the boroughs when considering these strategic matters?
Baroness Hamwee: No, I hope I made that clear earlier. I said specifically that our concerns about the amendment were by no means to be taken as being against the boroughs. It is indeed in part because of my concern that borough interests should be properly

37
represented in dialogues with the authority that I have difficulty with this set of amendments. I hope it will become apparent during the Committee stage that we are very concerned to protect the boroughs and would not want to see the new authority trying to make a takeover bid for the functions of the boroughs.
Lord Whitty: I would ask the noble Baronesses, Lady Young and Lady Miller, whether, in other parts of the country where there are two-tier authorities, rightly or wrongly, they are prepared to contemplate a county council consisting entirely of delegates from district authorities. I suggest that the answer must be no.
Baroness Young: I am not sure whether or not that is a hypothetical question but in the far-off days when I was in local government I had the great good fortune to serve on an all-purpose authority. It was the most efficient and most effective form of local authority. It is a matter of much regret that it disappeared under the 1972 Local Government Act. I am on record as saying so at the time. I think that some effort has been made to put it back. It is because I have seen the difficulties that I raise these points.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was rather disappointed to hear the Minister say that he hoped we would move on to more interesting parts of the Bill because on this side of the Chamber we feel that this group of amendments is very interesting and very important. I hope that the noble Lord did not really mean it.
So far as this group of amendments is concerned, I quite understand when he says that we have moved just a little away from the gist of the matter. I thought that Clause 41 muddied the water in a way. I believe that the whole idea of this assembly muddies the water in regard to the ordinary elector of London—the citizen who is living in London—as to who does what and where they do it, and so on.
There are so many tiers for London under this Bill that I think everything could get very difficult. We felt that in order not to bypass the boroughs and not to cause a conflict between the boroughs and the assembly our proposal would be a very good way of dealing with it. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, said that he did not think it appropriate for the representatives to be nominated but I believe he also said—he will correct me if I am wrong—that he had been nominated by his borough to serve on the Fire and Civil Defence Authority. Certainly the people in his area would not have known that before, and that does not seem to stop anybody acting in a very proper and strategic way. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, said that she had no difficulty. My noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes also had no difficulty, when she served on the Greater London Council, in dealing locally, parochially and strategically. There is no doubt about that.
I noted the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, towards the end of her first intervention that she had no intention of blocking the views of the
38
boroughs. However, in her earlier remarks I understood her to highlight some difficulty in liasing with the boroughs. I shall read her remarks with care.
I shall certainly not press the amendment. I shall read the report of the debate with great care. 'This is an important matter. The other points made by my noble friends—for example, on the number of people voting—have merely been touched upon. It is important for an elector to know who will deal with his or her problem—whether it will be the local council, the assembly, the mayor, the Member of Parliament, the Member of the European Parliament, and so on. The problem is that. the situation in London is becoming so convoluted. That is quite a danger. My amendments offer a way of solving the problem. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: In order that my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean may repeat a Statement made in another place, I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Kosovo
4.52 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement on recent developments in Kosovo made in another place by my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary. The Statement is as follows:
"Today is the fifth day since the entry into force of the military agreement. I can report to the House that Serb forces are leaving Kosovo, broadly in line with the phased withdrawal set out in that agreement. Meanwhile, NATO forces have entered much of southern and central Kosovo and are ahead of the planned timetable for their deployment.
"The whole House will wish to congratulate our troops on the professionalism with which they have deployed so quickly and efficiently. Members of the House will have seen pictures of the spontaneous welcome they have received from Kosovo Albanians wherever they have gone. The warmth with which those Albanians have expressed their joy at our arrival speaks volumes for the brutality and the terror from which our campaign has liberated them. For the past two months they have seen their neighbours massacred, their relatives raped and their homes burnt. Now they can see a future in which none of these crimes can return to haunt Kosovo.
"The presence of Russian troops around the airport has not interfered with the deployment of NATO forces. Our forces are entering as planned from Macedonia. It is important to keep a sense of perspective on the numbers involved. There are only a couple of hundred Russian troops in Kosovo, compared with 14,000 NATO troops.

39
"General Jackson this morning had a businesslike meeting with General Zavarzin, the commander of Russian troops at Pristina airport. He has just reported that he hopes that agreement can be reached on assimilating the Russian troops into KFOR.
"Nevertheless, it was plainly unsatisfactory that Russian troops should have entered without co-ordination. Yesterday I spoke at length to Igor Ivanov, the Russian Foreign Minister, and we agreed that there should be no more surprise moves. He gave an undertaking that Russia would not deploy any further troops without prior agreement. Earlier undertakings about Russian deployments have not all been respected. It is crucial that this undertaking should be fully respected.
"Negotiations, led by the United States, continue over how Russia's contribution to KFOR can be integrated into the overall operation. These have been protracted negotiations. On the Russian side, their military have sought a sector of their own. On our side, we have insisted that any outcome must meet the terms of the peace plan for a single operation with a unified chain of command. There is no provision anywhere in the peace plan for partition of Kosovo.
"Several non-NATO countries will contribute forces to Kosovo. I have always made clear that we would welcome Russia also working with us as partners in the peacekeeping force. But it must be as part of a single, integrated operation, not as an independent force.
"That reflects our commitment to liberating the whole, not part, of Kosovo. We now face a major challenge in helping all of Kosovo to recover from the atrocities of the past year. There are four immediate priorities.
"First, we must ensure security and safety for all the people of Kosovo, whether Albanian or Serb, or any other ethnic group. KFOR will be alert and robust in ensuring that all Serb forces withdraw from Kosovo within the agreed timetable, which should be completed over the next week.
"KFOR will also be responsible for the demilitarisation of the Kosovo Liberation Army. I spoke last night to Hashem Thaqi, the leader of the KLA, and stressed that we expect restraint from the KLA as the Serb forces withdraw, and co-operation in our efforts to end all violence in Kosovo.
"Secondly, we must provide urgent relief to the hundreds of thousands of displaced persons who have spent the last two months hiding from Serb forces on the hillsides and in the forests inside Kosovo. A convoy with much British support delivered humanitarian supplies to Pristina yesterday on behalf of UNHCY and is reloading today in Macedonia.
"Thirdly, we must manage the return of the masses of refugees who were deported as part of Milosevic's failed plan for the ethnic cleansing of Kosovo. We should not be glib about refugees returning to their homes. Many of their homes have been blown up or burnt down by Serb aggression. We face a major task
40
in helping the bulk of the refugees to rebuild their homes before the Balkan winter sets in. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has today announced a further £50 million for humanitarian relief on top of the £40 million already provided.
"Fourthly, we must record the evidence of the war crimes that have been committed in Kosovo to enforce its ethnic cleansing. There has already been the horrific discovery of a mass grave containing a large number of villagers massacred at Kacanik. We have already started the deployment of a British police team to Macedonia in order that the War Crimes Tribunal can draw on their forensic skill and experience in exhuming victims of the atrocities and identifying the cause of death. Although we have brought peace to Kosovo, its people will not live in peace with themselves unless we bring to justice those responsible for such atrocities.
"For the immediate future, responsibility for the government of Kosovo will be in the hands of an international civil administration. This will be led by the United Nations, but will draw on the contributions of the European Union, the OSCE and the UNHCR. It will be charged with rebuilding the physical infrastructure of Kosovo, regenerating its economy and supervising free elections to new political institutions. Over a period of time, it will transfer its powers to the local people in line with our goal of democratic self-government for Kosovo.
"From the start of the conflict this Government have stressed that we want it to be a turning-point for the whole of the region. All of the many neighbours of Serbia have shown total solidarity with the NATO campaign. We must not now forget the courage and commitment which those governments showed in aligning themselves with us.
"On Thursday, I attended the launch of the Stability Pact, a forum bringing together the countries of the region with the EU, the US, Russia and other key international players. I pledged that, for our part, Britain will be their partner in helping to accelerate their integration into the modern Europe. To do that, we must open up the wealthy markets of the European Union so that they can share our prosperity through increased trade; and we must invest in developing their democratic institutions, civic society and open media in order that they can share in our standards of freedom.
"We hope that one day the people of Serbia will also be able to share in the benefits of the Stability Pact. However, first, it will be necessary for the government in Belgrade to renounce the policies of Milosevic which have brought so much violence to their neighbours and so much poverty to themselves. We cannot embrace Serbia in the modern Europe until Serbia embraces our values of belief in the equality of all citizens irrespective of ethnic identity, and respect for the rights of minorities. There would have been no turning point for the countries of the region if the international community had not demonstrated that we would not tolerate the brutality and ethnic

41
cleansing which Milosevic visited upon Kosovo. The revulsion around the world at the expulsion of the Albanians from Kosovo is confirmed in the text of the Security Council resolution, which was drafted by the G8 Foreign Ministers over 12 hours of negotiation last week. That resolution condemns the violence against the people of Kosovo and demands full co-operation with the War Crimes Tribunal. It meets all our key objectives: the withdrawal of all Serb forces; the deployment of an international military force with a unified command; and the return without hindrance of all refugees.
"There is much hard work still to be done before we have created a Kosovo which will give its people the opportunity to earn their living in peace. The time to celebrate will be when we have settled all the refugees in their homes. But all those in the House who supported NATO's campaign can be satisfied with an outcome that has vindicated the strategy of the alliance and its resolve to defeat the forces of ethnic cleansing. We have compelled an end to the atrocities in Kosovo and secured a future for its people free from fear. We have shown that the era of forced mass deportation of a whole people belongs to Europe's past and that we will not tolerate it coming back again.
"We promised the refugees that we would take them back to Kosovo under our protection. We now have the opportunity to fulfil that promise and we will not slacken in our resolve or determination until we have helped them all go home."
My Lords, that completes the Statement.
5.1 p.m.
Lord Moynihan: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place and for keeping this House informed of developments in Kosovo as the KFOR peacekeeping operation commences its first week. Much progress has been made over the past few days. NATO's willingness to stand firm in the face of tests to its resolve has borne the first fruits of peace. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Government and our Armed Forces on what has been achieved. In particular, I pay tribute to the critically important role that is being played by General Sir Michael Jackson and to the exemplary performance of the forces that he leads.
Nevertheless, recent developments also demonstrate the scale of the problems still to be overcome in Kosovo and the difficult decisions which will need to be taken. NATO's response to those decisions will be critical in determining the ultimate success of the operation. Since the first KFOR troops entered Kosovo it has been clear that this is a region where feelings are running dangerously high. Kosovo is a tinderbox of tension as the joy of liberation for the Kosovo Albanians is matched by the bitterness of defeat for the Serbs. This has been demonstrated all too clearly by the conflicts which have arisen between Serbs and British and German troops respectively over the weekend.
Can the Minister confirm that the withdrawal agreement is being adhered to in full by the Serbian forces? Will the Minister provide information on the
42
means by which KFOR is reassuring the remaining Serbian population of Kosovo of its impartiality? Does the Minister agree that the decisive test of NATO's success will be whether the hundreds of thousands of refugees scattered across Europe feel able to return to their homes in Kosovo? Further, does she agree that the composition and deployment of the peacekeeping forces continue to be crucial in this respect?
On that note, I share the Minister's concern over the early deployment of Russian forces in Kosovo and their continued occupation of Pristina airport. In a Statement to this House last Thursday the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, confirmed that British troops could enter Kosovo as early as last Friday. Can the Minister confirm that NATO originally planned for British paratroopers to enter Kosovo on Friday morning, 24 hours after the signing and verification of the agreement? Does not Article II, paragraph 2a, of the military technical agreement signed by General Jackson specify that one day after its entry into force FRY forces would have vacated zone 3 and that the international security force would deploy "rapidly" to avoid a "security gap"? Why were these plans cancelled? Why was a technical and logistical briefing which had been arranged for reporters earlier on Thursday also cancelled?
Can the Minister say when NATO first learnt that Russian troops were entering Kosovo? Is she aware that Brcko Radio reported on Friday morning that Russian troops had departed their barracks in Lopare and Zivinice and that at 10.30 a.m. on Friday Russian troops crossed the border into Serbia at Paylovica Cuprija and that these reports were confirmed by SFOR? Is it not the case that, even if at that point, British troops had moved to Pristina, they would have arrived before the Russians? Is the Minister aware that a further 150 Russian troops were reported yesterday morning to be waiting at Bijeljina to be ready to move into Serbia to reinforce Russian troops at the airport? Can the Minister confirm that Russia has given an assurance that there will be no more surprise troop movements in Kosovo, particularly in the light of reports today that Hungary has refused Russia overflight permission to fly military equipment into Belgrade?
Referring to the future control of Pristina airport, can the noble Baroness say when she expects this matter to be resolved and whether, as just indicated by the Minister, it is subject not just to military negotiation on the ground but also negotiation at a political level? To what extent does the Minister consider that control of the airport is important to the success of the NATO operation, in both strategic and political terms? Will the Minister confirm that the alternative base for KFOR is intended to be temporary in nature?
The deadlock over control of Pristina airport has further highlighted the disputes over Russia's role in the international peacekeeping force and the difficulties that NATO has encountered in seeking to establish a unified chain of command for KFOR with NATO at its core. The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, last Thursday ruled out a partitioned Kosovo, as the Minister has just done. Can the Minister, therefore, comment on media reports over the weekend that, in the light of the stand-off at the report, US envoy Strobe Talbott has offered to allow

43
Russia a "zone of responsibility" in Kosovo; or is it still the case that, as US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright has previously said, NATO will be "embedded in every sector"?
We welcome the acceptance by the Minister that such a Russian-controlled zone would undermine the key principle reiterated by the Secretary of State for Defence yesterday and that there will be no partition of Kosovo, since such a zone would amount to a de facto partition. To agree to a Russian-controlled enclave would, surely, have the disastrous result of creating a haven for Kosovo Serbs and a no-go area for Kosovo Albanians. While discussions on this critical point continue, can the Minister say to what extent the arrangements in Bosnia, where the Russians are spread across the UK-led Multinational Division (North), are seen as a model for Kosovo?
Does the Minister agree that these events have demonstrated once again that any agreements over Kosovo must be absolutely watertight? The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, spoke last week about the importance of unified control for all allied troops and for non-NATO troops in Kosovo. The Foreign Secretary said this morning that the Russian Government made a commitment yesterday that Russian troops would be integrated into the overall peacekeeping force. When does the Minister envisage that the terms of this agreement will be finalised?
There are reports today, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, that the first hard evidence of the type of atrocities which refugees have been consistently describing for months has been uncovered. At Kacanik, for example, reporters have counted 80 fresh graves. War crimes investigators are travelling to the site to begin the process of verification of the evidence. In addition to her comments, can the Minister inform the House what specific arrangements are being made for the investigators of war crimes to be given unhindered access to the evidence that they need? Finally, can the Minister provide a little further detail on the developments associated with the first convoy of humanitarian aid to Pristina? How will the Government continue to ensure that the humanitarian and reconstruction efforts are co-ordinated efficiently?
From these Benches we hope that the many issues raised in the Minister's Statement can be covered in depth in a full day's debate in your Lordships' House. I hope that the usual channels will take note and action accordingly, for the events of the past week have lit a beacon of hope for the future of Kosovo. We must ensure that our efforts to secure a lasting settlement for all the population of Kosovo keep alight that beacon of hope and that no one is allowed to extinguish it.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I echo the congratulations expressed to our Armed Forces and add my congratulations to the Government on the resolve and determination they have exhibited over the past few weeks. Many people criticised the operation, saying that it could not succeed, and that air power alone would
44
be unable to secure the objectives at which NATO was aiming. The Government persisted in their resolve and proved the critics wrong
There has been an excellent start to the implementation of the agreement under which the NATO forces have entered the territory without encountering serious resistance and were successful in disarming the remnants of the Serb forces which remain with only a handful of small incidents. The Statement mentions the excellent reception that our forces received. It is a reflection of the suffering and hardships endured by the people of Kosovo and vindicates the action that we have taken to restore to their homes those 708,000 people who have been expelled from their own country as well as the additional hundreds of thousands who are displaced within Kosovo.
The more we uncover what has been going on, the more we prove the moral legitimacy of the operation since the Serbian authorities were in the process of murdering, indirectly causing the death of, or expelling from their homes the whole of the population of Kosovo. If one looks at the history of Milosevic's activities in Kosovo, and before that in Bosnia, there is no reason to doubt that if we had not intervened that would have been the end result of the policy.
I take the point that there are only 200 Russian troops in Pristina airport. Can the Minister say whether the Russians have indicated definitely that that is the ultimate size of its contribution to the occupation forces? Alternatively, if agreement can be secured, would they bring in larger numbers of troops; and, if so, would they use Pristina airport to bring them in?
The Statement states that it was the military on the Russian side which sought a sector of its own. Does that mean that there is a difference of opinion between the Russian military and its political masters, with the political masters not insisting on a special sector but the Russian military saying that it should have one? If that were so, it is difficult to see how the undertakings now given by the Russians, and mentioned in the Statement, could be honoured.
I was glad to hear that British police officers have already entered Kosovo and are beginning to investigate the war crimes. No doubt this will be an extremely large job. It is essential that the resources should be brought in as early as possible so that the evidence can be secured. Will the noble Baroness say what arrangements there will be for the storage of forensic evidence, and the taking of statements in accordance with the rules of evidence which apply before the international tribunal on former Yugoslavia so that whatever evidence is uncovered by our police officers can be presented ultimately to the War Crimes Tribunal without doubts about its authenticity?
I was also pleased to learn about the additional £50 million provided by the Government. Is there a budget for the overall operation of getting the refugees and displaced persons back into their homes by the winter, and looking after them until they are able to earn a living? Can we yet begin to work out the costs of rebuilding the houses and infrastructure of Kosovo?
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Lords, Lord Moynihan and Lord Avebury, for their support and the kind remarks they made about Her Majesty's Government; and most particularly about the British forces which have gone into Kosovo.
There has been a great deal of progress over the past few days, as the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, said. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, about the vindication of the Government's position over using air strikes as the primary means of bringing Mr Milosevic to the point of deciding to withdraw the Serbian forces from Kosovo. In particular we must all wish General Sir Michael Jackson and his forces well. They have done a splendid job so far and I am confident that they will continue to do so over the next few days. They will have a difficult task. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Defence made it clear that in many ways it is this stage of the operation that is so delicate and sensitive. As both noble Lords made clear, we have all seen on our television screens how high feelings are running on this issue. It has been heart-warming, even moving, to see the welcome accorded the NATO KFOR troops going into Kosovo. However, the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right: the reverse side of that coin can be very ugly feelings towards some Serb neighbours whom individuals may hold responsible in part, perhaps mistakenly, for some of the atrocities visited upon them, their neighbours and their families.
Over the next few days or so, I suspect that we shall find evidence of more appalling atrocities. This will not just he a case of word of mouth and the terrible descriptions that we have all heard over the past 10 weeks or so. I suspect that we shall see some truly dreadful footage on our televisions; and that will make feelings run very high indeed. The troops will also have to cope with the terrible problems which we know exist of booby traps, mines, and everything else. It is a very difficult time for them. I am sure that we wish them Godspeed in the difficult work that they are undertaking.
The noble Lord asked me whether Serb troops are withdrawing. Yes, they are withdrawing. As the Statement I repeated earlier made clear, the NATO troops are ahead of schedule in going into Kosovo. The troops have explicit instructions that they are there to enforce peace across the whole of Kosovo. The Statement makes clear that it is not just a question of looking after the interests of the Kosovo Albanians but of looking after everyone irrespective of ethnic origin. Some noble Lords may have heard, as I did last week, young British troops saying how clear that had been made to them. I think that there was a report on the "Today" programme. I found it reassuring that not only was the message being sent; it was being received by those troops as part of their remit.
As the Statement makes clear, of course we found difficulty with what happened at Pristina airport. But I understand that the MTA was the practical understanding of how the military would work on the ground: that it was a question of military logistics. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, that it has not
46
delayed the KFOR troops going in. Indeed, as I said, they are ahead of their schedule. In any case, as I understand it, they could not have gone into Pristina airport because the airport was at the time ringed by the VJ—that is, Serbian forces. All those issues have been discussed by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State and his counterpart Mr Igor Ivanov. We have been assured in the way that the Statement makes clear. On the ground, General Sir Michael Jackson has reported that as a result of the discussions he had this morning he is optimistic that these matters will he sorted out. But the noble Lord is right: at one level there As a military discussion going on on the ground in Kosovo; but at another level there is a political discussion—as the Statement makes clear—between the United States and Russia about how the chain of command can be integrated.
If noble Lords read the UNSCR and the annexes to it they will see that the unified chain of command is part and parcel of the understanding reached in New York last week. Of course there are a number of different discussions going on about how to give that some practical impact as regards not just Pristina airport but the whole of Kosovo. Those discussions continue. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, is right: one model which can be looked at is the Bosnian model. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked about numbers. So far there are only 200 Russian troops in Pristina airport. On the ground there are about 14,000 NATO troops. We hope that that figure will rise over the next: few days and weeks to 45,000 of the KFOR force, of which some 13,000 are expected to come from the United Kingdom. We would like to see more Russian input into KFOR for the final arrangements and we very much hope that the Russians, who we always hoped would be part of the peacekeeping force, will take that opportunity. Indeed, I am sure that that is their intention.
The UNSCR also makes clear that it is the duty of everyone to co-operate with the War Crimes Tribunal. That "everyone" includes the government in Belgrade. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked particularly about the arrangements in that respect. The senior FCO official, David Gowan, has been appointed to be the Kosovo war crimes co-ordinator. lie will have responsibility for ensuring that our Government pass on to the ICTY as much information as possible. However. I hope that the teams which will be going—one from the United Kingdom and others from elsewhere in KFOR—will be able to make some progress on that front.
The humanitarian aid which my noble friend announced today will be going across the board in Kosovo, not solely to one part of the community, in order to help to improve the standards there. ] t will be part and parcel of the civil implementation arrangements which have been agreed, and to which reference was made in the Statement. Those civil arrangements include not only the return of the refugees, which is a UNHCR return, but I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for International Development will be planning a great deal of help. The arrangements will also include policing, de-mining, which is an important part of the work, and work as regards war crimes.
5.21 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that surprise moves have long been the currency of Russian diplomatic and military tactics? Does she further agree that undertaking not to make surprise moves are their coins of currency and that in that context it ought to have been possible to foresee and forestall the unfortunate move of the Russians to Pristina airport? Furthermore, is she aware that Russian diplomatic and military strategists have always been taught of the need to be good chess players? Will she ensure that the NATO headquarters have an equally good supply of chess players?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am sure that there are many excellent chess players in NATO headquarters. As regards surprise moves, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is right and that they are not without precedent, if I may put it that way. I believe that what has been agreed in a telephone conversation between my right honourable friend and the Russian Foreign Minister will hold up. It is that there should be prior agreement with NATO countries before any more Russian troops are moved into Kosovo. There is an agreement to carry through the principles in the Security Council resolution for the shape of the peacekeeping force. Of course, the Security Council resolution makes it absolutely clear that there must be a unified chain of command and that the objective is to create a single, whole Kosovo under international administration.
These points of principle have been agreed between my right honourable friend and his counterpart. But it is amazing, in view of what has happened during the past 10 weeks, how well the relationship with Russia has stood up. No one denies that it has undergone a good deal of strain, but it is remarkable that, throughout, the relationship remained remarkably robust, that the channels of communication have been opened and that we are in a position to act as joint partners in a peacekeeping force.
Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that poker is a more challenging game than chess and it is wrong to portray the swashbuckling antics of the Russian forces as some kind of publicity stunt? The truth is that a lack of clarity has been exposed between their foreign and defence ministries, which should be of serious concern to the NATO commanders who have to deal with the Russian authorities. Can my noble friend say whether General Zavarzin disobeyed NATO orders when he pulled his troops out of Bosnia and whether the SACEUR knew that he was pulling out his troops and directed them to stay?
Secondly, can my noble friend say something more about the stability pact to which she referred? This morning I returned from the Western European Union in Paris where the gossip in the corridors was that there is a jockeying for position as to where the headquarters of the distribution of those funds will be located, perhaps in Hungary, Greece or wherever. Can my noble friend assure me that wherever the office is located,
48
lessons will be learnt from Bosnia where there was a slow and not particularly well directed disbursement of funds and that a more effective disbursement will be the case with this new pact?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, my noble friend invites me to make a judgment on the relative merits in the context of chess and poker. Having always been hopeless at both, I find it difficult. Bridge has always been my forte, if at all. It is important that we do not dwell on this issue. The whole House knows that the Russians have not found this easy and that it has been a difficult few days for them, too. I have no doubt that within Russia there are considerable diplomatic strains.
My noble friend asked me to dissect the reasons for what happened. The honest truth is that I do not know what happened or whether someone disobeyed someone else. However, I suggest to my noble friend that while such questions are interesting they are not helpful. What is helpful is to build on the understanding of my right honourable friend and his counterpart, which was reached at the weekend, and to ensure that that understanding, with its three principal aspects, will be nurtured and cherished in order to ensure that a relationship with Russia continues to the full over this period.
My noble friend asked about the stability pact which was launched on 10th June. It is important because it provides for a forum for discussion for countries in the region on how to operate on a range of issues. We believe that European integration will be faster and more inclusive as a result. All participants were consulted when the stability pact ideas were being worked out. When countries have told us that they have concerns about the pact, we have made the EU presidency aware of those concerns.
I know that there are difficulties in working out the detail and no doubt we shall report further to your Lordships on that, but I believe that Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the stability pact provides us with a real means of meeting the interests of all the participants who are covered by it.
The Earl of Carlisle: My Lords, I congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the selection and maintenance of their aim. But secondly, I congratulate the Royal Air Force on enabling us to go in with our ground forces and ensure that President Milosevic threw in his hand. Finally, I congratulate the ground forces who have moved in to secure peace.
The noble Baroness mentioned the interim administration. Will she assure us that it will use the Albanian leaders at all levels to assist in establishing peace in this war-torn area and encourage the restraint of extreme elements who are extremely embittered by what has happened to the local population?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Carlisle, for those remarks. I would also wish to add our thanks to all our allies, as I am sure he would. I commented a moment ago, to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, upon the remarkable way in

49
which our relationship with our friends in Russia has stood up. Within some countries, on occasions, relationships in NATO have been strained. There has been no secret about that; we have been quite open about it. Again, it is remarkable that the alliance has withstood so well over this period.
The noble Earl asked us to consider the political future of what is happening in Kosovo. We know that the Kosovo Albanians are a fractured group in many ways. Different groups speak for different parts of the ethnic community. We are encouraging them to realise the importance of rebuilding Kosovo and to move towards a process of free and fair elections.
It has been agreed that the political settlement will take account of the Rambouillet Accords. We have discussed such matters on a number of occasions in your Lordships' House. The mechanisms that are set up, the parliament or assembly, should reflect the views of all the ethnic groups in Kosovo. The OSCE are charged with the oversight of this. A great deal of work has to be done by them, including the setting up of an electoral register. It will not have escaped anybody's attention that a great number of the Kosovo Albanians have been robbed of their identity. There will be all kinds of matters of that nature to be dealt with including restoring people's identity papers to them, setting up electoral registers and ensuring that the whole panoply of the civil administration works. The OSCE will be looking forward to that and, I hope, to the elections, in due course.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity of congratulating the noble Baroness on the marvellous quick-witted cool with which, week after week, she handles questions on this very complicated matter. We admire her very much for that. I wanted to say that last week but I was unable to get in.
I have several questions for the noble Baroness which I hope she will take in good part, as she always does. First, during the original Statement which she repeated she mentioned that in some way we will rely on the support of the KLA. Is it not the case that the United Nations resolution requires, among other things, the disarmament of the KLA? Will that be achieved and has its disarmament started yet?
Secondly, while we are busy congratulating ourselves on a great victory, is it not the case that when this operation started, the idea was to remove Milosevic; but he is still there as large as life, indeed larger than he ever was? Finally, with regard to the political problems of the future, the noble Baroness very rightly pointed out that a great deal needs to be done in running any kind of democratic election when we do not even have an electoral register and when people's identities are very much in question following the atrocities triggered by the KLA in the first place.
Finally, is it not the case that the United Nations resolution specifically refers to the disarming of the KLA and that, therefore, the KLA's part in what the
50
United Nations and NATO are doing must be pretty suspect—that is, until they have been properly disarmed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, for his kind words. I know he has very strong feelings about this issue. He has been very kind in the way in which he has put his questions.
However, we were not congratulating ourselves upon a victory. The Statement of my right honourable friend makes clear that the time for congratulations will come only when we have ensured that the refugees are able to return to their homes in safety. We have not completed that job. We are only part of the way through—an important part, it is true, but we are nowhere near completion of the task we set ourselves among the objectives.
I remind the noble Earl that one of those objectives was not the removal of President Milosovic. Your Lordships have asked me on a number of occasions whether his removal was, I believe the words used were, "one of the war aims". I have told your Lordships on a number of occasions that, much as we believe that Serbia will be better off without Mr Milosevic, that is a matter for the people of Serbia. It has not been one of our war aims to remove him from power.
The noble Lord specifically asked about the question of the KLA. Perhaps I may quote from paragraph 15 of the SCR. It states:
"the KLA and other armed Kosovo Albanian groups [must] end immediately all offensive actions and comply with the requirements for demilitarisation as laid down by the head of the international security presence, in consultation with the Special Representative of the Secretary-General."
I know that the noble Earl is very concerned about this point. I hope that spelling it out in that way makes quite explicit to the noble Earl the requirements of the UNSCR as regards its demilitarisation.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, we are all grateful to the noble Baroness for giving fuller and more regular Statements on Kosovo. I look forward to hearing more over the coming weeks, because it is not yet over. However, could she undertake to consult with colleagues about giving us a fuller humanitarian Statement? After all, the United Nations are just as accountable as our own Armed Forces and diplomats. We need, for example, to have an up-to-date account on how the UNHCR will manage to receive refugees both in neighbouring states and in Kosovo. Will it be the lead agency or will we see the office of co-ordination of humanitarian affairs play a more active role? The noble Baroness may not be able to answer that question now.
Finally, I also thank the noble Baroness for the statement of the new contribution from the Department for International Development. I know that will be warmly received by the refugees as and when it arrives in material form.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, for his congratulations on the extra aid. I am sure we are all

51
very pleased that the Secretary of State at the Department for International Development has been able to secure it.
The DfID produces each day a statement about the numbers of displaced people. I refer to those who have gone to the camps in Macedonia, Montenegro and Albania and, indeed, those who have been airlifted out of the whole region. I do not know whether the noble Lord has access to such statements but they are readily available. They are usually accompanied by an update of the latest humanitarian relief received not just from the United Kingdom but from all the countries which have been concerned to co-ordinate over humanitarian relief. I am sure that if the noble Earl contacts the DfID, he will be able to receive such updates.
However, I take the point that what he really wants is for us to have a fuller debate in your Lordships' House on that subject. The noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, also indicated his desire to have more of a debate about the whole of this issue, of which I am sure the humanitarian aid issues would be part. I do not have the authority at the Dispatch Box to say that I think that would be a good idea, but I am sure it will be sorted out by the usual channels in their usual efficient way.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, can my noble friend tell the House a little more about the setting up of a unified civilian authority in Kosovo? I understand that the United Nations resolution under which it will be set up is our sole legal basis for being there at all. Therefore, everything depends upon getting it right. How far has the planning proceeded in the construction of that authority? What relations are intended between it and NATO on the one hand and the Russian force on the other; whether it remains of a joke-size like now or becomes a more serious matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the UN Under Secretary-General, Vieira de Mello, has been appointed by the Secretary-General as his special representative on Kosovo as an interim measure. There is no decision as to the long-term appointment, but an interim appointment has already been made.
The UN will lead, devolving certain tasks to other agencies who have particular expertise to ensure success in meeting its objectives. The European Commission will take the lead on economic reconstruction and, as I indicated a few moments ago, the OSCE will deal with civic society and the election arrangements. The head of mission will be accountable to the Secretary-General of the UN and to the Security Council. Therefore, the point made by the noble Lord about integrating others into the arrangements will be covered by the arrangements of reporting and accountability.
We believe that the key is to get the civil implementation structures established quickly so that the military can progressively hand over responsibility. I am sure that is an aim to which all your Lordships would adhere. The priorities are policing, which is a United Nations lead; secondly, the war crimes and we have already spoken about how vital it is that the ICTY personnel get into Kosovo quickly and they are already
52
working with KFOR; and, thirdly, de-mining, which is a very important point and KFOR will clear mines and unexploded ordnance to the extent needed by the forces deployed throughout Kosovo. Our colleagues in the DfID will be assisting with the de-mining effort and working with the UN and NGOs. There is then the lead that will be taken by the UNHCR in the refugee returns.
Those are the main priorities that the civic implementation plan sets itself.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, if I understood the noble Baroness correctly, she suggested that it is not helpful for us to explore any further the question of the Russian seizure of Pristina airport. With respect, I beg to differ with her. That event holds potential for future trouble in view of the light that it throws on Russian attitudes and concerns. It is therefore important that it should be satisfactorily and quickly resolved.
Since this coup is entirely characteristic of President Yeltsin, and since the international agreements and the United Nations resolution do not spell out a clear role for Russian forces, it is surprising that this event was not anticipated by NATO. The noble Baroness said that our forces could not have gone in before the Russians arrived because the Yugoslav forces were still surrounding the airport. Is she suggesting that if we had landed a battalion of paratroopers on the airport at that time, they would have been forcibly resisted by the Yugoslav forces despite the fact that the international agreements had already been signed and the United Nations resolution passed? Or is she suggesting that the Yugoslav forces were in complicity with the Russian forces whereas they would not have been with ours?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not suggest for a moment that we should not hasten to resolve the issue of Pristina airport. Indeed, the Statement I repeated on behalf of my right honourable friend made it clear that discussions took place this morning on that very issue and that General Sir Michael Jackson is optimistic about resolving it. The issue that I suggested it was not entirely helpful for my noble friend Lord Ponsonby to air was why this happened in the first place.
I do not know the operational military instructions of the Russians. The noble Lord seems to suggest that we should have anticipated this happening. One might anticipate all sorts of things. I do not know whether or not it was anticipated. As I understand it, the airport was surrounded by VJ troops. The noble Lord suggests that perhaps we should have taken them on. But to put ourselves in so much confrontation was not necessarily the sensible course of action. The sensible thing was to do what was done; that is, to ensure that this was resolved properly and constructively through sensible discussion in the way that we have resolved all our other difficulties, not by possibly precipitating or provoking some kind of action.
This is an extremely delicate, difficult task in getting not only the NATO countries to co-ordinate over the KFOR, but ensuring that Russia too has the confidence to be part of KFOR. We very much hope that there will

53
be more Russian troops, but the noble Lord understands that this is an extremely difficult task and must be undertaken with due diplomatic sensitivity.

Greater London Authority Bill
5.44 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 2.
Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2. line 2, leave out ("twenty five") and insert ("forty")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 5, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 8, 18, 20 and 22. To explain briefly, Amendment No. 5 seeks to increase the number of members of the assembly from 25 to 40; Amendment No. 8 seeks to provide that the constituencies will be determined by the Local Government Commission; Amendment No. 18 seeks to remove the requirement for 14 constituencies; Amendments No. 20 seeks to remove the requirement that each constituency will comprise of two or more entire boroughs; and Amendment No. 22 seeks to remove the requirement that no borough is included in more than one constituency.
Amendment No. 5 is related to the amendments in the next group dealing with the electoral system. It is not easy to see where the dividing line should be drawn between the different amendments. The thrust of these amendments is to increase the size of the assembly. We chose the figure of 40 in part because that number would be sufficient for an electoral system based on the single transferable vote to work. But that comes in a later group. The increase will also mean greater representation of Londoners but that is not the main point that I wish to make.
The main issue, quite simply, is that we believe that 25 assembly members is not enough to do the job that will he required of them. We understand that the Government designed a lean and mean assembly. That language may not appear in any governmental publication. I am simply not sure where it comes from now because it has become so accepted a description of the proposed assembly. But 40 is not a great number. In fact it is considerably less than the size of some London borough councils. If nothing else in the Bill were to be changed with regard to the assembly's functions and operations, we still believe that 25 is too few. I make this point because it relates to points that we will make on later Committee days with regard to what the assembly should do.
The assembly's job in the Bill as drafted is to scrutinise the exercise of the Minister's functions and to conduct investigations into London issues. It is also to consider the budget for the GLA and other functional bodies. It can also overrule the mayor's proposals by a two-thirds majority. I shall take first a point with regard to the majority, though not perhaps the main point. Two-thirds of 25 is 17 and one might ask whether 17 is adequate on the model proposed. Conversely, and
54
perhaps more importantly, is eight, one-third, too few to support the mayor's proposals? The proposal for 40 would mean equivalent numbers of 27 and 13.
The job is not to make policy; it is to scrutinise. But each assembly member will have to cover a wide subject area. The members will have to acquire a detailed knowledge of each subject, both in breadth and depth. I anticipate that they are likely to specialise to some extent, both in the areas scrutinised and in the functions; and of course they will provide membership of certain bodies. The Metropolitan Police Authority is to include 12 assembly members and the London Fire and Emergency Planning Body is to include nine. Out of the 25 there will be the deputy mayor and the chair and deputy chair of the assembly. Those members will have less time—perhaps in the case of the deputy mayor, no time—for the scrutiny of functions. I am, in short, suggesting that London may not be served by having quite so lean a body.
It is not just a question of becoming familiar with the subject; there is also the issue of group dynamics, interplay with other members within the assembly as a whole and perhaps within each political group. However, as I said, we hope that the assembly will work in a constructive and co-operative manner. There will be political groups, and, even if no group has an overall majority, there will be dynamics within each group which will feed into the way the assembly operates.
It is important that when the assembly meets in plenary session or when groups of assembly members meet there are enough members to enable ideas to be bounced off one another. In that way the contribution will be more effective than on an individual basis.
It is envisaged that there will be constituency members as well as London members. Although we support a constituency comprising more than one borough, it is still likely that there will be a local interest and that the member will spend some time on local issues, because that is in the nature of both politics and human behaviour. That may also reduce the time available for the scrutiny function.
We are not suggesting that the time of assembly members will be best spent sitting in committees. The organisation of the authority will mean a move away from behaviour that tends to give politics a bad name. as if the ivory tower—in this case the headland—is complete in itself and does not need to relate to the world outside. I do not believe that that will happen for one moment because London is big in terms of area and population and members will have to become familiar with London and the surrounding areas. They will therefore be able to properly consider whether London is appropriately relating to those surrounding areas. Therefore, to cover the ground in every sense, we believe that there should be a number greater than 25. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: As I indicated during discussion on the previous group of amendments, some of the issues relate to this group of amendments and some to the following group. There are only three issues relating to this group; the function of the authority, the size of the authority

55
and matters of election. It is a little difficult to disentangle them before having a discussion on the other matters. Nevertheless, I shall try.
Our view is set out very clearly in the White Paper and, indeed, was clear when the Government initially set out their views on the future of London government. This authority should be small, streamlined and strategic in focus. We do not want there to be a detailed policy-making function in the assembly. Its function is one of scrutiny. We are not creating committees in the normal sense of a local authority or in the manner of the former GLC. We therefore consider that a small authority of 25 members will be sufficient to enable it to perform effectively its scrutiny and investigative role without becoming unwieldy and excessively bureaucratic. Were the assembly to take on the type of executive powers found in other authorities, different arguments would arise.
The question then arises of whether 25 can be sufficiently representative of the population of London. It is clear from all the analyses of voting systems that the smaller number of direct first-past-the-post seats, the less representative is the result. We therefore suggested that, as in Scotland and Wales, whatever the total—and we are proposing 25—there should be a mixture of directly elected seats and a corrective mechanism to ensure that the views across London were represented in the assembly. We therefore suggest 14 and 11 to make up the full 25.
Were we to make the number 33, as suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, it would not be possible to have a representative body if it was all done on a first-past-the-post basis.
Having taken the decision to create a small, streamlined authority and an authority sufficiently representative of the whole population, we then had to decide where the boundaries would be in the directly elected assembly. That was a matter for the Local Government Commission and not primarily for ministerial decision. The boundaries of the directly elected proportion of the 25-member assembly were therefore chosen on as subjective a basis as possible. That means that they cannot represent every London borough, nor is there a direct relationship between a grouping of London boroughs.
The academic work that has been done indicates that it is possible to achieve a representative reflection in a 25-member assembly. Professor Patrick Dunleavy and Dr Helen Margetts have carried out extensive research on the most appropriate voting system for London's assembly. That research is in the Library here. It shows that with 25 members it is possible to have a broadly proportional outcome.
The argument for having a larger figure is one which states that there should be a larger assembly because it would be undertaking functions more akin to a normal local government structure, which we wish to get away from, or an argument that areas of London that are self-identified in terms of boroughs or existing identities should be directly represented. That would mean there would have to be well above 40 before getting a
56
first-past-the-post system which, at the same time, reflected the balance of opinion across London with some accuracy.
The combination of a streamlined assembly and an assembly that represents the balance of opinion across London gives a split of approximately that which we are proposing. A body of 40 would not significantly improve that position, certainly if it was all first past the post. If it was a similar split, it would not give a better representation than the split at 25 and it would be a more unwieldy body performing the central function we have set out which has been endorsed by the people of London.
We therefore resist the proposition that it should be extended to 40 and also the suggestion by the noble Baroness, Lade Carnegy of Lour, that there should be 33 members who would directly represent the boroughs. That has the potential additional disadvantage that a direct representative of the borough would have some of the disadvantages of an indirect representative in that the carve-up would not be strategic but would be on the balance of interest between the boroughs. We want an authority that looks at London as a whole and not primarily through the eyes of representatives of the boroughs. We therefore hope that the amendment will not be pursued.
6 p.m.
Lord Tope: I listened with care to what the Minister said. Perhaps I may start by dealing with the points with which I agree. He said that the Government want an authority which is small, streamlined, strategic and focused. I believe that those were his exact words and I agree with that entirely. However, "small" is a relative term—25 is small; 40 may be slightly larger but in my view, it is still small. Therefore, I cannot accept the argument that 40 is too large and 25 is fine. For an assembly representing the whole of Greater London—7 million members—40 is small, and rightly so.
My noble friends and I do not pretend that there is any special magic about 40. If the Minister were to say that he cannot accept 40 but he will accept 38 or 42, then I expect that we should graciously accept. I do not want to argue strongly about 40 and no more and no less, but it is indicative of the size which we feel will still be streamlined, will certainly be strategic and, it is hoped, will be focused.
It also needs to be representative, as far as anything can be, of a large diverse population such as that of London. It is extremely important that, as far as possible, all Londoners feel that the assembly fairly represents the mix in London of gender, ethnicity, geographical location and so on.
The Minister said that he did not believe that 40 members elected by a first-past-the-post system could possibly achieve that. I agree entirely. It will come as no surprise to him that we do not propose that they should all be elected by first-past-the-post. As he will know, we shall be proposing that none of them should be elected by first-past-the-post. He is quite right that the next group of amendments are connected with this

57
group because we are talking about the size of the authority and the way in which it is to be elected. The two go together.
Our objection to the previous set of amendments was not in relation to the magic number of 33 but that they should be tied to and come from the boroughs, which happen to number 33. That is the objection with which we have dealt. We believe it should be the larger number if it is to be properly representative and also, if the members are able to carry out the range of duties expected of them. I understand as well as anyone what the assembly is proposed to be. I note that it is not to be a local authority with executive powers and so on. I understand that it is to be a scrutinising body. But I hope that it will be the focus of a lot of interest and attention from a wide range of interest groups in London. Of course they will focus primarily on the mayor, and rightly so. But they will also wish to talk to, lobby, relate to and engage the interest of assembly members.
At this stage, we have no idea at all what administrative support assembly members are to receive. But even with a reasonable level of administrative support, it will be extremely difficult for assembly members to carry out their range of duties conscientiously, across the whole of London, with the wide range of interests involved.
There is no magic number but a greater number, such as 40, would necessarily make the sharing of that burden a little easier. Perhaps the Minister will tell us about the responses to the Government's White Paper which asked specific questions about the proposed size of the assembly, while making it clear that it should be small, strategic and so on. Sadly, I forgot to look up the figures before I came, but I believe I am right to say—and perhaps the Minister will confirm it—that the greater number of responses which referred to the size of the assembly all suggested that it should be larger than 25. I accept that some suggested it should be very much larger, and we do not share that view. However, I suspect that 40 was nearer the number suggested in those responses that referred to size than is 25. I suspect that the Minister will tell us week after week that we are responding to the wishes of Londoners. Therefore, I play that back to him and ask him whether that is the case when dealing with the size of the assembly.
However, as I said earlier, the most important reason is to enable there to be enough assembly members, although not too many, to carry out their duties while remaining strategic and focused and, above all, in order for them to be representative of London's very diverse community.
Lord Renton: This group of amendments contains several quite separate issues which perhaps should have been dealt with separately. However, the matter to which I wish to refer briefly is that covered by Amendment No. 8. That amendment refers to Clause 2(4) which states:
"The Assembly constituencies shall be the areas, and shall be known by the names, specified in an order made by the Secretary of State".
58
As the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, knows well, some of us feel that it is wrong to have subordinate legislation governing important matters rather than having primary legislation. I should have thought that the constituencies in the future Greater London should be in primary legislation which is brought before Parliament for Parliament to consider in detail and to amend if necessary. But if we have an order made by the Secretary of State, we must either accept or reject it. We have no detailed say in the matter.
A good compromise is covered by Amendment No. 8 which refers to,
"following a review carried out by the Local Government Commission under the terms of Schedule 1 to this Act'.
I should prefer to see it spelt out on the face of the Bill. As we are at an early stage of the Bill. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to replace the prospect of an order by the Secretary of State by some detailed provisions in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: A number of points were raised after my first intervention. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that, as I pointed out on an earlier group of amendments, the boundaries have been drawn up on the recommendation of the Local Government Commission. Therefore, they are not a political fix, so to speak, by the Secretary of State. The Government have accepted the Local Government Commission's recommendations in relation to the boundaries as they stand. Putting that into effect by order is the normal procedure in relation to local government boundaries, as the noble Lord will know.
Lord Renton: Will the Minister explain to us why, therefore, that is to be finalised by an order by the Secretary of State over which Parliament has no control except to say yes or no?
Lord Whitty: If I am incorrect, I shall write to the noble Lord but as I understand it, all changes in local government boundaries are implemented by order of the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must accept or query the boundaries as suggested by the Local Government Commission. In this case, we accepted its proposals and we shall carry them through by order. I shall ensure that the noble Lord receives any further clarification which may be required.
I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that I do not have the numbers off the top of my head or instantly recoverable. There were a number of responses which suggested that there should be more than 25. But there was also a significant number, not least from the business community, whose views were that we must ensure that the assembly is small and streamlined. Our view is that 25 is the appropriate number. It is certainly true that in the responses others took a different view. Some took the view of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, and others took a different view. In order to achieve the object of establishing a new, unique structure of government for London, we have always taken the view that the assembly should be small and

59
that 25 is the appropriate number. I hope that the noble Baroness will not pursue this matter, at least at this point.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps not at this point. I read into the Minister's comment on the Green Paper that some respondents wanted more members and some fewer, so the Government have come up with a figure in the middle. It would be interesting to know for a future stage whether the figure of 25 received support.
I took also from the Minister's argument that the electoral system was dictating the figure of 25 members. The Minister did not directly answer the points made by my noble friend and myself about the functioning of the assembly—other than to say that 40 members would be unwieldy. I am sure that 40 members could be controlled by any half-way competent chair. Forty is not all that different from 25.
My noble friend forcefully made the point that we are concerned that all Londoners and all London interests are properly represented. We are concerned also that assembly members have a job that is practicable. I am not sure whether the muttering—I do not mean that unkindly—of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, was on my point about numbers. I am absolutely sure that in dealing with his members in Haringey, which is more of the order of 60 than 40, the noble Lord is totally competent and has them all exactly where he wants them.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Perhaps I could clarify the mumbling. I was trying to understand why, although 40 was not thought a very different number from 25, it was nonetheless preferable because it was larger. I suspect that the figure of 40 was advanced because it fits much more neatly with the principles and requirements of the single transferable vote—which is, I gather, the hors-d'oeuvre up to which we are building. In which case, can the noble Baroness explain why it is appropriate to structure the assembly to fit the convenience of an electoral system, rather than meet the needs of the functions of the assembly that is being created?
Baroness Hamwee: We would be happy to accept 42, 39 or even 35. We would not accept 33 members, for the reasons given in the previous debate. We do not want members tied directly to London boroughs. We believe that would work against the strategic nature of the authority. I apologise if I gave the wrong impression, in suggesting that there is not much difference between 40 and 25 members. I was speaking in the context of whether or not the assembly would be unwieldy. I do not regard 40 members as unwieldy or 25 as particularly more "wieldy"—if there is such a word.
This is a serious point and not an hors-d'oeuvre to the main course of a different electoral system. All my noble friends on these Benches tonight and many of your Lordships have said that they are not theologians with regard to electoral systems. They are not a subject that attracts us as a technical matter. What is of importance is good representation and good
60
government. As I made clear to the Minister privately at a meeting last week at which a number of your Lordships and many officials were present, we are concerned about this matter entirely separately from how assembly members are elected. It is not that we feel compelled to argue points so that we may argue the next group of amendments. I dare say that we will reflect on the issue and may return to it. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Tope Lord Tope moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("members") to end of line 6 and insert ("representing the multi-member constituencies determined by the Local Government Commission under subsection (4) below")
With this amendment I will speak also to Amendments Nos. 7, 11, 12, 13, 16, 23, 27, 27A, 28, 29, 30, 34, 35, 36, 41, 45, 47 and 49.
Amendment No. 6 removes the distinction between constituency and London members and provides for the Local Government Commission to determine constituencies. Amendment No. 7 says that there shall be more than one member per constituency—in other words, that there shall be multi-member constituencies. Amendments Nos. 11, 12, 13, 16, 23, 27A, 29, 30 and 45 all remove mention of London members. Amendment No. 34 adds a section explaining the filling of vacancies by alternative votes, because the single transferable vote cannot be used to elect one person. Amendment No. 35 explains the STV system. Amendment No. 36 removes the detail of London members' elections. Amendment No. 41 explains that seats are allocated to candidates with the most votes. Amendment No. 47 makes provision for by-elections. Amendment No. 49 removes the reference to the highest-placed candidates being elected. After that, I feel confident that the whole Committee will wish to support that group of amendments.
The art of good leadership is delegation. My noble friend and leader for this purpose, Baroness Hamwee, has kindly delegated this task to me. In more than 30 years' membership of the Liberal Party and latterly the Liberal Democrats, I have managed never to make a speech explaining the intricacies of the single transferable vote—for which there is a good reason. I have, however, made many speeches on my genuinely held belief in the beneficial effects of such a system.
We touched in an earlier debate on the Conservative amendments relating to borough representation and their views, which I think we share, about the inadequacies of the proposals for 14 fairly large constituencies and a top-up list of 11 London members. Whatever system is used, the one we have is by no means the best. The 14 constituencies will be too large to be in any sense local and too small to be in any sense strategic to two or, in some cases, three boroughs. There will still be a degree of local interest, with the focus still very much on borough interests—although a little less than single-borough interests. But the constituencies will not be large enough to be strategic.
The Electoral Reform Society states that based on the 1998 borough election results—I know as well as anyone that things can change but those are the most recent and reliable indicators—only one of the proposed 14 constituencies can genuinely be held to be marginal. All but four would be regarded as safe. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, is looking at me with interest. That is not a claim on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. Nevertheless, four seats could be and are considered as safe for one party or the other.
Even more important to Liberal Democrats is that, based on the 1998 borough elections, only three of the 14 constituencies would have elected a winner having more than half the votes. That is a fundamental democratic flaw. As to the 11 top-up seats for so-called London members, two different categories of assembly members are introduced. I hope that will not show too much in practice, but it is an undesirable division. There is no need or real justification for two different sorts of assembly member. I hope that they will not come to be seen within the assembly or, more likely, outside it as being in some way different—one more legitimate than the other.
Putting the list system together with the constituency system as I described it means, according to the Electoral Reform Society, that something like 20 of the 25 assembly members will be able to count themselves virtually sure of election once they have secured their party nomination; in other words, we are adopting a system in which, even more than present systems, the assembly membership will be determined not by the London electorate but by the London political party members. That is inherently undemocratic.
The proposal that we are putting forward is for election by the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies. We would envisage four or five large constituencies, which could perhaps be based on the old county boundaries, but that would be a matter for the Local Government Commission to determine. It would give a degree of local representation—I use that word loosely; perhaps geographical representation is a better expression—shared with others but with a large enough interest to be able to be genuinely strategic.
That is the argument for the multi-member constituencies. The argument for STV within those constituencies is based on three principles, which I believe any election system ought a have. First, and most important, there is fairness to all voters. Secondly, there should be real natural constituencies; and, thirdly, there should be genuine voter choice. All of those will be met by STV in multi-member constituencies. We would stand to gain the best opportunity that we are going to get of actually electing an assembly—be it 25 or, as we would prefer, 40 members or thereabouts—which would be more likely to be at least reasonably representative of the many communities of London, as opposed to 25 members who would, in effect, be almost entirely chosen by the political parties. That is another advantage of what we propose.
STV would also allow voters to express preferences for individual candidates both within a party and between parties. Again, it would allow much wider voter
62
choice. It would also help to create an assembly which would be more representative. It is interesting to note that STV is the system used in Ireland, and the noble Lord, Lord Archer, was kind enough to express his enthusiasm for it earlier. It has worked well in Ireland and, interestingly, it is the system which was introduced by the previous government; indeed, it is still used in Northern Ireland, as witnessed in last week's European elections. There is a very good reason for that: again, as far as possible, to enable the communities in Northern Ireland to be more fairly represented.
We propose STV for multi-member constituencies, not because any of us is an election anorak or, indeed, because I wish to be known, as my noble friend said to me privately earlier on, as "Lord Nerd"—because I do not—but because we genuinely believe that it is more democratic and that it will produce a much more representative assembly elected with the best possible voter choice and the least possible political party choice. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I thought that STV would be debated under Amendment No. 14. However, as it has been mentioned now in such detail, perhaps I may say a few words at this stage. I was born and brought up in a country where the single transferable vote was the system. When I first came to the United Kingdom, I thought that it was better than the existing system in this country. But, as time has gone by, I have decided that it is very definitely not comparable. I strongly support the first-past-the-post system.
The single transferable vote does not produce the candidate that most people like; it merely gives the result. The elected party is the one which is least generally disliked. It is a totally negative form of election whereby, even if you do not get your choice, you can, out of pique, use the system to go against whoever you want to avoid being elected. I really do not support STV. I lived in Australia long enough to vote under that system. Indeed, the complexity of it whereby you will have many candidates produces a further Problem. I feel that this is yet another push. I do not go along with those in this House and in that party generally who support proportional representation, STV or any old system at all except first-past-the-post. I do not know whether my remarks are suitable at this point or whether they would be more suitable under the debate on Amendment No. 14, but I shall not repeat them. I wanted to make the point very strongly that I oppose the single transferable vote.
Lord Whitty: There is a large number of amendments in this group, some of which raise certain issues which have not yet been mentioned. Nevertheless, it is clear that those on the Liberal Democrat Benches wish to ensure that the system of voting for the assembly is STV. Despite the fact that he claimed that he had never made such a speech before in his life, the noble Lord, Lord Tope, did not make a bad fist of advocating the STV system. However, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, gave it fairly short shrift and pointed out the main objection to it; namely, that at best you get

63
everyone's second choice and in some cases everyone's third choice, depending on the size of constituency and the way that the votes fall.
I am slightly concerned. We on these Benches often get accused of not having a coherent approach to the devolution agenda in general. However, being a bit of an anorak myself—or, nerd, which I believe was the term used by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—I was still awake late last night and watched the broadcast on the European elections. I must be totally objective because I think he is the only member of the parliamentary Liberal Party who is not actually running for election at this point, but I am pretty confident that I heard Menzies Campbell making it absolutely clear that they favoured the additional member system, in which the Liberals joined with us in Scotland on the convention. He said that the system in Scotland and Wales had been entirely successful in that it allowed people to maintain the link with the constituency but that, on the top-up list, it made sure that the number of members eventually returned reflected the total proportion of votes. If the additional membership system is good enough for the Liberals in Scotland and in Wales, I fail to understand why the Liberals in London would wish to revert to an atavistic attachment to STV. I applaud their consistency in this matter in some respects, but they appear to have abandoned it in relation to other aspects of constitutional change in this House.
Lord Archer of Weston-Super-Mare: I, too, heard the words of the Liberal Member. But did the Minister then hear Mrs. Margaret Beckett say immediately afterwards that she had never been in favour of proportional representation? I wonder where the Minister stands on that.
Lord Whitty: I believe that my right honourable friend was responding to the question as to whether the results of the European elections had set back the campaign for first-past-the-post in relation to Westminster. She made her own particular view known on that issue. Indeed, those of us who know her will have heard her rather forthrightly express that view many times. She did not express a view in relation to London or, indeed, to Scotland and Wales on that occasion. As noble Lords will know, the Government as a whole have thought it appropriate that, in relation to the new parliament and the new assembly—and, of course, in relation to the GLA—an additional member system which maintains, on the one hand, the constituency link while, on the other, ensures that the total balance is more proportionate, is an appropriate innovation in our constitution at that level. That is an entirely different argument as to whether that should be the system which defines the Government of the United Kingdom. That is no doubt one to which the Liberal Democrats would wish us to return very rapidly; and we have to watch that space.
64
However, I had better return to London rapidly. The additional member system proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Tope—
Lord Tope: It was probably a slip of the tongue, but I would not wish it to go on the record. It is the Minister who is proposing the additional member system, although he is now suggesting that I proposed it. That is not the case.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: I apologise to the noble Lord. I was so persuaded by my own argument I assumed that he had been persuaded too. The noble Lord advocates an STV system. I thought I heard him mention four or five constituencies, presumably in the context of a 25-member assembly. That would probably enable an STV system to work adequately. The London constituencies are pretty huge. Even with a system of 40 members—as advocated just now—the constituencies would have to be pretty huge to enable STV to work. The degree of identity that could be achieved with those constituencies would be extremely limited. Therefore the constituency geographic identity—which we seek in our suggestions for representation—would not be met by creating four or five STV-based constituencies across London. That is much better met by the 14 directly elected posts under the first-past-the-post representation which we propose. However, we recognise—as we would with any size of assembly so far suggested—that that could lead to a serious distortion. We need to correct that distortion—in the same way as we have in Wales and Scotland—by introducing the top-up system.
The noble Lord suggested that this was a way of ensuring that the party would control the choice. With the system at present in place the party controls the choice. In Scotland and Wales the party controls the choice of candidates put before the electorate. The electorate then have the ability to decide whether or not to support the candidates put before them. That is the case with any of the systems that we propose. It allows for a potential independent element.
The issue of open lists as opposed to closed lists has detained the Chamber in a different context for a considerable amount of time. However, in an additional member system as distinct from a pure list system—as we operated during the European elections—the strength of any argument which the Committee may have against an open system is much weaker because there is still a constituency base determining the majority of candidates, as in Scotland and Wales. Therefore I do not think that the historic arguments used by this Chamber in relation to open lists apply to the same degree in this case.
I believe that the burden of the feeling in this Chamber is not to pursue the STV option—although I have no doubt that the Liberal Democrats will continue to do so—but to pursue a system of representation envisaged when we put forward the previous legislation for the referendum and now made manifest in this Bill. As this process was carried out in Scotland and Wales, I do not think it will be a problem for Londoners to be faced with two votes in relation to the assembly

65
elections. That did not confuse the electors of Scotland and Wales and it is hardly likely to confuse the electors of London. Nor is it likely to create two tiers of member, as the noble Lord implied—I think he then rapidly retreated from that view—as I believe it is clear in Scotland and Wales that there is no distinction between the functions and the legitimacy of the two different methods of election to the Parliament and the Assembly. There is no reason why there should be that distinction in London.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the noble Lord leaves that point I hope I may suggest to him that the Government would be wise before they proceed any further with this system—which I gather is identical to the one used for the Scottish Parliament—to find out what effect it has had on the political parties and whether they are completely happy with it. The Government should also find out from the Scots Parliament whether the two sets of members will in fact be equal because there has already been a big argument about that in the Scots Parliament. It has been decided that the two sets will have different levels of expenses—I think I am right in saying that—and there has been trouble. The Government would be wise not to gloss over this matter and think that because nothing has been said in the newspapers about the whole matter going wrong everything is all right. I can give them one instance of where within a political party the system has worked extremely unfairly. The Minister may find that that is the case in his own party and in other parties. It may be wise to take that into account for the future of the system. It is best to arrange it so that it works out as fairly as possible.
Lord Whitty: In response to the first point of the noble Baroness, the system is effectively the same—although the proportions are somewhat different—as in Scotland and Wales. I have no doubt that there are a number of teething problems in both those countries and there will be a number of teething problems in London. We are talking about creating new institutions with a new range of powers and a new basis of legitimacy. However, I do not believe that any fundamental problem experienced by the Scottish Parliament or the Welsh Assembly—despite the problems they have—relates to the fact that they allegedly have a two-tier level of membership. I do not believe that that is a huge problem although there may be some difficulties at the margin.
As to whether political parties are satisfied with the respective results, given that in neither case was an overall majority won by any party, none of the political parties will be entirely happy. They will find other reasons to explain why they feel that the system does not entirely reflect their interests. The idea that we have created assemblies and parliaments with two tiers of members is erroneous and will be erroneous as far as London is concerned.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not mean that the political parties did not think the system was fair on them. I refer to the fact that the people who get elected
66
to the assembly may not relate to the votes that are cast. I could give the noble Lord an example which may be helpful although I shall not do so now. It would be wise for the Government to talk to the political parties about how the system has worked. I refer to the mechanics of the system. Various details could be stipulated which would make the system clearer.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Before my noble friend responds to the amendment, I should like to make two points. First, I do not believe that the Minister has responded to the point of representation of different interests as an advantage of a proportional system like STV which was put forward by my noble friend. The great advantage of STV is that you can vote for any candidate from any party in any order you wish. I take an extreme example of a woman who has never had the chance to vote for a woman representative. There are women in England who have never had the chance to vote for a woman to represent them. That woman can, if she wishes, vote only for women representatives, taking those from her own party first and then perhaps those from another party. Someone from an ethnic minority can do the same with regard to his choice of candidate. The evidence from countries where STV is used shows that any proportional system tends to assist the election of women but STV is particularly effective in assisting with the election of women and those from ethnic minorities. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, did not respond to that point when my noble friend mentioned it.
Further, I disagree with the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes. I am rather a "nerd" on this subject and I shall not bore the Committee by describing the whole system. We elect all our committee members at a national level on STV. The votes are counted from those who have the most votes downwards. Anyone who has more votes than he or she needs to get elected—that is, more than their quota—finds that the excess votes trickle down. Therefore the most popular people are elected first. It is not a case of the least popular people being elected first. The people who are elected are those who have accumulated the most votes. People do not necessarily understand how the voting system works. It favours those who have the most support, not those with less support.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I cannot let that pass. When I was in Australia at Easter I was shown the size of the single transferable vote list for the Senate. It was as big as an enormous tablecloth. That is the kind of thing one gets when matters reach a ridiculous level.
I was elected to the General Dental Council on the basis described by the noble Baroness. That still does not alter my view. I do not think that I was necessarily the most popular person but I was fortunate enough to be elected on a single transferable vote when, at a

67
certain time, there was a need to elect one dentist to represent general practitioners. I am not convinced and my arguments still stand.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am sure that when the noble Baroness was elected to that committee she was one of its most respected members.
Lord Whitty: With due respect to both august bodies, I am not sure that the internal committee of the Liberal Democrat Party or the General Dental Council are good models for how we should run London in the future.
As to the noble Baroness's first point, I strongly recognise the need to ensure that minorities are represented.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I really must stop talking about women as a minority. I am talking about getting elected to elected bodies people who are not normally elected. That is the point I was making. STV gives people the chance to do that.
Lord Whitty: I accept that. I thought we were talking about the under-represented part of the community, whether they are women, ethnic minorities or other minorities. It depends on the size of the STV constituency whether or not an STV system makes that easier. If political parties are committed to greater representation of women or ethnic minorities, a topping-up list system is a very effective way of increasing their representation. That is an opportunity the political parties in London will have through the London-wide election lists.
Lord Tope: The Minister began by suggesting that there was some possible difference of view between myself and Menzies Campbell about the benefits of PR systems. That is a conceptual impossibility. There is no difference between us at all. We believe that any genuine proportional system is better than the first-past-the-post system but that some proportional systems are better than others. That is a perfectly clear and consistent view. It has always been and remains our preferred option to use the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies. Where that is not achievable—either because of an intransigent government or for other reasons—then an alternative proportional system is certainly still preferable to first-past-the-post. If we fail to get into the Bill the best electoral system, we will undoubtedly end up supporting the second or third best, or whatever grade one gives to the system proposed. At least that will produce a proportional result in spite of the defects that I and my noble friend have spoken to. Although my noble friend tells me rather late in the day that she is a "nerd" on these subjects—I wonder if "nerd" is a parliamentary term—I am sure she could have moved the amendment far better than I.
The Minister made a number of points. He referred to larger constituencies. That is certainly true. "Constituency" is an electoral term. I accept that we are
68
talking more accurately about sub-regional areas in the London context. I accept that they are much larger areas. We spent some time earlier arguing very strongly that this is a strategic authority whose members must take a strategic view. The word "parochial" was used. It is not a word I would wish to use, particularly in relation to boroughs, but too local, too parochial a view would at best inhibit a truly strategic view. That is the argument for having larger constituencies—sub-regional areas, if you like—represented by a number of members who will work together for the interest, where appropriate, of that larger area, but still large enough to have a strategic impact on the future of London. As one would expect, there are fierce debates, even rivalries, quite properly, between east London, west London, north London and south London. That will continue. We do not want to make it into too small an area.
The Minister said that I referred to the possibility—I certainly meant to say it—of the danger of two types of members of the assembly emerging and that I then retreated from it. I do not think I retreated from it. It is a fear I have. I expressed the hope that it will not happen; that is not the same as retreating. I hope that it will not happen; I fear that it might. We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. She indicated that if the Scottish experience is borne out and continues, that may well happen. I can envisage arguments about expenses at an early stage. Constituency members will argue that they need higher expenses because they have constituents to deal with; London members will argue that their constituents are the whole population of London. They both will be right.
I hope very much that such arguments will not happen. I do not want to see that emerge—I do not want to be a part of that in any way—but it is a fear I have. It is a situation we could avoid by adopting the eminently sensible and particularly democratic system—which will apply very well in the small strategic authority for London we are debating—of the single transferable vote in multi-member constituencies.
I am not sure whether the Minister expressed a hope or an expectation when he said that we will return to this subject again. I do not wish to disappoint him but, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 7 to 13 not moved.]
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 2, line 20, after ("election") insert ("under the alternative vote system")
The noble Baroness said: We are now moving to the amendments on which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, felt we would have our discussion on the different systems of voting. The amendments are not concerned with voting for members under the STV system but propose that the election of the mayor shall be by alternative voting and not by the supplementary vote system proposed in the Bill.
Amendment No. 14 inserts the first mention of the new system in Clause 2 at page 2, line 20, of the Bill; Amendment Nos. 24 and 25 change references from "supplementary" to "alternative" votes as a consequence of Amendment No. 14. Amendment No. 26 removes the reference to a vote being transferred to only first and second candidates. Here we come to the crux of the amendment—to which I shall return later—namely, that under an alternative vote system the voter has more than two choices. Amendments Nos. 32 and 33 substitute the counting system for alternative votes for the explanation of supplementary votes in Schedule 2 to the Bill.
Supplementary votes and alternative votes are both systems for electing one person from a field of many or several candidates. Even the supplementary vote has only a marginally more proportional effect than the first-past-the-post system. Under the supplementary vote, voters can mark their ballot papers with a cross for their first choice and another for their second choice. Even so, the person elected may not have received 50 per cent of the vote. Under the alternative vote, voters rank the candidates in order of preference and, because of the system of counting, the winning candidate will have the support of more than half of the voters.
We believe that the mayor should be elected using the alternative vote because it would give the mayor a better grounding, a better foundation, in terms of the support of a large percentage of the population of London. In addition, election by supplementary vote involves a form of guesswork, because the voter must guess which of the other candidates will be knocked out and which will remain after the first round of counting. If he or she does not vote for one of those who still remain, their second vote is lost. So it will not increase their chance of having voted for the mayor. As a consequence, the supplementary vote does not eliminate tactical voting.
Interestingly enough, the Government's Green Paper, New Leadership for London, did not mention the supplementary vote for the election of the mayor, but suggested three options: first-past-the-post; second ballot and alternative vote. The second ballot is like the supplementary vote, but it does not require the voter to guess. The voter who votes in the second ballot knows the candidates who still remain in the field and he or she can pick the one of his or her choice.
The alternative vote was proposed as an option in the Green Paper and yet, without there being any mention of the supplementary vote in the Green Paper, it was introduced in the White Paper as a simplified version of the alternative vote. Why does the Minister think that Londoners need a simplified version? I suppose that we might reliably anticipate there being candidates from the three major political parties represented in this House. Presumably there would be a green candidate, and possibly a BNP candidate. There might be one or two others, but the number of candidates can be restricted in any voting system by the conditions which are imposed for the nomination process. So it would probably be possible to limit the candidates to a sensible number.
If the Government are telling us that Londoners are not clever enough to rank five or six people in the order of their preference, all I can say is that that gives a rather poor impression of the respect with which the residents and voters of London are treated. I believe that the supplementary vote may have been introduced into the Bill because it is a cheaper version of the second ballot. It does not require a person to go and vote again, as is done in France on the second ballot procedure. We feel that it is very important to have a system for election for the mayor which guarantees that the maximum number of people have supported the candidacy of the particular person who wins that election. That is why we support the alternative vote system for electing the mayor, rather than the system suggested by the Government. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: It is on occasions like this that I miss my noble friend Lord Plant of Highfield, who would take us through the intricacies of the various systems of voting, as he did some years ago when he convinced me of the importance of the supplementary vote system. I am sure that the same arguments still apply. The reason that we have proposed the supplementary vote system here is not that it is cheaper, or that it is simpler for Londoners to understand, or even that it would give a better result for the Labour Party, as some have alleged. The reason is that the supplementary vote system, as distinct from the alternative vote system, could in certain circumstances, if candidates are ranked one to five, lead to a situation where the third or fourth most popular candidate would in fact win. In the STV system this applies for the second, third and fourth elected candidates rather than the first. But here we are discussing the alternative vote system.
The supplementary vote system, where you vote for your first and second choice, is a two-ballot decision all in one. Whereas under the French system you do not know who the candidates will be in the second ballot, you will know who all the candidates will be in the election for the mayor. If the second votes are transferred, the system would give a majority to the successful candidate. In this the first election of a mayor of London, with a directly elected executive role, it is important that the method of election attunes itself as clearly as possible to the expressed views of the electorate. We want a strong mayor with whom people can identify, and whom they feel they have chosen. If we were to go on to the alternative vote system, under which in certain circumstances it would be possible for a third or fourth preference to be elected, that could seriously undermine the credibility and the mandate of the mayor. We do not believe that that is the best way forward.
I accept that the noble Baroness considers, as do various political parties in Australia, that the alternative vote system, with all its slight perversities, gives everyone a say, but it does not necessarily result in the election of the candidate who is the most popular and has the strongest mandate. The absolute objective of any system for introducing a mayor of London is that the population who voted in London can believe that whatever the system, the most popular candidate was

71
elected. That could be jeopardised by a full alternative vote system. I ask the noble Baroness to consider that point and not to press the amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The Minister wished for the attendance of the noble Lord, Lord Plant. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Plant, might be on our side of the argument and not on the Minister's side. Furthermore, the noble Lord should not tempt me to argue about the effects of STV by making inaccurate statements about it. However, I shall ignore that challenge. I certainly would never allege that the Government had chosen a system of election because they thought it might benefit them.
The perversity of the supplementary voting system arises when, for example, four candidates have fought an election and have come very close together in that election. The votes of the candidate with the fewest votes would be redistributed, but the people who had voted for that candidate might have no sensation that their second choice had been considered because they might have given their second vote to the person who is ultimately elected. The person who is ultimately elected can be elected with less than 50 per cent of the poll. That is the disadvantage of the system.
I do not think it is worth going into a long argument about this issue. I would simply point out that in the 1930s a Bill was introduced into this Parliament to provide the supplementary vote system for elections in this country. During the passage of the Bill the method was changed from SV to AV and the Bill was abandoned after a disagreement with the House of Lords. Indeed, AV is also used for the election of the Irish President, a person who almost inevitably commands the support and respect of the majority of his or her countrymen. However, perhaps this is not the time to go into all the intricacies of the system. I suspect that we may well come back to this amendment. Therefore, for the time being, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
Clause 2 agreed to.
7 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Strabolgi): I have to inform the Committee that if Amendment No. 18 is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 19.
Schedule 1 [Assembly constituencies and orders under section 2(4)]:
[Amendments Nos. 18 to 22 not moved.]
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4 [Voting at ordinary elections]:
[Amendments Nos. 23 to 30 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 4, line 13, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
("(10) At an ordinary election a person may not be both a candidate to be an Assembly member and a candidate for Mayor or Deputy Mayor.")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 31, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 39. Both cover an identical point in different parts of the Bill. There is a clear objection to a system which can almost automatically create a by-election. A candidate for mayor or as an assembly member should not in effect have two bites at the cherry. He should make up his mind which he wants to be and if he fails in his first choice, well, that is politics and he should finish up with nothing, at least for that election.
If we draw an analogy with the United States of America, if a senator wishes to stand for president he has to resign his seat. These amendments are entirely consistent with the provisions that the Government have included in the Bill in connection with the filling of a casual vacancy in the office of a constituency assemblyman. Clause 10(10) says:
"(10) A person may not be a candidate at an election to fill a vacancy if he is

(a) the Mayor;

(b) an Assembly member; or

(c) a candidate in another such election".

Similarly, in the case of a vacancy in the office of mayor, Clause 16(10), which has been included in the Bill by the Government, says:
"(10) A person may not be a candidate in an election to fill a vacancy in the office of Mayor if he is a candidate in an election to fill a vacancy in an Assembly constituency".
In other words, the Government have already legislated against candidates trying to ride two horses at once in the case of by-elections. We agree with that, but the same principle has to apply for the sake of consistency to the original elections as well. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: These amendments would prohibit a person from standing simultaneously as a candidate for both mayor and the assembly. I agree with the noble Baroness that it would be unacceptable for someone actually to serve simultaneously both as mayor and as an assembly member. The Bill makes provision to prevent such circumstances arising. Clause 4(7) specifies that:
"The persons who are to be returned as—

(a) the Mayor, and

(b) the constituency members,

must be determined before it is determined who are to be returned as the London members".
This means that in those circumstances where someone has stood for mayor and is also on the party list and has gained enough votes to win both elections, that person would be returned as mayor and discounted from the allocation of London member seats. If someone was returned for an assembly constituency he or she would also drop out from the London member seat election.

73
In addition, if someone was elected as mayor and as an assembly constituency member, the Bill makes provision for action should a vacancy occur in the constituency seats. However, it would be heavy-handed and serve no practical purpose to prevent people standing as a candidate in both elections. I can well imagine a situation in which the party's leading lights would wish to contest both the mayoral and assembly elections. If those candidates lost the mayoral election it would be perverse to have them already rendered ineligible for consideration as assembly members. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation. I believe I understand what she is saying—that if standing for mayor and as one of the London members, a person would automatically come off the list after being elected as mayor. I understand that, but I think the situation is different if the person is standing as a constituency member. If that person were to be elected mayor, then as I understand it there would automatically have to be a by-election, and that is what we are trying to suggest should not happen. I may perhaps have misunderstood and would be grateful if the noble Baroness could comment on the point.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My understanding is that the Bill prohibits anyone from standing in more than one assembly constituency, but no prohibition has been placed on standing both for the mayor and the assembly. There seems to be little reason to constrain individuals from doing that.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I have to confess that I do not agree with that, because one would be causing a by-election just as we are starting at the very beginning of it all. As I said, in America if a senator wants to stand as president, he has first to withdraw from being a senator. I would have thought that perhaps it would be more sensible for us to consider that as a pattern. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but I may wish to pursue the matter at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Voting at elections]:
[Amendments Nos. 32 to 36 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 182, line 27, at end insert ("no later than 55 days prior to the date set for the ordinary election")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 37 I should like to speak to Amendment No. 40. The latter amendment is a technical one, largely dependent on the passing of Amendment No. 37. Its object is to make the necessary amendments to the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 consequential on the passing of Amendment No. 37. The 1998 Act, as your Lordships may recall, was expressly passed to
74
make way for proportional representation by party list: that is, the system which has just been used for the European elections.
Even though Amendment No. 40 is largely related to Amendment No. 37, it also serves to tidy up the 1998 Act by setting a time limit for the registration of a political party for a particular election, which will always be on a fixed date. I need not say more about that amendment because, as I say, it is mainly to provide the machinery connected with Amendment No. 37. I suggest the amendment to your Lordships for separate consideration. Amendment No. 37 adds 14 words to paragraph 5(2). It requires the names of persons that a party wishes to have on its list of London candidates to be submitted to the returning officer no later than 55 days before the date of that election.
The first matter to be borne in mind is that the date of that election is fixed, unlike the date of a general election, and the date is certainly known for years ahead. The parties therefore have a long period in which to select their list of candidates and to place them in their order of preference. However, I would suggest that it is important for the voters and the media to have the opportunity to become aware of who the candidates are and to check their antecedents, if that is what they wish.
In the ordinary local and parliamentary elections it is common—indeed the normal practice—for voters to know or to be able to find out, if they are interested, who their candidates are. More often than not it is the incumbent who is standing again. However, under this new alien system which has just been introduced, we no longer vote for a candidate but for a party. Which candidates are likely to be elected for that party depends on how high they are placed on the list. So while the names of the candidates are not of interest on a personal basis, it is important for a voter to know the order of the candidates. In this kind of election it is vital for the public to know that as soon as possible. This amendment would make the parties commit themselves to the running order as soon as it is possible to do so. Since a member of the public cannot in the polling booth exercise a personal choice among the candidates of the party, then he ought at least to know the kind of package for which he is voting. Even a lifelong supporter member of, let us say, the Moon is Made of Green Cheese Party might decide not to vote fix that party on discovering that his vote will help to put someone whom he absolutely detests into the assembly.
This amendment does nothing except further the democratic process if we are to have PR by the party list system foisted upon us. I did not intercede on any of the groups of amendments on the voting systems, but the Government will know the view of this side of the Committee in favour of first-past-the-post.
The amendment sets a viable time limit on the selection of the lists and of their running order 10 reduce the time for internal party machinations and wrangling. Above all, my intention is to concentrate the minds of

75
the parties on who their candidates shall be, so that they can get on as soon as possible with the issues of the campaign. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I was slightly taken aback by the apparent reference of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, to people who were failing to get publicity in advance of the closing date for nominations and people not knowing who was interested in standing. I should have thought that in some cases people are only too aware of who is interested in standing.
I have listened with great interest to the noble Baroness's explanation of the reason for these amendments, but I cannot feel that they would add value to the Bill. The amendments propose to place a requirement on the Registrar of Political Parties to register a political party which intends to contest the GLA election and which has applied to him for registration before 31st January, no later than 70 days before the date of an ordinary election. Ten weeks before the first Thursday in May would give a date in late February, giving the registrar effectively three weeks in which to register a late-arriving application.
While I am sure that that would not present problems for the registrar, given that his own aim is to decide straightforward applications within five days, I can see no need for such a requirement. It is certainly not justified by the registrar's performance so far. Even where the registrar has referred difficult or sensitive cases to the Advisory Committee on the Registration of Political Parties, there has been no significant delay in the registration process. Why, therefore, impose on the registrar a requirement so far in excess of his actual practice and which does not exist in respect of any other election? Admittedly the amendment does not include the proviso that failure would lay the registrar or the returning officer open to action; even so, I am bound to say that I doubt the value of the proposal.
The requirement is not therefore needed in practice. Nor has it been imposed in relation to any other election. It seems an odd proposal to modify the Registration of Political Parties Act to impose a time requirement on the registrar which exists in respect of no other election. For that reason alone I would oppose it.
I was similarly in some difficulty trying to understand why it was thought a good idea to have the party lists with the returning officer between eight and 12 weeks before the poll, when the normal time-scale for local elections would only call for their delivery four or five weeks before the poll. The time-scale for these matters is normally set out in election rules, rather than enshrined in primary legislation; and it is our intention, once Royal Assent to the Bill has been received, to lay before the House election rules based on the local government principal area rules.
No special time-scale was imposed on the submission of lists for the AMS elections conducted recently in Scotland and Wales for their national assemblies and I have not so far heard any compelling argument in favour of doing so for the GLA election.
76
Having heard the noble Baroness's explanation, I am still far from convinced either that this is a matter which needs to be dealt with by primary legislation or that it is a good idea. I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall read what the Minister has said. My concern is with London. It is not what happened in Scotland and Wales, or in the European elections. I am concerned that we get it absolutely right for London. I should like to think that the noble Baroness agrees that that is the matter of most concern.
This new system is not unique—it has now been used three times—but the fact remains that it is completely different and new to London. Another point mentioned today by journalists in regard to the European elections is that it is believed that one of the reasons the Government did not do particularly well in Scotland, for example, is that some voters did not like the deals that resulted from the election of the Scottish Parliament. I merely mention that en passant. It is important for people to know in good time which candidates will be on the list. That might obviate the cause for such comment. However, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Amos: I beg to move that the House be now resumed. In moving this Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begin again not before 8.15 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Adoption and Fostering
7.17 p.m.
Lord Meston Lord Meston rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals to reform the law and practice relating to adoption and fostering.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, First and foremost in regard to adoption and fostering there is the question of the future legislative framework for adoption. Our existing statute derives from the time when adoption was still largely concerned with babies rather than older children.
As long ago as July 1989, a comprehensive review of adoption law was started. After four discussion papers, three background papers, a report to Ministers, a White Paper and a separate consultation paper, that review culminated in March 1996 when the Department of Health and the Welsh Office issued a consultative document and a draft adoption Bill. The final consultation period ended in June 1996. The draft Bill was far more than an updating of the law to bring adoption more in line with the Children Act 1989, although that is important in itself. It was an attempt to bring the law into line with developments in social work practice and to meet criticism of the working of the present law. The draft Bill included express provision to avoid delay in the whole legal process. It also

77
recognised that a larger proportion of children available for adoption were not small babies but children with views and wishes of their own.
The draft Bill received cross-party support and (perhaps more importantly) was generally welcomed by those who work in adoption. Nothing happened. It was speculated that the previous government, in their final days, became reluctant to get involved in awkward questions such as trans-racial adoption, adoption by unmarried couples and "open" adoption.
Unfortunately, the present Government have yet to show their hand and take on the proposed changes to adoption law. All we have are two paragraphs in the consultation document Supporting Families about changes to adoption guidelines and reports of some other rather general remarks by Ministers. I accept and welcome the fact that the question of inter-country adoption is now being covered by a Bill introduced in another place by my honourable friend the Member for Winchester—that measure has also recently been introduced into your Lordships' House—but to some extent the problems created by overseas adoptions are a reflection of the perceived difficulties of the adoption process here.
If the substantive changes to domestic law are not brought forward, not only will a great deal of time, hard work and hard thinking have been wasted but cracks in our existing law will widen and be exposed to the Human Rights Act. In particular, it has been suggested that the existing provisions relating to freeing for adoption are unsatisfactory, add to delay and create "legal orphans", to adopt a description used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Browne-Wilkinson, in a recent case. The provisions for placement in the shelved draft Bill are a carefully crafted alternative.
One area that needs to be thought through carefully concerns the mechanisms for facilitating contact between adults who were adopted and their natural parents. It is a difficult and delicate task. There is a diversity of practice and resources provided by different local authorities which is almost capricious. There is now much research into post-adoption contact which needs to be reflected in modern legislation. Adoption can be an agonising process, particularly for natural parents for whom a child out of sight is never out of mind. The popular concentration on abused and neglected children overlooks the trauma and stigma felt by those natural parents who are not abusers. Likewise, the caricature of the politically correct social worker is equally unfair. Social workers recognise that children who are unable to stay with their birth families deserve the best that can be obtained by way of a secure permanent home environment. Usually, the worst that can be said is that sometimes they try too hard, and therefore too long, to get the right match for a child.
It is beyond dispute that some children are not easily placed, and in some cases local authorities are compelled to use expensive specialist agencies. Research by British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering (BAFF), assisted by the Department of Health, into children adopted from care revealed, among a number of worrying points, that a declining number of
78
children were being adopted from care, confirmed recently by latest statistics; that it took an average of four years for children to be adopted after beginning to be looked after; that 36 per cent of the children adopted had experienced three or more moves; and that 16 per cent of children freed or relinquished for adoption two years before had still not been placed with new families.
Last year BAFF launched its action plan to improve adoption services with many positive features that I hope the Government support. Those who are willing to adopt and foster children are a valuable national resource, particularly those who will. take on older children, siblings or the disabled. Foster parents in particular may have to deal with demanding and damaged children with remaining attachments to their original families. Adoptive parents offer a total commitment, usually without any financial cushion. To make the most of that resource we need a framework of law and support, including post-adoption services, which will encourage and not discourage. We should be aiming at a system which inspires confidence that it will work well, fairly and quickly and provides an independent and robust complaints procedure when it does not work well.
If the law is not changed, there will be yet further pressure to amend the Children Act 1989 to remove the inability of the courts which make care orders to reconsider cases when care plans have not been implemented after a year or some other fixed period. Judges and practitioners see too many children who drift in the care system and are subjected to many placements.
Since I tabled this Question a comprehensive volume of research directed by Professors Lowe and Murch, and funded by the Department of Health, entitled Supporting Adoption: Reframing the Approach, has been published. It is not possible to do that work any justice in a time-limited debate, but it is a rich source of information. Among other things, it draws attention to the diversity of ways in which agencies work and suggests options for restructuring. At the end the authors say:
"We support the Department of Health's decision to set up a committee under the chairmanship of Professor Roy Parker to consider and refine messages for practice arising from this and other recent adoption research. However, we think that a focus. on practice development alone is not enough. Law reform arid structural change, insofar as they set the context for practice, are of fundamental importance and, as we have sought to demonstrate, also need to be addressed".
I turn briefly to fostering. I ask the Government about their attitude to the payment, status and regulation of foster parents. Is there not now a need to recognise that foster parents, who are often doing full-time paid jobs, should not be deemed to be volunteers? There. is a need for a standardisation of payments to foster parents rather than the present diversity across the country; and serious consideration should be given to providing pensionable status. Will voluntary organisations be able to approve foster carers rather than by the somewhat tortuous arrangements through local authorities as now exist? What arrangements are proposed for the inspection by local authorities of foster carers in the independent sector?

79
In this short speech I have touched on only some of the problems which arise, but I look forward to the response of the Government.
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Young: My Lords, we are all very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for asking this Unstarred Question tonight. I am very conscious that he is infinitely more knowledgeable on this subject than I am, but I put down my name to speak for three quite personal reasons. First, when I was in local government—I now realise that it was a long time ago—I was chairman of what was then known as a children's committee, which became an adoption agency. I was the first chairman of that body. I then realised what an immensely important but very valuable task it was.
Secondly, I know very well three couples who have adopted children. As to one of those couples who adopted those children as babies, I am godmother to one of them who is now an adult. One can see how tremendously successful they have been. Certainly, in at least two cases the prospects for those particular children would have been very poor indeed. As it is, no one would know—unless someone happened to ask—that they were not the natural children of the parents. It is very important to recognise that love is everywhere. You can love an adopted child, who is yours in law, just as much as a natural child—and, for all I know, sometimes a bit more. When it works it is a wonderful relationship.
My third reason for speaking tonight is the tremendous importance that I attach to support of the traditional family. For those children who do not have that benefit, if it is possible to find them an adoptive family it is a miracle, assuming that it works well.
As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, one of the tragedies in the figures one sees is that the number of adoptions has fallen recently concurrently with the fact that there are now more children in care. Unfortunately so many children who spend a long time in care suffer from acute educational disadvantages and, sadly, end up in prostitution and homelessness. As patron of a special school which helps children with terrible educational problems. I visited recently and heard of a little girl aged nine who, I think that I am right in remembering, had had 40 different placements in her life. It is hardly surprising that the child was unable to learn. If one considers for five minutes what that child must have suffered, it is a terrible situation.
In this debate it is important that we address this point. My figures may not be correct. I am sure that the Minister will correct them. However, there are something like 87,500 children in care, four out of 10 of whom are under the age of 10; and one in 20 is a baby under one year. Although those figures may not be absolutely correct, the position is something like that. Children are in care for a variety of reasons. Some will unquestionably return to their families: they are in care for a specific reason for a short period of time, and will go back to the family. I do not suggest that all those children are suitable for adoption or fostering. But many will not return to their natural parents.
80
I am concerned that, as the noble Lord said, it takes over three years for an adoption to take place. One can imagine the feelings of the prospective adoptive parents; and the child may be old enough to know what is going on during this lengthy period. Perhaps the Minister will say something about the apparent—I should like to be corrected on this—somewhat anti-adoption culture among some social services departments. Many of those organisations need to undergo a culture change.
It would be interesting to hear comment, if it were possible, on the case of the couple who hoped to adopt two little girls and, quite improperly I agree, as it were kidnapped them because they were afraid they would be unable to adopt them. One has to ask this question. Whatever the outcome, if the two little girls are not adopted what are their prospects?
I sometimes think that social workers are looking for perfect parents. They simply will not find them. None of us is perfect. Most parents are good enough. That may be a general definition, but good enough is what many parents are; and they bring up children successfully. They make their mistakes, but who among us can say that we have never made a mistake as a parent? I certainly could not make that statement, and I do not know anyone with whom I have discussed the matter who could.
I read the interesting action plan to improve adoption services by the British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering. It makes a number of extremely valuable suggestions as to what might be done. The noble Lord, Lord Meston, has referred to them. I shall not repeat the points he made. Many children could find happiness in a stable home. Many couples long to adopt children. If one cannot have children, one has to make a tremendous commitment and to want children very badly to undertake such responsibility. There is the cost involved, and the time that one has to give up. As we all know, delightful though children are, they are with us for a very long time, and the older they get the nicer it all is.
I agree that we need legislation. I make only one comment on fostering. When I was in local government, I used to consider that foster parents were rather like the lifeboats of society: they rescue people in very difficult circumstances. I have never seen any objection to their being properly paid for this job. It requires professionalism of a high degree. Clearly if they are busy being foster parents they will not be able to undertake any other occupation. It is not unreasonable that they should be paid properly for what they are doing. I am sorry to hear that there is inconsistency of payment. I imagine that each local authority has its own ideas on that issue. Many women might be perfectly happy to look after children—they might find it an infinitely more interesting job than the alternatives—if they were paid properly to do so, and it would be valuable for society.
I conclude by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Meston. It is an important question. I very much hope that the Minister can say something constructive on what is one of the most important tasks in society.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord on initiating this debate on a subject of great importance to the well-being of many children and young people in public care. The noble Lord and the noble Baroness made a number of important comments about adoption. I wish to begin by making some points about fostering.
Whether the figures of children in public care refer to the United Kingdom or England, the fact is that about two-thirds of those children are this evening with foster parents. That illustrates the important contribution that foster parents make to the well-being of children and young people in our society. But it was not always like this. Perhaps I may be excused a personal comment. When I first trained as a social worker, I visited a number of extremely large institutions which were geographically isolated, and where the young people in those institutions lived a structured and formal life, cut off from the rest of society. Noble Lords can well imagine what it must have been like for those young people when they left the institution and returned to society without the experience of using public transport, or doing the ordinary everyday things that other young people did in the normal course of their development.
We welcome the fact that in the 1960s there were two major changes in childcare in this country. The first was the development of preventive work which aimed at enabling families to overcome their difficulties in particular at times of crises in order that they could continue to look after their own children with proper support and help. The second was the promotion of foster care so that the children in public care had the possibility of experiencing living in an ordinary home and enjoying the benefits of being part of a family, albeit a substitute family.
As has been indicated, we should pay tribute to the thousands of families who have opened their homes to take on the care of other people's children. Those families have done the most extraordinary things. Sometimes they have been willing to operate in emergencies, receiving a call at any time of day or night. At other times they have taken on the care of children on a long-term basis when there was no prospect of those children becoming permanent members of their family. Other foster parents have been willing to open their homes to children who have been abused or neglected by the adults in their lives and who have therefore understandably behaved in a distrustful, challenging and sometimes destructive way. Other foster parents have been willing to open their homes to children with severe physical disabilities or severe mental impairments.
Foster care is a great success story in this country. While I was in the Department of Health, I became increasingly aware of how frequently other countries envied the contribution of foster parents and the part they play in childcare services in this country. However, here, I begin to express concerns about the present situation. While the closure of the vast institutions to which I have referred was to be welcomed, I fear the pendulum has swung too far. Many local authorities have closed their smaller-sized children's homes and
82
some have even closed all of their children's homes. While the desire to give every child in care the opportunity to experience life as part of a normal family is laudable, the fact is that many such young people need time to recover from the trauma of earlier events. They need space in a safe place and they need intensive and skilled counselling. Some need firm control and a secure and consistent framework in which they can work out their pain and conflicts.
Therefore, it cannot be a case of "foster care, good; residential care, bad". The fact is that we need both, and we certainly need good quality residential care. When I was a director of social services, my regard for the foster parents was equalled by my admiration for the excellent work undertaken by staff in residential care units. Some authorities have closed a large number or all of their residential units, which has too often resulted in a great burden being placed upon foster parents with inadequate support. As a result, too many young people are experiencing far too many moves, as has already been indicated. Those moves serve only to increase their insecurity, disrupt their education and provoke much avoidable disturbed behaviour.
It has also resulted in another trend; that of young people being placed in residential centres many miles from their familiar environment. It is bad enough to lose your family, but much worse to lose all contacts with your friends and with familiar places such as schools and leisure centres. Even worse, there is a real danger that some of these young people will feel abandoned and it may be a case of "out of sight, out of mind".
I believe that the Government are to be congratulated on having forcefully reminded local authorities of their duty to be good parents to every child and young person in public care. With that in mind, I urge the Minister and her colleagues to continue to press that every local authority achieves at least the following standards. First, every child and young person in public care should have a named social worker in charge of protecting his welfare and promoting his interests. Secondly, each child should have a personal care plan which is reviewed regularly against indicators of progress or problems. Thirdly, each child should be safe from harm and everything should be done to promote his security and stability.
Fourthly, each local authority should behave towards each child as we would hope and expect a good parent to behave. Fifthly, foster parents and residential workers should be valued as partners in the caring process and their skills and knowledge should be respected. Sixthly, local authorities should display a greater ambition for each of the children and young people in their care. It is necessary to be a good parent for a child to achieve its full potential, and too often that has not been apparent in the way some local authorities have carried out their corporate duties. Seventhly, every local authority should demonstrate that it has access to a full range of provisions at local level so that children are not just fitted into inappropriate placements.
One recommendation to the Government is that organisations such as the National Foster Care Association should be given adequate core funding to

83
ensure that they continue to be well managed and to play an important part in fostering and adoption services in this country.
Finally, perhaps I may add to the points which have been made about adoption. We all agree that keeping families together is a worthwhile objective. A number of authorities have developed helpful and excellent family support services. Many voluntary organisations contribute a great deal to this work. But as a result of that and smaller families, fewer children are placed for adoption. However, the children should not be allowed to languish for years in uncertainty waiting on the convenience of the adults in their lives. The early years pass all too quickly and each young person needs to have a sense of security during his childhood. Adolescence can be difficult enough without the added uncertainty of not knowing where you belong or constant disruption resulting from the behaviour of the adults to whom you should look for your well-being.
I say that because some no longer regard adoption as a positive option to be considered alongside all other options. Too often it seems that adoption is regarded as a last resort and not as an option of equal status with other possibilities. I was most interested in the document published earlier today from the Social Exclusion Unit on teenage pregnancy. The graph on page 59 shows clearly how in recent years the number of adoptions has reduced dramatically in this country. Adoption should be regarded for some children and young people as the positive option, the option of choice. With that in mind, it is important for everyone associated with the adoption process to recognise that we all have limited abilities to predict and, in many instances, looking for the excellent parent is unrealistic. We need to ensure that apparently suitable people are not ruled out on the basis of some generality and that adoption should be freed of unproven ideological baggage.
I know that the Government and the Association of Directors of Social Services are giving thought to these matters and I wish them all well in their endeavour to achieve a better and lasting outcome for every child and young person in public care.
7.47 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, for the second time in as many sitting days, the House is debating the protection of children. Surely, few other issues have as great a bearing either on the well-being of society or the values which society professes to uphold. I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Meston, has chosen to highlight the needs of children in care and I agree with almost all of what he said.
The Government are to be commended for all they have done to improve the law and practice relating to adoption, not least in their support for the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill which received its Third Reading in another place last Friday. I commend, too, the excellent circular issued by the Department of Health last August to local authorities which contained some fundamentally important messages for adoption agencies, social services departments and all those who
84
are concerned with children's services. Those messages stand four-square with the work done by the previous government; notably the Children Act 1989, but also the 1993 White Paper on adoption, the impetus for which came from my right honourable friend Mrs. Bottomley, to whom credit should be paid. That was followed by the consultation document and the draft Bill issued in 1996.
I wish to concentrate on two particular aspects of the adoption issue—the place of adoption in the hierarchy of available options and the defects in the current system. Both take as their starting point the sobering picture revealed by recent statistics. My noble friend Lady Young pointed out that over the past few years we have seen a rise in the number of children coming into care, including a rise in the number of care orders being made through the courts, and at the same time a steady fall in the number of adoptions.
Underlying the fall in adoptions is a pattern of performance by local authorities which can most kindly be described as variable but which, in reality, contains some truly woeful track records. It was not for nothing, therefore, that Mr Boeteng's circular of last August had to spell out some of the fundamental facts of life on adoption.
We know from research studies, as we should know from sheer common sense, that the longer a child remains in the care system the worse his chances of emerging into adulthood undamaged. By contrast, children who have been adopted fare a great deal better emotionally, socially and at school. The success rate for adoption is typically high. The sense of security and well-being engendered by being a permanent part of a loving and supportive family is of inestimable value and, not surprisingly, the earlier the age the adoption begins, the better the prospects.
Again, we would do well to remind ourselves of the statistics. Young people who have been in care are 50 times more likely than other children to go to gaol. Those who have been in care comprise 38 per cent of young offenders and 23 per cent of adult prisoners. When we look at the hard costs of dealing with youth crime, never mind the cost in damaged lives, it really is extremely difficult to argue that the under-resourcing and under-performance of adoption services are shortcomings that we should be content to live with.
However, youth crime is only part of the story. Emotional deprivation spawns a whole host of social problems. Children growing up in council-run homes are statistically many times more likely to leave school without any educational qualifications and to become jobless. They are 60 times more likely to be homeless and 88 times more likely to be drug abusers. I noted with interest the launch today of the Prime Minister's campaign to cut the incidence of teenage pregnancies. One in four teenage girls in care becomes pregnant, and their babies, not altogether surprisingly, are 66 times more likely than other children to finish up in care. So the whole cycle is self-perpetuating.
The scandal of the numbers of children in care homes is not just the numbers, and not just that they are increasingly stuck there. It is that many local authorities

85
have no information about how well pupils in care are doing at school, no means of adequately monitoring care plans for such children, and seemingly no sense that their strategic plans for children's services, including the recruitment of adopters, should occupy centre stage instead of being, as it so often is, a bit of a side-show.
In defence of some of these local authorities it is often said that because a large proportion of children placed for adoption are aged five and over—some 70 per cent—the system has to be geared to the difficulties and needs of those children. Clearly, it must be true that the effort required to place an older child successfully is more demanding of resources than that required for a younger child.
However, one needs to look behind those figures. It is, for example, perfectly true that only a very small number of children under one year old are adopted each year but the statistics on children who are adopted from care show that no less than 28 per cent of them started to be looked after by the childcare system under the age of one month, and a further 24 per cent between the age of one month and one year. In other words, even though most adopted children are adopted when aged 5 and over, well over half have already been in the system virtually all their lives. If I have one criticism of the circular issued by the Department of Health in August last year it is that it fails to bring out that point sufficiently.
As my noble friend Lady Young emphasised, the average length of time a child in care has to wait before being adopted is three years eight months. One in six children freed for adoption is not placed with an adoptive family for two years. Clearly, in many such cases there are perfectly valid reasons why some delay occurs. However, it is right that in the early period following a care order every avenue should be explored in an effort to return a child to his or her parents of birth. But there is strong evidence to suggest that with many social workers these efforts are continued for far longer than can possibly be justified by the interests of the children themselves. There is no doubt that the problems experienced by some adopted children are made worse by having been shunted from pillar to post in the preceding years and by the delays they have had to put up with in finding a placement.
There seems to be an automatic presumption that genetic parents are preferable to adoptive parents, even when there is a history of cruelty and neglect. All too often what is counted as "a successful outcome" to care is the return of a child to his birth family, almost without regard for the long-term result of that arrangement.
At present there are about 10,000 children awaiting adoption and 1,100 approved adopters waiting for children to adopt. Social services departments talk about the risks involved in failing to match a child with the right parents and that, of course, is a fair point. However, there are times when a risk needs to be put in context and then accepted. The context, in this case, is surely the recognised risks associated with leaving a child in care.
I am afraid to say that one of the most pernicious features of the current system is the misguided attitude taken by some local authorities to trans-racial adoptions.
86
Matching a child with parents of the same race is clearly a highly desirable objective but it is an ideal that should not stand in the way of common sense. The alternative to placing a black or mixed race child with white adoptive parents is all too often a succession of placements over many years with white foster parents. The success rate in trans-racial adoptions is very high, yet local authorities and adoption agencies have continued to ignore departmental directives that have explicitly discouraged the assiduous pursuit of racial matching. I sense that more than just repeated guidance is needed if the prevalence of that syndrome is to recede.
I read in the press that the Cabinet committee on the family is launching a full-scale review on adoption. I should like to ask the Minister whether that is correct. It is impossible for me, in a short debate of this kind, to list everything that I feel such a committee should be looking at. However, can the Minister say whether some of the ideas advanced by the previous government will be examined? Will the Government, for example, consider broadening the base of adoption panels to include more independent members? Will they look at the possibility of giving children above a certain age the legal right to participate in their own adoption proceedings, or making the welfare of the child subject to more explicit legal tests for the court to assess? Will they consider the setting up of a complaints system as well as ways of ensuring that local authorities publicise their range of adoption services so as to encourage more families to consider adoption?
Can the Minister say whether the Government are open-minded about an automatic cut-off point so that when a child has spent a specific amount of time in the care system there will be a presumption in favour of adoption for that child? Will they also consider a similar procedure in the case of ethnic minority children for whom adoptive parents of the same race cannot be found but where white adopters are available'?
Finally, what are the Government doing to promote the dissemination of best practice among local authorities including active partnership arrangements and training opportunities for staff? I do not know, but I would be interested to find out, whether the Government will continue to examine the case for setting up a central authority for adoption as not only a guardian of standards but also to maintain a central register of adoptable children.
These are only some of the issues that should be addressed. I sometimes think that the more departmental activity there is on this subject, and the more Ministers make worthy pronouncements on it, the worse the statistics seem to get. I hope that the Government will succeed in translating some of their undoubtedly laudable intentions into concrete achievements.
7.59 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Meston, for raising this important and timely question in your Lordships' House tonight. In our short debate it elicited some considered and well-informed contributions. I ought perhaps also to add my own thanks for the support in trying to assist me to be a good parent in terms of the timing of our debate.

87
I hope that I can reassure those who have spoken of Her Majesty's Government's commitment to improving standards and services for children, including adoption and foster care. Not only was it boldly stated in the White Paper, Modernising Social Services, but it is also being translated into action. In particular, we are heavily engaged in introducing forward-looking programmes and supporting initiatives designed to achieve important changes to enhance the quality of adoption and foster care to create more of the successes to which the noble Baroness, Lady Young, alluded and to help more people to do some of the extraordinary things which, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, rightly said, adoptive and foster parents do.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, commenced his speech on the issue of legislative reform. It is currently focused on the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Private Member's Bill which went through another place and recently had its First Reading in your Lordships' House. That Bill provides for the first time a sound legal basis for inter-country adoption. It also provides the opportunity for the United Kingdom to give effect to the 1993 Hague Convention on the protection of children and co-operation in respect of inter-country adoption. That convention was signed by the United Kingdom in January 1994. Finally, the Bill introduces measures to prevent trafficking in children. When enacted it will enable the United Kingdom to meet an important national commitment to protect children in inter-country adoption.
But legislation is not essential to achieve important improvements in adoption practice. There are opportunities for adoption agencies to achieve those improvements and we are supporting a range of initiatives to make that happen. Measures to improve the standard and quality of adoption and foster care are making good progress, and many of those measures are being introduced through the Quality Protects programme which was introduced last September. It brings new and challenging dimensions to the overall improvement of children's services and to that end we have made £375 million available to local authorities over three years in the form of a children's services special grant to assist them implement specific projects.
The general aim of the Quality Protects programme is the systematic transformation of the management of social services for children and the outcomes we achieve for those children. The objectives include many areas to which reference has been made tonight as well as trying to tackle some of the problems mentioned. The noble Baroness, Lady Young, spoke of the need to reduce the number of changes of main carers for children being looked after. Several speakers talked of the need to maximise the contribution that adoption can make to providing permanent families for children in appropriate cases, and for reducing the period children remain looked after before being placed for adoption or other suitable long-term care.
The Quality Protects programme aims to maximise the use of adoption and reduce delays while still making the right decisions for individual children. Everyone who spoke tonight recognised that making the
88
judgments of what will be the right decision for an individual child is not a simple issue or necessarily a straightforward one. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, suggested, it is a balancing of risks and we have a special responsibility to do that in the most thorough and considered way for children who are living away from their own families. But the performance of local authorities will be measured against performance indicators and targets which will include addressing the issue of delay in placing children with new families. I am sure that is right. Concern was expressed about the variability there has been in performance in the past.
I should like to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that bringing adoption back into the mainstream of options available for children is a crucial aspect of Quality Protects. Adoption has too often been regarded by some as an option of last resort, to be considered when all others have been examined and found wanting. But we must recognise that adoption is sometimes the only opportunity available to a child of belonging to a family. I should like to take the opportunity to pay tribute to adoptive parents and foster families who come forward to provide care for those vulnerable young members of society and who provide that valuable, natural resource to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred, often in challenging and difficult circumstances.
The Quality Protects programme was a key element in Her Majesty's Government's response to the Children's Safeguards Review and will be the main focus for guiding and monitoring the improvements. Those changes come at a time when the nature of adoption itself is changing. As the noble Lord, Lord Meston, pointed out, babies are no longer the majority of children needing new families. Children over one year of age are now the main focus, many of whom have been victims of abuse and trauma in their young lives. The older the child who comes into the care system and who needs a new family, the more difficult is the task of finding a suitable home for him, and the more apparent the dangers to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred of the problems that can arise from years of waiting in unsatisfactory circumstances.
On that point, perhaps I can say to the noble Earl that the Government have made it clear that it is unacceptable for a child to be denied loving, adoptive parents solely on the grounds that the child and the adopters do not share the same racial and cultural background. Adoption agencies must ensure that the appropriate level of help is made available to prospective adopters who do not share the same race or culture as the child, to enable the child to maintain continuity with the heritage of its birth family in its day-to-day life. But it certainly should not be an obstacle to the proper placement of children.
In relation to post-adoption contact—the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Meston, referred—adoption is more open and has been so in recent years. Courts are more sympathetic to children retaining some form of contact with their birth parents where that is in the best interests of the child. That is particularly the case where siblings are involved and we have to recognise the specific strains those can put on a child's situation.

89
I turn now to fostering issues. As the House will be aware, services provided to children living away from home in this country have been under considerable scrutiny in the past two years as a result of continuing revelations of abuse, mostly in children's homes but also in other settings such as foster care, over the preceding years. Noble Lords will he aware that in November 1997 we received a report of the Children's Safeguards Review, which was set up to look at the safeguards for children living away from home and to make recommendations about how to make them more effective. That was followed in July 1998 by a report from the House of Commons Health Committee on looked-after children. Its report detailed wide-ranging concerns about how the care system was failing those children and made equally wide-ranging recommendations on the need to improve the standards of care and the outcomes for children looked after, two-thirds of whom—as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, reminded us—are in foster care. That is the background against which the Government have responded positively, establishing a major programme of measures to improve services for looked-after children, including those in foster care. The Quality Protects programme which was launched in September 1988 sets new objectives for children's services. That programme is backed up with £375 million of additional money for local authorities in the form of a children's social services special grant.
One of the six key priority areas for the programme is to improve the supply and choice of placement options for looked-after children. I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that this will not only include foster placements but also the provision of sufficient placements in children's homes. As the noble Lord said, there is a very important need for a variety of accessible situations.
We recognise that foster care will not be appropriate for all children and that a variety of options should be available to local authorities so that placements are genuinely suited to the needs of individual children.
Part of the special grant money will be used for this purpose, and indeed local authorities will not receive their share of the grant unless they can show that there is sufficient placement choice for their looked-after children. Far too many children are put in inappropriate placements, resulting in frequent moves and a consequent unstable life, with all the damaging effects that have been described in the debate.
With the extra money, local authorities will be able to recruit and support a greater range of foster carers to meet different children's needs and to ensure that children and young people can exercise some preference.
Local authorities will be monitored by the Department of Health to see how well they implement measurable improvements in this and other areas.
The Government's commitment to improve services for looked-after children was set out last November in their response to the Children Safeguard Review. This covers the Quality Protects programme and other measures designed to improve the quality of care for looked-after children. For example, for the first time we are introducing national standards of foster care which
90
were developed by the United Kingdom joint working party on foster care, comprising representatives from directors of social services, local government associations, foster carers and others from across England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There was also very wide consultation with social services departments, carers, children and young people about what those standards should reflect. Again, for the first time we are introducing a code of practice on the recruitment, assessment, approval, training, management and support of foster carers to improve the safety aspects of the fostering service.
Together, these publications, which we hope to launch on 22nd June, will provide a much clearer framework for the fostering service and will help to improve its quality.
In responding to the Children's Safeguard Review, the Government stated that they would support the development of national and local recruitment campaigns for foster parents. I am pleased to say that work is currently under way at the Department of Health in co-operation with the Association of Directors of Social Services and other foster care interests to develop a suitable national campaign. I hope that that will lead to more people considering taking up the unique challenge of caring for children from other families by becoming foster carers.
The noble Lord, Lord Meston, and the noble Baroness, Lady Young, asked about payment of allowances to foster carers. We recognise the important role played by foster carers and that they should he appropriately rewarded and supported. However, in the context of overall policy we believe that it is for local authorities to determine the level of allowance they pay to their foster carers.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked about the implications of the paper being submitted to the ministerial group on the family. It is likely that the Quality Protects programme will be allowed to run its course before a more radical view is taken to deal with some of the weaknesses in the adoption services, but that has yet to be fully considered, and we will have to look at those broader issues in the longer term.
The point has been well made tonight that for most children who are looked after by local authorities we should not rule out the possibility of adoption; far from it, we should make sure that it is a mainstream option. For those who are not able to be adopted, foster care should be a best placement option for many of them. A stable and happy family home will be the best environment in which they can develop. We are confident that the positive action that the Government are taking will help to achieve a healthy and vibrant fostering service.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until a quarter past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.14 to 8.16 p.m.]

Greater London Authority Bill
House again in Committee on Schedule 2.
[Amendments Nos. 38 to 41 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Failure to attend meetings]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 42.
Page 4, line 23, leave out ("six") and insert ("three")
The noble Baroness said: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 42 and 51 which have an identical purpose.
In Clause 6 an assembly member automatically forfeits his place if he fails to attend a meeting of the assembly for six consecutive months. Under Clause 13 the mayor forfeits his office if he fails to attend six consecutive meetings of the assembly. I imagine that the reason for one being based on a period of time and the latter being based on the number of meetings is that there are provisions for calling extraordinary and special meetings.
The principle of forfeiture of office for persistent absence is unobjectionable. Indeed, it is a common provision which applies to company directors in everyday life. I am sure that it is included in the terms of appointment to many quangos. The amendment will reduce the period from six months to three months in one case and from six meetings to three meetings in the other.
In the light of the importance of accountability of the mayor and the enormous amount of power vested in his hands, he should only be allowed to be absent for two consecutive meetings rather than the five proposed in the Bill. Clause 44 does not permit the substitution of the deputy mayor at the assembly meetings, nor would he be able to do so. If Amendment No. 15 had been accepted, to have an elected deputy mayor, not only could the deputy have acted in the mayor's place but also one or other would have been free to go on extended overseas trips to promote London's interests abroad or for other purposes around this country. In the case of an assembly member, to be absent for half a year is, I suggest, wholly excessive. One group of assemblymen represents 14 giant super-constituencies. Who will look after them if their member is away on such a protracted absence? The other assembly members are elected on a party ticket and with only 11 of them in all, and to preserve the democratic balance in the assembly, their absences should be strictly limited.
It was mentioned earlier today that there are insufficient assembly members and that further consideration should be given to the numbers. But, in any event, if an assembly member can have such protracted absences, it really would not be possible for the work to be done. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The clauses which the noble Baroness is seeking to amend provide for the mayor to be disqualified from office if he fails to attend six consecutive monthly meetings of the
92
assembly and for an assembly member to be so disqualified if he fails to attend any meetings of the assembly during a period of six consecutive months.
Under the provisions of Clause 44(2), the assembly is required to hold monthly meetings which, under the provisions of Clause 37(3), the mayor must attend unless he has a reasonable excuse not to do so. The meetings have been established for the express purpose of allowing the assembly to cross-examine the mayor about his decisions and actions.
The assembly will undoubtedly want to invite the mayor to attend the other meetings it will hold and the mayor will undoubtedly wish to accept such invitations. But the statutory monthly meetings will be the essential core of the mayor's formal relationship with the assembly. Therefore, we believe that any procedures which would result in the disqualification of the mayor for failure to attend meetings of the assembly should be linked to those statutory monthly meetings.
In our view, it is unlikely that the mayor would consciously seek to avoid those meetings. They will be an important opportunity for the mayor to explain his policies, decisions and intended actions.
But the Mayor of London will have other significant duties, the timing of some of which will be determined by others; for example, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, said, travel abroad to promote the economic interests of London and visits to London by people of importance to the future welfare of the capital. In such circumstances, the mayor must be able to absent himself from an assembly meeting. The deputy mayor will stand in for the mayor on those occasions.
However, we recognise that the mayor cannot be allowed to treat the assembly in a wholly cavalier manner. That would be completely unacceptable, not only to us but also to the people of London who will have elected the assembly to ensure that the mayor can be held to account. Therefore, we have provided for the mayor to be disqualified from office if he fails to attend six consecutive monthly meetings.
The noble Baroness has proposed that we should allow for fewer meetings to be missed—only three—before the mayor is disqualified. But that is neither acceptable nor workable. I am sure we can all conceive of circumstances—ill health, a serious accident or a combination of one of those with other circumstances—in which it may be necessary for three or more consecutive meetings of the assembly to be missed. But other than in exceptional circumstances, a mayor who failed to attend six consecutive meetings of the assembly would be pushing his luck, both with the assembly, on which the mayor relies for the delivery of the authority's budget, and with the electorate.
In the circumstances, I hope that the Committee will agree that we have pitched this about right in linking the procedure for disqualification to the statutory monthly meetings and in setting a maximum number of six consecutive meetings which can be missed.
I turn now to Amendment No. 42 which refers to disqualification of assembly members through failure to attend any meetings during a period of six consecutive

93
months. The noble Baroness proposes that that should he reduced to any meetings during a period of three consecutive months.
An assembly member is likely to be busy with the statutory monthly meetings and any committee or sub-committees on which he is required to serve. Clause 6(3) provides that a member will be deemed to have attended a meeting of the assembly if he attended as a member of meetings of committees, sub-committees or as a representative of the assembly or authority at a meeting or a body of any other persons.
Those requirements are in line with those relating to local authority members provided in Section 85 of the Local Government Act 1972. In that Act, as in the provisions of this Bill, a member of a local authority can be disqualified if he fails, throughout a period of six consecutive months., to attend any meeting of that authority.
While we are creating a new style of London governance, there appears to be no special reason which makes it necessary for assembly members to be treated differently from members of a local authority in relation to matters of failures to attend meetings. Therefore, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tope: I listened to both speeches with great interest. On this occasion, I genuinely approached the matter with an open mind and wanted to be convinced one way or the other by the argument. It is an interesting issue. Like the noble Baroness who has just replied, I hope and believe that it is unlikely that any wise mayor will ignore the assembly for six months or even for three months. But then we legislate for what is unlikely to happen. When we have failed to do so, we have found ourselves in trouble. Therefore, while we hope and believe that it will not happen, we need to cover the eventuality that it may do so.
Therefore, I am persuaded that to reduce it to three consecutive meetings is sensible, given the frequency of the meetings and the work of the mayor and assembly, with the proviso outlined by the Minister that where a reasonable explanation is given for the mayor's absence that will be accepted.
I turn to the provision of absence without reasonable excuse, with which we are all familiar in local government; that is, six months. But as the Government have told us so often, the Greater London assembly is not local government; it is something which is unique and different. We cannot have it all ways. We should not look at this matter in the circumstances of general local government provision but in the particular circumstances about which we are speaking; in other words, the Greater London assembly.
As an assembly, it will meet frequently and, critically, it will be a much smaller body than most district councils and certainly than most major councils. The absence of an assembly member for as long as six months—I would say for as long as three
94
months—will be even more serious than in the case of a larger authority. That member may well have, and indeed should have, important duties. It is quite serious to be absent for such a long period. While I hope and believe it will not happen in the case of the mayor, I am sure that sooner or later it will happen in the case of an assembly member. To allow it to go on for six months for no reason other than it is the norm in local government is not good enough. We need to look at the consequences of such an absence and provide for a shorter period— and three months is proposed here. However, just as in local government, where there is good reason the proviso exists that the member is excused. Where there is not good reason, we should pay attention to it.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Lord said that in his opinion the comparison with local government is not valid. However, I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that local government provides experience of circumstances in which people may fail to attend. The noble Baroness's amendment proposes that disqualification will occur at the end of the period, as it does in local government. Therefore it is not a matter of judgment. My understanding is that the noble Lord was referring to something not encompassed by the amendment, which provides for the breakpoint—which in the case of local government is automatic disqualification.
Lord Tope: The noble Baroness is one of the people in Committee with whom I would not clash over local government matters, but I am moderately confident that in local government, where prior reason has been given and the council has voted to accept that good reason, an absence may continue. That should, of course, be the case with the Greater London Authority, whatever the period of absence. I do not know whether the amendment provides for that but if not, no doubt that point will be dealt with.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I owe the noble Lord an apology—I was in error. I withdraw my comments.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I was most grateful for the assistance of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, in clarifying my remarks. The noble Lord said that it would be reasonable to extend the time. We will reconsider the amendment because it might be that we would wish to say that for both the mayor and the assemblyman an absence should be allowed provided the assembly agrees. So disqualification would not be automatic but a person would be unable to extend absences from meetings without anything happening. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Declaration of vacancy in certain cases.]:
8.30 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 5, line 9, at end insert ("or
(d) if he has been elected as a London member, resigns from or is expelled from his party or the group on whose behalf he was elected, or transfers his allegiance to another party (or none) or group (or none),")
The noble Baroness said: With this, I will speak also to Amendment No. 44. There is a theory or myth that in first-past-the-post elections, one is voting not for the party but the candidate as an individual. I suppose that a lot has to do with the party to which the individual belongs. Under the system to be used in Greater London, almost half the members of the assembly will owe their places to the fact that they were selected by the party that the voter supported. Such members will be in the assembly because of their position on the list, through whatever machinery the party used for that purpose. No elector will have the choice of voting for or against any individual candidate.
As the assemblyman is there purely as a representative of his party, not in a personal capacity, if he crosses the floor of the assembly he will be depriving his party of one representative chosen by its supporters at the ballot box. In the deviousness of politics, a person could rebel and vote against the party whip without officially resigning from his party—but it is for the party machinery and discipline to deal with such behaviour. That is why the amendment includes a provision for a party member to be expelled.
The proposal would not act to the advantage of any particular political party. Over the years, elected members of every party have crossed the floor, especially in local government. I know cases where that has resulted in control of a council passing from one party to another. With an assembly, where a substantial part of its membership has been selected solely because of their party affiliations, such action will deprive electors of the choice of party that they made at the ballot box, which was the sole criterion for their vote.
What if an independent member of the assembly decided to join a particular party as distinct from supporting it in assembly votes? Electors, having chosen a person to exercise personal discretion should not complain if he or she does so. In truth, I do not believe that independent members will be elected that often.
It is unnecessary to introduce a complicated provision to deal with the remote possibility of an independent being elected, then suddenly seeing the light and joining a party. The proposed provision is simple, as can be seen from the brevity of the amendment's wording. It would not be helpful to introduce an extra refinement to deal with a remote pair of possibilities. I beg to move.
Lord Tope: Amendment No. 44 raises the same important issue as the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, but with a slight difference. I shall listen with interest to how the Government have addressed this important issue. As the noble Baroness said, we could maintain what is probably a fiction—that candidates are elected as individuals. We could argue
96
about the importance of the party label. Here, we are talking about the 11 London members who will be chosen by a party and elected from a party list. In other words, the electorate will be voting not for the individual but a party. Voters will have the right to believe that the people elected represent that party. That is essentially different from the situation in parliamentary and local authority voting, where candidates are elected as individuals, albeit with a party label. In this case, the party will be elected.
Again, we are talking about a small assembly of 25 persons in total, where one change could make a significant difference. I do not mean a difference to the balance of control because the assembly will not be a local authority in that sense, so control will matter less. Most important of all, the member concerned would be exercising a deceit on the electorate, who voted for a party as distinct from a person. We debated earlier the unlikely event of a mayor ignoring the assembly. A change of representation is a much more likely event. Rightly or wrongly, people do change their party allegiance. If a person who has been elected as a Conservative sees the light and decides that he is really a Liberal Democrat—and such things are not unknown—that would be a deceit and different from Parliament and local authorities.
Our amendment differs in an important respect from that of the noble Baroness, but we may be able to debate that later. Amendment No. 43 applies also to someone being expelled from their party. That worries me a little because it would give a party the ability to get rid of a troublesome member chosen by the electorate. The temptation to do that might be too much for some party managers to resist. Our amendment deliberately does not refer to expulsion but to the decision of the assembly member to belong to a particular party or to no party. It will be his or her choice, under whatever duress. I invite the Official Opposition to reflect on that difference, as we will. But both amendments address an important situation that, sooner or later, will arise.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Before I heard the noble Lord, Lord Tope, I was going to say that our amendment and Amendment No. 44 were very similar but ours was better because it allowed for more eventualities—such as expulsion. Having listened to the noble Lord, it may be that his amendment is better. I need time to reflect. The Minister should understand that both the noble Lord and I feel that it would be dreadful if someone were elected on a party list, not as an individual, then decided to become a member of another party—although I will not use strong words such as "a deceit on the electorate".
It is different when Members of Parliament cross the Floor. Independent MPs are elected as individuals, and presumably electors allow them to use their judgment. I understand that their judgment now is that the Conservative party is better than the Liberal Democrats. I could not help making that observation after the way that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, explained the change-over of crossing the Floor. I thought that we would even out the argument on that point. However, it

97
is a very serious matter if we are to be so involved in a small assembly with just 11 elected members who will be able to criss-cross the Floor in this way.
Lord Whitty: I cannot understand why anyone would leave the Liberal Democrats for the Conservatives or, indeed, vice versa. I am a little torn on this one. After all, I am an old apparatchik and I tend to think that if people leave a party there should be some sanctions. However, on reflection, I think that these proposals are pushing it a bit. There are certain practicalities involved, especially as regards the Liberal Democrats' amendment. In reality, if anyone realises that he will lose his job as an assembly member in such circumstances, he will not resign the party whip; indeed, he will just ignore it. Therefore, it will become a matter of party discipline and it is an issue upon which the party will almost automatically take a view. As I know, partly to my cost, you then get into all sorts of court cases, litigation and in this case presumably employment rights to some extent because we are talking about a paid job.
Therefore. there are real problems involved. But quite apart from the practical problems, there is also an issue of principle. The noble Lord, Lord Tope, is right to say that we are creating a unique body, although it is a relatively small one. Nevertheless, we have had a long-standing convention at all levels that, if people change their allegiance once elected by electorates, they do not automatically have to resign. Of course, there have been one or two honourable exceptions to that in the past 100 years, but not very many, relating to Parliament, local government or indeed the European Parliament. I also believe that that is the case in most other countries. I asked for advice as to whether there was any situation in any country where this applied by law. The general view was no, although someone did indicate that it might apply in North Korea under rather greater sanctions.
It is not long ago that the ballot paper did not give any party affiliation. However, in the past few decades we have put the candidates' affiliation on it. Is that, in essence, any different from saying, "These are the top three Labour candidates", or "These are the top three Conservative candidates", who get on as a result of selection? I do not believe it is that different in principle from us being able to say that a convention which has run for many years in local government, in Westminster and more recently in the European Assembly should apply here.
Once you have elected someone, he will serve his term. He will have been elected under a party label, whether it was by first-past-the-post, by an alternative vote., STV or indeed a list system. In all such cases, simply because someone decides that he is unable to continue to share a party label—and it may well be that the party has changed rather than the person; that does happen—there is no reason why the person should lose the position for which he was voted by the electorate. In any case—and I return to a practical point—the reality is that in those circumstances no one would actually resign the whip. We would be straight into party discipline, and that is a point which the Liberal Democrat Benches
98
were trying to avoid. That, of itself, creates many more complex problems than are addressed by this amendment. Therefore, with those words, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Lord Tope: I bow to the Minister's much greater experience than mine as an old apparatchik. I recognise the difficulties about which he is talking. However, there is an important difference here. The noble Lord made a reference to the fact that someone is elected. The people under discussion are not elected in a personal sense; they are there from a party list to give proportionality between the parties. When they transfer to another party, they automatically upset the proportionality, which has been determined by the number of votes that the party, not the individual, has received. In other words, the Government's intention in this Bill, which we certainly support, of creating proportionality on the assembly would be immediately upset. Because we are talking about such a small number—only 11—it would be upset to a relatively great extent. That is the point we are trying to make. It is not the same as the issue of a Member crossing the Floor in, say, the House of Commons or in a council chamber. Is it not actually altering the intention the Act, as it will be, as regards the election?
I understand only too well that there are practical difficulties and, old or apparatchik or not, we can recognise that fact. However, I ask the Minister to recognise that there is a real issue here and to think about how it can be addressed. Some of us do understand issues of party discipline. I shall be very happy to have discussions on the matter. It is not for me to speak for the other Front Bench, but I suspect that that will also be case for them. In that way we will be able to see how we can address the situation which, I say again, will arise sooner or later. It is a very serious situation. particularly in a small assembly.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I could not agree more with what the noble Lord, Lord Tope, has just said; indeed, there is a great difference between the example given by the Minister and the position that we are discussing whereby people cross the Floor of the House. I should have thought that the Government would be delighted to accept this amendment. I can only speak for my own party, but our list is made up of one member, one vote in London, voting for the list and the order of the list. That is one point. I believe that it was somewhat different in the Minister's party. The list was somehow designated but not by one member, one vote. I am not quite sure how they came to it, but I do not think there was the same democratic choice of the list. Therefore, given that fact, they would be even more upset if one of their list actually moved across the Floor to either the Liberal Democrats or the Conservatives.
The Minister made much of a point that he really did not understand why the Conservatives went to the Liberal Democrats or vice versa. He made the point that sometimes parties change out of all recognition. It may well be that his party is one which has really done so.

99
Indeed, it might have offended some of the voters because they ended up all of a sudden with something completely different from what they believed the party to be.
The noble Lord, Lord Tope, suggested that we would be happy to sit round a table and discuss the matter. We would most certainly be happy to do so. I shall withdraw my amendment at this stage, but I think that the Minister should take note of the fact that we consider this to be a very important matter. If people are elected on a list and then decide to cross the Floor, we believe that the voters should have an opportunity to say something about it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 44 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Election of member as Mayor]:
[Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Date of casual vacancies]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 6, line 11, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert ("give public notice of any casual vacancy among the Assembly members, and shall also convey such notice in writing to the Greater London returning officer")
The noble Baroness said: Clause 10(2) provides for only the Greater London returning officer to receive official notice of a casual vacancy among the London members. It is true that the succession to an assemblyman will be the next person on the party list, so the notification is a formality. However, I venture to suggest that very few electors will actually scour the obituaries if that should be the unfortunate cause of the vacancy. It is also a regrettable fact that with no constituency element among the London assemblymen, very few of the electors will know who has been replaced or why.
In my long experience as a canvasser in innumerable elections, I can tell the Committee that an amazingly high proportion of electors cannot tell you the name of their MP, let alone the councillor for their own ward. Of course, the public has to be given notice of a vacancy among the constituency members because there is likely to be a by-election. But why is it that when a vacancy occurs among the London members, the Government say that as the replacement is already in place, it is none of anyone's business? Is this not the opposite of open government?
It is not as if we are suggesting that the proper officer of the authority is being told to visit each voter personally and impart the news. All that he needs to do is to place an advertisement in the local press and put up a few posters. Is that not exactly what happens every day already when public notice is to be given on any subject? I do not understand why the Government, have produced such a convoluted dual process in the two paragraphs of this subsection. In just four words less
100
than the Government our amendment makes a simplified all purpose procedure which I recommend to the Committee. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: As the noble Baroness said, her Amendment No. 46 would extend the provisions in Clause 9 of the Bill to include a requirement to give public notice of the occurrence of London member vacancies in addition to constituency member vacancies. Of course it is right that if a vacancy arises in a constituency seat, the proper officer of the authority must give public notice of that vacancy, as required by Clause 9(2)(b). This is because a by-election will fill that vacancy and the public therefore need to be told.
But vacancies in London member seats will not be filled by an election. Where the vacancy is in the seat of a member elected from a party list, the returning officer will be told that a vacancy has occurred and will fill it from the list submitted by the party at the previous ordinary election. No election will be held and therefore public notice is not necessary. However, I accept that it will be important that the public are made aware of who has filled an assembly list vacancy. Given the size of the assembly, this should be achieved simply by virtue of their taking their seat. But formal public notice of those individuals who might fill a future vacancy will in effect have been given at the preceding ordinary election when parties submitted their lists of candidates to the electorate. I hope that in the light of this reassurance the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I listened with interest when the Minister said that she did not feel the amendment was necessary. On the other hand, I can see no reason why it should be unnecessary. It seems extraordinary that no matter how small or how large our amendments may be, or what Bill they seek to amend, or what we are talking about, the answer from the Government is always no. In all my time at this Dispatch Box on the one occasion that I achieved success it was overturned in the other place. One would think that at some stage the Government would want to encourage us and would give just a little in the hope that we might not divide on a measure that they would consider far more substantive.
Baroness Hamwee: I did not want to interrupt the noble Baroness in full flow. I merely wished to ask the Minister a question before the noble Baroness withdraws the amendment, if that is what she intends to do.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I shall certainly not withdraw it until the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has had an opportunity to ask her question. We may wish to return to this matter. If the notice comprises a public notice and not an advertisement, we may wish to suggest that it is put on the Internet, for example. However, at this stage I shall sit down and listen quietly to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has to say.
Baroness Hamwee: I do not think my comments merit that introduction! I am afraid that I cannot

101
immediately recall what notice is to be given after elections. I hope that the Minister can remind us of that. The noble Baroness proposes that the public should be made aware of who are the London members and who is a new London member. If there is any inconsistency as regards notifying the public in the event of the next person on the list filling a casual vacancy, and with regard to what happens after the ordinary elections, one should be able to consider that matter without it being regarded as any great drama or loss of face on the part of the Government.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Like the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I am unable to recollect that point. In the light of my previous error with the noble Lord. Lord Tope, I prefer to write to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Filling a vacancy in an Assembly constituency]:
[Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Filling a vacancy among the London members]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 7, line 20, leave out subsection (2)
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 48 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 50. Amendment No. 48 is a paving amendment to remove subsection (2) of Clause 11. Amendment No. 50 seeks to add a new subsection at the end of Clause 11. We accept what we believe to be the object of Clause 11, but as drafted it leaves an undesirable gap which needs to be tidied up. The clause as stated in the preamble to subsection (1) applies when a vacancy occurs among the so-called London members. If the vacancy occurs among those whose places derive from one of the party lists, his place is filled by his colleague who is next on the list.
On reflection, I see that there may be a possible theoretical flaw left by the wholesale removal of the entire subsection (2) which would occur if all of the reserves—if I may call them that—from the party lists are used up by the wholesale decimation of the elected members. That is something that we could tidy up at the next stage. The gap that I have just mentioned arises if the assemblyman who causes the gap is one elected not as a member on a party list but as an individual. I accept that in the real world the probability of an individual candidate getting enough votes to secure a place is pretty remote. But on the other hand some celebrity, famous TV journalist, or resurrected Elvis Presley might throw his hat in the ring and get elected. If his place fell vacant, the Bill as drafted provides for it to remain vacant until the next election. This situation could theoretically last for nearly four years. Why is that?
I realise that political parties resent independent candidates getting in and stealing the seat that they believe ought to be rightly theirs. Members on both sides of this Chamber have experienced that indignity over the years. I also realise that by-elections are somewhat inconvenient to organise and are comparatively expensive to run. But no one suggests that if a vacancy occurs in Parliament or in a local council there should not be a by-election. With PR we are, I agree, living in a different world. However, with only 11 London members, the loss of one of them through death or resignation represents a substantial gap, loss of representation and an increased burden of work on his colleagues. If only one independent place falls vacant, our amendment follows the Government's preferred choice and leaves the place empty until the next ordinary election. If somehow two places became vacant—remote though all these possibilities undoubtedly are—the proposed measure provides for the holding of a by-election.
I revert to the problems of expense and inconvenience. We have said that there would be no poll if the event occurred within six months of the ordinary election date. We are not here proposing something that would come into effect often. It may never come into effect. But if there were to be two vacancies among independent assemblymen, it would not be tolerable for there to be a possibility of a long-term 20 per cent vacancy among the London members. This amendment removes that possibility. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness clearly points to a somewhat improbable set of circumstances. They are, nevertheless, circumstances which the legislation would allow to arise. She suggests that where two independents have been elected and two independents resign. die or, for one reason or another, disappear from the assembly, there should be a by-election. Her proposals are different from those we provided for Scotland and Wales, where exactly the same situation could apply.
Improbable though such circumstances may be, one has to assess the cost of running a London-wide election. The assembly can function with vacancies and whereas it is clear who the replacement candidate would be from the party lists, in such circumstances it is not at all clear that a by-election would produce another independent candidate. In practice, the most likely effect of a by-election would be for a member of one of the established parties to win. That would not reflect the original views of the electorate.
There are difficulties in this area. Whatever answer one comes up with creates an anomaly. I am not convinced by the noble Baroness's solution. One can afford an anomaly once but not twice. Were there a large number of independent candidates, one would have to find a mechanism, but I am not sure why it is obvious that because one moves from one vacancy to two, one has to provide for a new election which almost certainly would not result in additional independent members. Therefore the objective of the amendment would not necessarily be achieved.

103
I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment, in this form at least. I concede that there is a problem and I am happy to have another look at it. I am not sure that I will come up with a solution that is capable of meeting all the various problems that this distinctly improbable situation would cause. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: Before the Minister sits down, when one is drafting legislation improbabilities as well as probabilities have to be taken into account. In this instance, improbable though it might be that two independent members would be elected under a PR system, it is not inconceivable that notable people might be attractive. We are creating something new and different and Londoners may decide that independent members are attractive. One can conceive of circumstances under which assembly members were undertaking an investigation and two independent members were travelling in the same car. They could be involved in the same accident, with fatal consequences.
Does the Minister think that two casual vacancies of two independent members for, let us say, three and half years, is preferable to a by-election? A by-election may produce a different result and not return independent members but at least it would not leave the assembly deprived of virtually 10 per cent of its membership. Given the fact that in legislation one has to consider the improbable as well as the probable, this is a potentially significant matter.
Baroness Hamwee: I agree that one must cater for the "what ifs". My noble friend Lord Tope commented that one of the "what ifs" is not likely to be a resurrected Elvis Presley because he does not have the residence qualification. It would be inconsistent if we did not support the amendment or something rather like it, given our concerns about the size of the assembly and the possible loss of two out of the 11 London members. The balance here points to a by-election even if, as the Minister said, it means that the vacancies are filled by members of a political party rather than by individuals. Given the functions of the assembly, it is more important to have people to carry out the scrutiny role than to try to preserve whatever political balance there may have been at the time of the original election.
Of course the scenario is not very likely. We considered putting down an amendment to deal with the loss of one London member in such circumstances. We decided that that was perhaps being a bit over anxious. However, we feel that there should be some mechanism for filling two vacancies.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My noble friend and the noble Baroness have made the point that the Bill, as well as dealing with probable circumstances, should deal also with what the Minister described as improbable circumstances. The point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that even were Elvis Presley resurrected he would not qualify under the residence provisions of the Act is quite possible.
104
I have mentioned TV journalists. A situation could arise where perhaps two Martin Bells, or someone of that ilk, were elected as independent members. Or perhaps a well-known member of the Labour Party, who did not obtain his party's endorsement to run, would be elected both as mayor and as an assemblyman. It is an unpleasant scenario but perhaps a situation may arise where two independent members, feeling somewhat threatened by the fact that the rest of the members of the assembly belonged to one party or another. became rather friendly and one day became involved in a car crash. Suddenly there would be no independent members of the assembly. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made the point that in a very small assembly it would be a disaster if that happened and nothing could be done.
The Minister said that that was improbable and unlikely to happen. In that case, there is no reason why the Government should not give way and incorporate the amendment into the Bill. As it will not be called upon, it will not cost anything. The Government could actually agree to the amendment because they are certain that such an occasion would never arise. However, if the Government think it might arise, then all the more reason why they should agree to the amendment. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Failure to attend meetings]:
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Declaration of vacancy in certain cases]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 8, line 15, at end insert ("or
(c) is subject to a unanimous vote of no confidence by the Assembly.")
The noble Baroness said: This long and extremely complicated Bill has gone through the detailed scrutiny of the other place. In the course of its passage so far it has been virtually returned to the drawing board by the Government, and it has, like Topsy, "just growed", by no fewer than 85 pages. It is therefore curious that one essential provision is missing.
One assumes that the mayor is deemed to hold office during good behaviour. The Bill does not provide for his dismissal or his removal from office for "grave crimes and misdemeanours". If the Prime Minister were to fall out of favour or indeed the leader of a council, then his party, possibly with the assistance of the other side, could get rid of him by voting him out of office. Of course, the electorate can get rid of the whole party at an election, but that is not what we are talking about here.
The mayor of Greater London is unlike any other mayor of any city in the United Kingdom. Those mayors have largely ceremonial duties, including presiding over

105
the council meetings, with his only real power being a casting vote in the case of an equality of voting. Despite the fact that the Secretary of State is reserving considerable powers to direct the mayor on how he should perform his duties, we are about to invest the mayor of London with enormous executive powers. He will have a budget equivalent to or in excess of that of the entire national budget of some third world countries. He will have substantial powers of patronage. I have no doubt that the person who is elected mayor will conduct himself in a perfectly proper manner. But perhaps he will not, either over a period of time or on a particular occasion. Perhaps he may he guilty of inappropriate conduct—I do not mean in his personal life—but in performance of the heavy duties imposed on him under the Bill.
High Court judges can be removed only by a joint Address to Her Majesty by both Houses of Parliament, but Her Majesty will not be appointing the mayor. The mayor will be elected. It would be grossly improper to have the dismissal effected by the Secretary of State at the request of the assembly. The Secretary of State already has more than enough reserve powers under the Bill, a Bill which seeks to give London an independent mayor, but leaves him subject to the directions of the Secretary of State in many vital areas.
Judging by Amendment No. 53, I believe that the Liberal Democrats agree with us in principle that there should be a power to remove the mayor and that the decision to remove the mayor should be in the hands of the assembly and the assembly alone. Therefore, the difference between us revolves around how many members of the assembly should decide on this drastic step. I accept what will no doubt be a criticism of my amendment that achieving a unanimous vote of no confidence will be extremely difficult. But I believe that the process ought to be difficult because unseating the mayor, elected by a popular vote, would be a very serious matter and should not take place unless it is clear that it is the right and proper step. I know it is possible that some obstinate person could in effect exercise a veto, or that a close friend of the mayor might be reluctant in what could be a secret vote to reveal that he too had voted for dismissal. In either of those cases it would be for them to explain that although the mayor had, for example, shot the leader of the opposition in front of the whole assembly and was locked up in prison awaiting trial, or had cost the taxpayers millions because of some gross act of negligence, they nevertheless voted for him to stay in office. No, I believe that they would act properly, and in a case where it is claimed that the removal of the mayor is both just and necessary, a unanimous vote is essential. I think there are difficulties with a lower percentage but the problem is that this is a very small assembly.
The reality is that it is not difficult to imagine an election in which, under the categories of constituency and party list members combined, one party could acquire an automatic majority sufficient to throw out the mayor. If the mayor happened to be of a different party, their own candidate having failed, then it would be a fairly simple matter to reverse the election results for absolutely no reason but that they did not like the
106
winning candidate. Also, with only a small majority being required, there would be the temptation to launch a series of ill-founded motions, or even just one, which although unlikely to succeed, would undoubtedly fatally undermine the credibility of the mayor and his authority, and would distract him from the performance of his duties. One has only to look at recent events in the United States to see what I mean.
It is essential that in a democracy no office should be a freehold. Equally, if it is a leasehold it should be possible for the representatives of the electors to end the term of an elected official early where there is an exceptionally good reason. I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: We share the concern expressed by the noble Baroness about the need to find some mechanism to deal with what would be very extreme circumstances. The experience of the conduct of mayors in the United States, for example, is not wholly happy. I do not mean to imply that every mayor in the United States has been corrupt, but there have been a number of notable and very worrying examples.
However, as the noble Baroness said, we are concerned about the need for unanimity. She mentioned the possibility of a chum of the mayor who is a member of the assembly blocking a vote of no confidence. The example which came to my mind was of a deputy mayor appointed by the mayor and therefore having a rather different personal interest from the rest of the members of the assembly.
We have proposed a two-thirds majority to allow for the odd obsequious and unquestioning supporter. Two-thirds may be a bit too low, but we wanted to examine tonight the possibility of steps being taken to get rid of a mayor who had lost the confidence of the assembly. For the purpose of this debate, I am happy to put it in the terms of the noble Baroness's amendment. It is not actually easy to get a two-thirds majority, I would have thought; certainly not if it were on a straight party line. The mayor would have to have done something pretty outrageous for this circumstance to come about. We have proposed two-thirds because it is a fairly common proportion which is required for constitutional change, but perhaps it is a little on the low side.
The mechanism we have proposed differs in another important respect from that proposed by the Conservatives. In any event, the assembly members would no doubt think pretty hard before passing such a resolution, but we are asking for a sanction on them to make them think that much harder—not only should they not be frivolous but that if they were frivolous it would rebound upon themselves—because our election provides for an outright election. In other words, if the assembly members want to get rid of the mayor they have to be prepared to face the electorate themselves. We believe that a mayor with very considerable powers needs to be subject to careful controls. In many

107
situations I would argue that this is a matter for the electorate but, given the particular powers of the mayor, this is something that deserves particular consideration.
Lord Whitty: The noble Baroness started with the subject of corruption in American mayors and perhaps I should put on record here that the normal disqualification provisions covering the conduct of all local authority members would also apply to the mayor. In other words, the mayor will have to stand down if he has committed an offence that would carry a sentence of three months or more. If they are bankrupt, or disqualified under the Representation of the People Act or disqualified under Section 17 or 18 of the Audit Commission Act, or they are not prepared to attend meetings, the question of a corrupt mayor does not arise. It is really a policy issue that we are referring to now.
The noble Baroness also referred to the United States. I think that the recent history of impeachment processes there is not a very good model for us to follow here. It is conceivable that a vindictive assembly might take action against a mayor, even attempting to get a two-thirds majority—possibly not a unanimous majority, I concede, but nevertheless a two-thirds majority. Even in the improbable circumstances that we have been asked to consider in relation to the Bill, it is not improbable that a totally non-party candidate could win as mayor. That is a conceivable circumstance. The party establishments collectively might well have a view on that. Yet he or she would have had the endorsement of Londoners and a direct election. The flaw in these amendments is that the assembly's mandate is assumed to be superior to that of the mayor. Yet, if anything, the mayor's personal mandate will be more direct and substantial.
Under the Liberal Democrat amendment, if there were a vote we should also have to engage in an election for the assembly. It is a "nuclear deterrent" type of power. But again—as we are asked to consider improbable scenarios—if it happened, it would possibly happen almost immediately after one election where the programme of the incoming non-party mayor might be rejected by the assembly. Would the assembly be justified in removing the mayor? In what circumstances exactly would the assembly be justified in doing so, given that corruption, criminal offences and offences covered by local government legislation are already provided for? It seems to me that the noble Baroness's normal instinct applies here. This is a matter for the people, not for the assembly, whose members are elected on a parallel ticket for a different job from that of the mayor. I do not think that it could be justifiable if on every occasion—taking the two-thirds majority target, as the assembly must have a two-thirds majority—the assembly was able to ask London to vote again for a mayor.
I have a fundamental objection to this proposal. It is a matter for the people, not for the assembly. It is a misreading of the relative role of the assembly and the mayor. I do not think there is any precedent of one group of elected officials being able to vote out another, different elected official. Admittedly, we are in new and
108
uncharted waters. But this proposal muddies the waters of the division of functions. It provides the possibility of dangerous and damaging conflict within the new Greater London Authority and we should reject it. I feel strongly about this matter. I hope that the noble Baroness will reconsider.
Lord Dixon-Smith: We are of course in the business of considering improbabilities. I accept that perhaps we should not take too much notice of the experience in America where there have been one or two extraordinary mayors. I am also aware that there was an extraordinary mayor in a part of France which I still visit with great regularity because it is an area that I love. He finally had to make a hasty retreat—I believe it was to Mexico, but it might have been Argentina. When finally he returned, he received a considerable gaol sentence.
I accept that in the case of corrupt practice the law should normally take its course. One believes and hopes that the principle of a man being considered innocent until he is proved guilty is appropriate. But let us suppose, because we are considering improbabilities, that the case was flagrant. The course of justice grinds exceedingly fine and smoothly, but it grinds exceedingly slowly. With clever lawyers, it could take a considerable time to bring a case to court, and even longer to obtain a conviction in a case where matters were well known.
It may be said that it is unlikely that all these probabilities would come together. But the truth is that, unlikely though they may be, they may happen and we need to consider them in the course of the passage of this Bill. I believe that my noble friend's amendment has validity and merits serious consideration by the Government.
Lord Tope: Can the Minister tell the Committee of any other political leader in any sphere of government anywhere in the United Kingdom who cannot be removed from office by one means or another? That is what we are talking about in the case of this mayor. I cannot think of any other example. I hope that this is an unlikely situation, but if it arises it is probable that Parliament will have to legislate again with all the difficulties that that entails. We all hope that that course of action will never arise or that it will be embarked upon only in the most extreme circumstances, but that is the kind of eventuality to which we must give consideration.
I very much share the point of principle enunciated by the Minister. The mayor is elected by the electors of London and ideally should, if necessary, be removed by them. There are clear and obvious practical difficulties in achieving that with an electorate of 5 million. What would be a significant number on a petition? How would it be organised, and so on? The practical difficulties would, frankly, make that an impossible event. We need to devise a system that gets as near as possible to that principle, which is the purpose of the amendment. We do not simply say that the mayor should be voted out of office by two-thirds or four-fifths of the assembly, or whatever figure we choose, but that the assembly in taking that very serious decision must also put itself to the test of the London electorate.

109
If the assembly does not believe that it has a very good case to argue it will in effect be voting itself out of office. We believe that in practical terms that is the nearest we can get to putting the removal of the mayor to the test of the London electorate. It is highly probable that the ensuing election for the mayor and assembly would be fought on those very issues. That would satisfy the principle, which I accept, enunciated by the Minister. The matter would then be put to the test of the people who elected the mayor in the first place. They would either confirm the decision of the assembly, and presumably elect a different mayor, or do the reverse. If there is a better way of doing it we are, happy to hear it and discuss it.
Our amendment seeks to meet the important principle that the Minister enunciated but also recognises that, improbable though it may be, this situation can arise, and if and when it does it will be an extremely difficult one for London and the Government. This is the stage at which we should address it. We should determine now how to deal with it while the matter is still theoretical and before it becomes a really difficult practical problem. We shall probably not get very much further with this matter tonight, but I strongly urge the Government to consider how it should be dealt with and to give serious consideration to the amendment moved by my noble friend.
Baroness Hamwee: Before the Minister responds, perhaps I may add one word. He suggested the possibility of an independent mayor who was disliked by the members of the assembly who combined to oust him or her. I believe that that was the thrust of his comment. Our amendment is designed to make assembly members think extremely hard about doing anything so frivolous or silly. That notional independent mayor no doubt would have been elected on the basis of a manifesto. Clearly, nothing like the Salisbury convention would apply within the Greater London Authority, but the effect of having to put the respective manifestos to the electorate again more or less meets the point. The Minister said that that would be the nuclear option. It is absolutely intended to be the nuclear option.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am concerned about what occurs when the unexpected happens. Someone will have to take a decision as to how to handle the difficulty. As the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, said, if a mayor has committed a heinous offence such matters take a long time to go through the courts. The finger would be pointed at the Secretary of State to do something about it. At that point the Secretary of State becomes embroiled in an extremely uncomfortable political decision. I should have thought that one of the lessons we have learned in the recent past is how uncomfortable the position of a Secretary of State can be when he or she is faced with combining a judicial and political role.
Lord Whitty: The political situation would be extremely uncomfortable for everyone, improbable or not. If we are discussing improbabilities, it is
110
conceivable that it might be in the political interests of two thirds of the majority. They could easily enhance their vote and get rid of the mayor they did not like. Noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches should consider the deeply destabilising effect this power would have on the positive and constructive operation of the assembly and the authority.
I am even more alarmed by what the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, suggested. In effect he says that the assembly should have the power to pre-judge t he courts. I was concerned about the blurring of the division of powers between the assembly and the mayor. The noble Lord takes us into far more dangerous territory where the elected assembly in London takes over the powers of the judiciary. Noble Lords must hesitate over that. I believe that the American experience, not only in recent cases but more generally over the past 150 years of American history, demonstrates that the power will be used for political rather than objective purposes.
In the circumstances of the noble Lord's experience in France, it would be absolutely clear that the mayor had failed to attend six consecutive monthly meetings in his time in Mexico and would be disqualified by an entirely different provision.
Before we return to the issue—it is clear that Members of the Committee wish to return to it—noble Lords should consider the implications of their proposal.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister said how dreadful it would be if the assembly became caught up in criticising or trying to dismiss the judiciary. I remind the noble Lord that in the Scotland Bill the Government have precisely that provision. The Scottish Parliament could dismiss Scottish judges. As a result of arguments in this House, the Government placed the tribunal as a buffer between the Scottish Parliament and the Government. On behalf of the Government, the Minister is arguing from the other direction than that which he argued on the Scotland Bill, as he will see if he reads Hansard on that issue.
I understand the point he makes. I am concerned about both amendments. I can envisage extremely tricky circumstances. Perhaps the Minister will consider in what circumstances Clause 14 allows the appropriate officer of the authority to declare the office to be vacant, and discuss with his officials and lawyers whether the list under Clause 14(a) and (b) needs expanding to include some other circumstance so that the matter can be dealt with in that way. The circumstances envisaged by both Front Benches could easily arise and must be dealt with somehow. That is just a suggestion—I know that Members on the other side of the Committee are not meant to make suggestions which help the Government—but I am tempted to believe that there may be another way. The Minister should consider what the Government did about the Scotland Bill.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I thank my noble friend for mentioning that the Government are arguing differently from a similar provision in the Scotland Bill. I take issue with my noble friend in her statement that the Opposition are not supposed to be helpful to the Government. I believe that all of our amendments would

111
be helpful to them if they were accepted. But of course I am well aware that the Government do not like to accept them because of the "It was not invented here" syndrome. Undoubtedly, if they had thought of it it would have been in the Bill.
The Minister will have gleaned that the Opposition believe that there must be a way of dealing with a mayor who is totally out of order. I notice that he was concerned because my noble friend said that perhaps the assembly should deal with the situation before the courts do. I accept that the concept is difficult to take on board, but when the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, spoke to her amendment the response was, "We have all the regulations in place and if he is disqualified this will happen. and if that happens this can happen, and so on, and we can deal with it. There really is not such a problem". There is a problem and the issue is how to find a solution.
The two Opposition Front Benches have suggested that the assembly should be able to get rid of the mayor, but they differ in the percentage. I take the Minister's point, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Tope, that if the mayor is voted into office by the citizens of London there should be no other way of removing him from office. I am sure that the Minister will be aware that in the other place we introduced a recall petition. We suggested that 1 million signatures should be presented to the Secretary of State stating that those people were no longer happy with the position for the following reasons. Before we put forward the present suggestion, we had the idea that the mayor could be removed for gross misbehaviour or whatever by the decision of the two Houses of Parliament. We have put forward many ideas, but clearly we have not yet come up with the answer.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Tope; the Minister said that we need to think about the matter and we are doing so because we want to find a mechanism. However, I believe that the Minister should accept the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Tope, because it is down to the Government to think about the matter, too, because they have produced the idea. As there is a flaw in it, it is down to the officials and the Minister together to put forward a solution. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Clauses 15 to 17 agreed to.
Schedule 3 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Cost of holding the first ordinary elections]:
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 9, line 41, leave out ("determined by the Secretary of State") and insert ("authorised by the Representation of the People Act 1983")
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 54, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 55. The expenses of the first ordinary Greater London election
112
for the mayor and the assembly will be borne by the Consolidated Fund because, as the assembly will not until afterwards exist, it will not have any money of its own.
In future the funding of ordinary and by-elections will follow the normal procedure for local elections. Clause 18, as drawn, is objectionable on two grounds. First, it leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide what may be spent. That is another example of the control that the Secretary of State is trying to exercise over the Greater London Authority which the Government claimed would be a truly independent organisation and a model of decentralisation.
"Local government should be less constrained by central government"
they proclaimed in their manifesto.
We have a simple, tried and tested, universally accepted method for working out what election expenses are permissible both for candidates and officials. Why change it? Why give this additional power to the Secretary of State? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
There is another element of uncertainty. Clause 18(2) states that the returning officer may not recover more than the maximum amount authorised by the Secretary of State and even then only for the purposes determined by him under Clause 18(1)(b). How will the returning officer know what these two undetermined items will be unless the Secretary of State announces them in advance of the commencement of the election process before the very first day?
The Bill imposes no obligation on the Secretary of State to do that. Once again, use of the established statutory procedure and guidelines would resolve that problem. I believe that in this case we should simply let the Act say that the existing laws of England apply to the election. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I am afraid I am still rather unclear as to the intended purpose of the amendments. On the face of it, they seek to remove from the Secretary of State the ability to determine the categories of expenditure which returning officers may seek to recover in respect of the first ordinary elections, and instead to specify that recoverable expenditure should be only that expressly authorised by the Representation of the People Act 1983.
Returning officers' recoverable expenses are specified either in respect of parliamentary elections, in an order made by the Secretary of State under Section 29(3) of the 1983 Act, or at local elections by the responsible council by virtue of Section 36 of that Act.
The amendments could not apply the provisions described in the orders made under Section 29(3) to the authority because the order-making power relates only to parliamentary elections. However, the clause as presently drafted confers similar power on the Secretary of State in respect of the first ordinary elections as that described at Section 29(3).
The power at Section 36 of the 1983 Act provides that a returning officer at a local election is entitled to recover all his expenses which are properly incurred, subject only to any scale which the relevant council may

113
have set. As the scales are not specified in the 1983 Act, these amendments would, as they stand, have nothing on which to bite.
I stress that Clause 18 relates only to expenditure in respect of the first ordinary elections which will be organised centrally and paid for out of the Consolidated Fund. Since authority elections will be treated as local government elections for the purposes of the RPA, in future years the cost of those elections will be met from the authority's budget and the provisions of Section 36 RPA will apply. I therefore feel that it is reasonable to ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am not certain how reasonable or otherwise it is to ask me to withdraw the amendment. However, I shall certainly read carefully what the Minister said. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 55 not moved.]
Clause 18 agreed to.
9.45 p.m.
Clause 19 [Qualification to be the Mayor or an Assembly member.]
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 56.
Page 10, line 29, leave out ("21") and insert ("18")
The noble Baroness said: I rise to speak to the amendment tabled in the name of my noble friend Lady Hamwee. For several years now there has been support cross-party for reducing the age at which people can stand for election from 21 to 18. At one time or another, each party seems to have supported the idea and yet successive governments have totally failed at every opportunity to introduce it. It is a matter of great regret to me that the Local Government Bill, going through this House at present, does not seem to be addressing the matter either.
As was said earlier, this Bill seeks a different type of assembly and gives us an opportunity to offer young people the chance to become candidates at the age of 18. It is extraordinary that we leave young people in such limbo. To a large extent, at 16 they become adults. Lots of the benefits of being a child are removed from them and lots of the responsibilities of being young adults are placed upon them. However, many of us probably feel that 18 is a reasonable age to accept that they reach majority. But, having reached that majority when they are expected to support themselves, to go out and get a job, when they can marry and be responsible for raising children, for deciding where to send those children to school and so forth, they are still not allowed to represent their own peer group.
The assembly is expected to a take a long-term view, otherwise there would not be much point in it. The London boroughs can do most of the short-term work, though they take a long-term view in some things. But the assembly is expected to take a much longer-term view; it will prepare strategies for the long term. We
114
only need to look at some of the subjects it will be addressing to see that the long-term effect is what will count; for instance, health, biodiversity, transport and so forth. And those who need a voice on that assembly, among others, are those who in 10 years' time can be expected to have children; those who in 20 years' time will have the families using the cycle routes, the transport and the sports and cultural facilities; and those who expect to have grandchildren in 30 or 40 years' time. That is a long-term view.
It might be said that three years does not make a big difference. But it does, in two ways. First, the candidate's birthday would need to fall in the right place. It may be that he or she would be 24 before being able to stand for the assembly because the elections took place just before their 21st birthday. Secondly, it sends out the regrettable message that we are not interested in hearing the voice of young people and it is a sop to say that we are only interested in hearing them in a consultative capacity.
If we believe young people are adult at 18—and in law they are—we should be willing to accept them as candidates at 18. It is no surprise to learn that the turnout of young people at every election is so poor. They cannot vote for one of their peers; they do not hear their voice in any council chamber in the land. It would be of enormous regret if once again in this assembly their voice is not heard as of right. London is a Mecca for young people; it offers them a huge amount. It also presents enormous problems for them. There are likely to be only one or two people in an assembly of this size who will truly be regarded as young. Given the tone that they could bring to the assembly, their long-;term view and the fact that they understand what it is to be young in a way that hose of us who are 30, 40 or 50 cannot, it is extremely important that the Government take this opportunity to reduce the age of candidates to 18. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: We do not support the amendment. The minimum age for a Member of Parliament is 21, and we think that it should be left at that. We are not talking about someone being a local councillor. The Minister and the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats said that the reason they did not wish to accept our amendment proposing a member from each borough making up the assembly was because people should not decide matters from a parochial point of view but from a strategic point of view. The constituencies, whether of London members or constituency members, are extremely large, and there is a responsibility to represent a large number of people and to take a strategic view. We feel that the age of I8 is too young for that important role.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The issue of lowering the age at which one can stand for a position raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, was debated in another place. On that occasion the Minister for Transport in London made clear that the Government have an open mind on this issue. The Minister re-stated the Government's position that there is a difference in terms of capacity and suitability

115
between what is required to be a voter and what is required to be a representative, and that the case for a reduction of the age at which a person can stand for election has not been fully made.
The Home Office working party on electoral procedures chaired by George Howarth, the Minister responsible for such matters, is reviewing a wide range of electoral practices. This issue properly falls to that working party. It would be inappropriate to legislate in the Bill on the age at which a person may stand for election. Electoral law should be consistent across the board.
The Committee will note that the working party was adjourned until the local Scottish, Welsh and European elections were completed, and it is unlikely to have the opportunity to meet for more than one or two sessions before the Summer Recess. It is doubtful, therefore, that the working party will be in a position to take up this issue in the current Session. However, as I have stressed, the Government do not have a closed mind on this point, and I am sure that my Home Office colleague will listen carefully to any representations which the noble Baroness may wish to make to that working party. In those circumstances. I hope that she will withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: I thank the Minister for her reply, which holds out a little hope. However, I am aware that the working party has been looking at this matter for some time. On the last occasion that the matter was considered all those who spoke supported the reduction of the age of candidates to 18, with the exception of the noble Lord, Lord Parkinson, who made a small point about financial responsibility. All the other contributors were agreed that there was huge merit in consistency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, made the point that it is important for the minimum age to be consistent with that for MPs. The argument is that if we believe people are adult at 18, we should be consistent and give them all of the rights that go with being an adult at 18. I do not believe that people acquire a huge amount of wisdom that enables them to turn from a voter to a candidate in three years. One will either have the energy, enthusiasm and intelligence to be a good candidate at the age of 18, when one is an adult, or one may never have it. A great deal of experience is gained with age, but not necessarily outlook, intelligence and an ability to represent people. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 10, line 34, after ("occupied") insert ("and continues to occupy")
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 58 and 59. They all relate to Clause 19(4), which deals with the personal connection of the mayor and assembly members with Greater London. Any person who wishes to be
116
candidate for either office and, if elected, to continue to be either the mayor or an assembly member must meet any one of the four criteria in Clause 19(4).
Clauses 7(a) and 14(a) declare the offices of assemblyman and mayor respectively vacant if the person ceases to be qualified. Paragraph (a) of Clause 19(4) states that
"on the relevant day he is, and from that day continues to he, a local government elector for Greater London".
I repeat those important words:
"and from that day, continues to be";
that is, continues throughout his term of office. Paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) respectively require him during the whole of the preceding 12 months to have occupied as owner or tenant land or premises in Greater London or to have had his principal or only place of work in Greater London or to have resided in Greater London. The requirement to have occupied land, or worked, or to have resided in Greater London is entirely appropriate and necessary. But it is a strange anomaly that a person has to continue to be a local government elector for the whole of his term of office but need not continue to have one of the other three relevant qualifications for one minute after the declaration of the poll.
I simply do not understand the reason for this discrepancy. It seems to be nothing but an invitation to carpetbaggers to parachute in, or to be parachuted in by his party hierarchy; acquire one of the three qualifications for 12 months; get himself elected; and then take off again—and yet retain the office that he has acquired. Our amendment ensures that all four of the alternative qualifications follow the identical standards and have the same value. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: Despite what the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, has said, these amendments would appear to be unnecessary. The subsections of Clause 19 which she described require a candidate to satisfy at least one of the four conditions to which she referred. These conditions are consistent with the conditions imposed in other local elections, including London borough elections.
I remain unconvinced by the arguments that I have heard so far that the elections to the Greater London Authority should be considered differently. The personal circumstances of candidates may change during their periods of office in such a way as to make it impossible for them to reside within the boundaries of Greater London. For example, there may be family responsibilities which would cause somebody to live just over the boundaries in one of the adjacent county areas, perhaps because of responsibility for elderly parents or other family commitments. That would mean that they could not register to vote, but it does not mean that they could not continue to carry out their responsibilities and duties either as mayor or as an assembly member.
The candidate elected as mayor will certainly be expected to be doing a full-time job, and this will also be so for assembly members. They will all be paid salaries. Even if it is expected that their GLA duties are

117
their only or principal work, they will continue to be qualified by the provisions of Clause 19(4)(c). From the example I have given, I hope the noble Baroness will understand that the amendment she proposes may have effects that I am quite sure she did not intend. I am sure that in those circumstances she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: There is not much validity in the argument that the Minister just made. If it is all right for the person to move a little outside the Greater London area provided that he resides or works there during the time that the proceedings are started, I do not understand why the candidate must, as it states in Clause 19(2)(a),
"on the relevant day … and from that day, continues to be, a local government elector for Greater London".
It seems extraordinary that somebody who wishes to be a mayor or assemblyman can be there one day but not the next day after the election.
I shall read carefully the Minister's comments and withdraw the amendment. I suggest, however, that the noble Lord the Minister also reflects. We will read the debate carefully. It would be helpful if Ministers read it carefully and sometimes were prepared to meet us half way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My noble friend always does.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am sure that the noble Baroness and the Minister do so but somewhere along the line, it would be rather nice if we could understand the reasoning. It does not make all that much sense to me. I beg to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 58 and 59 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 [Disqualification from being the Mayor or an Assembly member]:
[Amendments Nos. 60 and 61 not moved.]
10 p.m.
Miller of Hendon Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 11, line 35, at end insert ("; or
(f) he holds a politically restricted post (as defined in Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989) under any local authority (as similarly defined) whose area, or part of it, lies within Greater London.")
The noble Baroness said: Part I of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 disqualifies a person from becoming, whether by election or otherwise, or remaining a member of a local authority if he holds a politically restricted post with that or any other local authority in Great Britain. That provision was enacted as a result of the recommendations of the Widdecombe inquiry into the conduct of local authority business.
Clause 2 of the 1989 Act defines a politically restrictive post under eight headings. I am sure that the Minister and other Members of the Committee do not
118
require me to read them. The purpose of that provision is to safeguard against twin-tracking—that is, persons working for one council and holding elected office with another. As Section 1(2) of the 1989 Act excludes a person holding a restricted post even from becoming a Member of Parliament, there is every reason for it applying to the mayor and members of the assembly. Consistency should be the key. There is no reason for the mayor and members of the assembly being an elite group to whom the law of the land does not apply equally with members of other local authorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In the context of this new authority, I wonder whether there is some merit in allowing persons holding politically sensitive offices to stand—albeit that if they were elected, they would have to resign those offices. Has the noble Baroness considered that possibility or does she believe that such persons should neither stand nor be elected and serve while holding a politically sensitive office?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, that I certainly listen most carefully to everything said and consider it. If I do not understand fully the points raised, I assure the noble Baroness that I discuss them carefully with my noble friend the Minister and officials.
Amendment No. 62 would prevent holders of politically restricted posts in any of the London boroughs from being elected to or remaining as mayor or an assembly member. Clause 57(1) already specifies that the GLA will be treated as a local authority for the purposes of Sections 1 to 3 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which are the provisions covering politically restricted posts in local authorities.
Section 1(1) of the 1989 Act states:
"A person shall be disqualified from becoming (whether by election or otherwise) or remaining a member of a local authority if he holds a politically restrictive post under that local authority or any other local authority in Great Britain".
Subsequently, any person holding a politically restricted post in a London borough would already be prohibited from being elected or serving as mayor or an assembly member. Indeed, the prohibition actually extends to holders of politically restricted posts in local authorities outside Greater London. That is the normal local government regime. In those circumstances, I am sure that the noble Baroness will be happy to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The Minister is absolutely right. I shall be delighted to withdraw my amendment. I should like to assure the noble Baroness that I certainly was not trying to impugn that she, or any other Minister for that matter, did not read everything carefully and did not consider it. It is simply that we are

119
always being asked to look at such matters again. I just thought it was my turn to put another little spoke in the wheel. I beg leave to withdraw—
Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, perhaps she could answer my noble friend's question.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I actually nodded my head in assent to the noble Baroness when she made her second suggestion to indicate that that was exactly what I did mean. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 to 65 not moved.]
Clause 20 agreed to.
Clauses 21 and 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Declaration of acceptance of offer]:
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 13, line 1, leave out ("two months") and insert ("forty two days")
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of this amendment is to reduce the period of acceptance of office by the mayor and assembly members from two months to 42 days. If the election is held on 4th May in the year 2000, it makes the difference between 17th June and 4th July: that is about 19 days. Personally—and I emphasise that—I do not understand why anyone should need to sign an acceptance of offer of office after an election when he has signed a nomination form and has fought an election campaign which obviously indicates that he wants that position. However, it seems to have been ever thus. Until the system is changed, we will have to carry on with written acceptances and time limits.
The period of two months for both the mayor and assembly members to accept office is far too long. We propose that the period should be reduced to a maximum of 42 days. That is what applies elsewhere in local government where the period is the same—42 days. That is calculated from the 35 days for lodging a declaration of election expenses, plus the seven days. Incidentally, the same 35- day period for filing election expenses also applies in the case of Westminster and European parliamentary election expenses, although in those cases no acceptance of office is required.
In the interests of consistency, which I am having to urge elsewhere in our debates on the Bill, I believe that the Government should find it easy to accept this amendment. I can remember when I received a letter asking me whether I would be prepared to accept a life peerage and come to your Lordships' House. My reply, saying in effect, "Not 'arf", was virtually on the way to a letter box before the postman who delivered the letter had left the street. I believe that the honour of being elected mayor is such that he will have his acceptance letter in his pocket ready for the declaration. Therefore, 19 days fewer than the proposed two months will not
120
inconvenience the new mayor or assemblymen. I hope that the Government will find it possible to accept this very small amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: The noble Baroness described most clearly how this clause requires both the mayor and assembly members to make a declaration of acceptance of office before they proceed to act in their respective positions. As she said, this declaration must be made within two months from the day of the election. I am slightly puzzled as to why this particular period of reduction from two months to 42 days is being proposed. As the noble Baroness is aware, the period of two months is strictly in line with Section 83 of the Local Government Act 1972 and therefore in those circumstances could be argued to be logical and appropriate.
However, what we propose for London is, of course, a new style of local governance, but I think it is only fair that it be subject to the same rules of election that apply to local government, where that is possible. There appears to be no special imperative unique to London which makes it necessary for the mayor and assembly members to be subject to different rules which require an earlier formal declaration than is necessary elsewhere. Like the noble Baroness, I am confident that successful candidates will be only too willing to make prompt declarations of acceptance. However, I shall undertake to read carefully and to consider the points raised by the noble Baroness. In the light of that response I hope that the noble Baroness feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: I am most grateful to the Minister for smiling at me when she said that she would read carefully what I have said. I hope that the Government will take some notice of my comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 68 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon moved Amendment No. 69:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
REFERENDUM
(" .—(1) At the end of the eleventh year after the first Assembly is elected the Mayor shall arrange for a referendum to he held to take place at any time within the ensuing six months.
(2) The persons entitled to vote in such referendum shall be the persons entitled to vote in any local election in Greater London at that date.
(3) The questions to be asked at such referendum shall be—

(a) Are you satisfied with the present structure of the Greater London Authority consisting of a Mayor and an elected Assembly of twenty five members, none of whom represent an actual single borough? YES/NO

(b) Would you prefer the Assembly to consist of thirty three members, each one representing a single one of the thirty two London boroughs together with the Common Council of the City of London? YES/NO

(4) The Mayor shall transmit the result of the referendum to the Secretary of State and to both Houses of Parliament.
(5) Each Parliament being sovereign and one Parliament being unable to bind a later one, the Secretary of State shall not be bound by the result of the referendum.
(6) The Secretary of State may by order authorise (hut not require) the Mayor to include further questions in the referendum if so requested by the Mayor.")
The noble Baroness said: This amendment is, by its novel nature, a probing amendment. It is similar to what is called a sunset clause, but unlike a true sunset clause it does not automatically make an enactment expire after a given date. Although it is an historic fact that the Conservative Party was opposed to the restoration of a modified Greater London Council in the guise of the greater London authority, we have of course accepted the democratic decision of the London electorate who voted for it in a referendum. All we seek to do is to be constructive with regard to this Bill. We shall be equally constructive with regard to the running of the authority and of the assembly once they come into operation. I emphasise that point because I do not want it to be said that this probing amendment of mine could in any way be considered a wrecking amendment, which it certainly is not.
However, when the referendum was held, we objected to the loaded double question which did not allow the voter to choose a mayor with executive powers without an assembly, or to choose an assembly without the mayor. We also objected to the constitution of the assembly which we have attempted to alter both here and in the other place. However, I am sure that this is not the occasion and certainly not the hour to refight old battles. If the Government feel able to accept this amendment—or any on similar lines—there will be a clear two-and-three-quarter terms (that is, 11 years) for the voters to make up their mind whether they like the form of the assembly. It will also allow for the 10 years of the hypothecation of the taxes, as the Secretary of State said in the other place.
The point about the proposed new clause is that neither Parliament nor the Secretary of State would be bound by the result of the referendum. It would be "for information only", as it were. To anticipate a possible riposte from the Minister, of course I expect there to be another Conservative government long before the 11-year period mentioned in the proposed new clause. However, I cannot speak as to their future policy and programme. As a small cog in the wheel I can deal only with the situation as it is today.
In a speech to the London Chambers of Commerce on 3rd June the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said,
"I think the idea of regulations with an expiry date is an attractive one. There may be a case for sunset clauses in new regulation".
I refer to the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility—unlike my own pronouncements, presumably this is government policy. I remember when I was appointed to the Front Bench opposite I was warned to he careful of what I said. I could always correct a minor factual error but a serious slip of the tongue could in effect be an announcement of new government policy. I was always petrified when I had to answer questions in case I made such a slip of the tongue.
If regulations need to be considered for a possible use by date, the same can possibly be said for some Acts of Parliament, especially when they are based on a piece of public opinion which is notoriously fickle and can change in the course of 11 years. As I said before, the two questions I mentioned were joined together and therefore one did not have a choice in the referendum to say which part of the measure one liked. Only afterwards could we say from these Benches that we liked the mayor; and from the Liberal Democrat Benches that they liked the assembly. Such is democracy that we ended up with both.
I and my noble friends will be extremely interested to hear what the Government have to say about how confident they are that the form of assembly they propose to impose on London—a point not covered in the referendum—will stand the test of time I beg to move.
10.15 p.m.
Lord Whitty: Like my noble friend Lady Farrington I always consider deeply and give great reverence to points made in your Lordships' House before we reach the next stage. On this amendment, I cannot offer any hope of reconsideration of the clause.
The Committee will know that I rarely make cheap political points. However, I am tempted to do so. I shall just remind the Committee that 13 or 14 years ago the previous government, in the face of massive Opposition in London and without any talk of a referendum, completely demolished the structure of local government. That is why we are here today attempting to reconstruct a new system of local government that will take us into the 21st century. The Opposition now have the cheek to say to us that the nevi structure is on probation and that after 11 years we will have to reconsider it, come what may.
As a second order point, the noble Baroness should look at the wording of her amendment, particularly if she objects to the "loaded double question" as she referred to the terms of the referendum that was carried out. Setting a double question for London rather demonstrated the wisdom of the Government. What will happen under the noble Baroness's referendum if the electors of London answer "no" and "no" to the two questions? Where would that leave us? The assembly would be abolished and nothing would be left in its place.
I do not see why we should not have subsequent questions about an assembly of 40 members, PR in various forms, as we have discussed earlier, arid so on. Of course we recognise that future governments—I do not entirely exclude the possibility of a future Conservative government, even within this period; I am probably off message for saying so—may consider that this system of government for London has not worked and it will certainly be within the wisdom of that future government to put that proposition to a referendum. We are trying to establish a whole new system of government for London; to create a strategic authority

123
for the 21st century which will address the problems that have failed to be addressed over the past 14 years. For the Opposition to then say "You are only there for 11 years; many of the problems will take 20 years to sort out" is stretching a sunset clause into a direct imposition of an immediate move to midnight.
It is not sensible to incorporate the amendment into an Act of Parliament. It constrains future Parliaments and future governments to a degree to which we normally object in this House. The noble Baroness should reconsider and withdraw the amendment. Should she come back with it, I am afraid she will receive little sympathy from these Benches.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: The noble Lord will not be surprised that I am not too worried that there is little sympathy for my amendment. That is nothing very strange. It is possible that we may reconsider the wording and, if it is not practicable, we may consider another way of doing it.
I cannot remember the Minister's exact words but I think the implication was that it was a slight cheek on my part to move the amendment, given that we got rid of the GLC without a referendum. We did not have a
124
referendum because it was very clearly stated in our election manifesto and we won the election with a substantial majority.
Lord Tope: No, you did not.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: Yes, we did. We won anyway. At this time of night it would appear that the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I are no longer in agreement.
However, as I said, this is a probing amendment. I shall look carefully at what the Minister said. I am heartened by the fact that the Minister does not want to accept the amendment, because if the assembly proves to be as wonderful as the Government believe it will be I should have thought that they would be delighted for it to have a new view from the public on one of their successes. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 24 agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past ten o'clock.

  Northern Ireland: Legal Aid Reform
  Northern Ireland: Legal Aid Reform
  EU Pension Fund: Use of Public Moneys
  EU Pension Fund: Use of Public Moneys
  OSCE: National Elections
  OSCE: National Elections
  Arms Trafficking and Brokering Controls
  Arms Trafficking and Brokering Controls
  China Western Poverty Reduction Project
  China Western Poverty Reduction Project
  Unemployment in the EU
  Unemployment in the EU
  International Law: Armed Attacks
  International Law: Armed Attacks
  International Law: Attacks on Computer Networks
  International Law: Attacks on Computer Networks
  Air Attacks: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Air Attacks: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Target Selection: Kosovo
  Target Selection: Kosovo
  Target Selection: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Target Selection: Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
  Service Personnel Awaiting Secondary Care Medical Treatment
  Service Personnel Awaiting Secondary Care Medical Treatment
  Schipol: Air Accident Report
  Schipol: Air Accident Report
  GM Crops and Insects
  GM Crops and Insects
  Witham Bypass: Hedge Cutting
  Witham Bypass: Hedge Cutting
  Whaling
  Whaling