Sitting of 1 March 1999

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

REVIEW OF THE REVISIONS TO THE AVERAGE EARNINGS INDEX
Resolved,
That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, That she will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House a Return of the Report on the revision of the average earnings index, conducted by Sir Andrew Turnbull and Mr. Mervyn King.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

    Public Bodies (Equal Opportunities)
    Ms Karen Buck: What progress is being made towards increasing the representation of women and people from ethnic minorities on bodies sponsored by his Department. [72088]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): Over the 12 months to February, the number of women and people from ethnic minorities appointed to my Department's public bodies has risen in percentage terms from 27 to 30 per cent. and 2.1 to 3.2 per cent. respectively. From September 1998 to date, we have done even better. Fifty-five appointments have been made, of which 23–42 per cent.—were women and four–8 per cent.—were from ethnic minorities.
    Ms Buck: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his achievements so far, although there is still some way to go. Does he agree that strong civic leadership is one of the most effective ways in which we can tackle social exclusion? Representation on appointed bodies is one of the most important ways in which we can recognise that civic leadership, so may I urge him to make further progress, particularly on the representation of members of the black and minority ethnic communities? Will he ensure that representatives are drawn from a wide and diverse range of communities, rather than including only people who have already achieved some celebrity and status in their chosen fields?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a valid point with which I agree entirely. In the light, in particular, of recent events, it is extremely important to ensure that people
    722
    from ethnic minority communities can take positions of leadership in a variety of bodies sponsored by the Government. That can add to the harmony of good race relations in the United Kingdom, for which all of us wish to strive.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Crispin Blunt: If he will make a statement on the regional distribution of projects funded by the national lottery since its initiation. [72089]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): Some regions have benefited more than others from the lottery. We are determined to see lottery funds allocated fairly and equitably in the light of need across all regions of the UK. Measures in the National Lottery Act 1998 and recent changes in policy directions to the distributors will help to achieve that.
    Mr. Blunt: I am grateful to the Minister. Reigate holds the unenviable position of being 656th in the list of constituencies receiving lottery money. Some constituency must hold that position, of course, but the south-east has received only 60 per cent. of what might be termed fair distribution. Can the Minister assure me that when I write to support lottery applications, it is in order for me to make a point of the standing of Reigate and the south-east in the hope that committees will take them into account in making distribution fairer across the country?
    Mr. Banks: I well understand the problems that Reigate has to cope with. The hon. Gentleman is right. I have read the figures, and funding in Reigate is £62 per head while the UK average is £103. Reigate seems to have done particularly badly, receiving only 15 awards so far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful."] Hon. Members say that it is disgraceful, but other constituencies may argue that their cases for funds are more persuasive than Reigate's. However, getting behind lottery bids from their constituencies is an important function of Members of Parliament. Although I cannot guarantee that their support will necessarily mean success, giving support is better than doing nothing.
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my hon. Friend recall that for many years my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Derbyshire (Mr. Barnes), myself and others who represent constituencies in the east midlands region and the county of Derbyshire, often drew attention to the fact that North-East Derbyshire was bottom of the list, Bolsover not much higher and Chesterfield in the same group. It looked as though the Tory Government were deliberately picking on three members of the socialist Campaign group. Is it not a bit rich of that Tory, the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), to be moaning and wittering? The Tory Government handed out £13 million for the Winston Churchill papers, and more for opera companies and all the rest of it. If the boot has been put on the other foot, that is no bad thing.
    Mr. Banks: If the boot is on the other foot, my hon. Friend certainly knows how to put it in. I can assure him that I, least of all hon. Members, would wish to discriminate against his constituency and against good socialists in Derbyshire—[Interruption.] I am going to

    723
    Derbyshire soon and very much look forward to it. The coalfields task force report has drawn attention to the lack of resources going into the coalfield sites, and we are determined to do something about that.

    New Opportunities Fund
    Dr. Ian Gibson: When the new opportunities fund will be able to accept applications in respect of out-of-school-hours activities. [72090]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The new opportunities fund was formally launched on 29 January. Applications for the out-of-school-hours child care programme will be invited in early March and the out-of-school-hours learning activities programme will open for applications in early April.
    Dr. Gibson: Will my right hon. Friend tell us what steps he is taking along with colleagues to engender enthusiasm among the teaching profession for out-of-school initiatives? Will he also encourage the teaching of politics, particularly of the left-wing sort, in the after-school clubs, to prevent for ever in Norwich such phrases as "There's no racism here"?
    Mr. Smith: There is already enormous enthusiasm in schools throughout the country for the out-of-school initiatives, and many local communities and schools are champing at the bit to get in their applications. As for the second part of my hon. Friend's question, I am afraid that I cannot give him comfort on the teaching of any one political view in the after-school clubs. However, I very much hope that the clubs will include a wide variety of learning activities as well as sport and drama, all of which help greatly to fulfil the development of individual children.
    Mr. Richard Spring: Can the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the amount of the "raid"—his word—to bolster the new opportunities fund at the expense of existing good causes, including sport and the caring charities, will be fully £3.7 billion by 2005? Does he understand that that raid simply replaces core Government spending responsibilities?
    Mr. Smith: No, and no. I do not recognise the £43 billion figure that the hon. Gentleman cites. He will know that it is firmly expected that each of the existing good causes for the arts, sport, charities and heritage will receive £1.85 billion during the present franchise of the lottery. That is what they were promised at the outset—in fact it is better—and that is what they will receive.
    Mr. Alan Keen: I recall my right hon. Friend in 1998 praising the value of children's play, saying that he would get support not only from his Department but from other Departments. What progress has been made to date?
    Mr. Smith: We have already ensured that a number of lottery distributors, including the Sports Council, the heritage fund and the National Lottery Charities Board will be able to fund children's play initiatives—indeed, those bodies are already doing so. We have issued a
    724
    leaflet to organisations involved in children's play to explain how they can gain access to those funds and, as part of the next round of new opportunities fund initiatives, we have proposed a green spaces and sustainable communities initiative, which will specifically include funds earmarked for children's play.
    Mr. David Heath: Can the Secretary of State ensure that such provision is available for people who live in rural as well as those in urban areas? The difficulties of children in rural areas are, first, that there are fewer people with whom to participate; secondly, unit costs are higher; and, thirdly and most importantly, it is difficult to get to and from the school and home. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that his programme tackles those issues?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. The hon. Gentleman makes an extremely valid point. Like the other lottery distributors, the new opportunities fund has a duty, under the new directions that I have issued, to pay particular attention to the needs of areas of social deprivation, which specifically include such areas in rural as well as urban settings.

    Hospitality and Tourism Industries
    Ms Ann Coffey: What his plans are for improving the competitiveness and quality of service of the UK hospitality and tourism industries. [72091]
    The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): "Tomorrow's Tourism", the new strategy which we published on 26 February, contains a number of recommendations for action by central and local government, the tourism industry and other key players to improve the competitiveness and quality of the industry, and thus make it a world leader. A copy of the strategy has been sent to every hon. Member.
    Ms Coffey: I very much welcome the new tourism strategy and, in particular, the proposal to sign up 500 new employers to work towards Investors in People, which will improve the quality of training in the industry. Does my hon. Friend agree that towns such as Stockport, with its many attractions, such as the largest railway viaduct in Europe, are sometimes overlooked in the contribution that they make to the United Kingdom tourist industry?
    Janet Anderson: I assure my hon. Friend that our strategy document "Tomorrow's Tourism" welcomes the contribution of industrial heritage around the country, particularly in her constituency. I thank her for her welcome for the new drive to sign up 500 employers towards the Investors in People standard to help raise the quality of training in the industry.
    Mr. David Ruffley: Can the Minister tell business men and women in my constituency who work in the tourist industry why they feel that they have become worse off in the past 12 months as a direct result of increased tax and red tape under this Government?
    Janet Anderson: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the very warm welcome given the strategy by Michael Jolly,

    725
    chief executive of Two Swords, a successful attraction company. He said:
    "I greatly welcome this new strategy which addresses the needs of tourism businesses of all types and places them exactly where they belong—in the mainstream of British industry."
    It appears that Mr. Jolly does not agree with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: Will my hon. Friend reconsider how signage is coloured on our motorways? It is coloured a dirty brown which does not help give a valuable sharp new image of Britain.
    Janet Anderson: As ever, my hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It might be expensive to change the colour, but we will note his comment.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: What does the Minister have to say to the British Incoming Tour Operators Association, which says of the Government's playfully coloured strategy document that Ministers have lost the plot? I do not think that it was referring to the Home Secretary, who is clearly doing his bit for French tourism. Is not the document's main effect to marginalise England within the United Kingdom? Who asked for that? What is the point of a tourism strategy document that fails to address any of the key issues raised by the industry—red tape, bureaucracy, the working time directive, the part-time workers directive, the parental leave directive and the national minimum wage?
    Janet Anderson: As ever, it is the hon. Gentleman who has lost the plot. It is rich for him to accuse us of marginalising England when it was the Conservative party which reduced funding for English tourism from £25 million to less than £10 million. The strategy has been widely welcomed. It is the first time that the Government have produced a comprehensive strategy of this sort. It was welcomed warmly by the industry in consultation with which, for the first time, it was drawn up.
    Mr. Cynog Dafis: Cannot the growth of tourism in some ways be problematic for the natural environment? I am thinking of the growth of traffic and transport. What is the Department doing to make tourism and its development compatible with the principles of sustainability? Is the Green Minister in the Department doing any specific work on this?
    Janet Anderson: I assure the hon. Gentleman that one of the action points in our 15-point action plan referred specifically to that. It produced a blueprint for the sustainable development of tourism to safeguard our countryside, heritage and culture for future generations. I draw his attention to the support for the strategy of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who recognised why the transport system is so important and pointed out that some of the things that we are trying to do will make a major contribution to encouraging tourism.
    Dr. George Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, apart from accommodation, what British tourism needs more than anything else is better training for staff? Will she therefore congratulate Searles of Hunstanton on being leaders in introducing a national vocational qualification in running caravan parks?
    726
    Will she do all that she can to encourage all those involved in tourism to ensure that staff are trained far more thoroughly than in the past?
    Janet Anderson: I assure my hon. Friend that we recognise the importance of that. One of the strategy's main points is to help tourism change from being an industry that has perhaps been perceived as providing low-wage, temporary employment with no career structure or proper training. That is why one of the 15 action points is a new drive to sign up 500 employers to work towards the Investors in People standard. I congratulate the company that my hon. Friend mentioned on its contribution.

    Professional Sporting Bodies
    Mr. Simon Hughes: What steps he proposes to take to ensure the autonomy of the professional sporting bodies; and if he will make a statement. [72093]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): Professional sporting bodies in this country are independent and autonomous, and the Government fully support that principle.
    Mr. Hughes: I am reassured by that answer and wonder whether, on reflection, the Minister accepts that the comments that he and the Prime Minister made a few weeks ago, which effectively amounted to kicking an English manager when he was down, were entirely inappropriate. The hon. Gentleman is a respected Minister for Sport, and I put it to him seriously that that was a bad mistake. Will he guarantee that in future no Minister will try to decide who will be the captain of England's football team, or of any other team representing any of the countries of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman comes rather late to the event, and it did not happen as he describes. Both my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and I were asked to comment on a matter that was, after all, being discussed up and down the country. It would have been odd if neither my right hon. Friend nor I had had an opinion; if we had had no opinion, we would have been condemned for being out of touch. I might add that dealing with such situations is difficult: it is rather like trying to walk on eggshells while wearing swimming flippers—a difficult task in which one does not always succeed. The incident was an unfortunate one; it was for the Football Association to take the final decision and we support that decision. We wish Kevin Keegan great success for the future and hope that the search for a more permanent England manager is successful.
    Mr. John Maxton: Although I agree that professional sporting bodies should be autonomous, as often as not they are part of the broader governance of that sport. Does my hon. Friend agree that such bodies cannot be totally autonomous, given that they receive large sums of public money through the lottery,

    727
    sports councils and local government education authorities? Therefore, in respect of broadcasting, should not the Government ensure the widest possible viewing of those sports by the widest possible audience, rather than leave it to those governing bodies alone to decide who will broadcast their sport?
    Mr. Banks: I agree strongly with the first part of my hon. Friend's question. The Government do not want to dominate or instruct sports bodies—that is not our job; however, there is a role for Government in partnership with the governing bodies of sport. My hon. Friend is correct to say that such bodies receive millions of pounds of Exchequer grants channelled through the sports councils, so they have a responsibility to develop their own sport, to ensure that it flourishes, and to make sure that they are accountable and operate efficiently. That is why my Department set up Quest—quality excellence standards team—which will assist sports bodies to become more efficient and accountable. The trouble is that one of the greatest things that we have given the world is most of the modern sports. We did that during the 19th century and quite a few of our governing bodies still have structures that are rooted in the 19th century, which is not appropriate as we enter the 21st century.
    As for the televising of events, there is a balance to be struck. Governing bodies want to generate more income for their sport, which they can achieve through televising, but, in certain cases, that might be seen as restricting television access. However, most people would argue that there is now more sport on television than has ever been seen before, and I look forward to seeing even more.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I welcome the Minister's announcement that he supports the autonomy of sports bodies, but does he recognise that, in certain cases, the partnership he mentioned requires greater intervention, especially in relation to rugby union? Recently, great concern has been aroused by, for example, one club trying to take over another in a completely different area, which might damage fans' interests. I know that the Minister paints himself as the fans' friend, so will he carefully consider such problems? Concerns have been expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House and by our constituents about what has recently been going wrong in rugby union.
    Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking that question, which gives me the opportunity to congratulate the England women's rugby team on beating Scotland on Sunday. I was at the game and saw some very enjoyable rugby. I encourage people to go to see women's rugby.
    We can give advice and assistance directly to governing bodies in certain areas—and we certainly did that with regard to the RFU and the five nations competition. There are several other areas of concern regarding the takeover of clubs. The Government clearly have a role to play in representing the public interest, but I am sure that the hon. Gentleman recognises that we must balance interference with taking no interest in the issues. We are trying to strike that balance and, with the hon. Gentleman's help, we will succeed.

    After-school Clubs
    Mr. Syd Rapson: What plans he has to offer sporting activities at after-school clubs. [72094]
    The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I hope that activities offered may include sporting and outdoor learning activities, and structured, learning-oriented play. The amount allocated for these activities will be determined by the new opportunities fund in response to the applications received.
    Emerging evidence suggests involvement in sporting activities increases pupils' confidence, self-esteem and sense of achievement. Types of activities currently supported in after-school clubs are netball, swimming, football, adventure activities, gymnastics and aerobics. Current after-schools clubs also involve children in creative activities such as musical instrument tuition, bands, singing classes, painting, pottery, musical dance and dramatic productions—as well as providing opportunities for attending performances and workshops.
    Mr. Rapson: It is generally agreed that sporting activities are unifying and very healthy for young people's development. Will the Minister use his special qualities to encourage sporting bids from the new opportunities fund and to encourage local authorities to act in partnership so that the maximum number of clubs may benefit and sport may be put in its rightful context?
    Mr. Banks: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. He was sufficiently modest not to mention the City of Portsmouth hockey club, which is supporting schools running after-school hockey sessions. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) laughs: he does not have the shape for hockey, but I am sure that he supports the sport—he is a little puckish, if I may say so.
    Portsmouth is clearly setting a very good example. Schools' after-hours activities can comprise a big sporting element—I keep returning to this point—and that is a good way of allocating additional resources to sport. I hope that local authorities, clubs and other bodies will submit applications so that we may have many sport-oriented activities in after-school clubs.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: Schools and colleges have some excellent facilities that are chained and locked up after hours, particularly in the summer. Would it be possible to use some of the money to open those facilities and provide coaching? It is rather absurd that, while Burger King and McDonald's restaurants are open all hours to attract our youngsters, we chain up those sporting facilities that could make our youngsters healthier.
    Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman is right: this problem has been around for ages. Every time we raise the issue, we are told about difficulties with insurance and so on. School facilities that benefit from lottery funds must encourage community involvement. The principle is clearly already established, but we must do more. I am more than happy to do what I can, in discussion with my colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment, to unlock more educational sporting facilities. It is a great waste if they are under-utilised.
    Ms Claire Ward: I am sure that my hon. Friend agrees that football and rugby clubs can play an

    729
    important role in after-school clubs. What is he doing to ensure that such activities are promoted among football and rugby clubs? Will he make sure that clubs already undertaking those activities are recognised as leading the way?
    Mr. Banks: May I say to my hon. Friend how much I enjoyed my visit to Watford last week when I attended the Saracens and Watford luncheon club? It was a very pleasant visit and I thoroughly enjoyed renewing my old acquaintance with Watford, whose electorate cruelly rejected me in 1979. My hon. Friend was seven at the time—too young to vote and too old to kiss.
    My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that we need to encourage far more link-ups between schools and clubs. I shall do whatever I can. The issue demonstrates why there is so much need for regular contact between my Department and the Department for Education and Employment.

    Arts Council
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: If he will make a statement on his plans for the future of the Arts Council. [72095]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): My Department is currently preparing a funding agreement with the Arts Council of England which will set out its funding for the next three years and ensure that the council pursues the Government's overall objectives of excellence, access and education in the arts.
    Mrs. Bottomley: I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that the chairman of the Arts Council has a greater opportunity than ever before with the massive amounts of lottery money that are available for spending on the arts. Did he note the comments made today by a former chairman of the Arts Council, who complained that the Government had substituted truth and logic with spin and image? The spin is that there has been an increase in funding for the Arts Council; the truth is that the increase is less than one tenth of the amount that the Government have raided from the arts to support their other pet projects.
    I would be grateful if, in his reply, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the decisions made in May 1997, not the originally anticipated lottery money of 1994. All agree that the lottery has been more successful than anyone anticipated, and the arts have lost over £350 million as a result of the Government's decisions.
    Mr. Smith: I am afraid that the right hon. Lady is wrong. She may not have noticed that something else happened in May 1997—there was a general election, during which we said clearly to the electorate that we proposed to establish the new opportunities fund to provide a stream of lottery money for health, education and environment projects, and we subsequently did so.
    I have to assume that the right hon. Lady welcomes that decision because she wrote to me last February about a project in her constituency. She said:
    "The changes in direction"—
    730
    the direction of lottery funding—
    "should provide an excellent opportunity for them. I wonder if you could brief me on the likely timetable in which applications will be received for the New Opportunities Fund."
    She was clearly in favour of the fund being established.
    On funding for the arts, the right hon. Lady may also have failed to notice that she was responsible, in 1995, for a £5 million cut in money for the Arts Council and, in 1996, for a standstill in cash funding for the Arts Council. She may not have noticed that we are responsible for a £43 million increase for the Arts Council next year, a £10 million increase in the year after that and a £15 million increase in the following year.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: In view of the role of the Arts Council primarily as a distributor of public funds, and the difficulty that it may create in the way in which the Arts Council acts as an advocacy body, does the Secretary of State welcome the establishment of an alternative arts council, with which Sir Peter Hall and other critics of Government policy have become associated?
    Mr. Smith: Sir Peter Hall stood on the stage at the Olivier awards at the Royal National theatre and grandly announced the establishment of the so-called shadow arts council. He named a number of people, including Sir Tom Stoppard, Sir Jeremy Isaacs and Sir Richard Eyre, as being members of that council, but they have all subsequently said that they have never heard of it.
    Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Secretary of State seems unconcerned by the rising concern in the arts about political interference and funding, and he was wrong in his answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley). Instead of relying on Lord Bragg to be on-message—Melvyn takes his party whip a little too seriously these days—and being rude about Sir Peter Hall, why does not the right hon. Gentleman listen to people in the arts world and their concerns about dumbing down and political interference in the arts?
    Mr. Smith: I have to say that there is no dumbing down and no political interference. Does the hon. Gentleman mean that it is wrong for the Government to set a broad framework of objectives—eminently sensible objectives for access for the many, not the few; for nurturing excellence in the arts; and for ensuring that arts can make their proper contribution to education? Those are absolutely valid objectives for the Government to be concerned about and to be setting in place as a framework for the arts. That is not political interference, but sensible government.

  MILLENNIUM EXPERIENCE
  The Secretary of State was asked—

  Millennium Dome (Sponsorship)
  Mr. John Bercow: If he will make a statement on progress in obtaining sponsorship for the millennium dome. [72118]
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): The New Millennium Experience Company continues to make impressive progress towards achieving its target of £150 million-worth of sponsorship. As already announced, £120 million-worth of sponsorship is confirmed and I understand that the company hopes to make further announcements shortly.
  Mr. Bercow: I thank the Minister for that reply. Given the Government's professed new spirit of openness, will she publish, zone by zone, the sponsorship so far received for the dome? If her answer is no, does she not understand that the suspicion will fester that some zones are distinctly underfunded?
  Janet Anderson: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient—I hope he will remain for the rest of this Question Time—I think that his questions will be answered.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Is it not about time that, rather than whingeing on about the dome, Conservative Members congratulated the Government on the £120 million gathered in so far; worked with them, rather than otherwise, to secure the best possible millennium celebrations at Greenwich; and stopped wittering on like silly little schoolchildren?
  Janet Anderson: As ever, my hon. Friend has hit the nail on the head. In just such a spirit of co-operation, we invited Opposition Front Benchers to join us in celebrating this national event of international significance and I hope that they will do so.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The Minister knows that we support the project. Is she concerned about the effect on the sponsors of the unseemly dispute with Church leaders over the opening ceremony? Given that the millennium marks the 2,000th anniversary of the birth of Christ, is one and a half minutes of quiet meditation too much to ask in the context of 2,000 years in times past—or, indeed, eternity to come?
  Janet Anderson: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to support the project, but then attempts to find divisions where there are none. I wish that he would get behind the project wholeheartedly.
  The Churches have let it be known that they want religion to play a broader part in the opening event at the dome. There is no division between us on that and discussions are continuing between the Churches, the Department and the New Millennium Experience Company. When the programme for the opening night's celebration at the dome is fully developed, plans will be presented to the Government and others. I say to the hon. Gentleman, in the spirit of openness which he has requested and with which we have complied, that we will give him full details as soon as we are able to do so.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many zones within the millennium dome are now sponsored; and for which zones the sponsorship agreements have been signed. [72119]
  The Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting (Janet Anderson): First, may I apologise to the House for the length of the answer that I am about to give? In the spirit of openness which we have promised to pursue, I want to give the House as much information as possible.
  The New Millennium Experience Company has previously announced that the zones that are sponsored are: the body, sponsored by Boots, with Roche and L'Oréal; communicate, sponsored by BT; global, sponsored by British Airways and the British Airports Authority; learn, sponsored by Tesco; work, sponsored by Manpower; mind, sponsored by GEC and British Aerospace; national identity, sponsored by Marks and Spencer; and transaction, sponsored by the Corporation of London. In addition, baby dome is being sponsored by BSkyB and our town story is being sponsored by McDonald's.
  Sponsorships have been agreed at board level and the necessary contractual negotiations, which are extremely detailed and often complex, continue. For the remaining zones—mobility, spirit, living island, local, rest and play—the New Millennium Experience Company is in discussions with a number of potential sponsors. Those discussions are at various stages, some of which will be concluded imminently.
  I hope that that also answers the earlier question from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow).
  Mr. Swayne: I thank the hon. Lady for that answer. Does she accept, however, that that welcome transparency has come rather late in the day and that public enthusiasm for the project has been undermined by the fact that, until now, it has been characterised by leak, rumour and stupidity?
  Janet Anderson: On the contrary. I do not know where the hon. Gentleman has been, but our impression is that public enthusiasm for the project has grown. He will know, as we do, that the millennium dome at Greenwich is fast becoming an international symbol of the millennium. Moreover, there is no point in our trying to give information when it is not available. As soon as it is available, we shall bring it to the House and keep hon. Members in touch with what is happening. I hope that, in return, Opposition Members will just for once stop carping and get behind this national project.
  Mr. John Maxton: As the content of the spirit zone is supposed to be designed by the so-called Lambeth group, which, incidentally, does not include the British Humanist Association, can my hon. Friend tell us exactly how much sponsorship money has been contributed to that zone by any religious organisation in this country?
  Janet Anderson: I am afraid that I cannot give my hon. Friend the answer that he wants at the moment, but I can tell him that the New Millennium Experience Company is in discussions with a number of potential supporters and is confident that it will secure the support needed to deliver an inspirational and contemplative spirit zone.

  Millennium Site (Future)
  Mr. Simon Hughes: If he will make a statement on his plans for the millennium site after 2000. [72120]
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Mr. Chris Smith): The Government are concerned to ensure that the nation enjoys a long-term and enduring legacy from the millennium celebrations as a whole, and that includes the dome. That was one of the conditions set by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in June 1997 when the Government gave the go-ahead for the millennium experience at Greenwich. In June 1998, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister established a working group to make recommendations about the process of achieving a sustainable long-term use for the dome. We plan to make announcements very shortly about the outcome of that work.
  Mr. Hughes: It was 15 months ago today that the previous Secretary fo State for Trade and Industry invited proposals for the future of the dome site after 2001, and we have heard regularly since last December that announcements were to be made shortly. What is holding up the Government in putting out proposals for people to consult on? Does the Secretary of State accept that the best way to proceed would be to secure maximum participation in the decision about what happens to the site afterwards? Does he agree that, the sooner we can get on with that, the more relieved many people will be?
  Mr. Smith: The hon. Gentleman's desire for maximum participation will very soon be fulfilled because, within the next few days, we shall make announcements about an invitation for companies, organisations and individuals around the country to come forward with expressions of interest in the future use of the dome after the millennium year.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there are enormous opportunities for the use of that great public space? I hope that he will consult carefully with youth organisations and local people in the Greenwich area, because the dome could not only attract young people from all over the United Kingdom but could be a great facility for everyone in the public sector. Does he agree that, although the great exhibition of Prince Albert was execrated by everybody before it was put in place, when it was finished it left us with three fine museums, which have been of tremendous benefit—at least until people were forced to pay to enter them?
  Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend gives me a useful opportunity to remind her that, from 1 April, all children in the country will be able to enter those three fine museums for free.
  The people of Greenwich and Greenwich borough council will be carefully involved, as they have been throughout the development of the dome, in any decisions about its future use. We need to balance the need to achieve a good return for the public investment that has gone into construction of the dome; the best possible regeneration for the Greenwich peninsula; and future use of the building as a real cultural asset for the whole nation. The competition will be all about getting that balance right.

  The President of the Council was asked—

  Iraq
  Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will establish an ad hoc Select Committee on the effects of sanctions against Iraq. [72128]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): There are no plans to do so.
  Mr. Dalyell: As the mind of the Foreign Affairs Committee is elsewhere, and as apparently more ordnance has been rained down on Iraq since Desert Fox than during Desert Fox, which in turn involved more ordnance and bombs than the Gulf war, are we not in a state of undeclared war? Should not an ad hoc Select Committee at least look at that?
  In relation to the oil-for-food programme, should not a Select Committee examine Dennis Halliday and Michael Stone, the people who run the programme, who argue that it was in no way corrupted, and take into account the rupturing of the oil line with Turkey? Finally, could such a Committee look at the Tribune of a fortnight ago—and those horrifying pictures on the front of the paper that I sent to my right hon. Friend the President of the Council? Should it not be considered whether it is really the job of a Labour Government in effect to do that to those babies?
  Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend has pursued those issues with vigour on a number of occasions. I am sure that he will continue to do so. His original question was to do with the processes by which the House deals with those matters, rather than with their substance. I have heard his concerns, and he can be sure that I will pass them on to the relevant colleagues. I also know that he will continue to pursue the matter, as he has this afternoon, with his usual vigour and intellect.

  Regional Affairs Committee
  Ms Rosie Winterton: What proposals she plans to put forward for reviving the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. [72129]
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Government have invited the Modernisation Committee to consider reviving and adapting the Standing Committee on Regional Affairs. The aim is to provide a forum in which the affairs of particular regions can be debated. I hope that the Modernisation Committee will come up with specific proposals soon, although, clearly, they will not command universal support.
  Ms Winterton: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Will inquiries by the Committee be considered by the whole House, particularly inquiries into issues such as the distribution of European structural funds, which would affect not only areas such as South Yorkshire in the English region of Yorkshire and Humberside, but Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland?
  Mrs. Beckett: I see no reason why European structural funds could not be debated by a regional Standing

  735
  Committee, but, as my hon. Friend will appreciate, if the wish is to look more widely at how those funds are handled throughout the United Kingdom, that might not be the proper remit of such a Committee. It could, however, form one of the ways in which some of those matters can be reviewed.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does the right hon. Lady think that, if such a Standing Committee were formed, it would consider transport matters, and strategic transport matters in particular? Further to that, does she think that the Committee would consider the absolute refusal of Ministers with responsibility for transport to visit the most difficult transport problem in the south-east—the A3 at Hindhead?
  Mrs. Beckett: I suspect that many areas would compete for that description, but I have suggested to the Modernisation Committee that a Committee of that type should determine for itself what are the issues on which it should focus and to which it should give the highest priority. No doubt, the right hon. Lady's case is one which it would take into account.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I assure the President of the Council that we welcome the re-examination of the validity and value of the Standing Committee, but do the Government intend to examine the advantages of devolution to our business in other respects? Do they intend to put a proposition to the Modernisation Committee, or the Procedure Committee, or do they intend to propose other ways in which the House can take advantage of the so-called devolution benefit?
  Mrs. Beckett: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Procedure Committee is now considering the impact and aftermath of devolution, on which I shall give evidence to it tomorrow. That, however, is only one context in which the House is considering the variety of ways and forums in which we can raise the many issues that are of concern to Members throughout the House. What we are trying to do is find time to expand our capacity for debate.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: As my right hon. Friend will know, many of us in the regions will welcome the provision of extra parliamentary time to examine the problems. Is she also aware—I am sure that she is—that the Select Committee responsible not only for transport and the environment but for regional affairs makes it its business to examine transport problems in considerable detail? That Committee would probably have a little to say if there were any question of changing existing responsibilities.
  Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her courtesy, and for her reminder to the House. I do not think that any of us wishes to encroach on the work of existing Select Committees; we wish merely to provide space in which matters can be aired that cannot easily be aired at present.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: Agenda 2000 will give the Government more responsibility in the administration of European Union structural funds. Can the right hon. Lady assure us that those of us in regions
  736
  that might lose out dramatically under Agenda 2000 will be given a chance to review the position, and that a specific mechanism and procedures will be established if there is not to be a Standing Committee on Regional Affairs?
  Mrs. Beckett: I cannot undertake to provide a specific mechanism and procedures relating to Agenda 2000, but such matters can be raised in a variety of ways in the House—for instance, in the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs, chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody)—and I am sure that will continue.

  Law Commission Bills
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: What representations she has received on the procedure for passing non-contentious Law Commission Bills through Parliament. [72131]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): My right hon. Friend the President of the Council recently met the chairman of the Law Commission, and has also answered a number of parliamentary questions from my hon. Friend. The House will know that the Standing Orders already provide for an expedited procedure for Law Commission Bills.
  Mr. Dismore: Is my hon. Friend aware that more than half the 21 Bills considered by the House over the past five years spent a minute or less on the Floor of the House? Moreover, a substantial backlog accumulated under the last Government, with the result that 45 reports require legislation. Could not the Modernisation Committee consider whether the expedited procedure could be improved, enabling us to clear some of the backlog and justify the substantial amount that the Government and the country give the Law Commission to make non-controversial proposals to make the law more effective and understandable to people in general?
  Mr. Tipping: As my hon. Friend will recognise, over the past two years there has been some improvement in the number of Bills that have been presented. Obviously, we want to make progress as quickly as we can. My hon. Friend mentioned uncontentious Bills. Part of the art of the House lies in spotting an uncontentious Bill and hoping that it remains uncontentious. It is not always the case that all Bills are dealt with in a minute; as my hon. Friend knows, some have taken considerably longer.
  My hon. Friend advocates a look at the procedures. If the House were minded to experiment with the notion of a Main Committee, or a Principal Committee, there might be scope for that.
  Mr. John Bercow: What are the precise criteria for categorising Law Commission Bills as non-contentious?
  Mr. Tipping: All Bills are referred to the relevant Department, which judges whether a Bill should be presented as part of the legislative programme. Ministers and officials make judgments, in discussions with the Law Commission and others, on how parliamentary time can

  737
  be used most effectively. Ultimately, there is limited parliamentary time, and priorities have to be set, and judgments made, about the best use of it.

  Parliamentary Calendar
  Sir Sydney Chapman: What further plans she has to change the parliamentary calendar. [72132]
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I have none currently, although I expect that the Modernisation Committee will want to review the success of the current experiment on Thursdays and of the recent short Adjournment.
  Sir Sydney Chapman: I appreciate that the exact length of a parliamentary Session has to be flexible, and that it depends on the progress—or lack of progress—of Government Bills, but will the right hon. Lady give an undertaking to the House that, if we are to continue to proceed with half-term holidays or half-term constituency weeks, the dates of those will-as they could quite reasonably-be announced months, if not years, ahead? Will she consider that point, as I think that implementing it would be very helpful to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am always very conscious both of greater efficiency in handling the business of the House, so that we are able to give more notice of dates, and of greater convenience to hon. Members. We seek to give as much notice as we can. I am particularly mindful of the important Committee chaired by the hon. Gentleman and of all the work that it has to fit in. Although we endeavour to give as much notice as possible, it is not possible to give as much notice as we should like to give when—as happened on the most recent occasion—a decision is taken only a few weeks ahead to conduct an experiment.
  Mr. David Winnick: As we are all in modernising mood—[HON. MEMBERS: "Are we?"]—with the exception of a few Opposition Members, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether she is satisfied with the current arrangements for the summer recess? I realise, of course, that it is not a holiday: I do not know many times I, like my colleagues, have told constituents, "We're not really on holiday. I am conducting my surgery and other work." However, is it really necessary to have a three-month break? Can we not rearrange matters, including party conferences? Why cannot we—like other Parliaments in western Europe—at least come back in the middle of September?
  Mrs. Beckett: I understand that concern, which is often aired. All hon. Members have their own experience. Speaking for myself, I cannot say that I have ever had a three-month break in the summer—most years, I have been lucky to have three weeks. People occasionally reconsider arrangements for party conferences and other matters, but—as I am sure my hon. Friend is aware—many such arrangements are booked up many years in advance. It not a simple matter to change them.
  Mr. Eric Forth (Bromley and Chiselhurst): Given the President of the Council's role as representative of the House of Commons within government, will she give an absolute guarantee that, whatever changes are proposed for consideration of the House under the rather dubious rubric of modernisation, the one thing that will not happen is a reduction of the time available to the House to scrutinise and hold to account the Government?
  Mrs. Beckett: I cannot say that I have so far presided over a reduction in the sitting hours of the House. For most of the years during which I have been a Member, the House has sat for very long hours, but not always to the greatest efficiency. When changes have been made, they have been made at the will of the House, to promote greater efficiency.
  Sir George Young: If the right hon. Lady does plan any changes to the parliamentary calendar, will she observe the convention that was observed in earlier Parliaments, of making changes only by consent? Will the Government also not use their parliamentary majority to force through changes that may have impacts on the rights of the Opposition? Does she agree with hon. Members on both sides of the House that what is wanted by many hon. Members is not so much change as certainty? How can any hon. Member make long-standing personal engagements if they do not know the dates of the Easter, Whitsun or summer recess until a few days before they happen?
  Mrs. Beckett: All I can say to the right hon. Gentleman is that there is infinitely more notice of all those matters now than there was—not only when I was first elected to the House but when Labour was in opposition and he and the Conservative party were the Government. When changes are proposed, I am always anxious to take along all hon. Members to the greatest degree possible. That is, and always will be, the Government's wish. The right hon. Gentleman will know that what sometimes appears to be consent suddenly evaporates.

  Welsh Devolution
  Mr. Gareth Thomas: If she will make a statement on the procedural consequences for the House of Welsh devolution. [72133]
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): I shall be giving oral evidence tomorrow to the Procedure Committee on the memorandum already submitted by the Government on the procedural consequences of devolution.
  Mr. Thomas: My right hon. Friend may be aware that it is reputed that St. David drank nothing stronger than water. Will she take it from me that, this year, many people in Wales will be raising a glass to our patron saint with particular enthusiasm, given the imminent arrival of the National Assembly for Wales? However, does she agree that it is essential, even in a devolved era, for Wales to have a strong voice in Westminster, particularly through the Welsh Affairs Committee, given that primary legislative powers will remain in this place?
  Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the tremendous reputation of St. David, although I was not aware that it was based on his drinking water. I assure my hon. Friend that I have the greatest respect, as do all hon. Members, for the fine
  740
  record of the existing Committees. He will know that the matters that he has raised are under consideration by the Procedure Committee. I await its recommendations with interest.

Elderly People (Long-term Care)
3.31 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): At the general election in May 1997, we promised to set up a royal commission on the long-term care of the elderly. In December 1997, I announced to the House the establishment of that royal commission, to be chaired by Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, principal and vice-chancellor of Edinburgh university.
Since then, the commission has met formally on 15 occasions, taken oral evidence from 67 individuals, conducted seven public hearings in different parts of the country and received evidence from 400 organisations and a total of 2,040 written submissions. Between them, the commissioners met over 1,000 individuals, made more than 100 visits and held 140 meetings. They were assisted by a reference group representing the leading organisations concerned with the care of the elderly.
The commission presented its report to me on Friday 26 February, after it had been submitted to the Queen. It is being published today. I am grateful to Sir Stewart Sutherland and all the members of the commission for their diligence and the swift delivery of their report. All 12 commissioners signed the report. Two of them have submitted a note of dissent on three particular aspects—and even they were not unanimous.
The task of the commission was to look into how best to provide sustainable long-term funding for good-quality care of the elderly and how the costs should be shared between taxpayers and the individual. The report rightly makes it clear that
"there is no obvious answer"
and calls for an "informed debate" on the recommendations. I support that call. The Government's response must await the outcome of that debate, which I hope and expect will begin with the publication of the report today. [Interruption.] I shall not divert my remarks to respond to the ridiculous noises from the Conservatives.
I hope that it will be useful to the House for me to highlight the royal commission's major conclusions and recommendations. First, it concludes that there is not a demographic time bomb that our economy and society cannot cope with. Secondly, it concludes that the possible need for long-term care is a risk that cannot be met adequately from individual income or savings, so some pooling of risk is necessary. Thirdly, it concludes that private insurance will not deliver the necessary cover at an acceptable cost. Fourthly, it concludes that the costs will have to be met by contributions from the taxpayer and individuals. Fifthly, it concludes that the costs of long-term care can and should be separated into living costs, housing costs and personal care costs. Sixthly, it recommends that people receiving care should be expected to contribute to their living costs and to their housing costs, but the costs of their personal care should be met by the taxpayer.
The note of dissent rejects that separation and the proposal that individuals should not contribute to the cost of the care element. It gives greater priority to the quality of care.
The commission estimates that to adopt its proposals would cost the taxpayer between £800 million and £1.2 billion a year at 1995 prices. It estimates additional
742
costs to the taxpayer of lesser options such as a short-term disregard of house value at £90 million a year; changing the limits of the present means test at between £150 million to £200 million a year; and making nursing care in nursing homes free at £220 million a year. As the report states:
"This is a complex issue"
and none of the options is easy. We have to get this right.
In considering the commission's proposals, we will all need to bear in mind, first, that taxpayers' money used to relieve the costs to individuals cannot be used also to improve the quality of care or to extend it, although that might be a higher priority for some older people. Secondly, the proposals, like all aspects of taxation and benefits, would shift money from one income group to another—in this case, to some better-off people from some who are worse off. The report recommends that the best way to help carers is to improve the services provided for the people for whom they care. The note of dissent argues that priority should be given instead to respite care.
The report emphasises the need to improve cultural awareness in services offered to ethnic minority elders. It also recommends that the Government should consider applying to the personal care needs of younger disabled people the same principles that they recommend for the care of the elderly.
While the commission has been sitting, the Government have been getting on with making improvements to the treatment and care available to elderly people. We have already made a start on a number of aspects covered by the report. These include: extending direct payments to over-65s; breaking down barriers between the health and social services; improving local standards through the long-term care charter—a clear manifesto commitment; changing the law to allow local NHS and local councils to pool budgets; providing £750 million over three years for initiatives to promote rehabilitation and prevention; providing for more consistent standards of care in health and social services; preparing for independent inspection of nursing homes, old peoples' homes and social care through regional care commissions; starting work on a national service framework for older people to lay down how the NHS and local councils should provide them with high-quality services in every part of the country; encouraging care providers to promote independence rather than dependency; and launching a new strategy for carers, financed with £140 million over the next three years.
We accept—as does the royal commission—that there is a strong case in principle for phasing out the payment of the £600 million of residential allowances and transferring those resources, via a special grant, to local authorities. However, we will need carefully to work through the implications of the change on both the benefit system and the independent care sector before we take any final decisions.
The royal commission's major recommendation—that a national care commission should be established to monitor trends, set standards and represent consumers—will need to be considered in the light of the changes that are already taking place or are in the pipeline.
The Government have been taking other action to help elderly people. Those measures include: restoring free eye tests for pensioners; commissioning a report from the health advisory service on the treatment of elderly people

743
in acute hospitals; instructing all hospitals to take immediate action to improve the supply of bed linen, food and drink to elderly people; making a start on providing greater financial security by reform of the pension system; improving the Government's overall approach through the better government for older people initiative; and establishing an inter-ministerial group to take the initiative forward across Government.
Along with the rest of the country, the Government will study the report of the royal commission with great care. During our consideration, we will apply the principles set out in our welfare reform Green Paper—in particular: expecting people to insure against foreseeable risks and to make provision for their retirement; making sure that those most in need can enjoy a dignified and fulfilling life; providing public services of high quality to the whole community; and making sure that the system is flexible, efficient and easy to use.
At the general election, we committed ourselves to setting up the royal commission because we recognised that, although only one in five old people need long-term personal care, as people approach old age, many become anxious about how well they will be looked after, who will look after them, how much it will cost and who will pay.
I hope that the royal commission's report and the debate that it will stimulate will help us to find a way of ensuring that people have access to high-quality long-term care that is fair to both individuals and the taxpayer. I hope that it will be founded on a consensus that will stand the test of time: a dependable contract across the generations. That is of great importance because, second only to good health, elderly people seek financial certainty and security, and that is what the Government are determined to deliver.
Mr. Philip Hammond: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for allowing me to have a copy of the report half an hour before he began to speak. I offer the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). Many hon. Members will know that she has recently suffered a family bereavement.
We, too, will need time to study the weighty report, but we recognise the unfairness in the present system of financing long-term care, and the perverse signals that it delivers, penalising those who are thrifty and responsible and rewarding those who are not. The previous Government significantly raised the threshold for the asset test to bring some immediate relief. The problem requires an immediate response from this Government.
If the Government, having established a royal commission and delayed acting for two years, do not intend to accept the commission's recommendations, they must urgently propose alternatives. We have offered an alternative: a system of insurance as part of a partnership between the state and the individual that would protect people's homes and savings, bring security and peace of mind to those who have worked hard to accumulate assets, and go a considerable way towards removing the sense of unfairness in the present system.
Labour has rejected that eminently sensible approach. As several Labour Members observed over the weekend, Labour in opposition implied that a Labour Government
744
would act swiftly and radically to tackle the whole problem; but, as with so many pre-election pledges, the Government have ducked the issue and, 22 months after the general election, 40,000 people a year are still forced to sell their homes to pay for long-term care.
The establishment of a royal commission gave the Government an alibi for inaction. That alibi is now gone, and the Government must tell the people of Britain what their policy is. The longer that they dither, the more people will lose their homes. What is the time scale for some definite proposals? Is not the truth that the Government would rather drive the issue into the long grass until after the next general election—another example of a cynical promise made to buy votes from the elderly and vulnerable at the previous one?
Media interest has focused on the recommendations on payment for the nursing element of care, and the main report has defined that very widely. Even so, at least half the total cost of residential care would not be met by the state even if the commission's proposals were implemented in full. The proposals on nursing care will not stop people being forced to sell their houses and consume their savings but they will impose a considerable burden on public spending.
The Secretary of State cited a figure for the immediate cost of the commission's recommendations. What is the estimated cost of those proposals projected forward to 2051, as calculated by the commission? A proper solution must address the whole problem, as it affects today's pensioners and those soon to retire, and as it affects future generations of pensioners: those who are in a position, if the Government send the right signals, to take a broader view of provision for care in old age.
The solution must be sustainable, not based on half-costed promises and blank cheques that future generations of taxpayers and politicians may decline to sign. Above all, it must be a fair solution that does not penalise those who have worked hard and saved, bought their own homes, and taken responsibility for themselves.
Does the Secretary of State acknowledge the problem, identified in the note of dissent, of under-resourcing by social services departments for independent sector placements, and the resulting pressure that that is placing on the independent care sector? What does he intend to do about that? Does he agree that it is scandalous that, while many people assessed as needing residential care are being forced to wait on a waiting list for it, some local authorities persist in wasting money on direct provision of care, which is often 40, 50 or 60 per cent. more expensive to provide than comparable or better care provided by the independent sector?
The Secretary of State said in his statement that he would consider this report in the light of the principles set out in the welfare reform Green Paper. One of those principles to which he referred is expecting people to be
"insured against foreseeable risks and make provision for their retirement."
Does he regard long-term care as a foreseeable risk and, if so, does he intend to propose an insurance-based solution?
Mr. Dobson: I made no reference in my statement—because I would like to establish a consensus about the future of long-term care and its funding—to the fact that the present shambles is one that we inherited from the previous Government, who did virtually nothing about it

745
over 19 years. The hon. Gentleman recommends to the House some measures that the previous Government were contemplating but did not get round to introducing in those 19 years. I refer him to paragraph 5.13 of chapter 5 of the report, which says of the scheme he talked about:
"The scheme as presented by the previous Government was rather complex, and it was difficult to see where the benefits lay, and to whom."
That is generous royal commission-speak for, "It was a load of rubbish."
At the election, we made no easy promises. We promised that we would establish a royal commission. We set one up and it reported in the second-shortest period of any royal commission in the past 40 years. I am very pleased that it has done so and the time that it took is greatly to its credit. We will consider what to do in response to its detailed and thoughtful points and, in the case of the note of dissent, conflicting points that it has put to us and the whole country after its 14 months of deliberations.
I have spelled out the 10 steps that the Government are already taking, which are referred to in the report. Many of those steps are welcomed in the report. Far from postponing progress, we got on with things even before the royal commission started sitting. We are not interested in making half-costed promises. That is what the country got sick of under the previous Government. We want to consider the report carefully and listen to all the representations that are made by all the various interest groups in the light of the royal commission's proposals and the detailed background to them. Then we will come to some decisions.
Mr. Alan Duncan: Oh!
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman who purports to sit on the Front Bench groans at that, but he did not groan during the 19 years in which his Government did nothing, nor when they made short-term and ridiculous decisions.
The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) asked the estimated costs of the proposals in 2051. The estimated costs are more than £6 billion and, if they turn out to be true, I shall come back to haunt the House of Commons. No estimates over such a period of time have ever turned out to be true, and I am sure that these will not.
What we have in the report is a series of thoughtful points. The royal commission has gone into the matter in great depth and, in due course, we shall give our response to the new points that it has raised—just as we got on with 10 of the report's recommendations even before it was published.
Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I welcome the publication of the royal commission report. This morning, I met the elderly relative of a lady aged 91 who is in a nursing home. The relative had just had the sorry task of selling the lady's terraced house—worth £26,000—to meet nursing home costs. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it cannot be right for people in the final months of their lives to suffer from distress and uncertainty instead of enjoying dignity and comfort?
We need to consider the royal commission recommendations carefully, as the expenditure implications are significant. However, in an earlier era, people said that we
746
could never afford a national health service, yet the country proved more optimistic. This is a big problem, and I urge my right hon. Friend and the Government to come up with a big solution.
Mr. Dobson: All I can say is that I have never said that we cannot afford the propositions advanced either by those commissioners who presented the note of dissent, or by the majority on the commission. The national health service was first established by a Labour Government, as a result of boldness and real commitment, and the welfare state was also established by a Labour Government. Both projects were implemented on a basis of consensus which even the Tory party of the day had to accept and which prevailed for 25 to 30 years.
That is what I want to achieve with the proposals for long-term care. We shall do no service to old people unless we can establish a system that, broadly speaking, commands the support of all the parties in the country, and of the people of this country. That is the only way in which we can provide the certainty and security that people want, and it may take us quite a time to wrangle out and agree what we should do. I hope that the odd Conservative Member might even see some merit in that.
Mr. Paul Burstow: First, I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in allowing me to see the report shortly before his statement. We welcome the opportunity for constructive dialogue. What older people want more than anything in later life is certainty: if we can give them certainty by building a consensus about the long-term care system, we shall play our part.
Does not the royal commission report offer a practical means of ending the heartache and anger felt by many older people and their families when they are forced to sell their homes to pay for care? Does the Secretary of State understand how disappointed many people will be to learn that he has no plans to end the perverse financial incentive that means that elderly people go into nursing homes instead of being cared for at home?
Is the Secretary of State aware that the sum of £750 million to fund rehabilitation and prevention over the next three years, which he announced in his statement, adds up to little more than 71p per person per day? Will he say more about the timetable of the debate that he is launching? We need to know when the debate will be concluded, as do the people facing the prospect of selling their homes to pay for care.
When will the House see the Secretary of State's proposals to safeguard long-term care for the elderly? The Secretary of State was right to say that the royal commission, which considered more than 2,000 submissions over 14 months, was one of the quickest in recent years. There were numerous leaks from various quarters, and much raising of expectations. Does the Secretary of State agree that, although his statement contains many warm and encouraging words, it rests on cold economics? We need a debate, but when will the Secretary of State come back with his proposals?
Mr. Dobson: It is not me but the royal commission that is calling for an informed debate throughout the country, and I assume that the commission expects the Government to await that debate's outcome before

747
reaching any major decisions. The hon. Gentleman suggested that I should immediately adopt as Government policy the proposal that people should—
Mr. Simon Hughes: That is not what he said.
Mr. Dobson: Either I am deaf or the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) is stupid.
Madam Speaker: Order. I do not think that that was necessary. In addition, the Select Committee on Modernisation recommended that I have statements completed in 45 minutes. Many hon. Members are standing and, unless questions and answers are brisk, a lot of them will be disappointed.
Mr. Dobson: I was trying to answer the six or seven questions put by the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), Madam Speaker.
The hon. Gentleman said that, if we agree that the state should pay for personal care, all the problems about people not being able to afford long-term care would be resolved. At least, that is what I understood him to say. However, it is not so. It is quite possible that, if people must pay their living and housing costs, some of them will have to make a contribution that they cannot afford. The problems will not be resolved by adopting in full the proposals of the royal commission.
The hon. Gentleman talked also about getting rid of the perverse arrangement that encourages people who are being looked after properly in their own homes to move out of them and into residential care. Unless my memory fails me, I thought that I had referred to our consideration of shifting the residential allowance so that it would be paid not to care homes, but to local authorities, as the royal commission has suggested.
Policy is moving in the right direction. In deference to Madam Speaker's reasonable wish that I should sit down quickly, let me add only that the royal commission has asked for an informed debate. Today starts that debate, and we shall respond at the end of it.
Mr. Frank Field: Does the Secretary of State accept that his distinction between the costs that all of us will have to meet in retirement—that is, for a pension—and the risk of long-term care costs that some of us will have to meet is most important in the debate for which he and the royal commission have called? On the pensions side, it is appropriate that we all save, but most of us will not need long-term care and there is a need for insurance cover. If such cover is made universal, the costs for each of us will be cheaper.
One further point arises from the distinction made by the royal commission on the covering of nursing home costs and hotel costs. Does the commission give any idea of the percentage of pensioners who currently cover those costs from their pension and other income? If it does not, could my right hon. Friend's Department provide that information so that the debate may commence? May I emphasise how right my right hon. Friend was to say that,
748
if we are to have a lasting solution, we need to approach the problem on the basis of consensus, even if the Opposition are slightly reluctant to join us?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my right hon. Friend for what he has said. We certainly need a consensus. To the best of my recollection, having read the report fairly carefully—
Mr. Field: And the appendices?
Mr. Dobson: No, I have not read them. I did not even bring them to the Chamber in case I suffered a double hernia carrying them in. If I had, I might need care rather more prematurely than I would wish it.
The risk of needing long-term care and the scale of the cost is such that people cannot be expected to afford it, as the report says, without some form of pooling of risk. The report considers various options. On the details of distribution and separation of costs, and the ability to pay them, the distinction is not—to the best of my recollection—in the body of the report. My memory may be failing me, but I think that that is the case. The distinction may appear in the vast appendices, but the information asked for by my right hon. Friend is vital to the debate, and it is related to the points that I made in response to the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam.
Mr. John MacGregor: I welcome the speed with which the royal commission has completed its report. I must press the Secretary of State on one question, which he has so far refused to answer—the increasing concern among the elderly, and their relatives, who have saved for retirement or bought a home, not least a council home, on fairly modest incomes about what they see as the unfairness and social injustice of what they have to pay for retirement in residential nursing care when others have it paid for them. I understand that the royal commission has put forward a recommendation that does not seem very expensive. Also, it is not merely a case of the injustice because, now that the issue has been so highlighted, unless the right hon. Gentleman deals with it, it will become more difficult to persuade people to provide for their retirement. Will he deal with that issue quickly and, if he does not accept the royal commission's recommendation, find some other solution to the problem?
Mr. Dobson: The right hon. Gentleman, in making that fairly reasonable contribution, should bear in mind that the basic position of the royal commission is that personal care should be paid for by the taxpayer, but that it has a number of intermediate stages, which are considerably cheaper and would bring about some changes and a amelioration of the situation about which people are rightly concerned. We have to consider all of those. Under the royal commission's proposal, there would be a transfer of taxpayer's money. Some money would come from people who are worse off than those receiving the benefit of it.
Ms Joan Walley: I thank the royal commission for the herculean task that it has performed and I thank my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the 10 steps that he has already taken. It is crucial now to engage in informed public debate throughout the country. He is well aware of concerns in

749
north Staffordshire about the closure of national health service continuing care beds. Will he assure the House that he will continue to take a keen interest in what is happening in north Staffordshire so that, together, we can build consensus around what is needed for genuine long-term care for the elderly?
Mr. Dobson: As my hon. and well-informed Friend knows, the range of arrangements that can be made for people who need long-term care is great. Clearly, we must try to encourage as many people as can be properly cared for in their own homes to be so cared for, and a range of assistance is available. Certainly, the review of the number, nature and location of NHS beds, which I set in train in September, has to be related to the royal commission's proposals, because they are clearly related.
Mrs. Margaret Ewing: We would all give the publication of the report a general welcome. However, is not a responsibility placed on elected representatives to participate in the ensuing debate and a particular responsibility placed on the Government to lead it? In light of the right hon. Gentleman's most recent answer, what emphasis will he place on respite care, which often seems to be left out of our debates, although those working in such care contribute so much in looking after the elderly, and, in many cases, people with disabilities? Does he agree that progressive taxation might mean a redistribution of wealth, which might resolve some of the problems?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Lady raised two points. First, if I stated the Government's position now, no one would believe for a minute that we were going to take a blind bit of notice of any of the public debate. Everyone knows that and so it would be silly of me to give our view, which will no doubt be modified as a result of the discussions and representations. Secondly, let me illustrate the dilemma on carers and respite care. The bulk of the members of the royal commission do not think that particular help should be given to carers, other than by improving the services that are provided for the people whom the carers care for. The minority note of dissent is that greater priority should be given to carers. The Government are finding £140 million extra for them in the next three years and so, in that matter, tend to be going along with the note of dissent before people have dissented.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position for the record? Are not those people who advocate a system of private insurance in effect advocating higher taxation? Private contributions to a private insurance scheme are a substitute for taxation. From that, can we not adduce that the Tories want to put people's taxes up to pay for it?
Mr. Dobson: There is a great deal of truth in what my hon. Friend says. The only trouble is that, if people continue to advocate that, they do so in the face of all the evidence that the private insurance market could not cope, even if people did pay in.
Mr. Eric Forth: Is it not obvious that the Government led the elderly up the garden path before the general election? Not only that, but the
750
Secretary of State is shocked at the speed with which the royal commission reported and desperate to find ways of putting off making any decisions. How long will the national debate continue? How long does he expect to be able to continue to put off making a decision? When will the people who are so desperately anxious about all this learn their fate?
Mr. Dobson: I think that the concept of "ignorance is strength" was introduced in the book "Nineteen Eighty-Four", but it certainly survives in 1999. In our general election manifesto, we promised to set up a royal commission on the long-term care of elderly, so no one was misled by that. The right hon. Gentleman suggests that I have been astonished and disappointed that the royal commission reported in 14 months. As, in its terms of reference, I asked it to report in 12 months, I think that his charge falls.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: Will my right hon. Friend reverse the Tory Government's policy of massive cuts in the number of national health service beds for frail elderly people with the aim of shunting more and more elderly people into the private sector? Will he give an absolute guarantee that every frail elderly person who requires a national health service bed will be offered one? It would be a gross betrayal of the generation that built the NHS if those people were denied an NHS bed in their time of need.
Mr. Dobson: We must ensure that every frail old person who needs care gets it the most appropriate setting. For many, being in their own home but properly looked after by people who come in is infinitely preferable to going into any other set up. One of the merits of being at home is that people do not catch things from other people. Large institutions with many frail old people are very susceptible to cross-infection and people suffer as a result. One of the reasons why I decided to establish a review of the number and nature of beds in the health service was because we must ensure that everyone who needs an NHS bed of whatever nature gets one when they need it, whatever part of the country they are in.
Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The royal commission sounds very much in line with the findings of the Commission on Social Justice some years ago for the Labour party. However, there is a greater spirit of disillusion now. Pension funds have been raided so that those who thought that they were preparing for their futures are worse off. Those who were providing for their health care have lost their tax relief. The Government have shown little courage on pensions. As the right hon. Gentleman well knows, the home counties are having their social services and health budgets squeezed so that they are unable to deliver even the objectives set by the Government. The words on carers are fine, but tell that to Surrey county council, which lost £6 million from its social services budget. Will he consider the challenge in The Times today, where the Prime Minister is accused of propaganda imagery rather than political debate? We need decisions, not propaganda, because many worried older people want to know what they can rely on. They want the reality, not the rhetoric.
Mr. Dobson: All the old people who are worried are worried about the system that the country inherited from

751
the Government of whom the right hon. Lady was such a distinguished member. She complains about pension funds being raided, but it was the Conservative Government who specially made them susceptible to raiding, and their friends who mis-sold pensions and so robbed people—those are the main sources of robbery of pensioners. As I said before, we are trying, and I continue to try, to get everyone to look carefully at the royal commission's report and the note of dissent, to listen to what other people say and take notice of that, and to see whether we can establish something approaching a consensus. In my opening statement, I made no reference to the Conservative party or its record; it is only since Conservative Members have risen that politics has entered into this matter.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: The issue is one that causes many older people great anxiety, and no one knows what will happen to them in the final years of their life. As part of trying to achieve consensus, is it not important to ensure that there is universal interpretation of the rules and regulations throughout the whole country, and that everyone has the same opportunity to receive the care that they need, wherever they happen to live? Is it not also important that, when the sale of old people's houses is considered, we recognise that, sometimes, other people live in the property, and address that problem?
Mr. Dobson: As my hon. Friend probably recollects, we make it clear in the social services White Paper that we expect social services and other authorities to pursue a national policy both on provision of care and on anything connected with the sale of assets belonging to those who are helped. We must aim for a universal approach. My hon. Friend touches on the most upsetting aspect of all, which arises when an old person finally goes into care: a member of the family who might have devoted two decades to looking after that old person can, under the current system, which we did not introduce, be thrown out on to the street. That is probably the biggest injustice of the lot.
Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: I welcome the report. I have to say, with all respect to the right hon. Gentleman, that I have never regarded him as a particularly consensual person. Will he give an undertaking that he will make a decision, whether or not he believes that there is a consensus, before the next election, so that we can get on with dealing with an urgent problem? While we are on the subject, when will the Secretary of State and his Department respond to the Centre for Policy on Ageing report on national required standards for residential care and nursing homes? We know that those institutions face serious problems—in my county, they have been underfunded to the tune of £4 million from social services—and they face high compliance costs unless the matter is properly worked out.
Mr. Dobson: My answer to the right hon. Gentleman's first question is, yes. As for his second question, we are producing a consultation document on that very matter, and it should go out shortly.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on having established the commission
752
and published the report so quickly; it will be beneficial to millions of people. May I draw his attention to representations that I have received from people who suffer from Alzheimer's disease? They have to go into private homes for respite care, because organisations such as the Wakefield and Pontefract Community Health NHS trust are closing hospital beds and driving people into the private sector. Will he take action to ensure that no more hospital beds that cater for care of the elderly and for long-term care will be closed and that people who require respite care in an NHS hospital will be given that facility?
Mr. Dobson: I shall certainly do my best to ensure that people who need respite care get that care. However, as my hon. Friend knows, I cannot stand at the Dispatch Box not knowing the details of a specific case and give a blank undertaking that such-and-such a place will never close. After all, in some cases, places are closed because they are of such a standard that we would not want our relatives to go there, so we have to be careful about the undertakings that we give. It must be our mission to ensure that every old person in need of long-term care gets the appropriate care in the appropriate bed. I am sure that, for many old people, the most appropriate bed is their own, where they can be looked after properly.
Mr. Anthony Steen: I do not think that this is a party political issue, and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) is wrong to say that we are being slow and reserved. It will be a non-party political matter until the Government produce their recommendations.
Is the Secretary of State satisfied with what the Liberals are up to with regard to residential and nursing homes in Torbay? They are increasing council tax expenditure by building new residential and nursing homes and commandeering existing buildings for homes that they will run, while the private sector—which comprises small local residential homes that do a splendid job—are half empty. Is the Secretary of State happy to see the council tax payer paying more when such splendid residential homes stand empty?
Mr. Dobson: I generally assume, almost on principle, that the Liberals are up to no good. However, I should not comment about their particular activities in the Torbay area as there may be another side to the story.
Dr. Howard Stoate: During my years as a GP, I came across many cases involving people who stayed in totally inappropriate surroundings for far too long—causing great distress to not only themselves but their carers and families—because they were worried literally sick about whether they could afford long-term care. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents—both present and future pensioners—that they will be treated with respect and dignity?
Mr. Dobson: The crucial point that we must bear in mind at all times is that everybody in our society has the right to be treated with dignity. All generations owe it to previous generations to ensure that they receive such treatment. Of all generations throughout the history of this country, the present working generation owes a tremendous debt of gratitude to retired people, who defeated Hitler, founded the welfare state and the national health service and then paid for it.

Points of Order
4.17 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have heard the polite, courteous and emollient answer given to question No. 33, which was addressed to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, about a Select Committee on Iraq. However, that response did not refer to the issue of the strike against the pipeline linking Iraq and Turkey, and all the consequences that that will have for the oil-for-food programme. Madam Speaker, have you received any request from the Foreign Office to comment on, or make a statement about, this rather urgent matter?
Madam Speaker: I heard the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. However, I have not been informed that the Foreign Office is seeking to make a statement on that issue.
Mr. John Smith: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox)—whom I have notified about my intention to raise this point of order—to speak at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Opposition during the Welsh affairs debate in this place and proceed to talk down Welsh manufacturing industry? That is what he did—
Madam Speaker: Order. No, I am sorry. Let me help the hon. Gentleman. I can take only points of order, which must refer to issues that I can do something about. The hon. Gentleman has so far raised a matter of politics and debate across the Floor of the House. He must raise a point that I can deal with.
Mr. Smith: I hope that I shall continue along those lines, Madam Speaker. The hon. Member for Woodspring represents a constituency in a region that stands to benefit directly—it is in direct competition for jobs and investment—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should first work out the point of order to me and then raise it so that I might be able to respond to it. It is no concern of mine what constituency the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) represents or what he says at the Dispatch Box on behalf of the Opposition. This is a free Parliament and the hon. Member for Woodspring can say exactly what he wants, provided that it is within parliamentary terms and that he uses good language.

Orders of the Day
  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
  As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.
  Sexual Offences (Amendment) Bill
    New Clause 4

      DEFENCES AVAILABLE TO PERSONS WHO ARE UNDER AGE
      '.—(1) In section 12 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956—

      (a) in subsection (1), after the words "subsection (1 A)" there shall be inserted the words "or (1AA)";

      (b) in subsection (1A), after the word "circumstances" there shall be inserted the word "first"; and

      (c) after that subsection there shall be inserted the following subsection—

      "(1AA) The other circumstances so referred to are that the person is uner the age of sixteen and the other person has attained that age."
      (2) In section 13 of that Act (indecency between men)—

      (a) after the words "another man", in the first place where they occur, there shall be inserted the words "otherwise than in the circumstances described below"; and

      (b) at the end there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

      "The circumstances referred to above are that the man is under the age of sixteen and the other man has attained that age."
      (3) In subsection (1) of section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 1967—

      (a) the words from "a homosexual act" to the end shall become paragraph (a); and

      (b) after that paragraph there shall be inserted the words "and

      (b) a homosexual act by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of sixteen years and the other party has attained that age."

      (4) In section 13 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation) (Scotland) Act 1995, after subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—
      "(8A) A person under the age of sixteen years does not commit an offence under subsection (5)(a) or (c) above if he commits or is party to the commission of a homosexual act with a person who has attained that age."
      (5) In paragraph (1) of Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982—

      (a) the words from "a homosexual act" to the end shall become sub—paragraph (a); and

      (b) after that sub—paragraph there shall be inserted the words "and

      (b) a homosexual act by any person shall not be an offence if he is under the age of seventeen years and the other party has attained that age.".'—[Mr. Boateng.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.20 pm
      The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: new clause 2—Defence against charges under Sexual Offences Act 1956—
      '( ) Where a person ("A") is charged with an offence under section 12 or 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 with another person ("B"), it shall be a defence for A to prove that, at the time of the activity, he did not know, and could not reasonably have been expected to know, that B was under 16.'.
      New clause 3—Defence against charges of homosexual activity (Northern Ireland)—
      '( ) In Article 3 of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 (homosexual acts in private), at the end there shall be inserted—
      "( ) A man (A) is not guilty of an offence of doing a homosexual act with another man (B) where B is under the age of 17, if A is under the age of 25 and has not previously been charged with a like offence, and he believes B to be of the age of 17 or over and has reasonable cause for the belief.".'.
      Government amendment No. 9.
      Mr. Boateng: The new clause will have the effect that, in England and Wales, it will not be an offence for a person under 16 to engage in buggery or for a male under 16 to commit an act of gross indecency with a male aged 16 or over or be a party to, or procure the commission of, an act of gross indecency with a male aged 16 or over.
      The new clause does not affect the liability of a person over the age of 16 who engages in such activities with a person under 16. Our whole purpose is to ensure that such people are liable in the criminal law.
      Both parties will also continue to remain liable in the criminal law if they are both under the age of 16. To do otherwise would be to negate the age of consent entirely, and that clearly would not be acceptable. Furthermore, it might allow a 15-year-old to escape any liability for engaging in predatory activity with a younger child, which would clearly be an undesirable consequence.
      Similar changes are also made to the law in Scotland and Northern Ireland to decriminalise a male under the age of consent—that is 16 in Scotland and 17 in Northern Ireland—who engages in homosexual activities with someone over that age.
      An amendment to provide for the decriminalisation of the younger partner was moved in Committee of the whole House by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), supported by a number of hon. Members, and received widespread support. We undertook to consider the principle behind that amendment, with which we had great sympathy, and to table an acceptable and technically competent amendment that met the will of the Committee if we were satisfied that the change could properly be made in the Bill. That is what we have done through the new clause.
      That has also entailed a minor change to the long title of the Bill to cover the circumstances in which behaviour is not criminal, not merely the age.
      We were unable to accept the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon because it referred to no proceedings being taken against a person under the age of consent who engages in buggery or homosexual acts with a person over the age of consent. Our new clause makes it clear that no offence is committed in the first place because the problem does not relate only to instituting criminal proceedings, as I know the hon. Gentleman now recognises. The measure is
      756
      necessary in the interests of protecting children. That issue united both sides of the Standing Committee, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who speaks for the Opposition, for the constructive approach that he adopted to the amendment.
      We undertook to consult those who are engaged, day to day, in the protection and support of children. They include the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the Children's Society and NCH Action for Children, all of which have made it clear that they support the measure. That will be of concern to hon. Members on all sides of the House.
      At present, in the case of buggery and male homosexual acts where the older partner is above the age of consent, the law criminalises the younger partner—both boys and girls. Not only does that mean that, in most cases, young homosexual males are treated in a way that young heterosexuals are not, but, most importantly, it does nothing to protect children. It allows adults to threaten what may be naive young boys and girls with the prospect of being brought into the criminal justice system if they complain to another adult about the activities in which they have been involved. That may serve to encourage and facilitate predatory conduct by older men. The Standing Committee was concerned to discourage such conduct and there was universal agreement on the matter.
      Mr. John Bercow: I recognise the rationale behind the new clause, but, so that we can take a view on its likely practical significance, will the Minister tell us how many boys under the age of 16 were prosecuted for buggery in 1998?
      Mr. Boateng: I shall write to the hon. Gentleman in due course about the number of young men under the age of 16 prosecuted for buggery in 1998. If he remains in his place for the duration of the debate, although he has not always graced the Opposition Benches on previous occasions, I will—
      Mr. Bercow: I am always in the Chamber.
      Mr. Boateng: I know that the hon. Gentleman is an assiduous attender of the House, but he has not always been present during previous debates on the Bill. If he remains in his place for some time longer, I promise him that, before the end of today's proceedings, I will let him have the figure.
      I suspect that the number of prosecutions, if any, is small, but our concern is to make sure that the measure does not tell against the interest of young people, who might be dissuaded from bringing action against older predatory males for fear of prosecution. As we know, in these matters, fear of prosecution, as much as any actual prosecution, tells on the minds of the young people involved. That concerned the hon. Member for Hertsmere, me and other members of the Committee.
      The new clause would stop the continued use of the criminal law as a means of coercion to be used against those whom we in this House wish to protect the most—young children. That is something that we all take very seriously indeed. We have made it clear, however, that other attempts to deal with the undoubted anomalies and inconsistencies in sexual offences legislation, including

      757
      the way that the criminal law treats heterosexual and homosexual activity, must wait for the review of sexual offences and penalties.
      I understand the thinking of the hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and the hard work that they have put in, but I fear that their amendments are likely to fall foul of our concern that the review that we have instituted should be in a position to take an overview and to tackle the undoubted anomalies and inconsistencies in the course of its work.
      Making further ad hoc changes to the law on sexual offences and penalties through the Bill would only add to the inconsistencies in the law. However, we believe that the case for decriminalising the younger partner is so overwhelming that there are no good reasons against doing so now. The other issues raised during the consideration of the Bill about the inconsistencies in the law on sexual offences require a view to be taken of the law as a whole, if we are ever to achieve a rational basis for our law in this area. The new clause does not require that, and it can be adopted without creating any new inconsistencies.
      It might be helpful at this stage to deal with the Government's response to new clauses 2 and 3, which stand in the name of the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, among others. He will take the House through the effect of his new clauses but, for us, they raise important questions of principle. They concern the defence of reasonable belief on the part of the person committing an offence against a person under the age of consent and go far beyond the changes that we propose in the Bill. The issues raised affect heterosexual offences and homosexual offences.
      Our approach to the age of consent has been for Parliament to decide on the simple, straightforward issue of the equalisation of the age of consent. With one exception—the decriminalisation of the younger partner—we have made it clear that other attempts to deal with the undoubted anomalies and inconsistencies in the sexual offences legislation, including the way that the criminal law treats heterosexual and homosexual activity, must wait for the review of sexual offences and penalties. That will disappoint the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, but I hope that he understands that we are at least disappointing him consistently.
      Making further ad hoc changes to the law on sexual offences and penalties through the Bill would only add to the inconsistencies in the law. We therefore do not intend to go down that road. The main focus of the sexual offences review will to be ensure that the law provides the best possible protection for children and more effective punishment of abusers. It is however necessary to consider the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises as part of that process, and the review will do so.
      4.30 pm
      We have also made it clear that the review must ensure that the law is fair and non-discriminatory, in accordance with the European convention on human rights and the Human Rights Act 1998. The Northern Ireland Office is working alongside the Home Office on the review of sexual offences and will respond to its recommendations in due course. As the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will appreciate, the new clause raises a number
      758
      of technical issues. I do not intend to go into them at this stage but, if he would like me to deal with them later, I should be only too happy to do so.
      We cannot accept the new clauses, which are properly matters to be considered by the review and go far beyond the purposes of the Bill. The policy on such offences needs careful examination in the light of the need to protect children. We have serious concerns that, as they stand, either of those defences might make prosecuting sexual offences substantially more difficult—and we are not having that.
      A similar defence to that contained in new clause 3 for Northern Ireland was proposed by hon. Members in Committee. It would have provided a defence for those under 25 in relation to a first charge for such an offence. We consulted a number of children's charities about that, and they believe that even such a limited measure would have serious implications for child protection. We are simply not prepared to accept that. That argument applies even more to a broad defence along the lines of new clause 2, which makes the proposition even more unacceptable to us. The matter will, however, be examined in the course of the review.
      I hope that, in the light of that assurance, the hon. Gentleman will not press his two new clauses. On that basis, I commend Government new clause 4 and amendment No. 9.
      Mr. James Clappison: I wish to make two matters clear. First and most importantly, these issues will be the subject of a free vote, if there is a vote, and any views that I express are personal—my colleagues may take a different view. Secondly, if it is convenient, I should like to deal with the amendments and new clauses in this group together.
      I welcome Government new clause 4. I listened carefully to the Minister's speech. He adopted many of the points that we made when the matter first came before the House. There is merit in the approach taken in the new clause, as that will serve to protect the younger party, which should be the law's main priority in this area. Thus, there will be a defence for the under-age person where the other party is over age. That is clearly in the interests of bringing the older party to justice. Removing the disincentive to the younger party to report the offence should help to bring older people who enter into inappropriate sexual relationships to justice.
      I agree with the form in which the new clause is tabled. When the original amendment was before us, we observed that it would merely have prevented proceedings from being brought, whereas the new clause clarifies that no offence will be committed. That brings the law into line with the existing law on under-age sex with a heterosexual girl. I therefore welcome the new clause, which reflects the arguments that we made earlier in our proceedings.
      New clause 2 is important and requires careful consideration. Indeed, it was considered carefully in Committee. It will make available a defence in cases where an older person is charged with an offence under section 12 or 13 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956. It is sometimes referred to as a statutory defence or a defence of mistake of age.
      It is important to note that a defence of mistake of age is available in the case of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16. That is, in some ways, the equivalent heterosexual offence. That defence is sometimes called the young man's defence.

      759
      If a charge is made relating to under-age sex with a girl under the age of consent, it is a defence for a person under 24 who has not previously been charged with a similar offence if he believed the girl to be 16 or over and had reasonable cause for the belief. That has long been available as a defence in England and Wales for offences of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl—it goes back many years.
      It is worth noting that a similar defence is available in Scotland in the case of both heterosexual and homosexual acts. I listened with interest to the Minister's comments about new clause 3, which would create a defence in the case of offences in Northern Ireland. He referred to consultations that had taken place and said that, in the interests of protecting children, we should not accept the new clause, but it would create an almost identical—if not identical—defence to the one that currently applies in Scotland.
      That is an interesting point. I think that the only difference would be that the age of consent would be slightly higher in Northern Ireland—the age of consent being 17, whereas in Scotland it is 16; otherwise, the defence would be the same in Northern Ireland as in Scotland.
      In Scotland, in the case of both under-age heterosexual sex and under-age homosexual sex, there is a defence if the defendant has not previously been charged with such an offence, is under 24 and had reasonable cause to believe that the other party was over the age of consent. After thinking carefully about it and reflecting on the debates in Committee, I find it hard to see why the same defence should not be available for people aged under 24 in respect of homosexual acts in England and Wales as is available already in Scotland and, in the case of heterosexual sex, in England and Wales.
      Age is important. Different considerations apply where people are older. Someone who is in his late 20s, 30s or 40s should not be able to avail himself of such a defence—as he cannot now do in the case of heterosexual sex—but, where young people are in the same general age bracket, we have to think of the interests of justice and ask: do we want to bring within the ambit of the criminal law a young person who had homosexual relations with an under-age person when he genuinely believed that the under-aged person was over the age of consent and had reasonable grounds for such a belief? Do we really want such a young person to be guilty of a criminal offence, as the law now stands, and to face a possible maximum sentence of life imprisonment?
      It is important and salient that the availability of that defence be strictly limited.
      Mr. Edward Leigh: Is my hon. Friend erecting a new maxim—that the law for heterosexual offences should generally be the same as that for homosexual offences?
      Mr. Clappison: No, I am not erecting a new maxim and was carefully trying not to do so. I was trying to act in the interests of justice and fairness all round, but without necessarily erecting such a principle.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: On the question of justice and fairness, given the enthusiasm that
      760
      my hon. Friend has expressed for new clause 4, would it not be proper that an offender under new clause 4 should be reasonably—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. [Interruption.] My apologies. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was outwith the scope of the new clause. He may carry on.
      Mr. Swayne: If one of the partners to an act under the terms of new clause 4 claimed as a defence that he thought the other was over 17, would not that defence be perfectly reasonable?
      Mr. Clappison: The defendant would have to establish the ingredients of the defence.
      Others may disagree with my view, but this is not a legal novelty. As I have said, in heterosexual cases, it has been available as a defence since 1922, and I believe a form of it was introduced in 1885—so it may be a case of returning to Victorian values. As I have said on other occasions when we have debated the Bill, I am now speaking on the basis of my personal view, nor do I seek to equalise the law in every respect. I shall not be presenting a checklist of ways in which the law should be made identical; I am trying to establish a way of acting fairly and in the interests of justice in individual cases.
      It should be borne in mind that the availability of the defence is strictly limited by age, and that the onus is on the defendant to establish that he believed that the other party was over the age of consent and had reasonable grounds for that belief. If defendants are still to be given the chance of trial by jury—I hope that they will, in these and in other cases—it will be for an English court and an English jury to use their good sense in deciding the matter.
      A defendant will not escape liability by saying that he thought the other party was over the age of consent; he will also have to establish that he had reasonable grounds for that belief, and establish it to the satisfaction of the court.
      I believe that the defence that is available in heterosexual cases in England and Wales, and in both heterosexual and homosexual cases in Scotland, should be available in cases such as this in England and Wales. That would be in the interests of justice and fairness all round. I have already commented on new clause 3; new clause 2, however, goes wider than the existing defence for heterosexual sex in a number of important respects.
      I note that the new clause refers to knowledge of someone's age, rather than belief, as the basis for a defence. The availability of such a defence is not restricted to those who have previously been charged with similar offences, as in the case of heterosexual sex; and, more important, it is not restricted to those under 24. That is a big difference, in my view: I regard age as an important consideration.
      Dr. Evan Harris: The hon. Gentleman may be about to deal with this. He is aware from discussions that we have had outside the Chamber that it is extremely unlikely that new clause 2 would have been selected if it had been tabled in exactly the same form as the form in which it was tabled in Committee—which was right, because we do not want to

      761
      repeat those arguments now. The principle is the same, however, and the new clause is phrased in exactly the same way as the statutory defence available in the case of an abuse of trust which can be found in clause 2. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman was about to make that point, but I should have liked him to do so at the outset. I should like to see an amendment providing for a statutory defence directly comparable with the defence that exists for heterosexuals.
      Mr. Clappison: I shall, in fact, deal with that point now. By reason of the distinctions that I am making, I am not minded to support new clause 2, which the hon. Gentleman tabled. I do not consider it satisfactory. Much of the blame for that, however, arises from the attempt to use the defence supplied by the Government, about which I shall say more shortly. As the hon. Gentleman has said, the defence in new clause 2 bears a striking similarity to the breach-of-trust defence involving 16 and 17-year-olds in clause 2(2)(a). It may well be—as the hon. Gentleman has perhaps conceded—that those who tabled new clause 2 were trying to avoid inconsistency between the defence provided in their amendments and that provided in the Bill. The defence provided in the Bill is surprising, to say the least. It is also not the only example in the Bill of bad drafting and bad judgment.
      4.45 pm
      The defence provided in clause 2(2)(a) deals with people in a position of trust. Those who are in a position of trust include those who look after, and are regularly involved in caring for, a younger person. However, unlike those whose sexual activities arise out of other social contexts, surely those who are in a position of trust and are regularly involved in caring for a younger person could reasonably be expected to have some knowledge of the other party's age, and to know whether the other party was under 18.
      In breaches of trust involving 16 and 17-year-olds, the Government's proposed defence of mistake of age is not limited by age. A man of 42 and a young man of 18 could therefore rely equally on the defence. The Government's proposed defence is therefore very strange.
      Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Does my hon. Friend have a view on the activity of television producers who, in their programmes, advocate sexual intercourse with people under 15? A week or so go, a programme was broadcast in which that act was not only physically demonstrated, but advocated and then glorified. Does he think that the programme's producer should be subject to such provisions on prosecution?
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes a very important point. Those who produce and broadcast programmes should be aware of their wider responsibilities. The general scenario that she described was thoroughly unattractive. One would think that responsible broadcasters would seek to avoid such scenarios, and not to give in to the temptation of sensationalism.
      It really will not do for the Minister to say, in reply to new clauses 2 and 3, "We can't possibly consider the amendments. We don't want to go beyond changing the law on consent and taking the younger party out of
      762
      liability, as we are doing in new clause 4. We want to confine ourselves to those issues, and leave everything else to the review." Ministers cannot say that when they themselves are creating a new form of defence in the Bill.
      The defence that the Government are proposing in the Bill is vastly inferior to the long-established defence of mistaken belief, which is available already in the Sexual Offences Act. The Government have made a grave mistake in offering their form of defence, which will widen considerably the current one. The Bill will certainly make the defence of mistaken belief available to much older men—in their 30s, 40s or 50s—whereas the current one is already, rightly, limited to young men under 24, who are therefore in the same general age bracket as the younger person concerned.
      The Government are making a mistake in proposing their defence. Moreover, those who tabled new clause 2 may have been attempting to use the Government's proposed defence in their new clause—the passage of which would be a mistake and should be avoided.
      In my personal view, in the interests of justice and fairness—bearing in mind the state of the law in England and in Scotland, and in cases involving heterosexual and homosexual sex—a similar form of the defence available in cases involving heterosexual sex should be made available in those involving homosexual sex. However, it should be made available only without watering-down the very strict requirements that must be established—specifically of age and of the person concerned not having been charged previously with the same offence—and with the strict necessity of establishing reasonable belief. I believe that that form of defence is satisfactory and is in the interests of justice, unlike the form of defence proposed by the Government for cases of abuse of trust involving 16 and 17-year-olds.
      Mr. David Borrow: I referred on Second Reading to the criminalisation of young gay men under the age of consent. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and I tabled an amendment on that in Committee. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for having thought about the issue and introduced a new clause on it.
      I welcome the new clause, but, as my hon. Friend has said, it still leaves many anomalies. I recognise that they cannot all be dealt with in the Bill, but I should like some clarification on the speed with which the review will take place and how quickly some of the issues can be dealt with. Some relevant issues are raised in other amendments that we shall come to. The speed with which they are dealt with by the review will have a bearing on how I vote this afternoon.
      Dr. Harris: I share the pleasure of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) that the Government have accepted the principle of the amendment that we tabled in Committee and brought it forward in legally watertight terms that they can support with all their might on a free vote.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has urged me to be gracious in victory. It is against my nature in my early career in this place to be gracious and it appears to be against the nature of the Liberal Democrats in Parliament to be victorious. This is not a party political issue, but I pay tribute to the Minister for his willingness to take it on.

      763
      The Minister emphasised the need to protect younger people. I hope that the new clause is also motivated by the desire to end discrimination against gay people—in this case those under 16. From the late 19th century, there has been no equivalent offence of unlawful sexual intercourse for girls under 16 and they cannot even be charged through the Tyrell case law with aiding and abetting. The Minister did not mention the fact that the new clause gets rid of discrimination against homosexuals in criminal law, but I hope that that was part of the reason why the Government brought it forward. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred obliquely to that, while claiming credit—which is in some part due—for supporting the proposal that the hon. Member for South Ribble and I made in Committee.
      The new clause has other significant implications that have not yet been mentioned. Today was the first time that I have understood—let alone seen the point of—an intervention by the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who pointed out with the perspicacity that only he can muster that, if there were a statutory defence, two 16-year-olds could argue that each thought that the other was over 16, resulting in both of them getting off the charge, because the new clause decriminalises the younger party involved in an act with an older party. For reasons that the Minister made clear in Committee—probably in response to another point by the hon. Member for New Forest, West—it does not decriminalise behaviour between two people under 16, because that would effectively lower the age of consent for homosexual acts below 16. We can be clear that new clause 4 does not lower the age of consent in those cases. As there is no such statutory defence in reverse, the hon. Member for New Forest, West can be reassured, in his terms, that that defence does not exist and that, in certain circumstances, there will be the continued prosecution of consensual offences where, because of the Government's attitude to new clause 2, a genuine mistake has been made as to age in a matter involving an older man and a male under 16.
      Although the proposal makes progress, the law in this area is still not the same for heterosexuals and homosexuals. I believe that the law should be made identical, as far as anatomy allows, because we are considering the equality of people's interests. I know that views have been expressed by independent bodies that there should be equal consideration before the law, and I will refer to that in a moment.
      New clause 4 has another significant implication, to which the Minister drew attention—there will no longer be a deterrent for males under 16 to report age of consent offences. Members on both sides of the House will recognise how important it is that, where clearly exploitative offences have taken place, there should be no deterrent for the victim, such as that, person's criminalisation, to prevent him—as it does not prevent her, in cases involving women—from bringing those offences to the attention of the authorities.
      If there is not the same defence in law for young male heterosexuals and homosexuals—as proposed by new clause 2, and by its predecessor amendment—significant dangers will be created by the Government's correct action in new clause 4. It is important to recognise that the Government, in proposing new clause 4, have gone
      764
      beyond merely bringing forward the decision on the age of consent on a free vote, to which they were committed by the settlement made following the Sutherland case at the European Court of Human Rights.
      The Minister will be aware that the Commission, in its early judgment, made it clear that the criminalisation of under-16-year-olds could mean that the Government find themselves outside the European convention on human rights because the offence that criminalises the person under 16 is also that which makes him a victim.
      The Government are going no further than they are forced to do by the European convention on human rights, by the Sutherland judgment. In their terminology—they say that the measure is designed for the protection of the young, but not that it equalises what is currently discriminatory—the Government are being less than fulsome in their commitment to ending discrimination wherever it exists. The Government's attitude to new clause 2 shows that they have drawn a line—the Minister has consistently disappointed me in this regard—and said that they will go no further than they are forced to by the European convention on human rights.
      When the hon. Member for Hertsmere can argue as he just has—from the Conservative Front Bench, although not for the Conservatives because the issue will be decided on a free vote—one must ask what is stopping the Government making the change now, subject to the review. As the hon. Gentleman made clear—and as I made clear earlier—the Government have made provision for a statutory defence in clauses 2 to 4, dealing with the abuse of trust and the creation of that new offence.
      In Committee, we understood that sentencing provisions and other provisions relating to the new offence concerning abuse of trust would be considered in the review, along with everything else. Merely stating that such a review is to be conducted does not mean that the Government could not propose legislation on matters touched on by new clause 2. In terms of new clause 2, I wish to thank its supporters from all parties—particularly the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), who, at short notice, had the matter drawn to her attention and signed early-day motion 319, along with many other hon. Members who support the principle contained in it.
      The original new clause in all its glory, which we discussed in Committee, had the age limit and the "two strikes and you're out" provision, making it applicable only to people not previously charged with a like offence, and was almost entirely identical to the current provisions for heterosexuals. Although we had a free vote, that new clause was defeated in Committee by a phalanx of Government Back Benchers voting against a move to end discrimination. I do not believe that there was good reason for that, and that is why I was keen to table more new clauses that could, in principle, be voted on.
      5 pm
      I wonder whether Labour Members believe that there should be a vote, even though we may lose it, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere has said that, because the new clause is not the original one that we discussed in Committee, he may not support it. The Bill will be considered by the other place, and the Lords will have an opportunity to say that there should be equality in the statutory defence.

      765
      The Government's undertaking to take the matter to a review is insufficient to make me drop the campaign for equality. New clause 4 creates dangers of blackmail and of differential prosecution, conviction and imprisonment for young gay men as against heterosexuals. There is a danger of blackmail for homosexuals, whether for consensual sex above the age of consent or for sex below that age—it will now be 16—which is, rightly, in itself a criminal offence unless there is a defence that is acceptable to the court.
      We know from the history of homosexuality and its interaction with the criminal law in this country that there has been much discrimination and blackmail and that lives have been ruined but, at present, a protection exists for young gay men against mischievous or malicious reporting of consensual sex, entrapment and blackmail, because mischievous or malicious persons, who may be young persons acting at the behest of older persons, are constrained from going to the law when they have misled an older person about their age and engaged in sexual activity because they would be committing an offence and be liable to prosecution. Such activity need not be buggery, as gross indecency covers a range of activities that in heterosexual settings are often not thought to be especially sexual but that the police have brought prosecutions on because a policeman considered them grossly indecent between two men.
      The Government are right to remove that offence, but the field is being left open for pimps to use the young people whom they exploit to entrap older people, not necessarily to the point of prosecution, but to the point of blackmail. People may swear that they are above 16 or 18. Indeed, by entering certain clubs or bars they imply that they are over 18 or 21, so they have already misled the proprietors and staff. The proprietor is liable, and therefore must deem anyone in the premises to be above the legal drinking age. There is no defence for the older person in that circumstance of being misled or entrapped, and there is no defence against blackmail.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: The hon. Gentleman makes some thoughtful points about the dangers of blackmail. I put it to him that a countervailing aspect of new clause 2 is that, by decriminalising the offence for the younger party, the hon. Gentleman removes the ability of the younger man to say to the older man, who is urging him into a homosexual relationship, "I mustn't do that, because it is against the law." Is the hon. Gentleman concerned about that aspect?
      Dr. Harris: That is a separate point from the one that I wished to make, and the hon. Gentleman might care to ask the Minister to comment. I reiterate that I support new clause 2, because I tabled an amendment along similar lines in Committee. It is of paramount importance to protect the young from any question of committing an offence. Criminalising the victim as a way of preventing him from being victimised is a unique concept, if not in the hon. Gentleman's mind then certainly in British law. The European Commission of Human Rights pointed out that the criminalisation of the young person is inappropriate, whether it is in order to try to deter a criminal from victimising that younger person or because the act in question is viewed as an abomination, which is the origin of the law.
      766
      Without new clause 2, homosexuals would not have a defence that they were misled about the age of the younger person, but heterosexuals would. Young females do not generally blackmail their older partners in cases in which they have reasonable cause to believe that the older person is above the age of consent and can prove that to a jury. The hon. Member for Hertsmere believes that the age of consent will soon be equal—although he does not support equalisation himself—and he called for more prosecutions. He drew attention to what he believed was a fall in the number of prosecutions for age of consent offences and said that he believed that that was related to the lowering of the age of consent for homosexuals in 1994. There is no evidence to support that conclusion but, fortunately, there have been few prosecutions for consenting sex with a person aged under 16 if it does not involve explicit abuse or exploitation. The Minister said that he was sympathetic to the argument that there had been too few prosecutions. If we are to have more prosecutions, but no statutory defence is available to the hundreds of young gay men who might be brought before the courts after a clampdown and more raids on gay venues—where people pretend to be above the age of 16, and 18—the Bill will mean that many more gay men are prosecuted than heterosexual men. By definition, there will also be more convictions because, once the facts about the ages and the act are established, homosexuals will have no defence, except in Scotland. Therefore, new clause 2 should be welcomed, because it will protect young people and end discrimination. If it is not included in the Bill, we will see increased and discriminatory prosecution, conviction and imprisonment of young gay men compared to young heterosexual men.
      If it is acceptable for heterosexuals to have that defence, and acceptable for homosexuals in Scotland—the Government seem to think it acceptable to allow a broader defence in cases of abuse of trust, in circumstances in which it could be argued that the defence should be narrower—why cannot the Minister accept new clause 2? It is not too late, because the Bill could be amended in the other place to give protection, until the review reports, to homosexuals, as exists for heterosexuals, who have been misled about the age of their partners. That would offer protection against blackmail. The onus is on the Government to show why they will not accept such a change to the Bill. Whenever the Government are pressed on a matter that they feel may have some validity but about which they consider that it would not be politically expedient to pronounce, they set up a review without a commitment to legislation. They say that any suggestions for legislation should go into that review. The problem with the review is that the outcome is out of the Government's control; if legislation is introduced, it may be under a different Government with a different view. The general case is that putting a matter to review is not an excuse not to legislate, especially when the discrimination involved has existed for more than 100 years.
      The review is welcome. It was announced during consideration of the Crime and Disorder Bill, in response to my suggestions and those from hon. Members of all parties, when an amendment was tabled to tackle the discriminatory privacy provision. At the Dispatch Box, the Minister's predecessor, now the Secretary of State for Wales, said that a review would be needed to deal with all the issues.
      However, there is no timetable for when the review must report to the Government, nor for when the Government will introduce legislation. We have heard

      767
      that the review will take a year, and that it will involve the widest possible consultation, which is envisaged to last at least a year. Even if the Government last the maximum five years, we will then be running up to the next general election.
      Therefore, I think that the Minister will concede that he envisages no chance of legislation before the next election. I do not doubt the review's ability to come up with non-discriminatory measures, but I have set out why I believe that the Government will not introduce legislation where there is a clear danger that it will worsen the problem of blackmail.
      My second concern about the review is that the Minister does not accept that there is gross discrimination in the existing law. I have listened attentively to his contributions, both on the Floor and in Committee. He has said that there are undoubted anomalies and inconsistencies in the law, and that they relate to the area between heterosexuals and homosexuals. However, he has not said that there is discrimination in the law, other than in one small area. Yet that discrimination exists, in sentencing, statutory defence, and other matters.
      Will the review be independent? The review of the abuse of trust provisions contained an interesting paragraph. As I recall, it stated that the review group was minded not to include a particular group in the provisions, but that, after discussions with Ministers, it was recommending that group's inclusion. To me, that seems to mean that Ministers told the Home Office review group that they must recommend that inclusion in the provisions, which I believe had to do with educational institutions.
      If this current review group is similar, what is to prevent Ministers from saying that it is not independent in terms of what it can produce? The Government will not want it to make recommendations that they do not find politically expedient. There are no votes in the reform of sexual offences law, and certainly not in measures to eradicate discrimination. That is in part why the words of the hon. Member for Hertsmere were so welcome.
      My final concern about the review, as an excuse for not legislating on this matter, is that there is nothing to stop the Minister putting any of the provisions in the Bill forward for consideration. He has said already that sentencing provisions—discussed in Committee and to be discussed again today—and other matters will be subject to the review, even though there has already been a wide review of sexual offences and measures covering registers of sexual offenders for legislation that has been introduced to date.
      There is nothing to stop the Minister accepting an amendment such as new clause 2—or the similar but better-worded amendment that I tabled in Committee, with such changes as the Minister considers appropriate—and then putting in into the review. When he responds to the debate, he cannot rely on the review to excuse him from the need to act against the discrimination that exists in the law, or against the danger of blackmail, which is present already and which would be made worse by the provisions of new clause 4. If a suitable case can be found, the European Court of Human Rights will find—yet again—against a United Kingdom Government. I should like the Government to be proactive on homosexual rights and in seeking an end to discrimination, without waiting for the European Court of Human Rights to force action.
      768
      5.15 pm
      It is vital that the Government should accept that the current law is discriminatory. They made a manifesto commitment to tackle unjustified discrimination wherever it existed. It clearly exists in the criminal law relating to homosexuals. The Government must accept that the law is already discriminatory, and must allow the review fully to end discrimination through its recommendations, without any interference from Ministers. I hope that the Minister will give me that assurance today.
      The Minister wants a climate in which there is less tolerance of age-of-consent offences—a wish that is widely shared in the House. However, until there is equality in terms of statutory defences, then a tightening of the law and an increase in prosecutions will mean differential prosecution, conviction and imprisonment of homosexuals. We would be back to where we were before 1967. I commend new clause 2 to the House, and I urge the Minister to respond positively to my points, and to give a commitment that we will not go down the path towards blackmail and discrimination.
      Mr. Swayne: I acknowledge that the Minister believes that there are overwhelming reasons why we should accept new clause 4. However, I suspect, as I have suspected for some time, that I live on a different planet from the Minister. I believe that there are overwhelming reasons why new clause 4 should be rejected.
      First, it provides every incentive for the active homosexual under the age of 16 to ensure that he avoids any difficulty over the age of consent by selecting as his partner someone who is over 16. It is a monstrous absurdity that someone under 16 should not commit an offence by having consenting sexual relations with another homosexual who is over 16, while someone who selects as his partner someone more equal in age should indeed commit that offence. That offends against any concept of justice.
      I am not reassured, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) suggested that I should be, about the age of consent. The age of consent is being abolished by the Bill. There is no age of consent for the young man under 16 so long as he acquires partners who are over 16.
      Mr. Richard Allan: Has the hon. Gentleman had any experience of young girls of 15 who go out to seek older partners? They are in exactly the same situation under the current law regarding unlawful sexual intercourse.
      Mr. Swayne: I shall answer that point. It is my estimate that it is in the nature of women to seek older men. It has always been the case in sexual relationships that younger women tend to marry and to seek older men. The answer I should make to both the hon. Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon is that the two matters are not at all the same thing. There should be no equality between a normal sexual relationship and an unnatural sexual relationship.
      The argument that we should accept new clauses 4, 2 and 3 because they provide an equality between the law applying to heterosexual and homosexual relationships is,

      769
      as far as I am concerned, an argument for rejecting the new clauses. It is important to maintain within the law a proper discrimination between the two.
      Dr. Harris: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman is in difficulties. His pronouncement on the sexual preferences of young girls is interesting and I give way to his, perhaps, superior knowledge—he may have researched it. If he thinks that the distinction is one based on unnatural acts, would he criminalise 15-year-old girls if, as part of unlawful sexual intercourse, they engaged in buggery? Perhaps he would. Therefore, he would not restrict the provision to boys—[Interruption] I think that the Minister says that I am encouraging him—but wants to expand it. He is in a weak position.
      Mr. Swayne: I will not go down that road because it strikes me as being out of order. I have not researched such matters. My comment was merely an observation of life. That issue is not relevant to the debate, but equality before the law is. The two situations should not be treated equally.
      On the blackmailer's charter, I have here a copy of The Pink Paper dated 19 February, which quotes the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon. It states:
      "He told Pink Paper: 'A young man who wanted to get the better of, say, a teacher or social worker could engage in a sexual act in the knowledge that he is immune from prosecution … Then there would be nothing to stop him reporting it to the police.'"
      I do not know what sort of circles the hon. Gentleman mixes in, but it is absurd to think that teachers and social workers would be game for such a device. We have not descended to that level yet, thankfully. The principle of the point is sound. New clause 4 would provide every incentive for opportunities for blackmail. Consequently, the simple remedy is to reject it.
      The Chairman of Ways and Means was wise in his selection of amendments and, in particular, in grouping new clause 4 with new clauses 2 and 3. Those clauses taken together show the absurdity and enormity of the Bill. In new clause 4, we are expected to accept that a young man under the age of 16 having consensual homosexual relations with someone over the age of 16 has the defence that he was under age. The person over that age would have no defence on the ground that he did not know his partner's age. It would give rise to the equally absurd situation that a young man who stands to be prosecuted under the age of 16—namely, the consenting partner of another young man under 16—has no defence on the ground that he did not know that his partner was under 16. He cannot say that he suspected that his partner was over 16 and therefore he would not have committed an offence.
      If a defence should be provided—as under new clauses 2 and 3—to the unfortunate who finds that, although he suspected his partner to be over 16, he is not, equally, such a defence should be provided to the under 16-year-old who thought that he was in bed with another under 16-year-old. The mere relation of those facts underlines the absurdity and the unnatural nature of the new clauses. Consequently, I urge the House to reject them.
      Mr. Allan: Again, there will be a free vote on this issue on the Liberal Democrat Benches, although the majority
      770
      of Liberal Democrats support the general thrust of the Bill, which will increase protection for young people in some circumstances by decriminalising them.
      As I told the Minister, I have an interest in the review of sexual offences, both in respect of the issues that we are discussing and others. Perhaps he could answer some specific questions. First, has he an idea of the timetable that the Government have in mind for introducing legislation? I understand that there are no commitments, but an idea might be helpful. Secondly, will he categorically confirm that statutory defences in age-of-consent offences will be considered in the review? Thirdly, is the Government's approach, if not on the philosophical ground of equality at least on the rational ground of justice, to seek to equalise statute offences? Can he see any reason why the statutory defences should not be the same across the range of offences, irrespective of sexuality? Some response to those points would help me and my colleagues.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: I am disappointed that, in the course of his lengthy remarks, the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) did not find time to address the point that I put to him. I shall take his advice to heart because I am an open-minded chap and can occasionally even learn something from a Liberal Democrat. I urge the Minister to address that point. Does he accept that these provisions would take away from a young man under the age of 16 who wished to protect himself from the approaches of a persuasive older homosexual male the ability to say, "No, I must not do this because it is illegal"? Would that not diminish the protection of boys under 16?
      Dr. Harris: To wind up, I want to respond to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). His logic calls for the criminalisation of 14 and 15-year-old girls because criminalising them would make them more able to resist advances. A civilised criminal justice system should not work that way. We should not criminalise victims to add to their protection.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was intervening on the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis). He cannot wind up on a new clause that is not before the House.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) made an important point, but one that must be seen in the balance. He argues that a young person under the age of 16 will be deprived of a means of resisting a predatory male if that young person cannot say that he will be subject to the criminal law. However, there is a powerful argument that, if the young person is subject to the criminal law, he will not go to the authorities. A balance has to be struck, and, while I understand my hon. Friend, I am not in favour of exposing the young person to the full rigour of the criminal law for the reason that I gave. On the broader question, I am against the Bill. That said, we have it in front of us and are in the business of trying to make it as good as possible. I hope that he will pardon me if I disagree with him on that point.
      5.30 pm
      Mr. Boateng: We have had a good debate in which the issues have been given the airing that one would expect bearing in mind the way in which these proceedings have been conducted both on the Floor and upstairs.
      In response to the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis), let me say that I have been through the same sort of exercise as the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). A balance must be struck. We believe that children and young people are better protected if they are freed from the fear of prosecution if they come forward, having been the victim of a predatory male. It is for the House to determine on a free vote its attitude to the new clause.
      I listened at considerable length—as did the whole House, perforce—to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I fear he misunderstands the basis on which new clause 4 has been tabled and the distinction between the nature of new clause 4 and that of new clauses 2 and 3. New clause 4 has been tabled as a Government measure designed better to further and protect the interests of children; it is not designed to promote equality before the law. I hope that I have made it abundantly clear to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the issue of equality before the law is limited in respect of the Bill. We introduced the Bill to achieve equality before the law in relation to the age of consent, and the age of consent alone.
      There are a range of other matters on which right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have a view. That view will be rooted in their consciences, and their approach to the personal and delicate issues relating to sexual relations. People arrive at different views, depending on their approach, and we are not prescriptive as to what that view should be. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has a clear view that he has expressed throughout proceedings on the Bill, and every amendment and new clause that he has tabled, whether in Committee or on the Floor of the House, is designed to promote that view.
      We as a Government are absolutely committed both to the equalisation of the age of consent and to giving the House an opportunity to determine that matter. I have made my personal view well known, as has my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary: we support the equalisation of the age of consent and do so on the basis of equality before the law, a principle to which I adhere. However, we do not approach the Bill on any basis other than the commitment to the achievement of two separate objectives: the vote on the equalisation of the age of consent, and the measure that we introduce for consideration by the House dealing with the entirely separate issue of abuse of trust.
      In respect of the latter measure, I have to tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that there is a crucial difference between the defence for abuse of trust and the defence for homosexual acts and buggery. In relation to abuse of trust, the older individual is expected to know the age of the person who lies in his trust. In exceptional circumstances, he might not know the age of that individual—for example, if he were a teacher in a further education college which taught students of a broad
      772
      age range, and he had had no contact with the student hitherto, it is conceivable that he might not know the age of that student.
      Mr. Clappison rose—
      Mr. Boateng: Let me finish the point. It is our view that, in those circumstances and whatever the age of the older party—older age does not necessarily bring with it a knowledge of the age of the younger party—it would be wrong for him not to have that defence available. He has to make use of that defence and to bring himself within it, but we think it right that the defence should be available to such individuals, regardless of their age, that, in certain circumstances, the older individual would not be expected to know the age of the younger. That is the distinction, so I do not accept that we have got ourselves into the sort of difficulty that the hon. Gentleman describes—
      Mr. Clappison: Will the Minister give way?
      Mr. Boateng: No, the hon. Gentleman has made his point and I intend to wind up the debate.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: I am enjoying it.
      Mr. Boateng: I am glad. I have not finished yet, so the hon. Gentleman may enjoy it some more.
      In those circumstances, I do not believe that we have misdirected ourselves in relation to that defence. As to new clauses 2 and 3—which the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon urged us to accept—there is no limit to those under 25 for the first charge in England and Wales. It is a general defence, and the provisions are very wide and would make prosecution substantially more difficult. That is why we are unable to accept it. The hon. Member for Hertsmere found new clause 3 acceptable in the context of Northern Ireland. That is a matter for him, and hon. Members will make up their own minds. The reasons that we have given for opposing new clauses 2 and 3 stand.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon urged upon us the point about equality. The review will take account of several factors, including that issue. We have deliberately constructed a review process that is about expertise and a range of experiences and views—some of which are disparate. We have done that because we do not wish to circumscribe the basis upon which the review body approaches its task. It will perform its task within the year and produce proposals. It is right that those proposals should be subject to wide debate and discussion—we make absolutely no apology for that.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon has latched on to the notion that this is somehow an attempt by the Government to kick the issue into the long grass. That could not be further from the truth. Does he seriously expect us to conduct a rational debate about sexual offences issues—involving deeply personal and sensitive topics, including matters of conscience—without allowing proper, open consultation? That would be quite wrong, and we do not intend to go down that path. I am unable to give the hon. Gentleman, or the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), any assurances about the outcome, save to say that we have made it clear that the

      773
      review must take into account the need to comply with the European convention on human rights and our treaty obligations thereunder. That will inform the outcome of the review's deliberations, the wider debate and, in due course, the House.
      Dr. Harris rose—
      Mr. Boateng: I will not give way: the hon. Gentleman has had more than enough time to explore his points. [HON. MEMBERS: "Far too much."] The hon. Gentleman has added enormously to the gaiety of nations, but I do not intend to allow him any more time to speak on this issue.
      As for the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), there must be something in the water. I struggled with his contribution, but I was not persuaded by it. There will be a free vote in the House on this matter, and I hope that hon. Members will agree to new clause 4 and oppose new clauses 2 and 3. In light of my remarks, I hope that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon will not push the matter to a vote.
      Dr. Harris rose—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the Minister giving way?
      Mr. Boateng: I have finished.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 64.

      Division No. 78]

      [5.39 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Caplin, Ivor

      Allen, Graham

      Casale, Roger

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Caton, Martin

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Cawsey, Ian

      Ashton, Joe

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clappison, James

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Baker, Norman

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Ballard, Jackie

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Barnes, Harry

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Barron, Kevin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beard, Nigel

      Cohen, Harry

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Coleman, Iain

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Colman, Tony

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cooper, Yvette

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony

      Corbett, Robin

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Benton, Joe

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Berry, Roger

      Cousins, Jim

      Best, Harold

      Cox, Tom

      Betts, Clive

      Crausby, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Boateng, Paul

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Borrow, David

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Brake, Tom

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Dafis, Cynog

      Burstow, Paul

      Dalyell, Tam

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Darvill, Keith

      Caborn, Richard

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Campbell-Savours, Dale

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Canavan, Dennis

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      774

      Dismore, Andrew

      Levitt, Tom

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Linton, Martin

      Doran, Frank

      Livingstone, Ken

      Dowd, Jim

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Lock, David

      Ennis, Jeff

      Love, Andrew

      Etherington, Bill

      McAllion, John

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fatchett, Rt Hon Derek

      McCabe, Steve

      Fearn, Ronnie

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

      Fisher, Mark

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      McDonnell, John

      Follett, Barbara

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Foulkes, George

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Fyfe, Maria

      McLeish, Henry

      Galloway, George

      McNulty, Tony

      Gapes, Mike

      MacShane, Denis

      Gardiner, Barry

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Gerrard, Neil

      McWilliam, John

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Godsiff, Roger

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Goggins, Paul

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Maxton, John

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Meale, Alan

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Grogan, John

      Miller, Andrew

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hanson, David

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Mountford, Kali

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Mullin, Chris

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Oaten, Mark

      Heppell, John

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hill, Keith

      Olner, Bill

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Pearson, Ian

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Pendry, Tom

      Hope, Phil

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pickthall, Colin

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Pike, Peter L

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Plaskitt, James

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Pond, Chris

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Pope, Greg

      Hurst, Alan

      Pound, Stephen

      Hutton, John

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Illsley, Eric

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jamieson, David

      Purchase, Ken

      Jenkins, Brian

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Rapson, Syd

      Raynsford, Nick

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Rendel, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Rogers, Allan

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Rooker, Jeff

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Rooney, Terry

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Rowlands, Ted

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Roy, Frank

      Kelly, Ms Ruth

      Ruane, Chris

      Kidney, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Salter, Martin

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Laxton, Bob

      Sawford, Phil

      Leslie, Christopher

      Sedgemore, Brian

      775

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Timms, Stephen

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Singh, Marsha

      Touhig, Don

      Skinner, Dennis

      Trickett, Jon

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Tyler, Paul

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

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

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      Wareing, Robert N

      Spellar, John

      Watts, David

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      White, Brian

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stevenson, George

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Willis, Phil

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Wills, Michael

      Stringer, Graham

      Winnick, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Wood, Mike

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Woolas, Phil

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Temple-Morris, Peter

      Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Lidington, David

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bercow, John

      Loughton, Tim

      Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Brazier, Julian

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Butterfill, John

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Cann, Jamie

      Moss, Malcolm

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Page, Richard

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Randall, John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Cran, James

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Rogers, Allan

      Day, Stephen

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Evans, Nigel

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Faber, David

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Forth, Rt Hon Eric

      Syms, Robert

      Fraser, Christopher

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Garnier, Edward

      Tredinnick, David

      Gill, Christopher

      Trend, Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Viggers, Peter

      Gorman, Mrs Teresa

      Waterson, Nigel

      Greenway, John

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Grieve, Dominic

      Wilkinson, John

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Hammond, Philip

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Young, Rt Hon Sir George

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Desmond Swayne and Dr. Julian Lewis.

      Lansley, Andrew

      Letwin, Oliver

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your advice about access to the Palace of Westminster, given the new arrangements with the Bridge street underpass. When the Division
      776
      was called, I was in my office in Norman Shaw North, as were many other hon. Members. We sought to get here in plenty of time for the Division. We tried to cross the road by the traffic lights, which is the quickest route. I understand that, traditionally, we are supposed to be allowed to access the Palace "without let or hindrance", but we had to wait a considerable time for the lights to change. Had we accessed the Palace elsewhere, that old-fashioned courtesy would have been extended to us. I should be grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, if you would look into the matter not only on my behalf, but on behalf of other hon. Members whose offices are far afield.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I shall instruct the authorities of the House to look into the matter, before another Division is called.
      Mr. Allan Rogers: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It really is difficult to cross Bridge street if one does not catch the lights. It is all right for certain hon. Members to say that there is no problem, but it is purely a matter of coincidence and the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) is quite right.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Hon. Members should have access from other parts of the parliamentary estate to get to Divisions unimpeded. The matter will be looked into. It may be worth noting that I used my discretion and allowed an extra minute before the Doors were closed because it was the first Division of the evening.

    Clause 2

      ABUSE OF POSITION OF TRUST
      Mr. Boateng: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 31, leave out 'two' and insert 'five'.
      The amendment would raise the maximum penalty for the new offence of abuse of trust from two to five years. It has been tabled by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State, the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and the hon. Member who deputises for the Opposition on these matters, the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), so it enjoys the support of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. The amendment follows a detailed discussion in Committee on a similar amendment. We undertook to consider the position further in the light of the cogent arguments made then.
      Hon. Members will recall that, on Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) made two persuasive interventions to raise the issue of penalties. It is right that his name should be mentioned in relation to this amendment.
      We have looked at the amendment tabled in Committee and agree with the views that hon. Members expressed then that the amendment should be made. It may be helpful to explain briefly why we feel that that is so. First, we agree that analogy with the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl between the ages of 13 and 15 is flawed. My view, for what it is worth, is that the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse is too low. I know that a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House share that view. The Opposition spokesman on these matters certainly does.

      777
      As we said in Committee, we expect the penalty for unlawful sexual intercourse to be sorted out as part of the sexual offences review. However, as we believe that it is too low, we accept that it should not determine the level of penalty for the new offence. Given that we are considering a new offence, it is right to take this opportunity to set that penalty at an appropriate level. We must not be unduly influenced by the inappropriate level of penalty that applies in relation to unlawful sexual intercourse. Thus, we are considering the matter on its merits rather than on the basis of an analogy with what we regard to be a flawed penalty.
      There is merit in a maximum penalty of five years for the new offence of abuse of trust. We believe that there could be cases, even of 16 or 17-year-olds with ostensibly consensual sexual relations, where a penalty of five years could be properly justified. For example, if someone in a position of trust in a detention setting had sex with a 16-year-old detainee, that would be a very serious offence, which would merit a maximum penalty of five years.
      It is important for hon. Members to remember that we are discussing a maximum penalty, which would be used only rarely. Nevertheless, it is right that the courts should have it at their disposal to deal with the most serious cases of abuse. I hope that that argument will commend itself to right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House.
      6 pm
      It is important to view the circumstances where abuses of trust might stretch across a spectrum. At one end, there are circumstances—to which I have referred—where someone is held in detention and the maximum penalty might be appropriate. At the other, it is difficult to agree that, for example, teachers would merit such a penalty for consensual relations with a 16 or 17-year-old student where the teacher was, say, 23. In that instance, the lower end of the spectrum might be the most appropriate.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman talks about the spectrum in which abuse of trust can take place. I wonder whether he could tell the House—I do not know the answer; he may have given it in the past—why the Government have decided not to extend the penalties and obligations that flow from the clause to those who are in loco parentis within the context of the domestic home?
      Mr. Boateng: We have discussed that issue on the Floor of the House and Upstairs. I shared then with the House, and am happy to share now, the principles on which we arrived at our decisions in relation to abuse of trust. The most relevant one in terms of the situation that the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes is the availability of countervailing adult influences. Even though an au pair, for example, might be in a position where she could exercise undue influence due to a position of trust within the household, other adult influences would be brought to bear on the life of the young person that would countervail against the influence of the au pair who found herself in loco parentis.
      Mr. Clappison rose—
      Mr. Boateng: That would be the principle there.
      Where the line had to be drawn, and it is a matter of judgment in that domestic setting—a private home—it was properly drawn in such a way as to exclude the
      778
      person acting as a nanny or an au pair, but the maximum penalty needs to reflect the requirement for sentences to express society' s condemnation of the most serious cases within that broad spectrum. It needs to be seen as a maximum, not as the norm. For those reasons, we share the view of members on both sides of the Committee who put forward, and supported, the proposition that we should seek a higher maximum penalty.
      For that reason, we hope that the House will accept without Division the proposed increase in the maximum penalty from two to five years.
      Mr. Clappison: It would be churlish of me not to welcome the Minister's contribution. One of our amendments in Committee first proposed the increase in the maximum sentence for breach of trust from two years to five years. We thought then that we supported it with a strong and persuasive argument. We followed that up by tabling the amendment for Report.
      We are pleased that the Home Secretary has added his name to our amendment because we think that it does much to improve the Bill. Certainly, it is a Bill that could be much improved, and in other respects besides the maximum penalty.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) made an acute point in his intervention on the Minister about the extent of the coverage of the concept of the position of trust. We are far from convinced by the doctrine that the Minister has put forward this evening and the others that he has put forward, which are slightly different, in trying to justify the Government's view of the position of trust.
      The Minister referred to the availability of countervailing adult influences as the reason why the Government fixed the line for the position of trust where they did, but, if they really believed in that doctrine, they would have taken many teachers out of the ambit of the clause because, when a child is at school, there are many countervailing influences besides the teachers: other teachers, parents, other adults whom the children will know—
      Mr. Boateng rose—
      Mr. Clappison: I shall give way to the Minister—although he did not do me the courtesy of giving way to me earlier—because I know that the Government's proposal has no justification at all.
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman is most kind, but he knows that there are four principles, to which we have returned again and again: the individual is particularly vulnerable; the location makes the individual particularly vulnerable; the lack of access to other adults and the absence of countervailing influence—that was the one to which I referred the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—and the special influence of an adult where the relationship is in loco parentis.
      What is so significant about a teacher's role—one does not want to labour the point—is that a teacher is specifically in loco parentis. That stands at the heart of the relationship between a teacher and a pupil. In due course, we shall come to the issue of part-time teachers,

      779
      but there the other prevailing principle comes into play: the existence of a countervailing influence because of the part-time nature of the teacher 's employment.
      Mr. Clappison: The longer the Minister's intervention went on—it went on for a little while—the more confused he became. He has clearly shifted his ground from the original point that he made to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, when he referred to the absence of countervailing influences. My right hon. and learned Friend raised the question of in loco parentis. The Minister then said that the key principle is the absence of countervailing adult influences, but when I put the point to the Minister that, in the case of teachers, there were other influences, he returned to in loco parentis, so the Minister uses a bit of a circular argument.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton rose—
      Mr. Clappison: Before I give way to my hon. Friend, so that the House understands the argument that we are advancing, let me say that we feel strongly that protection should be given where it is needed. The concept of a position of trust should run much wider than the Government have allowed it to run in the Bill.
      Mrs. Winterton: While supporting what my hon. Friend has said, may I refer to the intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the explanation of not using in loco parentis? May I give the example that is frequently heard about: the uncle, cousin or member of the family who abuses a child? The child does not tell because that person is a member of the family, yet such an offence would not be caught by the Bill. That is an important point. There are known cases—we all know about them. It is disturbing.
      Mr. Clappison: My hon. Friend makes an absolutely correct point. Some people in a higher position of trust may be outside the scope of the Bill, compared with some people who are inside it. Detailed examination of the Bill has revealed example after example of potential loopholes and inconsistencies not just as between people who fulfil one of the four conditions in the Bill and people in entirely different sectors, but people within the conditions in some ways. We heard from the Minister in Committee that, for some purposes, in some circumstances, supply teachers would not be caught by the Bill.
      Mr. Boateng indicated dissent.
      Mr. Clappison: The Minister shakes his head, but he is on record in the Hansard of the Committee proceedings as saying that, in some circumstances, supply teachers would not be caught by the Bill. However, in the amendment, which originally came from Conservative Members, we are dealing with an increase in the maximum sentence. On that, we agree with what the Minister says.
      We made those arguments first. I welcome the Minister's acceptance of the argument that we advanced in Committee that the maximum sentence for such an
      780
      offence should be judged on its merits, not by reference to other sentences that were perhaps not entirely applicable, particularly the one on unlawful sexual intercourse, which I note the Minister now accepts is too low a maximum sentence, in his personal view. [Interruption.] Well, the Minister expressed his personal view earlier that the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse was too low. I think that he expressed something similar in Committee and in correspondence. We have been making our case on that for some considerable time, not least in view of the fact that the maximum sentence for indecent assault is now 10 years.
      We advanced the same argument during the passage of the Bill that became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. It is a shame that the Government did not accept the amendment that we tabled then, which proposed the increasing of the maximum sentence for unlawful sexual intercourse. If they had accepted it, we should not be in our present anomalous position. In any event, we feel that five years is more appropriate than the two-year maximum that the Government envisaged before hearing our arguments.
      I agree with the Minister that the fact that we have asked for a higher maximum—and the Government now accept that there should be one—does not mean that such a sentence should be imposed in every case of a breach of trust, in which an older person in a position of trust engages in sexual activity with a 16 or 17-year-old. We are talking about a maximum. That maximum, however, must cater for every type of case, including the very worst type.
      The Minister cited circumstances in which a maximum sentence of five years, or approaching that length, would be appropriate, but there may well be many others. There may be many cases involving older men, perhaps in their 30s or 40s, who are in a position of substantial authority over younger people. Such a man might lead a youngster into sexual experiences—sexual experimentation—for his own gratification, with no regard for the welfare of the youngster, and possibly with permanent consequences for that youngster. There will be such cases, in which people are convicted of such offences in such circumstances, and, when those circumstances apply and when there is a gross breach of trust with permanent consequences for the youngster involved, a much longer sentence than two years is called for. That was manifestly too low a starting point.
      We think that the proposed sentence represents a victory for common sense, and hope that it will continue to be regarded as the maximum, even when the review of sexual offences in general takes place. A five-year maximum will give stronger protection to vulnerable 16 and 17-year-olds, and, as I said at the outset, it would be churlish of us not to welcome the fact that the Government have now accepted our arguments.
      Mr. Allan: We will not oppose the change. The Minister gave welcome assurances in describing the broad spectrum of possible sentences, and, in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), the Home Secretary wrote:
      "I must stress that this would be a maximum penalty for use in the most extreme cases but we accept there could be rare circumstances where it could be justified."

      781
      We can envisage those circumstances. The Minister referred to detention centres, but we are also thinking of residential institutions, especially institutions for those with disabilities, in which such a maximum sentence could be justified.
      I was pleased to hear the Minister revert to Latin in describing "in loco parentis" as an important concept. In Committee, when I expressed concern about the definition of in loco parentis in regard to the offences that we are discussing, I was told off for being old fashioned: the Government were trying to move forward and establish clear definitions, suggesting, for instance, the definition of a person
      "regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of such persons"
      as a pithy replacement for "in loco parentis".
      Our main wish is to establish that there is a difference between consensual and non-consensual offences. I hope that, when he sums up the debate, the Minister will mention indecent assault, and will tell us that the review of sexual offences will examine the way in which the prosecuting authorities deal with non-consensual offences such as indecent assault, as opposed to the offences introduced by the Bill. We feel that, in some of the circumstances that we are discussing, the coercive element in a relationship could be used as a ground to argue that consent had been overridden. In such circumstances, rather than prosecuting on the basis of an offence involving a consensual act—as provided for in the Bill—the authorities could override the consent, demonstrate that to the court and thereby act on the basis of the more serious offence of indecent assault, or similar sexual offences, on the ground that no consent had been given. We hope that the introduction of additional measures will not make us lose the will to demonstrate the lack of consent, and fall back on an offence that may be easier to prove.
      6.15 pm
      I am pleased that the Minister has said that the matter will be for the discretion of the court. As he will know, we are opposed to mandatory sentences in general, but, in regard to sexual offences, especially the offence that we are discussing, we believe that, when issues of consent are involved and a wide range of possible circumstances exists, it is important to leave the determination of the appropriate sentences to skilled judges, advised by equally skilful lawyers.
      We hope that the review will bear fruit in respect of the critical issue of non-consensual indecent assault, as opposed to consensual offences, in due course, but believe that this may be the most appropriate sentence for the extreme and rare circumstances described by the Home Secretary when, in the near future, the Bill comes into force.
      Mr. Hogg: I want to make two points. The first relates to my intervention on the Minister's speech; I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) for what she said in my support.
      I feel that there are circumstances involving abuse of trust that the Bill simply does not address. I am talking about the concept of in loco parentis. The father, the uncle and the person who employs the au pair are just three examples. I well understand why many would think that such people should be subject to the penalties prescribed
      782
      in clause 2 just as much as those who exercise some other function in the prescribed institutions. The Minister may be right, but I hope that he will think again. The Bill will go to the other place, and, in any event, there is to be a review of sexual law. We should ask whether those exercising the function in loco parentis should be subject to the law that we are now applying to the groups specified in clause 2.
      Let me raise a different point, which comes from the opposite direction. Many abuses of trust are clearly very grave. It is serious, and a real abuse, when an older man takes advantage of either a man or a woman in a school, prison or other prescribed institution. Quite different circumstances can arise when there is a close similarity in age between the person who is under 18 and the person who is over 18. I have in mind, for instance, a young teacher who might form a relationship with a pupil of, say, 17. That teacher could be found guilty of a serious criminal offence attracting a sentence of up to five years. It is true that we would not expect the courts to subject that person to such a penalty, but I am nevertheless uneasy about the position that we are creating.
      Let me make a suggestion to the Minister. He may care to reflect on it before the Bill goes to the other place, where it can be amended further. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) referred to the statutory defence applying to those under 24. The Minister might well wish to consider whether, when there is an age similarity—let us take up to 24 as an example—the consent of, say, the Attorney-General should be obtained before there can be a prosecution. There is a risk of injustice, and I am reluctant to leave the matter to the good sense of the prosecuting authorities. I hope that the Minister will contemplate a specific approach to deal with cases that will otherwise fall within the prescribed categories, involving people whose ages are close. I would be greatly reassured if he would do so, bearing in mind the possibility of making the consent of the Attorney-General a condition of prosecution.
      Mr. Boateng: I am obliged to hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contributions to a short but important debate. Let me deal first with what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
      I accept that we should address relationships that are caught under the umbrella of abuse of trust—relationships that might develop between a 24-year-old teacher and a pupil of 17. Under the Bill as drafted, such a relationship would constitute a criminal offence. Although it is a matter of judgment, I believe that such relationships should be caught by the Bill and subject to the criminal law.
      On balance, as a matter of public policy, such relationships should be discouraged. Hon. Members will have a view on relationships between teachers and pupils, and may have experience of the impact on school discipline and the lives of young people if such a relationship develops. Such relationships can be highly disruptive, both of young lives and to school discipline. It is therefore right that such relationships should fall within the ambit of the criminal law.
      Such relationships are, however, at one end of the spectrum that we have debated today. Progress on the matter may entail determining how codes of practice,

      783
      which are envisaged as part of the mechanism created by the Bill, and guidelines to the Crown Prosecution Service might provide means of ensuring that only cases that should properly be prosecuted are prosecuted. There should therefore be a combination of a code of practice—to modify and regulate conduct in the circumstances that we have discussed—and guidelines for those who bring prosecutions to clarify the basis on which prosecutions should be brought.
      Mr. Hogg: I am grateful to the Minister for giving a relatively sympathetic reply to my suggestion. Although he may not be going the whole way, he will doubtless think further about the suggestion. However, if we are going to go down the road of codes of practice—which is a course that Governments adopt in dealing with the type of circumstances we are debating—does he accept that it is desirable that the code of practice should take the form of a statutory instrument, so that the House can debate the code and express our views on it?
      Mr. Boateng: The Government have already, in Committee, tabled a draft code of practice for consideration. Undoubtedly, in our deliberations in the House, we shall return to that draft—which will be available also to the other place, so that it might inform debates there.
      I am reluctant to go down the path suggested by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham in creating a requirement to obtain the Attorney-General's consent to a prosecution. However, I accept the thrust of the argument underpinning the suggestion—that one should apply the criminal law only in circumstances in which doing so is clearly justified. We have made it clear that there would have to be consultation and discussion with teachers' associations and unions in developing a code of practice, to ensure that we get it right.
      The hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham raised the wider issue of uncles, aunts and "dads"—who are intermittently involved in domestic life but are not the natural father and are perhaps one of a succession of man friends. Hon. Members will know that some of the most serious cases of child abuse occur in that type of family context—which, as it involves "consensual relations" and is not subject to the law of incest, currently falls outside the criminal law. There is therefore a very strong feeling—which was expressed on both sides of the Committee—that we have to re-examine the law of incest.
      Incest is a very complex matter, and we shall have to take advice on dealing with it. The law of incest has developed to protect the gene pool rather than to protect children. Although the Government believe that the time has come to re-examine the law of incest, we do not think of the Bill as a vehicle for changing it. However, we shall certainly expect the sexual offences review to consider the matter, to take evidence on it and to make suggestions on how Parliament might properly address that very real issue.
      Mr. Hogg: Will the hon. Gentleman also address the issue—not necessarily now, but in the review—of how to deal with cases involving the natural father? Although it is true that the law of incest may apply in the
      784
      circumstances that he mentioned, sexual activity falling short of normal sexual intercourse and involving the father is not covered by clause 2. It is difficult to say why it should not be so covered.
      Mr. Boateng: Sexual activity between the natural father and his son also does not constitute incest—precisely because it is not linked to the possibility of procreation and consequent pollution of the gene pool. It is clearly a mischief that should properly be remedied. We shall expect the sexual offences review to do so.
      Mrs. Gorman: Surely society's attitude towards incest long predates any concept of gene pools? Is not that attitude part of the structure, and taboos, on which our society is built? Is that not why it is viewed with such horror in our society?
      Mr. Boateng: I was not suggesting for one moment that it should not be viewed with horror. I was merely pointing out what I thought was the generally accepted view, that the taboo developed because it was thought to be genetically undesirable to make connection with one's own relative.
      Mr. Bercow: What about moral concerns?
      Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point. However, the moral concerns arise from concerns to preserve, so far as possible, the health of the gene pool. Although this is not the time to deal with that interesting byway, the sexual offences review will undoubtedly wish to deal with it. Our modern concern is with child abuse, and there is no doubt that child abuse has flourished in the circumstances described by the hon. Member for Congleton.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) made, as ever, some interesting and important points. He did so with great succinctness and brevity, in stark contrast to some of his fellow Liberal Democrat Members, who are sadly and inexplicably absent from the Chamber. The Government will ensure that the code of practice and the review take on board the specific circumstances and instances that he outlined in his speech. Those matters will have to fall within the ambit of the review's deliberations.
      I should tell the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that, although I am only too pleased to see that it is possible to arrive at some bipartisan—or tripartisan—unanimity on the issue, I am sure that he will wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham), who, sadly, is not able to participate in today's debate. In the debate on Second Reading, my hon. Friend intervened in my speech no fewer than twice, precisely to gain from me the assurance that I gave that we would return to the issue of increasing the maximum sentence both in Committee and on Report. Therefore, although I am happy to see the extent to which it is possible to make common cause on the matter, I should say that the issue was raised first by my hon. Friend. He deserves credit for that, even in his absence.
      On that basis, I hope that it will be possible for the House to approve the amendment without a Division.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 3

      MEANING OF "POSITION OF TRUST"
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 4, in page 3, line 22, after 'full time', insert 'or part time'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8.
      Mr. Clappison: This important issue arose in Committee. As the House will have gathered, we are concerned that the Bill does not give sufficient protection to 16 and 17-year-olds and is not drawn wide enough in respect of adults who should be in a position of trust. We should have liked additional protection for children under 16, but that has not proved possible.
      Mr. Hogg: I am a little anxious about the amendment, which seems to extend to evening classes, or even Sunday schools. It is not clear to me why a relationship in an evening class between an instructor and a student should give rise to a criminal offence.
      Mr. Clappison: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a fair point.
      The amendment would remedy a problem in the Bill. After listening to our arguments, the Government have accepted that there is a problem. As I said in the previous debate, we have concerns about which teachers are covered by the provisions. The Minister has admitted that, in some circumstances, supply teachers are not covered. The amendment is designed to deal with what many would regard as another loophole, which we raised in Committee, affecting students who are registered as being in full-time education at one establishment, but who attend a second establishment as part of their course.
      We have asked whether such a student would be protected against an abuse of trust by a teacher or lecturer who worked at the second establishment and was involved in teaching, and caring for, them. To be fair, the Minister agreed to consider the issue after he heard our arguments in Committee. I understand that he accepts the force of those arguments and has tabled Government amendments Nos. 6 to 8 to cater for the situation.
      We welcome the fact that the Government have seen sense on this important point. It is common for many 16 and 17-year-olds to attend a second establishment as part of their course. Before the amendments, it was hard to see how the Bill would cover a teacher at a second establishment.
      A substantial number of A-level students in my constituency attend the local secondary school for two of their A-levels, but go to a local college of further education for another one. I was surprised to learn that there was uncertainty as to whether they would be covered by the Bill at the second establishment. If they formed a relationship with a teacher at the first establishment, the teacher would be in breach of trust because he would be in a position of trust, but the Bill would not cover a teacher or lecturer at the college of further education who formed a relationship with them. That had to be explored. I am pleased that the Government are seeking to put the situation right and are closing one of the loopholes in the
      786
      Bill. I regret that many other loopholes, anomalies and inconsistencies remain and cannot be put right—but at least this one can.
      Mr. Allan: In Committee, I was also testing the extent to which those involved in education would be covered by the Bill, but I came at the issue from an angle different from that of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), because I felt that the provisions were drawn too widely. We tested whether issues such as residence or direct tuition should be requirements. We considered the difficult in loco parentis argument. There seems to be no strict definition of in loco parentis. I notice that, in becoming more modern, the Home Secretary has skipped a few centuries and gone to mediaeval French, with autrefois acquit as his latest legal jargon. In loco parentis is an important concept that requires further testing.
      There are still problems with the amendments. We do not support the extension proposed by the hon. Member for Hertsmere into part-time education, but we believe that there are problems with the Government's definition of full-time education, in particular the number of hours required in the definition of full-time study. A test based on the number of hours that a pupil spends at school may mean that the right people are not always caught, in terms of natural justice. For example, a pupil who spent 20 hours a week in an institution, being taught for all that time by the same teacher, would not be covered because they would not be a full-time pupil; but one who spent 30 hours a week at the institution would be covered even if they had no direct contact in school with the teacher concerned. If one of the tests is the amount of influence that the person in a position of trust is deemed to have, judging the issue on the number of hours that the pupil spends in the institution gives rise to inconsistencies.
      The Government amendments are sensible in that they are at least logically consistent. The Committee debates worked well on the issue. It was instructive for Opposition Members to see the Minister doing his best to argue manfully around the issue of people being part time at an FE college. The ground beneath him turned to quicksand as it became apparent that a pupil who spent Monday to Thursday at a school and spent Friday at an FE college was not covered. That is common in my constituency. The Government amendments are consistent and sensible in that respect.
      I hope that the Conservatives will not press their amendment to a vote, because it would extend the provisions wider than we would like. We accept that the Government are sensibly trying to be consistent, but we hope that there will be further tests in another place of what sort of relationship between a teacher and pupil would be regarded as a sufficiently serious breach of trust for an otherwise consensual sexual relationship to be criminalised.
      Mr. Boateng: The debate is a classic example of the justification of considering matters in Committee and giving them the care and attention that the Committee gave to the clause. The probing and discussion in Committee was of enormous assistance in teasing out the necessary amendments that the Government have tabled on Report. I owe a debt of gratitude to all who contributed.
      Even in that spirit of generosity, I am afraid that we are not able to accept amendment No. 4, moved by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). We cannot do so

      787
      because we take the view—illustrated by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—that that would capture within the ambit of the Bill the evening classes which, in our view, simply do not give rise to a relationship the nature of which ought to occasion the degree of trust which, if breached, should lead to a criminal sanction.
      I return to the four broad criteria that we have applied in the Bill: particular vulnerability; location; the special influence of the adult, the relationship being in loco parentis; and the lack of access to other adults and the absence of countervailing influence. In those circumstances, part-time education does not fall within those principles in a way that justifies the amendment.
      The Government amendments would correct the anomaly in the Bill that was teased out in Committee. They bring into the scope of the offence those educational institutions providing education to full-time pupils or students who are registered or enrolled at a different institution, but receive part of their education at a second establishment. It is important that that be made clear. Education must be covered by the offence because the relationships of trust are particularly strong. That arises from the parent entrusting a child to the care of the school or college.
      There may be additional factors that have the effect of making trust a significant factor whose breach ought properly to be penalised by the criminal law. However, it is right to recognise that that ought not to extend to part-time education. For that reason, we are unable to accept the Opposition amendment. The Government amendments perfect the clause in a way that I hope will cause them to find favour, without a division, in the House. On that basis, I commend them to the House.
      Mr. Hogg: I am glad that we have avoided the danger of making evening classes subject to the regime in the Bill. However, I am a little troubled by the definition of "full-time education" and I suspect that the Minister may wish to reflect further on it, with a view to making changes in the other place.
      The reason for my concern follows the observations of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). There are a number of courses in colleges of further education where the education provided is for 16, 17 or 18 hours a week. In one sense, that is not full time. In another sense, it creates the kind of relationship to which we wish to attach the obligations and criminal penalties in the Bill. I would be concerned whether higher education courses for 16, 17 or 18 hours a week meet the statutory definition in the Bill of full-time education. I rather doubt that they would, but that is a matter for reflection. If the Minister agrees, he may care to consider tabling amendments in another place.
      Mr. Boateng: We can and will reflect on that, and I will write to the right hon. and learned Gentleman as our reflection develops apace, both here and in another place. We want to get it right, and we all agree that a category and class of young people needs protection. We want to make sure that legislation is as successful in achieving that objective as possible. Young people in receipt of education fall into an area of vulnerability that does, in my view, require protection.
      788
      We have to determine how best to define and identify that education, and that class or grouping of young people. We will reflect on how best to do that. At present, we have arrived at a definition and a balance that suits our purpose, and that will receive widespread support, not only from the general public—and parents in particular, who have concerns in this area—but from the teaching profession. Teachers will recognise that this measure must be embraced and welcomed—not least when it is underpinned by the codes of practice and guidance that we intend to issue to the Crown Prosecution Service—and should not cause apprehension.
      6.45 pm
      Mr. Clappison: This has been a worthwhile debate, as was the earlier debate in Committee. We wanted to explore the issue that was identified in Committee; we thought that there ought to be additional coverage in terms of the position of trust. It would be churlish not to welcome the fact that the Government have conceded the force of our argument, and have accepted the need for clarification. The position of trust has been extended to other people to whom many members of the public would feel it ought to be extended. In the light of the debate, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdraw.
      Amendments made: No. 6, in page 3, line 22, leave out 'in an' and insert 'at an educational'.
      No. 7, in page 3, line 23, leave out 'in' and insert 'at'.
      No. 8, in page 3, line 29, at end insert—
      '( ) For the purposes of this section a person receives full—time education at an educational institution if—

      (a) he is registered or otherwise enrolled as a full—time pupil or student at the institution; or

      (b) he receives education at the institution under arrangements with another educational institution at which he is so registered or otherwise enrolled.'—[Mr. Boateng.]

    Title

      SEXUAL OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL
      Amendment made: No. 9, in line 1, after 'which' insert
      ', and to make provision with respect to the circumstances in which,'.—[Mr. Boateng.]
      Order for Third Reading read.
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Boateng.]
      6.46 pm
      Mrs. Gorman: I have sat through many of the debates on this subject from 1994 through to today. I have not spoken at all on the Bill because I have been keen to understand the reasoning behind it. The Government have made a great issue of equality before the law, and they have said persistently that this is not a matter of moral judgment, but of making the law as it applies to 16-year-old girls apply to boys—the implication being that the sexual activity in those two sexes is similar. Of course, we all know that it is not, and that there are different consequences from that activity.
      What we are debating tonight is a removal of protection from some of our citizens. By changing the law, we are bringing younger people into a position of risk from

      789
      which the law has previously protected them. No one would pretend that any law passed in this House will prevent people from doing things that they are determined to do, but the laws that we create give a strong signal as to the way in which we hope people might behave—or, at least, they reflect the behaviour that is commonly held to be appropriate within society.
      There is no doubt that the great majority of people in this country, if polled, would not take the Government's position or that of the majority in the Lobby tonight. They believe that the current legislation gives some protection—and they are right.
      Even when homosexual activity between males aged 16 to 18 was illegal, in 1994, there were 300 cases of such young men with AIDS. Perhaps some of them have died. If we relax the law, it is reasonable to suppose that the number will increase. I cannot think of a law that we would change in almost any other context that would lead to an increase in a dangerous disease or practice. The new Labour party, which is so sanctimonious about smoking and diseases that are caused by people's behaviour, which it seeks to correct, would never approve of that.
      The Government must have some other motivation. The Government are usually fairly canny in identifying issues that are popular with the public and exploiting them. All political parties do that to some extent. Knowing, as they must, that the great majority of people outside the Metropolitan area would not approve of the proposed alteration in the law, it is interesting to speculate as to why the Government have made such an issue of this matter.
      Clearly, there is a great deal of support for the change among what might be called the chattering classes, and certainly in the media. Nobody denies that there is a disproportionate number of homosexuals in those communities. In the run-up to the general election—not only the immediate run-up, but the period since 1994—there would have been every good reason for the Labour party to want to come to terms with those people. It certainly would have received a lot of pressure from them. I believe that the Government have to some extent played up to that powerful and influential group in our society.
      What is the role of the House? Surely we are here to reflect, by and large, the views of the people whom we represent; to try to express their concerns, especially when there are proposals to change the law in a way that is likely to affect them and their families; and, if possible, to remedy their grievances rather than adding to them. I put it to the House that the Bill does exactly the opposite, and that we are seeking to impose a minority view on the great mass of people with families or with concern for the care of 16-year-old young men—or boys, as I prefer to call them—and going against the will of the people. For that reason alone, I want to vote against the Bill.
      We are continually told that homosexuality is a normal activity and way of life but, having looked through the debates since 1994, I have found not a single instance of an hon. Member declaring openly that that is the position that he or she is coming from. I have heard hon. Members saying that they are Christians or that they are family people with sons but that they support the change—I even heard a Labour Member saying that he was a Christian, a Catholic and a father of sons but still supported the change—but no one has opened his mouth to say that he is a homosexual and can tell us the truth about the subject.
      There has been covert support for the Bill in some quarters that does less than justice either to the Government's claim that homosexuality is a natural and
      790
      normal part of life for certain sections of the community, or to the electorate. It is significant that the Government and their supporters have not come clean with the electorate. There is an element of deceit in the way in which the legislation has been presented to the House.
      Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Has the hon. Lady been asleep for the past two years? The European Court of Human Rights has ordered us to change our law. We have to do it.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Rubbish.
      Mr. Bermingham: The hon. Gentleman says that it is rubbish, but unfortunately life is life. We have to change the law and we are doing it. There is no hidden agenda.
      Mr. Winterton: Of course there is.
      Mr. Bermingham: Rubbish, Winterton, you really are a silly man.
      Mrs. Gorman: I am as aware as the hon. Gentleman that there has been a debate on the issue from that perspective, and to some extent he has made a contribution to that; but that does not alter the fact that we are debating what will be domestic legislation, and we have not been entirely open and clear with the public about the motivation behind it.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the European Court of Human Rights might require us to change the law, that does not mean that the change is a good one? The change could be completely wrong, so it is a shame that people of principle do not stand up and say so. Frankly, I am sick to death of hearing about the European Court.
      Mrs. Gorman: My hon. Friend knows my views on that, and I entirely agree with everything that she says.
      On the "Today" programme on 22 February, a certain gentleman named Derek Bodell, who apparently runs something called the National AIDS Trust, complained that the budget for AIDS, at £52 million, was not enough to deal with the problem; that it cost £15,000 a year to treat an AIDS patient; that 1,500 homosexual men develop AIDS every year; and that we are too complacent about the issue. He and I might not share the same form or degree of complacency. He ended his remarks by saying that there is a worrying increase in AIDS among younger men. The behaviour of homosexual men must surely affect those figures.
      Mr. Borrow: Several times, Conservative Members have adduced AIDS as a reason for not reducing the age of consent. All the bodies concerned with the sexual health of young gay men are unanimous in the view that the age of consent at 18 rather than 16 is a factor in increasing the number of HIV cases among young gay men and that a reduction to 16 will assist in giving proper sexual health education to 16 to 18-year-olds.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: That cannot be right.
      Mr. Borrow: Conservative Members may not like the facts, but their comments, made in complete ignorance of them, show that they have no arguments.
      Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman is saying that more people will come forward if their activity is

      791
      legalised, but in 1994—the latest year for which I happen to have figures—300 16 to 18-year-olds with AIDS came forward. If one is that ill, one will automatically go to the doctor's surgery and get treatment for the problem. One would not simply stay at home and die in bed. That is an absurd suggestion.
      Mr. Winterton: To assist my hon. Friend and to counter the intervention from the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), I can tell her that, when I served as a member of the Social Services Select Committee and we undertook an inquiry into AIDS, it was abundantly clear from the evidence that we received from many sources that the main causes of it were intravenous drug abuse and active homosexual sex. The case that my hon. Friend makes is genuine and right, and the Bill will be damaging and encourage an increase in the incidence of AIDS.
      Mrs. Gorman: I agree with my hon. Friend. The issue is one of health. What adults do in the privacy of their homes is their business, but the Bill will affect very young people. The Government have sought to mollify people who have expressed concern by amending their original proposals, prompted by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), to protect people from certain types of predation. We hope that those people are protected, but the fact that we have to add such provisions to the Bill tells us that it is flawed.
      The change in the law is not needed. There were almost no prosecutions of young people between the ages of 16 and 18 and, therefore, we do not need legislation that will send a signal that certain activities are acceptable and, in the view of the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow), safe. They are not.
      The Government's purpose is not the high and mighty one of creating equality for young people. I do not believe that for a moment. They are giving a signal to a very small, but very powerful element in our society—the media—that the Government are open-minded about those activities, which are widespread in the media. The Government want to say that they condone those activities to the extent that young people aged 16 should be able to engage in such activities, unless they happen to need special protection. I have been a teacher and I know that young people of that age are immature emotionally and vulnerable. I shall not support the Bill.
      I hope that the electorate, in so far as they follow what goes on in the House, will have noted from which quarter the pressure for the Bill has come. It is their 16-year-old sons who will be put in situations as depicted on certain television programmes, which have already been mentioned, on Channel 4 recently. There is active predation on young people by people who are not in a position of care and, in such cases, the young people will not be protected by the Bill.
      Dr. Harris: It is the same for girls.
      Mrs. Gorman: The hon. Gentleman has made that point time and again. It is not the same for girls. We are talking about activities that can be physically dangerous, as the hon. Gentleman, who is a medical doctor, well knows, and have led to the development of AIDS.
      792
      That disease was almost unknown before the liberalisation of the laws on homosexuality. I hope that the public will remember that it was the Labour party which removed the protection from their young sons. When it comes to deciding which party is suitable to protect youngsters, I hope that people will remember this debate and which party forced the Bill through the House.
      7.4 pm
      Mr. A. J. Beith: It is unfortunate that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) should try to turn the issue into a party political one. When the Division records have been examined, her claim will be found to be absurd, because Members from all parties are found on both sides of the argument. Members from her party, my party and the Labour party will be found in each Lobby. To start attributing absurd motives to those who support the Bill is equally foolish. I would not do so to her. People support the Bill for a variety of motives, which they have declared openly and I shall give my views in a moment. I have never found it fruitful in politics to discuss legislation on the basis of the motives of those supporting it or opposing it: it is better to consider what its effects will be. That is what the House has sought to do in this case.
      The Government have rightly brought back to the House a matter on which the House made a decision in the last Session. The House of Lords required us to think again and it is proper for the Government to bring it back to us so that we can have a free vote. It was also right that the Government brought back to us something else on which the House expressed strong views—although not majority views as it turned out—which was the need to build into the legislation provisions dealing with abuses of trust. The legislation is much better for containing those provisions. I supported the original amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) and it is good that we have managed to incorporate those principles into the Bill.
      Anomalies and difficulties remain, but the first part of the Bill will remove an indefensible anomaly—that conduct involving people in the age group from 16 to 18 could be the subject of criminal proceedings for male homosexuals but not for heterosexuals or female homosexuals. My view of that point has nothing to do with my opinions as to the merits of such conduct. I am not entitled to write my views into law, unless there is an overriding principle of public protection involved. That has not been demonstrated. Indeed, the evidence is that it is better, if one believes that serious health dangers are at stake, that young people in that age group should feel no discouragement from taking medical advice at the time when they first might be drawn into such conduct. On public safety grounds, there is a strong case for the provisions in the first part of the Bill.
      Several anomalies were explored in Committee; both my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) have done a lot of work on the Bill. The remaining anomalies will have to be considered carefully in the review that the Government will undertake, including the abuse of trust issue, where teachers might be involved in potential charges, and why some categories of people, who might have closer contact with children than many teachers, are not included. We will have to revisit the subject, because the Bill cannot dot all the i's

      793
      and cross all the t's. It was necessary to make a fundamental change and to include abuse of trust provisions that apply to both heterosexual and homosexual relationships. It is right for the Bill to be non-discriminatory, although there are elements of discrimination left, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friends. Given that the House has had the opportunity to resolve the key issues on free votes, it is right that the Bill should be voted into law.
      7.9 pm
      Mr. Hogg: The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said one thing with which I profoundly agree—the fact that one disapproves of an activity is not a good reason to make it criminal. That is an observation that might inform more people's approach to fox hunting than perhaps it does. It is true that one may disapprove of something without thinking that it should be made the subject of the criminal law. This is the first time that I have spoken on the Bill and the first time in 20 years that I have spoken on this subject. That notwithstanding, I shall be brief.
      There are parts of the Bill with which I agree. I find the provisions of clause 2 correct. We have debated whether it goes far enough: I suspect that it does not, but that can be dealt with in another place or by the review, and the Minister has been good enough to indicate that special attention will be given to the concept of people in loco parentis, and those in their charge.
      However, I do not agree with clause 1. The essential argument underpinning it is that it is desirable to establish equality in the criminal law for males and females. I hope that the House will forgive a very old-fashioned remark, but I believe that it is one that has greater resonance than we care to admit. One of the curses of the age is the lack of restraint on people's sexual appetites. The truth of that contention is evident in the enormous number of teenage pregnancies and of children born out of wedlock, in the very large incidence of abortion, in the many cases of venereal disease, and so forth.
      That lack of restraint is a curse that has disfigured society, and that will continue to undermine its cohesion. I am reluctant to accept as valid the argument that, because 16 is an appropriate age of consent for females, we should make it the age of consent for young men. I am willing to accept that it is not possible to increase the age of consent for young women. Whether to do so would be good or bad in an ideal world does not matter—it is not realistic in the present age.
      However, the question that we are asking is whether we should reduce the age of consent for young men. Against the background of my anxiety about society's willingness to succumb to sexual appetites, I am bound to say that I am very cautious about that proposition. In the course of my life—at school, at the criminal Bar, in the House and so on—I have become aware that older men can be predatory vis-a-vis young men. That is a fact of life, and much to be regretted. The Bill significantly increases the pressure on young men, and I oppose it for that reason.
      I hope that the House will forgive another old-fashioned remark. I have never wanted to persecute homosexuals. In general, I do not think that they should be treated in a discriminatory way and, when asked, I have always said so. However, I do not believe that the
      794
      homosexual way of life is a wholly satisfactory existence. Further, I believe that the sexual orientation of many people is not fixed at a young age, and probably is not fixed even at 15, 16 or 17. I am very reluctant for the House to do anything that would encourage people to adopt the homosexual way of life, if otherwise they would not have done so.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) is looking at me disapprovingly, and he will no doubt draw on his experiences as a doctor. However, I have years of experience at the Bar and elsewhere to draw on, and I have seen people who I suspect have changed their sexual way of life as a result of experiences when young. On balance, I think that they have had a less full and happy life than they would have had if they had become heterosexual.
      I regret the Bill. I do not think that it is desirable, and I shall not support it if it is pushed to a vote. On the whole, I think that the House ought to regret the Bill, and I am sure that most of my constituents will do so.
      7.14 pm
      Dr. Harris: I rise briefly to make two main points about the medical aspects of the Bill.
      It is entirely wrong for Conservative Members to justify their opposition to clause 1 on medical grounds, when all the medical opinion—in the world, not just in this country—is that clause 1 is necessary to protect health. If Conservative Members want to bring health into the debate, they must recognise that the medical arguments favour reduction in the age of consent, to allow information about sexual health to get through to people who are sexually active.
      Mrs. Ann Winterton: I hope that I am not jumping the gun, but will the hon. Gentleman say whether he believes that the Bill when it is enacted—as it will be—will mean that figures for AIDS and sexual health among young men will be considerably better than today? What happens if they are not?
      Dr. Harris: I have worked with HIV, in prevention and as a clinician, and my experience tells me that, all other things being equal, the fact that the Bill enables young people to access important information on sexual health will reduce the number of new HIV infections among young gay men. That is not just my view: it is shared by all the relevant organisations, especially the medical ones. As I have said on previous occasions, the council of the British Medical Association—not a radical organisation—was unanimous in its recommendation of a unified age of consent at 16.
      Mr. Swayne: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Dr. Harris: In a moment. The reason that the BMA council gave was that such a change would reduce the spread of HIV among young people. Other experience shows that the criminalisation of an activity drives it underground, with the result that people cannot get the information that they need.
      Mrs. Winterton: How do you know?
      Dr. Harris: The same thing happened, in the Victorian era, with back-street abortions. What is needed is

      795
      more education. I concede that young people—especially girls, if we are talking about abortion and teenage pregnancies—must be empowered to say no. That is a large element in sexual and health education. We will be able to do that—particularly for those of school age—only if we do not attach criminality to one type of behaviour and not to another.
      Mr. Swayne: Should we therefore lower the age at which it is permissible for children to purchase tobacco products so that they can have greater access to health information about the consequences of smoking?
      Dr. Harris: No. I do not believe that there is anything—other than the budgets of health education authorities—to prevent health educators passing information about the dangers of tobacco on to young people at risk. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), when he was Minister, referred to scientific and expert opinion a great deal, but those who want to use health as an argument must recognise that the expert opinion supports those of us on my side of the argument.
      Conservative Members are entitled to their opinion and—I do not mean the term derogatively—to their prejudices. However, without scientific opinion to back them up, they should not try to impose their views on other people.
      Other arguments in favour of decriminalisation have been framed in terms of human rights. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham talked about reality, so he will know that the European Court of Human Rights—which is not a European Union institution—is about to find against this country in that respect and that the European Commission of Human Rights has instructed the Government to let the House think again. So there are judicial reasons for the proposed equalisation in the age of consent. None of the hon. Members who say that the age of 16 is too young have tabled an amendment to raise the age of consent for girls, which at least would be consistent, if unrealistic.
      Finally, Conservative Members implied that most predatory older men are homosexual. Of course there are predatory men who are homosexual, and I deplore some of the storylines recently on television, just as I have serious reservations about the contents of the famous Nabokov novel that has been made into a film. However, I do not recommend book-burning on that basis. The fact is that there are more predatory men also on the look out for girls—the proportions are probably similar.
      I must tell the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) that the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) claimed not long ago that that was not so, and that, in fact, 15-year-old girls were recognised as hunting for older men and wanting relationships with them. The people who have spoken against the Bill on predation seem to want it both ways, but they cannot have it every which way. There is predation, and it should be condemned. However, it cannot be distinguished by sexuality. More sex education would give young people the power to say no.
      Those without power, such as those in care homes, are entitled to the protection provided by clauses 2 to 4, and I agree with all that my right hon. Friend the Member for
      796
      Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said on that. My only concern on those clauses is how wide ranging they are. They cover teachers, even those who do not have a direct educational relationship with the people with whom they are having consensual sexual relations. Disciplinary codes already exist to punish behaviour that is wrong. To bring in the criminal law seems to be going too far.
      In Committee, I raised the problem of Scottish higher education institutions, at which the majority of first-year students are 17. Anyone, even a postgraduate involved in teaching, will be subject to the Bill's provisions if he has sexual relations with a 17-year-old whom he knows to be an undergraduate, even if he is not teaching that student, but is doing some teaching as a postgraduate student.
      A 22-year-old and a 17-year-old—and in many cases people meet their future life partners at university—will be subject to the provisions of the Bill. Even if not prosecuted, they could be subject to worry, guilt and potential blackmail. It is strange to set apart 17-year-olds—both male and female—so that they will not be able to have relationships with their postgraduate peers. I hope that the other place will try to get rid of some of those problems.
      I am sorry that the Minister is not here, as I need not have made my final point if he had allowed me to intervene even once on his closing remarks during one of our earlier debates. The point that I want to put on record is this: the Minister outlined the Government's motives for introducing the Bill. They had been forced to do so by the European Commission of Human Rights, and they would give the House a free vote on the age of consent. The welcome provision to decriminalise under-16s would provide protection for the young. There was, it seemed, no intention of recognising the other reason—equally valid in my opinion—that there is currently discrimination between heterosexuals and homosexuals. The Government rejected other amendments to equalise the law between heterosexuals and homosexuals outwith protection of children issues.
      I hope that the Government will be clear about their intentions. I have spoken to many people outside the House who have felt that that was not what they understood the position of the Labour party to be. In the party's election manifesto, there was a commitment
      "to end unjustifiable discrimination wherever it exists".
      Yet the Government have said that seeking to provide equality in criminal legislation during this Parliament is not on their agenda. Any measures that are taken will be a side effect of child protection, which is, of course, valuable in itself.
      The Government should be clear whether the gay community—and those like myself who are outside the gay community, but who feel strongly about the issue on human rights grounds—is correct in understanding the Minister to mean that there will be no wider reform in this Parliament and that the motives for this reform on under 16-year-olds did not include equality.
      We shall get the Bill through the House. I hope that it passes through the House of Lords at its first attempt. The larger the majority that we can muster, the more the will of the House of Commons should prevail.
      7.24 pm
      Mr. Swayne: I voted against the Bill on Second Reading, and my profound impression is that it has become worse as it has proceeded through the House. A leap to the Bill's detriment has been taken this afternoon by the inclusion of new clause 4.
      The Bill began with the intention of reducing the age of consent for homosexual young men. Its effect will be to abolish that age of consent. A young man under 16 may explore his sexuality without any constraint of the law. He need only choose a partner over the age of 16. For any young man in that position, there will be no age of consent under the Bill.
      The Bill sets out to protect young people. I believe that it puts them at much greater risk. I have no doubt that it will serve to entrap a small number of young men in a life style that is gross and unnatural. They might otherwise have led a life not blighted in that way.
      Some of the correspondence that I have had from constituents on this matter has been almost apocalyptic. It has suggested that all standards are being swept away, that the consequences will be disastrous and that there will be a huge increase in homosexuality. I do not believe that that is so. We must trust to the good sense of people, in which respect the remarks of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) were instructive.
      There are a number of motives behind the Bill. There are people who believe that equality before the law is the most important principle. I agree that the principle is important, but it is not the most important. There are those whose motive is to improve the health of the nation, as the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) seeks to do. He is mistaken, but his position is perfectly honourable.
      There is another motive, however. There is a homosexualist agenda. The homosexual community, by its nature, is sterile, and it can survive and grow only by proselytising. There is an agenda to make it easier for that community to grow—an agenda that will be further expressed when all sorts of requests are made to get rid of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988.
      Having said that, I believe that the wisdom of the general public is rather greater than that. It is unlikely that there will be a large increase in homosexuality. Irrespective of the change that we will make to the law today, most people are still profoundly disgusted, and alarmed, by homosexuality. That will provide a powerful incentive to reduce the level of homosexuality.
      Many comments have been made to me, particularly in my correspondence, about how sorry and small a number have opposed the Bill. I think that those comments are wrong. If Lot had found himself in the Division Lobby with 126 voters and two tellers—all just men—the cities of the plain would have been saved.
      7.28 pm
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I commend the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) who tackles issues straight on and who does not mince his words. I have not yet spoken in the debate, although I have voted against the Bill at every possible opportunity. It is fundamentally flawed, wrong and dangerous to the young men and boys about whom we are concerned.
      798
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said that it was utterly wrong to seek to outlaw or criminalise something just because we do not like it. I agree with that. However, there is a great difference between sexual intercourse between a man and a woman—or, for that matter, a boy and a girl, whether they are over or under the age of 16—and the act of sodomy. That is what is so often practised in homosexual relationships. I do not hesitate to say from the Conservative Benches that heterosexual sex is a God-given act for reproduction, joy and pleasure. One cannot say that of the homosexual act—the act of sodomy.
      I am not an expert on biology, but if God had meant men to commit sodomy or buggery with other men, even a doctor would admit that their bodies would have been built differently. That is a fundamental reason why there is a great difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual act.
      My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was right to have concerns about clause 1 because it would enshrine in law an unnatural act, in particular an unnatural act of a young person who is vulnerable and in many cases does not know his true sexuality.
      The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) said that the European Court of Human Rights or even the European Court of Justice would bring this Parliament to court as our legislation does not give equality to the sex act between men and women and men and men, but that does not mean that we should change our law. If someone said that I should jump off Beachy head because some European Court told me to do so, I would not jump off, and this mother of Parliaments, the House of Commons and, indeed, Parliament as a whole should not do something that it believes to be morally and fundamentally wrong.
      Mr. Bermingham: The case will be taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The European charter on human rights will become part of our law on 1 January 2000. It is also a fact of history that in Act after Act, from the Mental Health Act 1983 and under Governments of all parties, this country has had to change its laws to comply with European law. One is taken to court and offered a deal, "Change the law and we won't go for you." That is what we have done time and again. There is nothing novel in the situation.
      Mr. Winterton: Except when the hon. Gentleman was hectoring me when I intervened from a sedentary position, he has always been a most agreeable man. We come from the same region.
      Mr. Swayne: Region?
      Mr. Winterton: The north-west. I do not believe in regional government, and I will not be led down that path. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South is a lawyer and I am not. I come from a business background. My constituents have elected me for almost 28 years, and I hope that I have a basic experience of life and that I also show good sense. Just because the law is an ass, it does not mean that I have to behave like an ass. If the European Court of Human Rights wants to bring the United Kingdom to court for failing to implement parts of the

      799
      convention, let it do so. I would prefer to go screaming to defeat rather than go passively like a sheep to the slaughter. I really mean that.
      This House is about people expressing their own view. I am not entirely sure that every vote has been a free vote for Labour Members. That is my view and it is an instinct. My instinct is why I oppose enshrining in law homosexual acts between youngsters of 16 upwards.
      We heard certain medical views from the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris). I will repeat what I said following an intervention by the hon. Member for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow). When I was a member of the Select Committee on Social Services, we undertook an inquiry into AIDS. From all the evidence that we amassed, it was clear that the two prime sources of AIDS in this country were intravenous drug abuse—injecting oneself with infected or dirty needles—and the homosexual act. AIDS is costing the people of this country and of the world huge sums of money and is a great tragedy, which is resulting in tens of thousands of deaths.
      Ann Keen rose—
      Mr. Winterton: I will give way to the hon. Lady. I respect the sincerity with which she has advanced her cause, although I disagree with her.
      Ann Keen: Does the hon. Gentleman care to comment on the fact that unsafe sex in the heterosexual community also carries a great risk of infection with AIDS-HIV?
      Mr. Winterton: I am happy to comment on that because that matter was also drawn to the attention of the Select Committee. AIDS among heterosexuals is sometimes due to bisexual men, who not only commit positive homosexual acts with men, but have heterosexual sex with women. That is one reason why there has been a limited number of AIDS cases resulting from heterosexual acts. A second reason is that one partner—either the man or the woman—is a drug abuser and injects him or herself with dirty needles. That is another way in which the AIDS disease can come into the heterosexual community.
      Further to the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham at the beginning of his short speech on Third Reading, I do not want to ban, criminalise or outlaw something in legislation merely because I dislike it. I do dislike homosexual behaviour because I believe it to be unnatural. This legislation will make a large number of young men more vulnerable to predators. I see my role as protecting young men so that they go through those formative and vulnerable years to have a normal heterosexual relationship, which is the natural relationship given by God.
      7.38 pm
      Mr. Rogers: I have always voted against the lowering of the age of consent from 18 to 16, but after hearing some of the homophobic rantings from Conservative Members, I am not sure what to do this evening.
      The hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) is obviously a great expert on homosexuality, but if he thinks that this legislation would create homosexuals,
      800
      that is nonsense. Listening to the hon. Gentleman has made me wonder whether he thinks that the best way to abolish homosexuality—complete nonsense in itself—is to abolish all, all-male institutions. I presume that he would want to abolish the Army, the Navy and a couple of other all-male institutions. He would probably abolish public schools—I understand that a great number of men have had their first experience of homosexuality in such schools, although I am not sure how many Labour Members that applies to. Perhaps all those of us who went to public schools could confess our experiences. I did not go; I went to Bargoed secondary school.
      I am sorry that the issues have been turned into homophobic rantings. The reason that I will either abstain or vote against the Bill is that I think that people need to have time to develop their sexuality. As a young lad of 18, I went into the Army, an all-male environment. There were predators—people who had been in the Army for many years who looked for young lads. No one can deny that. When I was shadow defence Minister and homosexuality in the armed forces came up, we had a much more constructive debate than this on the problems of homosexuals in the Army and predators. I am afraid that the homophobic ranting might well make me abstain, but I will probably vote against. I do not believe that the law creates homosexuals. Homosexuality is a natural condition that people have within them. There is nothing we can do to legislate about it, but I am concerned about predators, which is one reason why I may well vote against.
      7.42 pm
      Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers) feels that there has been a lot of homophobic ranting by Conservative Members. That misrepresents what we have been saying. A feature of the way in which the Government have proposed the Bill is that they have cloaked it all with the word "equality". As we all subscribe to the concept of equality, we are invited to support it; if we do not, we are inferior citizens because we do not support the concept of equality.
      All too often, it has been up to Conservative Members, with some distinguished contributions from Labour Members, to point out to the House and the wider public the Bill's practical consequences for young boys. It has largely been Conservative Members who have made that view known, but 13 Labour Members voted against clause 1 on 10 February. I do not know to what extent the Whips have been active.
      Mr. Boateng indicated dissent.
      Mr. Howarth: The Minister need not get excited. He is not a Whip at the moment. There has been some cross-party support.
      Mr. Rogers: What the hon. Gentleman suggests is untrue. I have always voted against the measure. I have never been approached by a Whip or Minister about how I vote. It is silly to suggest that.
      Mr. Howarth: I think that I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's views, although I have checked Hansard and I see that he was not here to vote on clause 1

      801
      on 10 February. I hope that I can persuade him to support us in the Lobby tonight. This is an important issue and he should not feel that he cannot support those of us who oppose the Bill simply because some of my hon. Friends have been forthright in expressing their views. On Second Reading, one of his colleagues made a contribution that was much more explicit than anything that I have heard from other Members. The hon. Gentleman should remember that it is not Conservative Members who have been guilty of being too specific about the practicalities of what we are discussing.
      I have spoken several times on the Bill because I believe that it is profoundly misguided. Those who have opposed the Bill have been concerned on two counts. First, we want to protect the vulnerable—the children. As my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) said, it is extraordinary that a Government who go to such lengths to invoke the nanny state to interfere in people's lives—
      Mr. Boateng indicated dissent.
      Mr. Howarth: It is no good the Minister shaking his head. The top item on today's news is that the Secretary of State for Wales has eaten beef on the bone. What a brave man to fly in the face of the Government's hostility to eating that.
      Mr. Nicholas Winterton: I think that it was the Prince of Wales.
      Mr. Howarth: They were both eating beef on the bone, which is banned. The Secretary of State for Wales, having secured his "victory" in the recent election in Wales—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could turn his attention back to Third Reading.
      Mr. Winterton: It is all too close to the bone.
      Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend says that it is all too close to the bone, which is worth putting on record.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has noted that the Government are keen to interfere in the decisions of individuals about how they run their lies. In this case, they wish to reduce the protection available to children. The Bill is utterly flawed because of clause 2, which provides for protection between the ages of 16 and 18 in certain circumstances, but only in certain circumstances. If the Bill's supporters believe that children between those ages need protection in some cases, it is logical for us to propose that all, and not only some, children between those ages should be protected. Therefore, the idea that this is all to do with equality is humbug.
      It was only a few years ago that Parliament was invited to consider reducing the age of consent for homosexuals from 21 to 18. All the arguments were deployed and we were told that it was not proposed that matters would go further and that 18 would be fine. Of course, there were some who argued for 16. Only a few years later, we face a decision to reduce the age to 16 from 18. I believe that the supporters of the Bill—not all, but many, and certainly some of the pressure groups outside—will seek to go further. It will not be long before we have—
      Mr. Boateng indicated dissent.
      Mr. Howarth: Again, it is no good the Minister shaking his head. It is all in "Equality 2000". The fact is
      802
      that Stonewall has shown in its five-point plan how much further it wishes to go. There will therefore be further pressure. Passing the Bill will show that Parliament is prepared to go further.
      I venture to suggest that there will be pressure for us to legalise homosexual marriages. I hope that those who support that will take note of what has been done in France. I gather that no fewer than 200,000 people demonstrated in Paris at the prospect of gay marriages. We know from what happened with the Countryside Alliance how the Government respond to public demonstrations. Perhaps those of us who feel strongly about this should take to the streets and demonstrate that we will not support any further move on this issue. [Interruption.]
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have private conversations. The hon. Gentleman must address the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Howarth: I was addressing the contents of the Bill.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman must let me be the judge of that.
      Mr. Howarth: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was only trying to point out that the Bill follows on from a decision made by the previous Parliament to reduce the age of consent from 21, where it had stood for many years, to 18 and that now, only a few years later, we are asked to reduce the age of consent again. I contend that it will not be long before we are invited to consider further moves to provide for the homosexual life style. In Paris, 200,000 people demonstrated against the concept of gay marriages, and I hope that people will take to the streets in this country if it appears likely that we are to go down that road. There is no public support for the Bill and it is extraordinary that so many members of a Government who rely on focus groups and opinion polls are prepared to defy public opinion.
      I know that the Minister is a practising christian, so I hope that he will take note of what the bishops said before Second Reading. They said that the leaders of both Church and state have a duty
      "to protect them"—
      children—
      "from harm and exploitation and to offer them a vision of what is good."
      They added that legislation affecting sexual relationships should
      "set an example of what is good and be rooted in sound moral values".
      They went on to say:
      "Pressures are at work to legitimise any and every life style irrespective of any difference of value and quality between them. These pressures should be resisted."
      That is another reason why the Bill should be opposed.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) made great play of the British Medical Association being all in favour of reducing the age of consent, but I remind him that the same argument was used in 1994, when it was claimed that, if we reduced the age of consent from 21 to 18, the number of new

      803
      HIV cases would fall because young people would come forward and seek advice without fear of being prosecuted. The truth is that figures show that, overall, HIV infections acquired through sex between men rose by 11 per cent. from 1995 to 1996—a full year after the change was made by Parliament. The British Medical Journal, which is the official organ of the BMA, said at the time that that was
      "a considerable rise compared with previous years"
      and found that new cases of HIV infection were
      "particularly common among young homosexual men."
      I rest my case: the Bill will increase the risk of HIV infection among vulnerable young men by increasing their exposure to that fatal illness. I do not believe that either the BMA or the hon. Gentleman has proved that medical opinion is in favour of the Bill. There is clear evidence that, if the Bill is passed, there will be increased infection among young people.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) mentioned the European convention on human rights and the European Court of Human Rights. I find it deeply offensive that a matter of this nature should be decided by a court beyond our islands, when this Parliament is perfectly capable of deciding this issue. Even if I oppose Parliament's likely decision, I do not believe that it should be second-guessed by foreigners sitting in Strasbourg or anywhere else. We should be able to decide such matters in this country and I resent that idea that Parliament cannot adequately safeguard human rights.
      We have had our say and made a strong case on why the Bill should be resisted. I shall vote against it on Third Reading, as I did on Second Reading, and I hope that I shall be joined by a good representative number of Labour Members. I also hope that, when the Bill goes to another place, their lordships will not be afeared to stand firm as they have done before and that, if we cannot defeat the Bill in this House, they will ensure that public opinion is properly reflected by voting it down in the other place.
      7.55 pm
      Mr. Clappison: Clauses 1 and 2 have been the subject of free votes among Conservative Members and, as I said, when I speak from the Dispatch Box I am expressing only my personal views. My right hon. and hon. Friends have expressed their views, which may be different. In this matter, we are called on to exercise our individual judgment and decide what we think is the appropriate age of consent.
      The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) was right: the case which he mentioned is before the European Court, which has decided that there is a case to answer. We do not know what the outcome will be. Even before the European convention on human rights was incorporated into domestic law, we always incorporated the findings of the European Court in our law. Even so, on a matter such as the one before us now, we have to exercise our individual consciences and judgment and do what is right, while simultaneously endeavouring to represent our constituents as best we can.
      I do not feel any shred of homophobia: I do not think that homosexuality is evil or wrong; still less do I think that individual homosexuals are evil. However, when
      804
      called on to exercise my judgment on the right age of consent—we have to set one; we cannot do away with it altogether—the more I think about it, the more I believe that 18 is the appropriate age of consent and that 16 is simply far too young.
      That was my view when the matter came before the House last year, in an amendment to what became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. At that time, the hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), who served on the Standing Committee, raised the important matter of the protection of young people. He did the House a great service in doing so, for that is an eminently worthy objective and one of which the House should be mindful, especially in view of the catalogue of cases chronicled in the Utting report, to which the hon. Gentleman drew our attention. He described many cases in which young people in residential and other forms of care had been made the victims of abuse by older people—a scandalous state of affairs which had existed for far too long and was brought to light time and again, to an almost unbelievable extent.
      The hon. Gentleman brought that issue to the House's attention, and the debate that took place at that time gave rise to clause 2, which attempts to protect young people by creating a new offence of abuse of trust. We should do all that we can to promote that worthy objective, but the provisions that the Government have produced to achieve that aim fall well short of what is needed. It has three important weaknesses: first, clause 2 does nothing to protect under-16s, yet it is under-16s who are the main subject matter of the Utting report. They are the most vulnerable and the most in need of protection from potential abusers. We believe that there are ways in which under-16s could be given greater protection, but the Bill does not go so far, and that is an important defect.
      Secondly, in respect of the protection that the Bill does give to 16 and 17-year-olds, the scope of the definition of a position of trust set down in the Bill by the Government is not nearly broad enough. The public will feel that many people who are not included in that definition should be so included. To adopt an argument advanced by the Liberal Democrats, some teachers who are considered to be in a position of trust under the Bill might well wonder why that should be when other people in other walks of life—clergymen, youth leaders—are not so considered. With great eloquence and gloss, the Minister put his arguments as to why that should be so. However, I am not convinced by them. I am more convinced by the contribution of the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) who, in a much earlier speech, asked quite bluntly why clergymen, scout leaders and other youth leaders had not been brought within the ambit of the Bill. It is difficult to understand why they are not.
      The third defect is that the maximum sentence was too low. That situation has now been remedied through our amendment in Committee, and we welcome the fact that the Government have seen sense and increased the maximum penalty.
      The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) remarked about my earlier contribution to the House when I drew attention to the number of prosecutions for offences involving under-age sex and how there had been a significant change—a collapse—in those figures following the last lowering of the age of consent. I heard the points that the hon. Gentleman made on this subject. I did not call then—and I do not do so now—for any oppressive action or witch hunt. I do not

      805
      want the police or other authorities to go on the offensive and seek out convictions under this offence. I hope that the law will be enforced properly, sensibly and sensitively, especially—but not exclusively—when one of the perpetrators is much older.
      I listened to the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on the question of decriminalising the offence when one of the parties is under age. I can provide some reassurance on that point. I understand the concern that motivates him, but he must bear in mind the fact that, even with new clause 4, the offence will remain when both parties are under age. When only one of the parties is under age, it will be an offence for the over-age party. The law exists to protect the under-age party and to bring the older party to justice in those circumstances. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, on balance, that is the decision that we must take and that is where the public interest lies. We must bring the older party to justice without creating any disincentive for the younger person to report the offence. The under-age party should not become embroiled in criminal proceedings, and this is a sensible and well-justified change.
      I do not believe that clause 2 goes far enough in protecting young people. I think that the Government were timid in introducing the Bill, which contains several potential loopholes, anomalies and inconsistencies. I am doubtful about the defence that the Government afford to older people who, I believe, should know the ages of those they are teaching and looking after. That defence is anomalous and creates an entirely new type of defence. I am also concerned about the precedent that it will set. Although I welcome any attempts to protect young people, the Government's attempts are flawed.
      Those flaws are greater still when it comes to the main subject of the Bill. I do not feel any animus towards homosexual people: I welcome greater tolerance in society. However, I believe that 16 is too young for the purposes of the Bill. When the matter first came before the House, I supported reducing the age of consent from 21 to 18 years because I thought that the case for that change was well made and that it was oppressive for people to have to wait until the age of 21 before engaging in homosexual activities. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, some young people of 15, 16 and 17 are not fixed in their sexual preferences. I think that they should practise a little abstinence and wait until they are 18 before engaging lawfully in such activities.
      That view was shared by the Wolfenden commission, which certainly did not start from a position of hostility towards homosexuals. That commission discounted 16 as an age of consent in the 1950s. It found that too many young men did not have fixed sexual preferences at that age and that 16 was too young to take such a big step which could have profound consequences for the rest of people's lives. I believe that it does not do any harm to make a person wait until 18.
      I believe that many people share that view. I know that public opinion has been prayed in aid on all sides of the debate—it is difficult to be entirely accurate about public opinion in these circumstances. Many people have strong views about homosexuality and oppose it altogether—that is entirely a matter for them. However, many others look at the issue pragmatically and ask, "What is the
      806
      appropriate age for youngsters to become involved in homosexual activity?" Drawing on their own lives and everyday experiences, they have concluded that 16-year-olds are far too young to take such momentous decisions.
      Hon. Members who favour reducing the age of consent to 16 are taking a step that will leave many constituents and a large section of the public with a sense of deep unease. This momentous decision comes hot on the heels of an earlier reduction in the age of consent from 21 to 18 years. The Bill goes too far too fast and allows people to make this important decision when they are still too young. Those are my views and that is why I shall oppose the measure.
      8.6 pm
      Mr. Boateng: This has been a wide-ranging debate. I wish that it had not ranged as wide as the twin cities of the plain via Aldershot and the New forest. Nevertheless, if that is where the debate had to lead, so be it. This debate has been spread over several sessions. We have considered the Bill carefully, and I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for the care and attention that they have displayed in the House and in Committee.
      Everyone has had plenty of opportunities to express his or her views and, in the main, those views have been heard respectfully. Therefore, it is rather sad that some Opposition Members should suggest that those who support the Bill do so at the behest of some hidden, or not so hidden, agenda. That does not do justice to the deeply held feelings about fairness and equality that many hon. Members share with people outside this place who do not work to any hidden agenda either. The agenda for those who support the Bill is clear: equality and respect. They seek equality before the law in terms of equalising the age of consent and respect for vulnerability and trust, and share a determination to ensure that that trust is not broken. They are two distinct aims and it is important to stress that the two parts of the Bill are separate: each is important in its own right.
      We must also be clear about what the Bill can and cannot do. It can—I believe that it should—provide for equality before the law in relation to the age of consent. It can—I believe that it should—provide specific targeted protection for people who are particularly at risk from abuse of trust perpetrated by those in positions of authority. However, the Bill cannot go beyond that without the risk of getting it badly wrong.
      I assure the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) that the Bill cannot remove all the anomalies and inequities in sexual offences law; nor can it be a wide-ranging child protection measure which rewrites the law on a grand scale. For example, the Bill cannot protect children in the family home or guard against abuse from strangers. Protection of the vulnerable, coupled with equality before the law, is the driving aim of the sexual offences review. We will ensure that the European convention on human rights informs and shapes the outcome of that review.
      Those who suggest that people support the measure—the charge was levelled particularly at my right hon. and hon. Friends—simply to comply with the European Court of Human Rights are wrong. The impulse is quite different: it recognises the importance of equality before the law and the need to protect the vulnerable in circumstances in which trust may be abused. That is what drives this legislation.

      807
      I say to the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and others that we ought to be concerned—the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) has certainly accepted this point—about a society in which there is a lack of restraint in people's sexual appetite. It is wrong to believe that concern about unrestrained sexual appetite exists solely on one side of the House. We are all concerned about recognising the importance of children and young people deferring sexual activity as late as it is reasonable to expect them to do so. We all understand that.
      Are we not all concerned about the sexualisation of children and young people? If we are not, we certainly ought to be. However, to believe that criminal law is the way to ensure that young people refrain from irresponsible or dangerous sexual behaviour simply flies in the face of reason. Young people will not be deterred from sex by the criminal law. We know that young people are made frightened, fearful and ill, but we know also that young people do not desist from sexual activity because we criminalise that activity.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Boateng: No, the hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity to speak during our discussions on these matters.
      The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) again suggests that there is a hidden agenda at work. We know that there is evidence that we cannot ascribe to homosexuals the spread of AIDS. It is wrong to demonise any group of people in that way. AIDS is a public health issue and, when we are concerned with such issues, we must recognise that ignorance, fear and lack of information contribute to a danger to public health. Those are the real dangers, not this measure. To suggest otherwise does not do justice to the arguments.
      Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Boateng: No; the hon. Gentleman has had his say during our debates, and no doubt we shall return to the subject.
      The House has had an opportunity to express a view and to scrutinise the Bill in great depth. It is now time to send the Bill to another place. I believe that, tonight, the Bill and its detailed proposals will receive an overwhelming endorsement based on principles of equality and a determination to ensure that the vulnerable are protected from abuse of trust. That is what will motivate hon. Members in the Lobbies tonight, and the other place had better listen to the democratically elected Chamber, because my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made it crystal clear that we do not intend for the will of Parliament to be thwarted again. Each and every one of us will go into the Lobbies tonight exercising his or her conscience. This is a free vote, and I, for one, shall vote for Third Reading of the Bill.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 82.

      Division No. 79]

      [8.13 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Alexander, Douglas

      Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

      Allan, Richard

      Dismore, Andrew

      Allen, Graham

      Donohoe, Brian H

      Armstrong, Ms Hilary

      Doran, Frank

      Ashton, Joe

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Ennis, Jeff

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Etherington, Bill

      Baker, Norman

      Ewing, Mrs Margaret

      Ballard, Jackie

      Fabricant, Michael

      Banks, Tony

      Fearn, Ronnie

      Barnes, Harry

      Fisher, Mark

      Barron, Kevin

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bayley, Hugh

      Flint, Caroline

      Beard, Nigel

      Flynn, Paul

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Follett, Barbara

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Foulkes, George

      Berry, Roger

      Fyfe, Maria

      Best, Harold

      Galloway, George

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Gapes, Mike

      Blizzard, Bob

      Gardiner, Barry

      Boateng, Paul

      George, Bruce (Walsall S)

      Borrow, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Boswell, Tim

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Godman, Dr Norman A

      Brady, Graham

      Godsiff, Roger

      Brake, Tom

      Goggins, Paul

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Campbell—Savours, Dale

      Grogan, John

      Canavan, Dennis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Casale, Roger

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Caton, Martin

      Hanson, David

      Cawsey, Ian

      Harris, Dr Evan

      Chaytor, David

      Heal, Mrs Sylvia

      Chisholm, Malcolm

      Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

      Clapham, Michael

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Heppell, John

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Hesford, Stephen

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Hewitt, Ms Patricia

      Clelland, David

      Hill, Keith

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hodge, Ms Margaret

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hoon, Geoffrey

      Cohen, Harry

      Hope, Phil

      Coleman, Iain

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Colman, Tony

      Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

      Cooper, Yvette

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Corbett, Robin

      Hughes, Ms Beveriey (Stretford)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Corston, Ms Jean

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cotter, Brian

      Hurst, Alan

      Cousins, Jim

      Hutton, John

      Cox, Tom

      Illsley, Eric

      Crausby, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jamieson, David

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Curry, Rt Hon David

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dafis, Cynog

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

      Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

      Darvill, Keith

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      809

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Ruane, Chris

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Key, Robert

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Kidney, David

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      Kumar, Dr Ashok

      Salter, Martin

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Sanders, Adrian

      Lawrence, Ms Jackie

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Laxton, Bob

      Sawford, Phil

      Leslie, Christopher

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Levitt, Tom

      Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

      Linton, Martin

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Livingstone, Ken

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Singh, Marsha

      Lock, David

      Skinner, Dennis

      Love, Andrew

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      McAllion, John

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      McCabe, Steve

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

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

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Southworth, Ms Helen

      McDonnell, John

      Spellar, John

      McIsaac, Shona

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      McLeish, Henry

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McNulty, Tony

      Stevenson, George

      MacShane, Denis

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      McWalter, Tony

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      McWilliam, John

      Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Straw, Rt Hon Jack

      Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

      Stringer, Graham

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Marshall—Andrews, Robert

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Martlew, Eric

      Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

      Maxton, John

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Temple—Morris, Peter

      Meale, Alan

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

      Timms, Stephen

      Miller, Andrew

      Touhig, Don

      Moffatt, Laura

      Trickett, Jon

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Truswell, Paul

      Morley, Elliot

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Mountford, Kali

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Mullin, Chris

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Tyler, Paul

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Oaten, Mark

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Olner, Bill

      O'Neill, Martin

      Osborne, Ms Sandra

      Pearson, Ian

      Perham, Ms Linda

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter L

      Plaskitt, James

      Pond, Chris

      Pope, Greg

      Pound, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Prescott, Rt Hon John

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Purchase, Ken

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Rapson, Syd

      Raynsford, Nick

      Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

      Rendel, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Rooney, Terry

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      810

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Winnick, David

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Watts, David

      Wood, Mike

      White, Brian

      Woolas, Phil

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

      Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Mrs. Anne McGuire and

      Wills, Michael

      Mr. Jim Dowd.

      NOES

      Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

      Lidington, David

      Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bell, Martin (Tatton)

      Loughton, Tim

      Benton, Joe

      MacGregor, Rt Hon John

      Bercow, John

      Maclean, Rt Hon David

      Blunt, Crispin

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Body, Sir Richard

      Maude, Rt Hon Francis

      Brazier, Julian

      Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      Page, Richard

      Butterfill, John

      Paterson, Owen

      Cann, Jamie

      Pickles, Eric

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Clappison, James

      Randall, John

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

      Rogers, Allan

      Cran, James

      Rowlands, Ted

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Ruffley, David

      Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Day, Stephen

      St Aubyn, Nick

      Duncan Smith, Iain

      Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

      Faber, David

      Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

      Fallon, Michael

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Flight, Howard

      Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

      Fraser, Christopher

      Syms, Robert

      Gale, Roger

      Taylor, John M (Solihull)

      Gill, Christopher

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Thompson, William

      Grieve, Dominic

      Trend, Michael

      Gummer, Rt Hon John

      Viggers, Peter

      Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

      Walter, Robert

      Hawkins, Nick

      Wardle, Charles

      Heald, Oliver

      Wareing, Robert N

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Howard, Rt Hon Michael

      Whitney, Sir Raymond

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

      Jack, Rt Hon Michael

      Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Wray, James

      Lansley, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Letwin, Oliver

      Mrs. Teresa Gorman and

      Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

      Mr. Desmond Swayne.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Scottish Enterprise Bill
Order for Third Reading read.
8.27 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Section 25(2) of the Enterprise and New Towns (Scotland) Act 1990 places a financial limit upon Scottish Enterprise. The purpose of the Bill, as hon. Members who have followed its progress will know, is to increase the financial limit from the present level of £3,000 million to £4,000 million. In addition, it removes the provision enabling the Secretary of State to increase the limit further by statutory instrument.
Scottish Enterprise will reach the current limit in June. The Bill is required to allow it to continue to operate until March 2001. Thereafter, the Scottish Parliament will decide on the funding arrangements of Scottish Enterprise.
The Bill is technical. Both sides of the House supported it in principle on Second Reading and it was not amended in Committee. I therefore commend the Bill to the House.
8.28 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: The Bill is brief, and the Minister has made a brief speech. With his usual engaging manner, he sought to lull us into a sufficient sense of insensibility so that we would not wish to contribute at length. I certainly do not intend to detain the House for long, but some points need to be raised.
Our deliberations on the Bill have, surprisingly, occasioned some interesting debate. We have considered the question whether the agency to which it refers—Scottish Enterprise—is itself efficient. More importantly, we have considered whether the House, under the proposals for devolution enacted in the Scotland Act 1998, ought to continue to have a role of oversight in relation to the expenditure by that agency, given that the great part of its funding will come from the United Kingdom taxpayer.
I do not wish to rehearse again those arguments which have been amply rehearsed on Second Reading and in Committee. The Minister has been a kind of gentle Ozymandias throughout, asking us, in effect, to make our arguments, but not to press them to the point where he needs to tell us politely to disappear. However, in the course of that debate, we have become increasingly aware of another problem to which we have not yet alluded and, before we leave this subject, it needs to be aired.
Scottish Enterprise is not alone—there are other agencies like it around the United Kingdom. The Welsh Development Agency—the so-called economic powerhouse of Wales—is a prime example. In due course, there may be more agencies seeking to attract investment to a region or a country within the UK. It is to the great advantage of the UK as a whole if investment that would not otherwise come arrives under circumstances where that investment is drawn from outside the UK, where it would otherwise not have arrived in the UK but would have gone outside, or where it simply would not otherwise have been made. The same applies in the case of jobs.
812
Alas, that is not the only kind of activity in which regional or country-based development agencies need necessarily act. They may engage—nothing in their constitution prevents them from doing so—in a bidding war against one another to try to draw investment, and hence jobs, from one part of the UK to another. That is not a problem that afflicts Scottish Enterprise in particular. Nothing about Scottish Enterprise gives rise to the fear that it may seek to engage in such activity, but Scottish Enterprise has that ability. By raising its financial limit this evening, as we shall eventually do, we shall increase, rather than reduce, that ability.
Under normal circumstances—certainly under circumstances that would have obtained before the Scotland Act 1998 and its sister legislation in Wales and Northern Ireland—that potential problem would have existed anyway. Since the enactment of that legislation, that problem has increased and taken on a new character, which this Third Reading provides the House with an opportunity to ponder. Let us imagine the circumstances in reverse: that, in due course, the Government were to introduce parallel legislation in respect of agencies for the English regions. Let us suppose that those English regions were to use taxpayers' funds to engage in a bidding war to draw investment and jobs away from Scotland into the English regions.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Or into Wales and Northern Ireland.
Mr. Letwin: Or let us suppose that the Welsh Development Agency or a similar agency in Northern Ireland were to engage in the same activity, which is already possible. It would then be quite reasonable for people in Scotland to object on the basis that they were partly funding an agency that was drawing jobs and investment away from them. People in other parts of the United Kingdom could harbour similar feelings if, benefiting from this legislation, Scottish Enterprise were to engage in the same activity.
I hope that the House will note that I am specifically not making an argument that is derogatory about Scottish Enterprise and its management, nor do I suggest that there is an asymmetry between the way in which people in Scotland would act or respond, and the way in which people in other parts of the Kingdom would act or respond. On the contrary, I am talking about rational behaviour and attitudes on the part of people throughout the Kingdom. It is a fact of life that no one likes to have some of their money used, via the Consolidated Fund, to fund an agency to take jobs and investment away from their patch in the United Kingdom.
Following devolution, that pattern could all too easily be exploited, in particular by nationalists. If a party wanted to destabilise the United Kingdom and to play on the rational fears that I have described, it could all too easily use the fact that a development agency such as Scottish Enterprise or one in another part of the kingdom is dragging jobs and investment from its part—the part that the nationalists in question happen to defend and to believe should be separate—to another.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Not "could"—such a party certainly will. It is human nature.
Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman is probably right, as he often is, but I hope that he will note that I am trying

813
to make the case not in the most lurid way, but, on the contrary, in the most cautious way possible. It is at least evidently possible. He may be right that it will occur.
My concern is to make it abundantly clear that I am not trying to arouse or to inflame sentiments. On the contrary, I am trying to assuage. I am trying to put the case in as calm a way as I can to make it clear that we have a collective problem that should be faced by people from all parts of the kingdom who wish the United Kingdom to remain intact.
Of course I recognise honourably that some hon. Members present do not wish the UK to remain intact. They will welcome any mechanism that enables the United Kingdom more rapidly to descend into tension.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I am following what my hon. Friend says with care. He will be more familiar with the passage of the Bill than I am, but have the Government at any stage during its passage in the House or in Committee published or presented to the House or Committee a concordat—which, I understand, should occur—between Scotland, Wales and the regions of England about the circumstances in which particularly regional selective assistance is to be made available?
Mr. Letwin: The short answer is, of course, no. As my hon. Friend will know, the whole question of concordats is extremely vexed. None of us knows what the juridical status of the administrative contracts between—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The terms of the Bill are narrow. We are talking about increasing the borrowing powers of Scottish Enterprise, so we should not go into the powers that a new Parliament in Edinburgh, or any other devolved Parliament might have. We must stick to the Bill before us.
Mr. Letwin: Absolutely, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It is true that, under the Bill, the financial limit for Scottish Enterprise having been increased, its ability—were it to choose to do so—to engage in the activities that I have described will increase. That would have to be restricted via a concordat, I think, unless it were restricted by Act of Parliament.
During the debates on the Bill, the Minister has not advanced any suggestion that the Bill should be amended to introduce a mechanism to restrict the activities of Scottish Enterprise in drawing away investment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We have now come to Third Reading. The hon. Gentleman had opportunities to table amendments in Committee. He could also have tabled what are known as probing amendments. It is not for me to tell him what his job is, but we have landed at the Third Reading of the Bill, which is very narrow. He must keep to the terms of the Third Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Letwin: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Lansley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I seek your guidance? In considering whether we should give the Bill a Third Reading, I must also consider whether there is to be a concordat between Scotland,
814
Wales and England on the circumstances in which grant aid is to be provided for projects. That, surely, is of some relevance. Is it acceptable for us to debate it?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There are always opportunities for hon. Members to find out about such matters. There are many occasions, including Scottish questions, on which the hon. Gentleman can find out about those other matters, but he can only talk about what is in the Bill. I am guided by the rules of the House, which say that we are discussing only Third Reading of the Bill.
Mr. Letwin: I am guided by your instructions, Mr. Deputy Speaker. My observations are intended to suggest that there remains a deficiency in the Bill, in that it provides no mechanism to constrain the activities of Scottish Enterprise in relation to drawing investment from other parts of the United Kingdom. That ought to be common ground between all those present who are not in favour of breaking up the United Kingdom. I know that the Minister is not in favour of that. The Opposition are not either, and I believe that others present are not, with the exception of members of one party.
I think that all of us who share that view should regard the Bill as—alas—a missed opportunity. That does not mean that there is something intrinsically wrong with it from a positive point of view, for it does its job perfectly adequately, but it fails to do another job, and, if the Minister considers the issue, he may think that that job is worth doing in some form or another. I hope that, if and when the House must consider further legislation concerning such an agency—I doubt that there will be another Bill concerning this agency, for obvious reasons—the Minister will recommend such mechanisms to his ministerial colleagues. Those observations clearly apply with equal force to any regional agency in England, for example, and such matters would be dealt with in the House.
You were right, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to admonish me for not having raised this matter earlier. On reflection, I think that it would have been a good idea to table amendments. I do not, however, want to let the Third Reading debate pass without having made a point that I consider to be right, even if the person making it is culpable in not having made it earlier. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to press the Minister. I also hope that the Minister will have a word or two to say about whether the Government accept the general principle. Whether or not they finally agree with the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), who suggested that it was inevitable that the problem would arise, I hope that they will accept that there is a potential for it to arise. I trust that the Minister will tell us that the Government will address, in some manner—they cannot do so in the context of this Bill—the need to prevent a bidding war that would draw investment uselessly from one part of the kingdom to another, to the possible advantage of separatists whom most of us do not wish to prosper.
Mr. Lansley: Some months ago, I tabled parliamentary questions asking what had been the maximum cost per job of provision for projects in Scotland, Wales and England. The responses showed that, in Scotland, the maximum cost per job had reached £17,000, whereas in Wales and England it had reached £15,000. On the face of it, therefore, there is scope for Scottish Enterprise to

815
use the resources available at a higher maximum cost per job than would be possible in other parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend, as he does so often, makes an interesting point. I suppose that, in raising the financial limits for Scottish Enterprise, the Bill would potentially aggravate the situation.
Sir Robert Smith: Has the hon. Gentleman considered the consequences of not passing the Bill?
Mr. Letwin: There is ample evidence on the record, from statements made on Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage, to suggest that Her Majesty's Opposition have no intention of preventing the Bill's passage. We recognise that it needs to be passed, because Scottish Enterprise needs to continue its work, much of which—notwithstanding the comments that we have made about its efficiency—is valuable.
Mr. John Bercow: I appreciate the position taken on the matter by Opposition Front Benchers and Back Benchers, but I am conscious also of my hon. Friend's reputation as a Unionist. Is he saying that he is prepared to countenance, by supporting the Bill, a situation in which we acquiesce in, or vote for, differential treatment of different parts of the United Kingdom?
Mr. Letwin: My hon. Friend was right to seek, on my behalf, that I should protect my reputation as a Unionist; I hold nothing dearer. We are told nowadays that that view is shared on both sides of the House, and that is much to be welcomed.
Mr. Bercow: Action speaks louder than words.
Mr. Letwin: Alas, in some respects, that is true.
The purpose of the Bill is not in any way to aggravate the problem that I have been describing. If the Bill's provisions were abused, it could lead to an aggravation of the problem—but that is not the purpose of the Bill itself. I fear that, if the Bill is passed without amendment, it will be a missed opportunity to cure a potential problem. I do not by any means go so far as to say that, in itself, it will cause a further problem.
The Opposition shall therefore not be pressing the matter so that it causes friction or difficulty for Scottish Enterprise itself or for the Government. We do, however, urge the Minister to take on board the points that I have made. I hope that, in his usual manner, he will tell the House that he recognises the seriousness of the issues and that he will seek to address them in one way or another.
8.46 pm
Mr. Dennis Canavan: I welcome the Bill's Third Reading, and the potential additional investment—an increase in the aggregate amount outstanding from £3 billion to £4 billion—that it will provide for Scottish Enterprise and its subsidiaries. There will be a general welcome for the increase not only in
816
the House, but across Scotland. In his reply, however, will the Minister be good enough to give us some indication of how he envisages that additional money will be used to regenerate the Scottish economy and to try to improve job opportunities for the people of Scotland?
The Minister may recall that, last week, at Scottish Question Time, I pointed out that, according to International Labour Organisation statistics, last year unemployment in the United Kingdom fell by 98,000, whereas there was a 9,000 increase in Scotland. That was before the recent declaration of redundancies at places such as Wrangler, BP, Kvaerner, Bishopton and Volvo. In the past month, in the Falkirk area alone, more than 1,000 redundancies have been announced. It has been the biggest spate of redundancies in the area for many years.
I was very disappointed indeed last week with the Secretary of State's reply to my question. He said:
"A little perspective would be rather more helpful than suggesting that the end of the world is nigh."—[Official Report, 23 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 166.]
That reply went down like a lead balloon in Falkirk.
Last week, the Secretary of State never even replied to my suggestion of a top-level meeting, comprising a high-ranking Minister and representatives of local people and the local business community, to discuss the area's jobs crisis. I am grateful that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has just entered the Chamber.
I hope that the Scottish Enterprise Bill will offer, through Scottish Enterprise and Forth Valley Enterprise, an opportunity for more investment in areas such as Falkirk. I should like the Minister or the Secretary of State to confirm that, and to outline specific proposals for action.
As the Secretary of State and the Minister may know, recently, with representatives of the local community, I took part in a delegation that went to see Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, who has responsibility at the Scottish Office for business and industry. We made a very strong case for assisted area status in the Falkirk area, to encourage industrial and economic development. That case was supported by the chairman of Forth Valley Enterprise, who participated in the delegation. I hope that the additional investment that the Bill provides will help him to put some money where his mouth is and ensure that Forth Valley Enterprise works in partnership with potential inward investors in the private sector to persuade them to come to our area and ensure that something is done to reduce the appalling and unacceptable level of unemployment.
The Bill should increase the investment potential of Forth Valley Enterprise, which should help to save existing jobs and create new ones through inward investment. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister said how he thinks that the Bill will help to regenerate the economy in the Falkirk area and improve the employment prospects of my constituents.
8.51 pm
Sir Robert Smith: I shall be brief, because this is a short Bill and I do not want to hold up other matters to be discussed later this evening that affect Scottish business. Scottish legislation will not hold the House up in future and we shall have time to scrutinise other issues more closely.

817
I welcome the fact that the Bill provides for transitional arrangements to keep Scottish Enterprise alive and active until the Scottish Parliament takes control of its affairs, guiding and directing the most efficient use of the money in Scotland to be invested for the benefit of Scotland.
Given that no amendments were tabled in Committee or on Report, the Bill has clearly not attracted much controversy. The fact that the Official Opposition have said that they do not intend to vote against it suggests that it deserves to be passed quickly, so that we have time to scrutinise other measures.
8.52 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I intervened earlier on the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) because he could not see that the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was looking as though she were the cat who had swallowed the cream. The truth is that she has swallowed the cream. Every Member of the Holyrood Parliament will inevitably behave like the nationalists in this matter. People struggle for their institution. Conflict will certainly materialise in some form. That is why I intervened to say that it will, rather than it could.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that the financing of Scottish Enterprise would be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. We have a Treasury Minister on the Front Bench. What is the Treasury view of the Minister's statement? Is it fully endorsed by the Treasury? I should be very interested to have confirmation of that, because I wonder whether it has been agreed by the Treasury.
I should like to follow up the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan). There is a problem with assisted area status. The area that I have the good fortune to represent is one of the more prosperous parts not only of Scotland, but of Britain. However, Ministers had better be careful about killing the proverbial goose that laid the golden egg. Thousands of people from Lanarkshire and 1,500 to 2,000 people from Fife come into west Lothian every day because of the factories in Livingston and elsewhere that we have been fortunate enough to attract.
Ministers must be careful because, even now, this is a fragile economy. My hon. Friend the Minister knows all the arguments that have been expertly deployed by West Lothian district council. I should like an answer to the question on assisted area status, and how this will be dovetailed.
8.55 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall be brief—so brief that I shall sit down before 9 o'clock. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) referred to the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) as a cat who had swallowed the cream. However, I totally reject the Cassandra-like projection offered by my hon. Friend. I know of one candidate hoping to secure a seat in the Scottish Parliament who would reject entirely the notion that she was a nationalist.
I reject also what the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) had to say about the Scottish Parliament and its monitoring of Scottish Enterprise's expenditure. I have
818
every confidence that the kind of candidates that all parties are putting forward for the Scottish Parliament will carry out—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have given some leeway, but I cannot allow discussion of candidates. The Bill is narrow—it proposes to double the borrowing powers of Scottish Enterprise. That is all we can talk about.
Dr. Godman: I beg your pardon, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, I wanted to make the point that any extra investment—we are talking about an extra £1 billion, not £3 billion—should be used to re-energise those parts of the country which have been hit badly by job losses. I need hardly remind my hon. Friend the Minister of the 650 jobs disappearing from National Semiconductor, the 350 jobs to be lost at Amp in Port Glasgow and job losses at Royal Ordnance Bishopton and elsewhere. It is essential that that money be used to maintain work and to bring in highly skilled work.
Finally, I wish to make a plea for the Gourock waterfront, because the infrastructure needs to be developed. If that can take place with money from Renfrewshire Enterprise, the whole area will be a much better place in which to live, and it will attract more investment and more jobs.
8.57 pm
Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I wish to put it on record that there is enormous Back-Bench appreciation of the huge increase in the budget of Scottish Enterprise, and we expect great things from it. I am speaking as a Glasgow Member of Parliament, representing one of a number of constituencies with high and continuing levels of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said that everybody in the Scottish Parliament would be a nationalist. The truth of the matter might be that we will all be Glasgow nationalists, Edinburgh nationalists, Aberdeen nationalists and so on.
There are serious concerns, and that is why there will be enormous resentment about the remarks of the Opposition spokesman, who begrudged us the extra money for areas of our country which have badly needed money to make employment possible. Instead, some have had money sucked out of them—as has been the case with Glasgow.
Mr. Dalyell: May I just clarify something? I did not say—nor would I ever say—that my hon. Friend or any of our colleagues were nationalists. I said that members of the Scottish Parliament would behave as if they were nationalists.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps it might have been better if I had stopped the hon. Gentleman making those remarks in the first place. I will certainly not allow him to do so in an intervention. I believe in any case that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe) has finished.
8.58 pm
Mr. Macdonald: This has turned out to be another interesting debate on a narrow and technical measure. I should remind the House that the Bill increases the

819
borrowing limits for Scottish Enterprise—it does not, of itself, increase the funds available. It allows Scottish Enterprise to continue to be funded, and it allows the Government to continue to provide Scottish Enterprise with the money it needs to carry out its work.
Mr. Lansley: Will the Minister answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? Is the Treasury content for the Scottish Parliament to ask Scottish Enterprise to increase the limit further, even though it may be taking on borrowing powers or contingent liabilities, without any further limit being set for national economic reasons?
Mr. Macdonald: It will be for the Scottish Executive to decide how much money to provide to Scottish Enterprise out of the Scottish block. That is what devolution is all about. The Treasury is fully satisfied with the Bill.
It is legitimate to ask about inward investment, but not necessarily in the context of the Bill; it might be more appropriate in discussions on the Scotland Act 1998. The Government accept that it would be sensible to have effective co-ordination of financial assistance offered throughout the United Kingdom. It is in no one's interest to have an auction or bidding war. The White Paper on devolution envisaged that United Kingdom guidelines and consultation arrangements for the devolved bodies would be set out by concordat.
There is nothing new or special about that in principle. The incentives that can be offered to inward investors will depend on assisted area status, which is itself dependent on various European Union rules and regulations. It is not uniquely a United Kingdom problem. It is a matter of concern throughout Europe that we should not get unfair playing fields or uncompetitive practices, so we will seek to establish in the United Kingdom, by concordat, the same principles that we want to agree throughout the European Union.
Some of my hon. Friends have expressed concerns about unemployment and job losses in their constituencies. That is a matter of concern to the Government, which is why we need to ensure that Scottish Enterprise continues to function and put its strategy into effect. Thanks to the new deal and other measures, unemployment—the claimant count—is at its lowest in Scotland since 1977, under the previous Labour Government, and we should take some pride and satisfaction from that; but every job loss is a matter of genuine and grave concern not only to constituency Members but to the Government.
Scottish Enterprise recently published its strategy. The Bill is technical and will simply allow the borrowing limits to be raised to allow Scottish Enterprise to continue to carry out its work and the Scottish Parliament to institute future arrangements as appropriate. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Corporation Tax
9.4 pm
Mr. Nick Gibb: I beg to move,
That the Corporation Tax (Instalment Payments) Regulations 1998 (S.I., 1998, No. 3175), dated 17th December 1998, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th December, be revoked.
I thank the Government for allowing a debate on this important and far-reaching statutory instrument. The regulations are yet another example of the Government's policy of raising taxes by stealth. The Prime Minister, in the months leading up to the general election, said:
"We have no plans to raise taxes at all."
In response to a phone-in caller, he promised:
"Our proposals do not involve raising taxes, and if we have any such proposals we will make them clear before the election."
Within three months of his election as Prime Minister, his Government raised taxes. Those additions now amount to some £40 billion of tax increases, including the cuts in married couple's allowance, the cut in mortgage interest relief at source, extra petrol duties, higher stamp duties, especially on businesses, and a £5 billion a year tax on pension funds. The corporation tax regulations will cost industry £1.6 billion in the first year, £2 billion in the second year, £3.1 billion in year three and £2.2 billion in year four.
The regulations change the whole system of corporation tax. As such, it is wrong that the regulations should be implemented by secondary legislation—and by negative resolution at that. The regulations amount to just 15 paragraphs and they could and should have been included in last year's Finance Bill, so that they could have been debated at length and, more importantly, amended. As the Institute of Directors has said:
"The dates on which tax is payable and any associated penalties are fundamental matters, which should be dealt with in primary legislation."
Senior accountants have expressed their concern about this use of secondary legislation. It prompted Richard Collier-Keywood, a partner at PricewaterhouseCoopers, to say:
"I think we are getting perilously close to some constitutional issues."
The regulations change the dates on which companies have to pay their corporation tax bills. Under the current system, which has been in place for nearly three decades, companies pay their tax bills nine months after the end of their accounting period. A company with an accounting period ending on 31 December 1998 would pay its tax bill on 1 October 1999. Under the system proposed in the regulations, companies will have to pay their tax in four quarterly instalments, with the first instalment being paid six months before the end of the accounting period, the second three months before the end, with the final two instalments being paid at year-end and three months after it. In other words, whereas currently companies pay their tax some 21 months after the beginning of an accounting period, under the new system companies will start to pay their tax after just six months.
That is an enormous change and brings forward the tax bills of 20,000 of the largest companies in this country. Together, those companies employ more than half of all employees and represent half of the total turnover in

821
businesses in the United Kingdom. That is why the measure will raise £8.9 billion of extra taxes over the four-year transition period, money which has to be found and paid over by the corporate sector. That money could have been used for investment and job creation.
Mr. John Bercow: In regularly and wrongly claiming that the burden of corporation tax has been reduced since the general election, is the Prime Minister guilty, in my hon. Friend's opinion, of knavery or folly?
Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a good point.
The Government were elected on a clear mandate of no tax rises, but there have been £40 billion of tax rises in a mere two years. In addition to the taxes that I have mentioned, we have seen a £5.2 billion windfall tax, a £5 billion tax on pension funds and the £15 billion regulatory burden on business. Those are staggering sums of money to take from British business. Anyone who claims that it will not damage British industry is at best naive and at worst negligent of, and reckless with, the job prospects of hundreds of thousands of employees.
Ms Sally Keeble: The hon. Gentleman tells us that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that there would be no tax increases under the Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the utilities tax—the windfall tax—which was part of our manifesto commitment and was clearly flagged up. His two statements are incorrect—or incompatible.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Although the hon. Lady was making an intervention, I should make it clear to hon. Members that we are discussing a statutory instrument that deals with the collection of corporation tax; not taxation in general.
Mr. Gibb: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. The windfall tax was the one tax measure highlighted in the manifesto; no other tax measures were mentioned. The tax changes that we are discussing were not mentioned in the Labour manifesto.
Mr. Christopher Leslie: In proposing to revoke the statutory instrument, the hon. Gentleman suggests that there will be a significant drop in Government revenue. How would he plug that gap? What other taxes would he raise, and which public services would he cut?
Mr. Gibb rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) does not want to go into that matter, as that would be straying from the motion before the House.
Mr. Gibb: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, the money will have been spent by the time that the Conservatives return to office, but, when we return, we shall clear up the mess left by the Government.
No one should be taken in by the Government's argument that the cost of the regulations will be offset by the cut in the corporation tax rate. One glance at the
822
Red Book will dispel that myth. In 1999–2000, the introduction of quarterly corporation tax payments will cost industry £1,600 billion. The benefit of the rate cut, according to the Red Book, will be "negligible". In the following year, the quarterly payment will cost industry £2,000 million, but the benefit from the rate cut will be only £700 million. That is why the Confederation of British Industry states:
"The reduction in the Corporation Tax rate does not amount to full compensation for earlier payment."
The introduction of quarterly payments was not a carefully constructed and well-motivated reform of the corporation tax system by the Government, but pure firefighting. It is the latest stage in a saga of incompetence that began in July 1997, in the Labour Government's first Budget, when they abolished the repayment of dividend tax credits to pension funds. That measure meant that the Government had to abolish foreign income dividends, leading to a huge protest by British multinationals, which had surplus advance corporation tax problems that foreign income dividends had been helping to alleviate.
The Government were in chaos and did not know what to do. The Paymaster General proposed a range of hopeless solutions. In the end, the Government decided to abolish advance corporation tax altogether. However, that created a cash-flow cost to the Exchequer, so the Government proposed the introduction of quarterly corporation tax payments. As a by-product, the new system also raised a huge chunk of extra revenue for the Government for which British industry is paying the price.
We now have a system that not only costs industry an extra £2 billion, but creates difficult and burdensome compliance problems. The quarterly payments are based on a company's current year profits, with the first payment being made halfway through that year. In other words, companies will have to estimate their profits for the year and then calculate their taxable profits and pay the first quarterly instalments after only six months of the year.
The Government claim that all the 20,000 so-called large companies affected by the regulations have sophisticated budgeting and forecasting systems in place. That may well be true of the top 1,000 companies, or even of the top 2,000 or 3,000 companies, but not of the 17,000, 18,000 or 19,000 next largest companies in Britain. Even if all those companies had sophisticated forecasting and budgeting systems, no company can forecast the state of the economy, changes in the weather, in taste or in fashion, or a change in a competitor's product or service. All those changes have an impact on sales and profits. No company can forecast with certainty a change in the price of a raw material, or the exchange rate or interest rates. How can an insurance company forecast a major national disaster, or a large accident, in the final quarter of its accounting period? Yet the Government expect companies to do so and to calculate their tax bills, down to the last pound, on the basis of those forecasts.
For many companies, there is an additional problem in that the majority of their profits are determined in just two or three months of the year. That is true of seasonal companies in, for example, tourism, toy manufacture, jewellery retailing and agriculture. For such companies, a few months are critical and it is usual for them to have a year-end just after the important months so that shareholders may have the results from those months as soon as possible.

823
The majority of profits for those companies are therefore earned at the end of the accounting period. However, the regulations mean that they are expected to estimate the profits, and pay tax on them, in the first half of the accounting period. Not only is it difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the figures with any accuracy but the companies are also required to pay tax on profits that have not yet been earned. For many companies, that will create real difficulties. One major seasonal company has said:
"We will need to borrow funds to pay 50 per cent. of our annual tax liability in advance, which will result in punitive interest rates."
Mr. Geraint Davies: Is it not the case that significant companies that trade on the stock market must declare their position on a quarterly basis to buoy up their share prices? I am glad to see the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) on the Opposition Front Bench: is it not true that, on 23 June, he tabled an amendment to the Finance Bill asking for special treatment for the retail industry without having disclosed his directorship of Asda?
Mr. Gibb: When companies declare results to the stock exchange, they do so in retrospect. They do not have to forecast their profits a year or six months in advance. Supermarkets do not suffer from seasonal variations.
The Government claim that quarterly payments work in other jurisdictions, particularly Australia, Canada, France, Germany, Japan and the United States. In all those countries, except Australia and the United States, instalments are based wholly or mainly on the previous year's taxable profits rather than on those of the current year, as the regulations require. In Australia and the United States, the systems allow some alternative methods to mitigate the difficulties faced by seasonal companies. No such help is provided in the regulations, despite promises by the former Paymaster General on Second Reading of the Finance Act 1998 and during its Committee stage that he would carefully consider such matters and return to them.
What, according to the regulations, is the consequence for a company that wrongly estimates its tax charge and its quarterly instalments? The first penalty if the company understates its instalment will be an interest charge 2 per cent. above base rates. Overpayment will be compensated for by rates of one quarter of 1 per cent. below base. Despite the reduced margin differential, those are punitive rates for companies to suffer simply for failing to calculate accurately a sum that it is impossible to calculate accurately.
Penalties are set out in paragraph 13. The original consultation document said that penalties would be chargeable only if a company "deliberately and flagrantly" failed to make an instalment of sufficient size. That sounded fair enough. The document also said that that would result in penalties being paid in no more than a handful of instances each year.
I do not know whether the Treasury received representations that the penalty regime was not harsh enough, but the regulations now say that a penalty will be imposed on a company that "deliberately or recklessly" fails to pay the right amount. It need not be a deliberate miscalculation; it need only be reckless.
824
How do we define "reckless"? How much forecasting effort are companies expected to engage in to avoid the charge of being reckless? The penalties are not small—they amount to up to 200 per cent. of the amount of interest charged on the underpayment. It would be helpful of the Paymaster General to explain why the wording changed between the consultation document and the regulation. What does she mean by "reckless"?
The Government seek to give the impression that they are business friendly, but we are debating a statutory instrument that will cost business dear. It will result in higher tax bills for the next four years, to the tune of £8.9 billion. Therefore, this is a hugely important issue, which should not be sneaked through as secondary legislation in a one-and-a-half hour debate—a debate that, incidentally, would not have been held but for the fact that the Opposition prayed against the regulations.
The regulations are yet another example of where the image and posture of the Government differ from the reality. They pretend to be business friendly while loading on to Britain's top 20,000 companies billions of pounds of extra taxation. Do not take our word for it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Adair Turner, the Director General of the CBI, said recently:
"There is a concern about the accumulation of extra costs which have been imposed on business of which the biggest was actually the Corporation Tax changes which were very carefully"—
portrayed—
"as a reduction in tax rates, but were actually a tax increase".
Those are not our words, but those of the CBI.
The Government portray themselves as a Government of better regulation, while piling on mountains of complex regulations. They pretend to be concerned about jobs, while presiding over measures such as these regulations, which will damage the job prospects of hundreds of thousands of employees. They posture about investment, while taking from industry £40 billion that would otherwise have been used for investment. As the Institute for Fiscal Studies said recently:
"The net increase in taxation of company profits sits uneasily alongside the desire to raise business investment."
The regulations amount to no more than yet another of the Government's stealth taxes. They are anti-business, anti-investment and anti-jobs and I urge the House to reject them.
9.21 pm
Sir Peter Lloyd: I found the regulations difficult to follow. I realise that effective drafting invariably produces impenetrable prose. There have to be complicated references to other legislation and draftsmen have to cater for every eventuality that their ingenuity can envisage. I tried to understand paragraph 3—the crucial regulation—which defines the large companies that will be affected. I could not make sense of it. If you read it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will find several sub-paragraphs stating what a large company is not, but none stating what it is. I turned hopefully to the explanatory note, which clearly states and I quote in full:
"Regulation 3 defines a 'large company' for the purposes of the Regulations."
That is it—not a hint as to how big a company has to be to qualify as such under the regulations.

825
It would have been useful if, accompanying the regulations, there was an explanatory note that really explained that, not merely for hon. Members but for interested parties outside—not least the managers of the companies affected. Perhaps it would be even better, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) said, if matters of such moment were included in primary legislation, so that they could be fully debated and amended.
I hope that the Paymaster General will tell us, as her personal contribution to open government, that she will ensure that, in future, subordinate legislation from the Treasury will always come with reasonably full explanations for the layman.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said convincingly from the Opposition Front Bench, the Government have stumbled into these changes. They started by abolishing tax credits for pension funds and others, found that they created anomalies and a cash flow difficulty for themselves and had to go further, hence the regulations. No one would mind the stumbling too much, if only the outcome were reasonable and fair. It is not. Instead of the potential cash flow reduction for the Government, they have contrived a hefty cash windfall for themselves for the next four years because payment of corporation tax by large companies will be brought forward. That will be handy for the Chancellor, and the Exchequer will get a substantial bonus, peaking at £3 billion in 2001–02, which may well be election year.
The Government could have organised a neutral system, but they did not. Despite the reduction in the nominal rates of corporation tax, for the next three years they will be collecting more. That additional cash flow, which the Government find so useful and which creates confidence in their accounts, is exactly matched by a reduced cash flow in the large companies from which it is taken. Their finances are weakened, with an obvious consequent reduction in their ability to invest and create jobs. With these regulations, the Government are hurting the large businesses that they claim to support and encourage. They are raising the burdens on them stealthily when profit margins are likely to be under pressure from subdued world trade.
Moreover, the Government seem to have made their arrangements far more complicated and uncertain than they needed to. Companies will have to estimate their profits for the whole year and pay the appropriate fraction quarterly. That will make error inevitable and create unwelcome opportunities for honest companies whose forecasts prove unreliable to be accused of bad faith by the Revenue. It would surely save much time, trouble and misunderstanding if we adopted the procedures used for individual taxpayers and based forward payments on the previous year. There would be no argument and no extra work; it would be eminently straightforward. I hope that the Minister will explain why the Government chose a more difficult and complicated method when a simple one was readily available.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton made an important point about the interest rate at which overpayments and underpayments are charged. In all good faith, forecasts are often bound to be overestimated and underestimated. However, as I understand it, the Treasury will give a lower rate of interest on overpayments made in good faith by large
826
companies than it will charge on underpayments made in equally good faith. I realise that that is merely a continuation of current practice, but that can perhaps be justified under present arrangements because payments are made in arrears; companies should get it right each time. It is unfair and unreasonable to make the distinction under the estimate-based system that the regulations introduce. I hope that the Minister will say whether the Government are prepared to reconsider.
The regulations serve as a tax increase on large companies. The Government would gain more trust and respect if they admitted as much instead of posing as their friend anxious only to reduce the burdens with a cut in the rate of corporation tax. I hope that the Minister will also address that point.
9.28 pm
Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on this matter. I speak neither as a tax expert nor as one with huge experience in private companies, but the matter is of concern to my constituents because, behind what look like technical regulations, lie several issues about the Government's approach to the tax regime and welfare state changes that have been constantly raised by the public. That was recognised by Opposition Members because they spoke not only about technical issues, but about the factors behind them and some of their consequences.
A consequence repeatedly raised by the Opposition and by my constituents is the impact of the changes on the income of pensioners, particularly those who are partly reliant on investment income. It is important to recognise that, to such people, the prospect of losing some of that income as a result of the changes is a substantial concern. The loss for the average person will be about £75 pounds a year, but that must be offset against the many other changes that the Government have made that will increase pensioners' individual incomes by more than that sum. In addition, whatever changes are made to tax regimes, pensioners, including the ones in my constituency who have investment income, will be far better off if there is a healthy economy, created in part by the sort of measures included in the regulations.
Mr. Bercow: What is the ethical basis on which the Government propose to charge more interest on underpayment than they propose to pay in cases of overpayment?
Ms Keeble: I shall come to that point, which was raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). However, first, I shall finish my remarks on the impact that the regulations will have on pensioners' investment income. I am sure that Opposition Members recognise that, as a result of their repeatedly raising and debating the issue, considerable concern has been aroused within the pensioner community and Members' postbags now contain quite a lot of correspondence on the subject. Having considered the facts of the matter and the long-term interest in having a sound economy that will ultimately be of far greater benefit to pensioners, I have no difficulty in justifying the proposed regulations.
Sir Robert Smith: I cannot quite understand how the hon. Lady

827
envisages the creation of a sound economy being assisted by taking out of the cash flow of industry several billion pounds that could be invested.
Ms Keeble: The regulations are not the only measure that the Government are taking to build a sound economy; they are one set of proposals, which affect companies in one particular way but, when talking about a sound economy, we have to consider the full range of Government actions. Those measures will build a sounder economy and so benefit pensioners.
If one wanted to look at one of the most direct measures of confidence in the economy, where one might expect to see any shaking of confidence resulting from the changes, one might look at the stock exchange. That is currently at record levels, so if companies have felt any qualms and investors' confidence in companies has been shaken, that has not yet shown up.
The Opposition have made much of the assertion that the proposed regulations would be profoundly damaging to companies and long-term investment. In fact, the regulations form part of a range of proposals to encourage investment. I am no expert, but I ask Opposition Members to consider the impact of the Conservative Government's decision to abolish the 100 per cent. tax relief on capital allowance, and to change the arrangement for the writing down of assets from 25 to 4 per cent. Those measures had two effects: first, to increase the tax base and secondly, to discourage investment and encourage other uses to be made of the money.
Much has been made of the reasons why the Government have decided to make changes, rather than leave matters as they were. There are two main reasons: first, to encourage investment and secondly, to deal with anomalies in the existing structure of corporation tax, especially some of the pressures on British companies that have substantial interests abroad.
The Opposition have also made much of the arrangements for differential interest rates on penalties paid. In looking at those issues, the Government responded substantially to representations made during the consultation process.
In opening the debate, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton mentioned advice provided by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the fact that it appeared that we would have to deal with a constitutional issue. I have great respect for PricewaterhouseCoopers and for the advice that it gives. However, the company comprises management consultants and accountants who are not constitutional experts, and I believe that they have made a mistake in this case.
The Opposition's concerns and the proposals that they wish to discuss do not include the detailed workings of the measure or the constitutional niceties of its introduction in the House. I am sure that, if the Government had got it wrong, points of order would have been taken and a different procedure would have been followed. In all discussions so far about these issues, it has been apparent that the Opposition are using this legislation and these regulations to pursue a different agenda: attacking the Government's economic record.
Mr. Bercow: I suspect that the hon. Lady probably knows that her explanation of differential interest
828
payments is nonsense on stilts. In light of her comments about listening to consultation, will she explain why the British Chambers of Commerce, the Confederation of British Industry and the Institute of Directors are uniformly hostile to the proposals in their present form?
Ms Keeble: That might be so. During the consultation process, particular points were made about the difficulties that companies would face, some of which were taken into account in the final arrangements. I do not claim to be able to do things that I cannot and I made it clear at the outset that I am not a tax expert or an expert in company law. The Whip has not told me what to say: I have had long and genuine experience in this area and received many constituency letters about the issue. Many of my constituents have investment income and have shifted their affiliations away from the Conservative party. I am sure that the Opposition know the income levels and particular political interests of that community. I am extremely interested in ensuring that I can respond fully to my constituents' arguments.
Opposition Members demonstrated clearly that they are using the measure to attack the Government's economic and welfare proposals, and their implications for pensioners.
Mr. Bercow: That is nonsense.
Ms Keeble: It is not.
I support the proposals before us tonight. They are part of the Government's wide programme to build a sound economy, promote public confidence, encourage investment and strengthen industry. We want to ensure that those who invest in our economy—particularly those who invest long term for their pensions—can have real confidence in their actions and a secure future. I hope that the Opposition motion will be defeated tonight.
9.39 pm
Mr. Brian Cotter: I am glad that the regulations have come before the House tonight, because that gives us another opportunity to debate what amounts to a major change in the country's tax regime and denies the Government the chance to slip the change through quietly.
The taste that the Government have developed for secondary legislation should be discouraged. The Liberal Democrats will oppose the regulations, not because we oppose the principle of advance payments—we have conceded that the previous system needed reform—but because we harbour significant doubts about the manner of their introduction.
The Chancellor has trumpeted long and loud in his Budgets about his reduction of the rate of corporation tax, but we all know that the regulations will result in a considerable net gain to the Exchequer, something to which attention has been drawn tonight. The Paymaster General has recently claimed that the Treasury has estimated that the long-term effect of the changes will be a net reduction in companies' liabilities. If the Chancellor is not concerned about that and if he does not intend to hit businesses, why are the regulations framed so that they will increase the short-term liability of businesses so dramatically?
The transition period allowed by the regulations is insufficiently generous if the Government's primary intention is indeed to move towards a fairer tax regime.

829
The transition arrangements seem concerned only with the changes to companies' cash-flow arrangements. However, it seems likely that the regulations will require an extremely substantial change in accounting procedure in affected companies. To cope with the new system of estimation, it would surely be wise to give a far longer time to adjust than the brief period allowed by the regulations.
The Government seem instead to have arranged the regulations to maximise their incidental increase in revenue from the transition. If the Chancellor wants to increase his net gain from companies, does he not owe it to them to be open and honest about that? The regulations are central to the Chancellor's public sleight of hand, which makes him appear to be giving while secretly gathering.
I am further concerned that some of the undertakings given in a debate last April by the previous Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), do not appear to have been given any house room in the regulations. In the face of an amendment concerned with companies whose profits were subject to seasonal fluctuation, he undertook carefully to consider the matter.
The regulations are complex and thorough on the punitive arrangements put in place for non-compliance and error, but do not have a crumb of comfort for those companies whose cash flow could be severely compromised by the new arrangements. Is the House to conclude that the Paymaster General thought carefully, as promised, about the unfortunate position of those companies, but then decided to do nothing about them?
I do not support the regulations. The Government's rhetoric and practice do not add up. If I may paraphrase a well-respected authority, that which we call a tax rise by any other name would sting as hard, and that would be the effect of the regulations.
9.43 pm
Mr. John Townend: Unlike most Labour Members, who have never run even a small corner shop, I have had 35 years' experience of running medium businesses, so I understand the problems of businesses and business men, and I have a slight knowledge of accountancy. I do not have to declare an interest tonight because, regrettably, my companies make less than £1.5 million.
I approach the regulations by asking whether the proposed changes in the payment of corporation tax are aimed at benefiting industry or the Inland Revenue. When we hear the Government continually trumpeting that Labour is the new party of business, there should be only one answer—the changes should benefit industry. However, as in so many cases, Labour says one thing and does the exact opposite. The proposals will result in industry having its cash flow reduced. As my colleagues have said, beginning in 1999–2000, that reduction will be a modest £100 million. The next year, the figure rises to £1.6 billion, then it is £2 billion, then £3 billion and then £2.3 billion. Only after that does the figure start to turn positive. The Inland Revenue will benefit for five years, by more than £8 billion, out of industry's cash flow. That will have to be paid for with jobs and it will affect investment.
Mr. Geraint Davies: He has dropped his papers.
Mr. Townend: Indeed, I seem to have lost my papers.
830
The Government's answer is that they have reduced corporation tax, but they have reduced it in those years by only £2.8 billion. That leaves £5.2 billion, which the taxpayer has been left to pay, but the proposals really worry me in respect of the administration. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) said, there will be a considerable increase in the burden on industry. There is a fundamental flaw in the proposals: as has been mentioned, tax will not be assessed on the previous year's profits, as in the past, which made for certainty for industry. Tax will be based on a guesstimate for a year, and that guesstimate will have to be made when only six months of that year have passed.
I suggest to the Minister that, considering what has happened over the past 18 months and considering the enormous, sudden changes in the world economy—the crises in Asia and Brazil, the debt default in Russia and the speed at which currency and interest rates change—it is difficult to estimate profits. With the best will in the world, industry can get it wrong—without trying to defraud the tax person. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has said, when we consider what will happen, we realise how appalling the proposals are.
First, industry is faced with paying interest, but there is no justice in that, because the interest that has to be paid if someone underestimates is more than that which has to be paid if someone overestimates. How can anyone justify that? It is no good saying—
Mr. Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Townend: In a moment.
It is no good saying, "That was the practice before," because before, we were dealing with the previous year's profits so we knew what we were doing. If the hon. Gentleman can justify that, I will be delighted to give way to him.
Mr. Davies: Did the hon. Gentleman work in any business that did not project trading and profitability on a monthly basis for the year ahead? If he did not, he could not have worked for any serious company. Are not differential interest rates obviously rational because, otherwise, there would be an incentive to industry to underpay? What is more, because of what the previous Government did, are not we talking only about the levels, not the principle? This is hogwash.
Mr. Townend: Certainly not. Our Government never produced legislation in which taxation was based on estimates. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman did before he was elected to the House, but he clearly—
Mr. Davies: I ran a number of companies, which I started myself—they all had monthly projections of profit and sales—after a very successful career in multinational companies. I think that the hon. Gentleman was in wine and spirits, which he shows by the way that he drops his papers.
Mr. Townend: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I have not even had any dinner tonight. Clearly, we have the most perfect business man in the world in the House—he makes projections that are always 100 per cent. right.

831
Of course all the businesses with which I have been involved have had budgets, but how often—at the end of the year, the month or the quarter—did we go to our various managers to ask why a budget was 15 per cent. higher than forecast or why sales were 10 per cent. lower than forecast? If the hon. Gentleman is able to budget and always get it right, he is much cleverer than I am.
The regulations are vague about the level of penalties. I have looked through them carefully, but have found no mention of the level of penalties. That will create uncertainty, which is most unfair to businesses. As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said, some firms are subject to seasonal variations. If they get their budgets wrong for that reason and a tax inspector does not accept the extent of those seasonal variations, they will have to pay penalties.
When I read the regulations, I was taken back to the time when I was studying to be a chartered accountant. As on so many occasions, Treasury Ministers have produced regulations that demonstrate that they have become the lackeys of the Inland Revenue.
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): May I try to help the hon. Gentleman? I am sure that he has read the regulations, so he will have seen that regulation 13, entitled "Penalty for unpaid tax", says:
"penalty not exceeding twice the amount of interest charged".
I think that he will find that that gives the answer that he seeks.
Mr. Townend: It depends on the interest charged. We do not yet know what that will be, do we?
Will the Government think seriously again about two matters? First, let us have some morality in the regulations. Let us say, at this late stage, that the interest charged on money paid in excess will be the same as interest charged on money underpaid. Secondly, will the Government look again at the basis of assessment? Will they listen to all their friends in industry—they are always telling us how the CBI is a great supporter of new Labour, so why not listen to the CBI? It says that the first three quarters of the financial year could be based on the previous year, and the fourth quarter, paid in the 16th month, could be a catch-up quarter. The Institute of Directors and the British Chambers of Commerce say that payment should be based on the previous year.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: So they do not even agree among themselves.
Mr. Townend: Not at all. The CBI maintains that, under its proposals, there would be no loss of revenue to the Government.
The regulations convince me that this is a Government who, when the chips are down, believe in high taxation and regulation, and that all the talk about being the party of business is a load of old codswallop.
9.53 pm
Sir Teddy Taylor: I should like to make just one brief point and then ask the Minister four questions.
832
The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that she would support the regulations. I greatly appreciate the point that she made about the taxation of pensions. I find it difficult to understand, particularly coming from a Labour Government whom I often admire for the good things that they do. By removing the right of pensioners to reclaim the tax on dividends, we have achieved a situation in which a pensioner with an annual income of £100,000 a year is now treated in exactly the same way as a pensioner with dividends of £500 a year. In the past, someone who did not pay income tax was entitled to reclaim the tax, but he or she no longer has that opportunity. A mistake was made in principle and I hope that the Minister will listen to the hon. Lady.
Will the Minister look at the answer that she gave in Hansard on 22 February at column 83, when she was asked about the regulations? She was asked whether she would explain what they were all about and what impact they would have. The point that I want to make, although I would not made it to the Minister, who is an honourable person, is that there is a terrible danger, when giving answers, in not telling the whole truth. The danger to Governments of both parties is that, if they do not tell the whole truth, they end up with the public not believing a word that they say.
The Minister was asked about the regulations. I throw in the point that she did not write the answer, but this is what it said:
"This measure was part of a package of measures introduced in the 1998 Budget which included the abolition of Advanced Corporation Tax (ACT)"—
is that not good?—
"and a 1 per cent. cut in the main rate of corporation tax from April 1999"—
is that not wonderful?
"After a four year transition period, the effect for these companies of introducing quarterly payments, abolishing ACT and the 1 per cent. rate cut is likely on average to be a reduction in liability."—[Official Report, 22 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 83.]
The regulations were going to be great news. They were going to mean the scrapping of the appalling ACT, whatever it was, the cutting of corporation tax—hoorayand—and the average company paying less.
All that is true, but the Minister's answer does not refer to the fact that, in the interim four years, there will be a massive rise in taxation. It would be much better if Governments of all parties, as I say, told the whole story. If a change in the arrangements will mean a big rise in tax and better times later on, why not explain that—that there will be a big rise in tax in the meantime?
I ask four brief questions. The first is simply: why are we making a change at all? Why are the Government introducing quarterly payments? My understanding is that they are being introduced because the Government abolished advance corporation tax following problems that were created by their decision to end the repayment of dividend tax credits to pension funds in the 1997 Budget. A catalogue of consequences has arisen from what appeared to many people to be the smash-and-grab raid on pension funds in the first Budget. That is the information that I have from people who claim to be experts. If that is not the reason for the change, what is the reason?
Secondly, will the Minister say clearly and precisely what she thinks the increase in revenue to the Government will be as a result of the changes? We have heard a

833
number of figures from Back Benchers. Some people have said that the increase will be £8.9 billion. Some have said that it will be £8 billion. Some have said that, if we take into account the reduction in corporation tax, it will be £5 billion. It would help if the Minister would say clearly—they are a very clever and talented Government—what extra revenue they think they will receive as a result of the changes in the next four years.
I hope that the Minister does not think that I have been critical. I think that she knows that I have a high regard for her, but I genuinely think that it would help us, and help to establish the proper way in which to treat Parliament, if she said what the Government believe the net extra money will be as a result of the changes.
The Minister will be aware that there is much suspicion about the Government because many tax changes have been introduced without people noticing. One of the estimates, again by clever people, who may be totally misinformed, is that, as a result of all the changes in taxation made by the Government, by the next election the average taxpayer will have paid an extra £1,500.
I do not know what would have happened if this Government had not been elected and some other Government had; the position might have been worse or much better. The crucial thing is to tell people the truth and to say what the estimate is.
My third question is simple. We are told that interest is to be paid both on overpayments and underpayments. Is the interest on overpayments and underpayments the same? If not, why is it not the same? It would be sensible if companies that paid too much tax were allowed to get interest on it or to get something back. If they are overpaying or underpaying, the interest should be the same.
I come to my final question. As the Minister must be aware, I come from a seaside town, where we tend to make all our profits within one week in summer time. Some companies make a lot of money at one time in the year and others make their money at other times of the year. That will create problems if they pay quarterly in advance.
The Minister should be aware that many companies find life a bit difficult, because things can change suddenly and dramatically. Some of the leading companies in Britain which have been very profitable suddenly find themselves in a difficult situation. Some companies that depend on changes from time to time within a year find that they will have a major problem.
Overall, I genuinely fear that we are imposing an increasing burden of taxation on industry and commerce. We should realise how lucky we are in Britain, given how well our economy is doing in general compared with the nightmare on the rest of the continent. Our unemployment levels are low, whereas the unemployment average on the continent is 10.1 per cent. Our economy is generally in a good state, compared with the appalling situation in the Federal Republic of Germany and other countries.
We should appreciate that we have secured our benefits because, by and large, we have tried to keep taxation low. I hope that, despite all their previous endeavours, the Government will try to keep it low. If they do not, we shall end up with the same nightmare that is experienced by so many European countries: high unemployment, and a great deal of human misery. That is the last thing that we want.
10.1 pm
Mr. Richard Page: I suspect that, when the history of the Government is written and judgments are made, the standard response to all criticisms will be, "It seemed like a good idea at the time." That will certainly cover the reason for the business-damaging regulations that we are discussing. They are by no means a triumph, despite what the Minister will no doubt have us believe, and despite what a single Government Back Bencher tried to persuade us of a little earlier.
I vividly remember the Chancellor coming here immediately after the election of May 1997, and trying to convince us that he could produce a reforming Budget over a weekend. It took the Treasury—even with Ed Balls and Charlie Whelan on its staff—a week or two to convince him otherwise, and a month or so of frantic efforts by Treasury officials followed. I can imagine the scene when the Chancellor revealed his election Budget to the Cabinet.
I rather like Budgets, because they are just about the only Government announcements that are made to the House before they are made to the media. I am strongly in favour of that, and I hope that the Government will rigorously maintain the same rule in the future. I can envisage the Chancellor saying, on that morning in the Cabinet—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is ahead of his time. We are not yet discussing the Budget; we are dealing with regulations. Perhaps I can draw the explanatory note to his attention, so that he can refer to it from time to time. That would be interesting.
Mr. Page: Thank you, Madam Speaker. You are right to draw such matters to my attention, but I want to explain how I believe what appeared to be a good idea at the time of the removal of advance corporation tax led to a disaster.
Madam Speaker: Order. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will now turn to the regulations.
Mr. Page: As night follows day, I shall do so. I shall leave out all that I was going to say about hitting utilities, and deal with the question of hitting pension levels.
I have no doubt that a complaint was made that the removal of ACT would hit pension levels. What was not clear to the Government at the time was that their removal would have severe cash-flow consequences, but, inevitably, the decision of July 1997 had that effect—the decision to phase out corporation tax and end tax credits for pension funds and companies when they receive dividends. The consequences of that were, as we know, disastrous.
By then, the mandarins at Great George street had persuaded the Chancellor that measures could be used to circumvent the shortfall in corporation tax. Here we come—as you requested, Madam Speaker—to the wheel that turns towards the whole matter of advance payments of corporation tax on a quarterly basis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) has said, over the next four years, £8.9 billion will be sucked out of British businesses into the Treasury

835
to make up for the shortfall—and not just to make up for the shortfall, but to make £8.9 billion more. How convenient! How business friendly!
Mr. Leslie: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Page: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my few comments, I shall let him intervene afterwards.
Mr. Leslie: On that point.
Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman has had plenty of opportunity to make his own speech in the debate. Only one Labour Member—the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble)—has had the courage to speak, undoubtedly after being pressurised by the Whips. Every hon. Member knows what it is like to be pressurised by the Whips to make appropriate comments.
The regulations are full of theory, but are just a tad short of practice. I look the Minister straight in the eye and ask her whether she has had any experience of running a business. I should be delighted to hear her reply. My hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Mr. Townend) hit the nail on the head: unless one has run a business, the regulations will seem fine in theory, but not very good in practice.
One of the regulations' fundamental problems is that larger businesses will, each quarter, have to pay their corporation tax instalment on the basis of what they expect their profits to be over the whole year.
Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend allow me to intervene?
Mr. Page: If my hon. Friend will give me 30 seconds, we shall enter the intervention stakes.
As someone who—like my hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire—has a modicum of business experience, I should go on bended knee to ensure that the profit that I make at the end of the year is exactly what I forecast at the beginning of the year. If only projections could be translated into profits at the end of the year, I should be a very happy bunny. But life ain't like that.
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in all fairness to the Paymaster General, as long ago as 1986, she ran a very effective corporation, which drove out of business the noble Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe?
Mr. Page: My hon. Friend will understand if I am timorous in entering into such a matter of private expertise. However, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie).
Mr. Leslie: I have waited very patiently, but am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I have a simple question, on the earlier point that he made on the revenue impact of revoking the statutory instrument. Earlier, I asked the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb) a question on the same matter, but he did not give much of a reply to it. Will the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page)
836
please enlighten me? From where does he propose finding alternative revenue for the Exchequer? Would he levy additional taxes, or cut public expenditure?
Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) to raise again in the debate a point that he raised earlier, but was ruled out of order by the Deputy Speaker?
Madam Speaker: We often hear repetitions here, particularly at this time of night.
Mr. Page: Far be it from me to try to gallop over ground that has already been covered. Nevertheless, I tell the hon. Member for Shipley that, simply because the Government have got themselves into a sticky problem, it does not follow that the solution is not to return the situation to where it was before—by giving current and future pensioners the ACTs that they require to ensure that they will have the decent pensions that the Government have so effectively denied them.
I only wish that, in any business that I had anything to do with, I knew what my profits would be at the end of the year. I ask the Paymaster General whether it would be nice if the Treasury knew that, at the end of the year, its projections were right. How often have the Treasury's various projections been within the right percentage points? That happens more rarely than commonly.
I endorse the submission of the Confederation of British Industry that
"to avoid serious compliance problems for companies, the regime should allow them the option of basing the first two instalments on actual profits in the first half of their financial years, rather than having to be based on an uncertain forecast for the first year."
This is why I ask the Paymaster General whether she has any experience of running a business. The measure means that, every quarter, companies will have to run not just an ordinary profit and loss account, but an end of year account. That will be bureaucratic and will cause extra work and immense cost. Some companies will pay corporation tax not more rapidly, but before they have received the sale income on which their profit forecast depends.
What happens if a company makes more profit in the third and fourth quarters than it expected in the first and second? Unless I have read the regulations wrong, it will be hit by a charge of extra interest. That is unfair—heads the Treasury wins, tails the business loses. If too much tax has been paid over the first two quarters, the compensatory repayment by the Treasury is at approaching 5.3 per cent., which is a margin in the Treasury's favour of 2 per cent., because, if the company has not paid enough, the figure is nearly 8 per cent.
The Government say that they are business friendly, but their measure is just another burden on business. Completing the calculations every quarter will be an immense amount of work. It will not be sufficient to take just the ordinary profit and loss management accounts. Companies will have to make all sorts of calculations and make end of year accounts every three months. What happens if a company buys a machine tool? It will have to factor the depreciation into the figures. It would be simple if the company knew at the start of the year that it was going to buy the machine two thirds of the way through the year, but the company does not know whether

837
the machine will break or extra orders will come in. The Government are treating businesses as mechanistic operations in which there is no element of chance or difficulty.
The change will cause difficulty for companies with seasonal factors. The CBI's submissions show that some companies make their money in the last quarter. A firework manufacturer has a limited season, as does a business that grows Christmas trees or a toy seller. If we are not careful, a raft of companies will be changing their year end to just before their most profitable quarter so that they will not have to pay interest charges on profits that they have not yet earned, just to satisfy the regulations.
All that will create extra work, more computer files, more paperwork, and even broader smiles on the faces of accountants. Perhaps that is the intention. Unless profits are equally spread throughout the year, a lot of unnecessary work will be needed to ensure that the end-of-year tax liability is not distorted by overpayments during the year.
No mention has yet been made of groups with several companies in them. If they all earn more than £1.5 million a year, there is no problem, but if one company earns £1.5 million and several others earn just £100,000, the calculations will cause immense problems. The Government have not recognised the fact that, often, companies want separate trading entities to enable more sensible and viable marketing to occur.
It is all very well for the Government to present themselves as a business-friendly, reforming Administration, being better and bigger, but they do not understand business. The quicker the business community realises that, the better it will be for Britain.
10.14 pm
The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): This has been an interesting debate, in which Opposition Members have raised a number of detailed questions about the regulations. In the time left to me, I will try to deal with them.
First, companies which will not have to pay by instalments—the overwhelming majority of companies—will gain £1 billion in cash flow as a result of the abolition of advance corporation tax alone. After the transitional period is through, in the year 2003–04, companies will gain £1.6 billion a year from the combined effect of the changes.
The hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) raised a number of points, but I will deal first with the points raised by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Mr. Gibb). His first point was the old chestnut that secondary legislation was undemocratic and the wrong way to make regulations. Other Opposition Members called for morality in the regulations. Essentially, they believe that it is unconstitutional to modify existing tax law through regulations made under the negative resolution procedure.
There is nothing in those allegations—as Opposition Members know full well. Regulations must be laid before Parliament before they come into effect. The previous Government made extensive use of tax regulations under the negative resolution procedure. The use of regulations facilitates consultation on the fine details of schemes, such as the instalments and the shadow ACT.
I wish to refer to the consultation. On 24 April last year, the Revenue published draft instalment payment regulations to give tax practitioners, business and others
838
an opportunity to comment. A further draft of the regulations was made available to members of the self-assessment consultative committee last autumn. Further comments were then taken into account. Many of the points raised by Opposition Members about the changes arise from that consultation.
The first point was that instalment payments give a tax rise. No company will pay more tax as a result of the regulations—they bring forward the time at which the tax is paid. There is no effect on the amount of tax to be paid.
Mr. Page: Will the Minister give way?
Dawn Primarolo: With respect, I will not. The hon. Gentleman spoke for quite a long time and I wish to answer the important points made in the debate. If I have time at the end of the debate, I will be happy to give way. As Opposition Members well know, the new instalment payments result from the abolition of ACT—not through some chaos, but through the Government's policy of moving to a position where we encourage investment and take the distortions out of the tax system.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton referred to the interest charge, which he said was penal—he can correct me if I have overstated his point—and somehow a penalty. It is not. It is to ensure that the correct use of the money is available either to the Treasury, if there has been underpayment, or as a refund to the company if there has been an overpayment to ensure that there is a proper result and no financial loss either way.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the right of appeal. There is a penalty power, which will be used in cases of flagrant abuse. The Revenue will determine the penalty to be properly applied and that companies have a right of appeal to the commissioners.
In the consultation, the companies felt that the ordinary meaning of the word "reckless" was better than "flagrant", so they suggested that amendment, and it was perfectly reasonable for the Government to have accepted that.
The hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton said that our regime was more penal than that of other countries, and especially the United States. That is not the case: other countries apply a regime to companies with much lower profits; I will not cite them, because I know that the hon. Gentleman knows them and that, having spent a long time as an accountant, he knows the details full well.
Mr. Charles Wardle: Will the Paymaster General give way?
Dawn Primarolo: No. The hon. Gentleman has only just come in and, out of respect to hon. Members who made points in the debate, I really should try to deal with them.
Mr. Townend rose—
Dawn Primarolo: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman, as I have not dropped my papers or lost my place, so I do not need any assistance.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Dawn Primarolo: I will get on to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I must show respect to the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, the Front-Bench spokesman, by answering his points first.

839
Through the consultations, the Government have taken proper account of how the introduction of instalments will work, and we will continue to work closely with the companies.
The right hon. Member for Fareham (Sir P. Lloyd) made a thoughtful contribution, as always. He talked about the definition of companies and what counts as a large company. The regulations make it clear that a large company is one whose profits exceed £1.5 million for a 12-month accounting period ending on or after 1 July 1999.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about interest. He asked why there should be a differential rate between overpaid and underpaid. That was a feature of the tax system under the previous Government, of which I seem to remember that he might have been a member. It represents the difference between rates on borrowing and on investment: the same arrangement as in banks and other financial institutions. There is no skulduggery; it is straightforward. The system is finely tuned, so it can respond to changes in interest rates, unlike the previous system.
Mr. Bercow rose—
Dawn Primarolo: Much as I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interventions and little jokes, I will not give way at present.
The right hon. Member for Fareham went on to say that the interest rate regime was unfair to companies. In the consultations, we responded to companies' concerns about interest rates, and we have introduced a new regime for the instalment payments. There is a smaller spread on the charge on amounts overpaid and underpaid, and the system is more sensitive to changes in the base rate.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why the instalment for the current year should not be based on the previous year's payment. A good number of companies said in the consultations that they already produced profit forecasts in year and could manage the instalment based on their estimated current year corporation tax liability.
Some companies wanted a mixture. They wanted to pick and choose between current and previous year. They thought that one year it might be good to have a previous year calculation, and another year a current year calculation. We came to the conclusion that, if they can show such flexibility, they must be able to do current year calculations.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) was in danger of losing the plot of the regulations. He talked about cutting rates on the one hand but taxing via the instalment regime on the other. I am sure that he has noticed the following point, but I shall point it out to him anyway. Small and medium companies, as I have already said, gained £1 billion in cash flow from the abolition of ACT. Only the 20,000 largest companies will pay by instalments.
Hon. Members asked a series of questions about the results of the consultation. Companies with profits between £300,000 and £1.5 million were removed from the instalment regime as a result of the consultation. Following discussions with business, penalty and information powers will focus more clearly on cases of
840
flagrant or, as business prefers to say, reckless abuse, and the anti-avoidance provisions were amended to help companies involved in a legitimate restructuring rather than a scheme designed to avoid the instalment regime.
Mr. Gibb: Will the Paymaster General give way?
Dawn Primarolo: No, I want to answer the questions of the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He made some generous comments and I hope that he will not be too disappointed with the replies. I have already covered his first point about the £1.6 billion a year gain as a result of the combined effects of the changes when the transition period is over. I also dealt with his second point when I said that no more tax will be paid, it is a question of when it is paid.
The hon. Gentleman raised a point about the clarity of the figures and whether the forecasts had revealed the true intent. In the March 1998 Budget press release, and in the "Financial Statement and Budget Report"—I am happy to send him copies of those—£5.8 billion for 1998–99 to 2002–03 is shown as the cash flow figure for that item. It was not a secret, because it was there in the papers. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that all the information has been there, even though he does not agree with it. I hope that he will also accept that small and medium companies, especially those in seaside towns to which he was perhaps referring, will not be affected.
The hon. Gentleman's final point, and one that many other hon. Members made, was about companies whose trade is seasonal. Following discussions with companies, we believe that they can cope with the forecast and be able to pay their instalments. However, if a company feels that its forecast has turned out to be wrong and its instalments are too high, it can apply to the Revenue for some of the money back if it proves that its cash flow has changed and it will not reach the profit levels that it originally forecast.
Mr. Page rose—
Mr. Bercow: Will the Paymaster General give way?
Dawn Primarolo: No, I will not give way. On the question of companies that have excessive seasonal problems, I can tell the hon. Member for Rochford and Southend, East that we will keep an eye on the issue. We are not convinced that there will be a problem, but we will not ignore it.
Mr. Gibb rose—
Dawn Primarolo: I understand that the hon. Gentleman is entitled to speak at the end of the debate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) was right to point out the need to address questions of poor growth and investment and the productivity gap in the economy that the Government inherited from the previous Government. We set about tackling those problems by focusing on how to create long-term stability. The corporation tax changes, the tax credit reform and the abolition of ACT are part of that comprehensive agenda. We have a simplified corporation tax system, which supports and encourages companies. We have an instalment method that will benefit companies, not cause problems for them.

841
The House has heard the error of the Opposition's ways and will have realised that they did not read the regulations as carefully as they should have. The House should feel reassured, and I hope that my hon. Friends will vote for the regulations.
10.30 pm
Mr. Gibb: That was an appalling wind-up speech. The Paymaster General claims to have listened to the businesses that made representations during the consultation process, so why has she not listened to the representations of companies faced with seasonal profits? Her predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson), intimated that he would listen and would return with changes to the regulations to assist the companies that have serious problems in that they generate the majority of their profits in just two or three months a year.
The hon. Lady has done nothing to accommodate those real concerns, and she has said nothing about the consultation and the representations made. Will she use the remaining three minutes of the debate to tell us why she did not listen?
Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend, who is developing a powerful case, agree that the proposed treatment of company overpayments amounts in practice to legalised theft? The very least that the hon. Lady should do is to tell us whether she and her colleagues have satisfied themselves that the regulations are consistent with the requirements of the European convention on human rights.
Mr. Gibb: My hon. Friend makes a very good point. We are dealing not with the current situation, in which companies make calculations nine months after the year-end so that they can be made with great accuracy, but with a new system that will involve companies having to estimate six months or a year in advance what their profits will be, and in particular what their taxable profits will be. Companies, particularly those with seasonal variations, that make the majority of their profits in just two or three months each year—generally towards the end of an accounting period—find it difficult to make those estimates. The interest payments are also punitive.
During the final two minutes of the debate, will the Paymaster General tell us why she has ignored representations from all the companies in tourism, jewellery retailing and toy manufacture that have real concerns about the proposals?
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 130, Noes 289.

Division No. 80]

[10.32 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Boswell, Tim

Allan, Richard

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Brady, Graham

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Brazier, Julian

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

Baker, Norman

Browning, Mrs Angela

Ballard, Jackie

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Bercow, John

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Butterfill, John

Blunt, Crispin

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Body, Sir Richard

Cash, William

842

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Chope, Christopher

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Clappison, James

McLoughlin, Patrick

Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

Madel, Sir David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Malins, Humfrey

Maples, John

Cotter, Brian

Maude, Rt Hon Francis

Cran, James

Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

Curry, Rt Hon David

May, Mrs Theresa

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Moore, Michael

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Ottaway, Richard

Day, Stephen

Page, Richard

Duncan, Alan

Paterson, Owen

Duncan Smith, Iain

Pickles, Eric

Faber, David

Prior, David

Fabricant, Michael

Randall, John

Fallon, Michael

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Feam, Ronnie

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Flight, Howard

Ruffley, David

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Foster, Don (Bath)

St Aubyn, Nick

Fraser, Christopher

Sanders, Adrian

Gale, Roger

Sayeed, Jonathan

Garnier, Edward

Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

Gibb, Nick

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

Gill, Christopher

Soames, Nicholas

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Spring, Richard

Greenway, John

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Grieve, Dominic

Steen, Anthony

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Swayne, Desmond

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Syms, Robert

Hammond, Philip

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Harris, Dr Evan

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Heald, Oliver

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Townend, John

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Trend, Michael

Horam, John

Tyler, Paul

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Tyrie, Andrew

Hunter, Andrew

Viggers, Peter

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Walter, Robert

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Wardle, Charles

Key, Robert

Waterson, Nigel

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Whittingdale, John

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Wilkinson, John

Lansley, Andrew

Willetts, David

Leigh, Edward

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Letwin, Oliver

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Lidington, David

Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Mr. John M. Taylor and

Loughton, Tim

Mr. Tim Collins.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Berry, Roger

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Best, Harold

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Betts, Clive

Alexander, Douglas

Blears, Ms Hazel

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Blizzard, Bob

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Blunkett, Rt Hon David

Ashton, Joe

Boateng, Paul

Atherton, Ms Candy

Borrow, David

Atkins, Charlotte

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Banks, Tony

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Barnes, Harry

Buck, Ms Karen

Barron, Kevin

Butler, Mrs Christine

Bayley, Hugh

Caborn, Richard

Beard, Nigel

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Begg, Miss Anne

Caravan, Dennis

Bennett, Andrew F

Cann, Jamie

Benton, Joe

Casale, Roger

Bermingham, Gerald

Caton, Martin

843

Cawsey, Ian

Heppell, John

Chaytor, David

Hesford, Stephen

Chisholm, Malcolm

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Clapham, Michael

Hill, Keith

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hoon, Geoffrey

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hope, Phil

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Hopkins, Kelvin

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Howells, Dr Kim

Clelland, David

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Coaker, Vernon

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Humble, Mrs Joan

Cohen, Harry

Hurst, Alan

Coleman, Iain

Illsley, Eric

Colman, Tony

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jamieson, David

Corbett, Robin

Jenkins, Brian

Corbyn, Jeremy

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Corston, Ms Jean

Cousins, Jim

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Cox, Tom

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Crausby, David

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Keeble, Ms Sally

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Dalyell, Tam

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Kidney, David

Darvill, Keith

Kilfoyle, Peter

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Dawson, Hilton

Laxton, Bob

Dean, Mrs Janet

Leslie, Christopher

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Levitt, Tom

Dismore, Andrew

Linton, Martin

Donohoe, Brian H

Livingstone, Ken

Doran, Frank

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Dowd, Jim

Lock, David

Drew, David

Love, Andrew

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McAllion, John

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McAvoy, Thomas

Ennis, Jeff

McCabe, Steve

Etherington, Bill

McCartney, Ian (Makerfield)

Fisher, Mark

McDonagh, Siobhain

Fitzpatrick, Jim

Macdonald, Calum

Flint, Caroline

McDonnell, John

Flynn, Paul

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Follett, Barbara

McIsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McLeish, Henry

Foulkes, George

McNulty, Tony

Fyfe, Maria

MacShane, Denis

Galloway, George

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gapes, Mike

McWalter, Tony

Gardiner, Barry

McWilliam, John

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gerrard, Neil

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Gibson, Dr Ian

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Godsiff, Roger

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Goggins, Paul

Martlew, Eric

Golding, Mrs Llin

Maxton, John

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Meale, Alan

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Grogan, John

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Miller, Andrew

Hanson, David

Moffatt, Laura

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Hepburn, Stephen

Morley, Elliot

844

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Mountford, Kali

Mudie, George

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Mullin, Chris

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Southworth, Ms Helen

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Spellar, John

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Squire, Ms Rachel

O'Hara, Eddie

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Olner, Bill

Steinberg, Gerry

O'Neill, Martin

Stevenson, George

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pearson, Ian

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Pendry, Tom

Stinchcombe, Paul

Perham, Ms Linda

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pickthall, Colin

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Pike, Peter L

Stringer, Graham

Plaskitt, James

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pollard, Kerry

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pond, Chris

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pope, Greg

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Temple—Morris, Peter

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Primarolo, Dawn

Timms, Stephen

Prosser, Gwyn

Touhig, Don

Purchase, Ken

Trickett, Jon

Quinn, Lawrie

Truswell, Paul

Rapson, Syd

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Raynsford, Nick

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Walley, Ms Joan

Rogers, Allan

Wareing, Robert N

Rooker, Jeff

Watts, David

Rooney, Terry

White, Brian

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Rowlands, Ted

Wicks, Malcolm

Roy, Frank

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Ruane, Chris

Ruddock, Joan

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Wills, Michael

Ryan, Ms Joan

Winnick, David

Salter, Martin

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Savidge, Malcolm

Wood, Mike

Sawford, Phil

Woolas, Phil

Sedgemore, Brian

Wray, James

Shipley, Ms Debra

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Singh, Marsha

Tellers for the Noes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Graham Allen and

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Mr. Mike Hall.

Question accordingly negatived.
Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am, as the record will show, not one of those who has criticised the Home Secretary for taking what I am sure was a much-needed break with his wife over the weekend. However, the record will show that, at 12.30 on Thursday afternoon, when the Home Secretary was in Eltham delivering soundbites and should have been here making a statement, I queried with Madam Speaker the removal from the Vote Office of the appendices to the Lawrence report. Madam Speaker kindly investigated the matter and a statement was, as the House knows, made on Friday morning. The House and the Vote Office were given to understand that the expurgated version of the appendices would be made available in the Vote Office today. I have inquired of the

845
Vote Office and the document is still not available. Mr. Deputy Speaker, will you inform the House whether Madam Speaker has been given any idea by the Home Office as to when the appendices will be available; and, if not, whether the Home Secretary has asked to make a statement?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): That is a matter not for the occupant of the Chair, but for the Government. I have no doubt that those on the Treasury Bench will have heard the hon. Gentleman's point of order.
Mr. Win Griffiths: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am rather mystified by that point of order because, about 15 minutes ago, I was told quite explicitly by the Vote Office that the appendices would be available tomorrow, and I should have thought that the same information would have been given to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale).
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already dealt with that point of order.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker: For the convenience of the House, I propose that we take motions Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 together.
Hon. Members: Object.

GOVERNMENT TRADING FUNDS
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(4) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
That the draft National Health Service Estate Management and Health Building Agency Trading Fund Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 3rd February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation):—
That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 39) (HC 213), which was laid before this House on 4th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
The House divided: Ayes 274, Noes 29.

Division No. 81]

[10.47 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bermingham, Gerald

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Berry, Roger

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Best, Harold

Alexander, Douglas

Betts, Clive

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Blizzard, Bob

Atherton, Ms Candy

Boateng, Paul

Atkins, Charlotte

Borrow, David

Banks, Tony

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Barnes, Harry

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Barron, Kevin

Buck, Ms Karen

Bayley, Hugh

Butler, Mrs Christine

Beard, Nigel

Caborn, Richard

Begg, Miss Anne

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Benton, Joe

Canavan, Dennis

846

Cann, Jamie

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Casale, Roger

Hoon, Geoffrey

Caton, Martin

Hope, Phil

Cawsey, Ian

Hopkins, Kelvin

Chaytor, David

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Chisholm, Malcolm

Howells, Dr Kim

Clapham, Michael

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Hurst, Alan

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Illsley, Eric

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Jamieson, David

Clelland, David

Jenkins, Brian

Coaker, Vernon

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Cohen, Harry

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Colman, Tony

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Corbett, Robin

Corbyn, Jeremy

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Corston, Ms Jean

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Cousins, Jim

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Cox, Tom

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Crausby, David

Keeble, Ms Sally

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Kidney, David

Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

Kilfoyle, Peter

Dalyell, Tam

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Darvill, Keith

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Laxton, Bob

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Leslie, Christopher

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Levitt, Tom

Dawson, Hilton

Linton, Martin

Dean, Mrs Janet

Livingstone, Ken

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Dismore, Andrew

Lock, David

Donohoe, Brian H

Love, Andrew

Doran, Frank

McAllion, John

Dowd, Jim

McAvoy, Thomas

Drew, David

McCabe, Steve

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ennis, Jeff

Macdonald, Calum

Etherington, Bill

McDonnell, John

Fisher, Mark

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McIsaac, Shona

Flynn, Paul

Mackinlay, Andrew

Follett, Barbara

McLeish, Henry

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

McNulty, Tony

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Mactaggart, Fiona

Foulkes, George

McWalter, Tony

Fyfe, Maria

McWilliam, John

Gapes, Mike

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gardiner, Barry

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Gerrard, Neil

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Gibson, Dr Ian

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Godman, Dr Norman A

Martlew, Eric

Godsiff, Roger

Maxton, John

Goggins, Paul

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Golding, Mrs Llin

Meale, Alan

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Miller, Andrew

Grogan, John

Moffatt, Laura

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hanson, David

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Morley, Elliot

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Hepburn, Stephen

Mountford, Kali

Heppell, John

Mudie, George

Hesford, Stephen

Mullin, Chris

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hill, Keith

Naysmith, Dr Doug

847

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Southworth, Ms Helen

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Spellar, John

O'Hara, Eddie

Squire, Ms Rachel

Olner, Bill

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

O'Neill, Martin

Steinberg, Gerry

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Stevenson, George

Pearson, Ian

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Pendry, Tom

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Perham, Ms Linda

Stinchcombe, Paul

Pickthall, Colin

Stoate, Dr Howard

Pike, Peter L

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Plaskitt, James

Stringer, Graham

Pollard, Kerry

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pond, Chris

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Pope, Greg

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Pound, Stephen

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Primarolo, Dawn

Temple-Morris, Peter

Prosser, Gwyn

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Purchase, Ken

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Quinn, Lawrie

Timms, Stephen

Rapson, Syd

Touhig, Don

Raynsford, Nick

Trickett, Jon

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Truswell, Paul

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Rogers, Allan

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Rooker, Jeff

Vis, Dr Rudi

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Walley, Ms Joan

Rowlands, Ted

Wareing, Robert N

Roy, Frank

Watts, David

Ruane, Chris

White, Brian

Ruddock, Joan

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Wicks, Malcolm

Ryan, Ms Joan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Salter, Martin

Savidge, Malcolm

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Sawford, Phil

Wills, Michael

Sedgemore, Brian

Winnick, David

Shipley, Ms Debra

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster (C)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Wood, Mike

Singh, Marsha

Woolas, Phil

Skinner, Dennis

Wray, James

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Mike Hall.

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

NOES

Allan, Richard

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Baker, Norman

Grieve, Dominic

Ballard, Jackie

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Beresford, Sir Paul

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Moore, Michael

Chope, Christopher

Paterson, Owen

Clappison, James

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Cotter, Brian

Sanders, Adrian

Fabricant, Michael

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

Fallon, Michael

Swayne, Desmond

Fearn, Ronnie

Tyler, Paul

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Wilkinson, John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. John Bercow and Mr. David Ruffley.

Gale, Roger

Gill, Christopher

Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions Nos. 5 and 6 related to delegated legislation.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Euro-Mediterranean Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 8 February, be approved.

NORTHERN IRELAND
That the draft Appropriation (Northern Ireland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 15th February, be approved.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Question agreed to.

COURT OF AUDITORS REPORT
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation):—
That this House takes note of European Community Documents OJ No. C349, European Court of Auditors Annual Report on the financial year 1997, Nos. 14031/98, Draft Council Regulation establishing a European Fraud Investigation Office, and 10786/98, Special Report No. 9/98 of the European Court of Auditors concerning the protection of the financial interests of the European Union in the field of VAT on intra-Community trade; and supports the Government's continuing efforts to promote and support measures to improve financial management and fight fraud against the EU Budget.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 15.

Division No. 82]

[10.58 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Cann, Jamie

Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

Casale, Roger

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Caton, Martin

Alexander, Douglas

Cawsey, Ian

Allan, Richard

Chaytor, David

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Clapham, Michael

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Atkins, Charlotte

Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

Baker, Norman

Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

Ballard, Jackie

Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

Banks, Tony

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Barnes, Harry

Clelland, David

Barron, Kevin

Coaker, Vernon

Bayley, Hugh

Coffey, Ms Ann

Beard, Nigel

Cohen, Harry

Begg, Miss Anne

Colman, Tony

Benton, Joe

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Bermingham, Gerald

Corbett, Robin

Berry, Roger

Corbyn, Jeremy

Best, Harold

Corston, Ms Jean

Betts, Clive

Cotter, Brian

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cousins, Jim

Blizzard, Bob

Cox, Tom

Boateng, Paul

Crausby, David

Borrow, David

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bradley, Keith (Withington)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

Buck, Ms Karen

Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

Butler, Mrs Christine

Dalyell, Tarn

Caborn, Richard

Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

Darvill, Keith

Campbell—Savours, Dale

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Canavan, Dennis

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

849

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Dawson, Hilton

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Dean, Mrs Janet

Lawrence, Ms Jackie

Dewar, Rt Hon Donald

Laxton, Bob

Dismore, Andrew

Leslie, Christopher

Donohoe, Brian H

Levitt, Tom

Doran, Frank

Linton, Martin

Dowd, Jim

Livingstone, Ken

Drew, David

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Lock, David

Ennis, Jeff

Love, Andrew

Etherington, Bill

McAllion, John

Fearn, Ronnie

McAvoy, Thomas

Fisher, Mark

McCabe, Steve

Fitzpatrick, Jim

McDonagh, Siobhain

Flint, Caroline

Macdonald, Calum

Flynn, Paul

McDonnell, John

Follett, Barbara

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Foster, Don (Bath)

McIsaac, Shona

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Mackinlay, Andrew

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

McLeish, Henry

Foulkes, George

McNulty, Tony

Fyfe, Maria

Mactaggart, Fiona

Gapes, Mike

McWalter, Tony

Gardiner, Barry

McWilliam, John

George, Bruce (Walsall S)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Gerrard, Neil

Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

Gibson, Dr Ian

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Godsiff, Roger

Marshall—Andrews, Robert

Goggins, Paul

Martlew, Eric

Golding, Mrs Llin

Maxton, John

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Meale, Alan

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Grogan, John

Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Miller, Andrew

Hanson, David

Moffatt, Laura

Harris, Dr Evan

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Moore, Michael

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Morley, Elliot

Hepburn, Stephen

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Heppell, John

Mountford, Kali

Hesford, Stephen

Mudie, George

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Mullin, Chris

Hill, Keith

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Hoon, Geoffrey

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Hope, Phil

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hopkins, Kelvin

O'Hara, Eddie

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Olner, Bill

Howells, Dr Kim

O'Neill, Martin

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Pearson, Ian

Humble, Mrs Joan

Pendry, Tom

Hurst, Alan

Perham, Ms Linda

Illsley, Eric

Pickthall, Colin

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Pike, Peter L

Jamieson, David

Plaskitt, James

Jenkins, Brian

Pollard, Kerry

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Pond, Chris

Pope, Greg

Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

Pound, Stephen

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Prescott, Rt Hon John

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Primarolo, Dawn

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Prosser, Gwyn

Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

Purchase, Ken

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Quinn, Lawrie

Keeble, Ms Sally

Rapson, Syd

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Raynsford, Nick

Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Kidney, David

Rendel, David

Kilfoyle, Peter

Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton s)

850

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Rogers, Allan

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Rooker, Jeff

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

Rowlands, Ted

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Roy, Frank

Temple—Morris, Peter

Ruane, Chris

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Ruddock, Joan

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Timms, Stephen

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Touhig, Don

Ryan, Ms Joan

Trickett, Jon

Salter, Martin

Truswell, Paul

Sanders, Adrian

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Savidge, Malcolm

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Sawford, Phil

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Sedgemore, Brian

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Shipley, Ms Debra

Tyler, Paul

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Vis, Dr Rudi

Singh, Marsha

Walley, Ms Joan

Skinner, Dennis

Wareing, Robert N

Smith, Angela (Basildon)

Watts, David

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

White, Brian

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Wicks Malcolm

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

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

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Wills, Michael

Southworth, Ms Helen

Winnick, David

Spellar, John

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Squire, Ms Rachel

Wood, Mike

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Woolas, Phil

Steinberg, Gerry

Wray, James

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Stoate, Dr Howard

Tellers for the Ayes: Mr. Graham Allen and Mr. Mike Hall.

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Stringer, Graham

NOES

Browning, Mrs Angela

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Chope, Christopher

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Clappison, James

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Paterson, Owen

Fallon, Michael

Swayne, Desmond

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Wilkinson, John

Gale, Roger

Gill, Christopher

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. John Bercow and Mr. David Ruffley.

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Grieve, Dominic

Question accordingly agreed to.

Penn School
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
11.8 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I am delighted, even at this late hour, to have an opportunity to air the concerns of parents, pupils, governors and staff about the future of Penn school, which is based in my constituency.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who are supporting me here tonight. My hon. Friends the Members for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) have sent their apologies, but have also been of great support to me. I wish to mention in particular the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) who, together with other Labour Members, has supported the future of Penn school.
I am delighted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment to the Front Bench and I hope that, in replying to the debate, he will be able to give heart and a definite future to Penn school. Some 18 hon. Members have an interest in the school's future, and that interest extends well beyond this place. Many people will have stayed up tonight to hear what the Minister has to say to us.
Penn school, a designated regional resource for deaf and hearing-impaired children—is under threat. For 76 years, it has met the special educational needs of deaf and hearing-impaired children. Since 1990, its role has evolved to include a unit for language-impaired children. Throughout its history, children have come to Penn from as far afield as the counties of Avon to the west and Cambridgeshire to the east. No fewer than 11 London boroughs place children at the school.
In 1990, Camden local education authority bid, and took responsibility for, the school. However, the LEA now proposes ceasing to maintain it from August 1999. I support the governors and others in their hope of retaining the school as an expanded regional resource for secondary-age children with communication problems who cannot wholly be successfully managed or treated in mainstream schools.
In their own words, the governors and others aspire to continue
"to nurture and care for children with communication difficulties, educate them to the highest limit of their individual abilities and prepare them to maximise their achievements in adult life".
As well as providing facilities for secondary-aged pupils, the governors and staff wish, depending on demand, to introduce a primary entry class for pupils aged nine to 11.
As the Minister will know, the governors have made a formal application to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment to continue to operate Penn school as a non-maintained special school. I press the Minister on the matter and hope that he will respond positively to that proposal. However, there are some concerns about how the Department will interpret the school's degree of specialism. That has been defined as a "unique combination" and includes the school's provision of facilities for deaf or hearing-impaired and language-impaired children, who also have other, sometimes severe, difficulties.
852
The school offers teaching by qualified teachers of the deaf and a high-level signing system. In addition, there are boarding facilities. The school provides a small, homely environment that secures the development of a range of secondary-age pupils with disabilities. It has a successful history of providing a period of restorative care and teaching that enables severely disadvantaged pupils to return to mainstream schools after a spell at Penn. It is worth mentioning, although I am sure that the Minister will have noticed it, that the school received a very good Ofsted report in June 1998.
The governors have succeeded in attracting funding to back their attempt to continue the school's work. I hope that their application will be given every consideration to enable that valuable resource to continue to help young people. I have been to the school on several occasions and met pupils, parents, governors and staff. It is obvious that the standard of education in the school is excellent and that the children respond extremely well.
I urge the Minister to make a decision as soon as possible because, clearly, while there is uncertainty about the school's future, it is difficult for LEAs to come to decisions about whether to place a pupil at the school. The governors also face the problem of retaining the well-trained and highly motivated teachers.
Camden's case for closure depends partly on the argument about the viability of the school, but it could be argued that its policy of stopping residential admissions from May 1997—a decision that I appreciate has been reversed—in itself damaged the school's viability. That has made it more difficult to recruit new pupils. However, following market research, the governors and teaching staff believe that at least seven LEAs are potential new customers for the school.
The school has the capability to provide places for 60 pupils—either for all their senior years, or for some—to enter the school for a relatively short period before they re-enter mainstream education. In addition, the school could take part in the programme of greater inclusion for pupils with special educational needs, as set out in the Department's Green Paper "Excellence for all Children". I do not mean to quote the Minister's words back at him, but, as I am sure that he knows, the Green Paper states:
"We recognise the continuing need for special schools to provide—in some cases temporarily—for a very small proportion of pupils whose needs cannot be fully met within the mainstream sector."
Penn school fulfils all the criteria to operate as a centre of regional excellence. The Green Paper acknowledged that there should be a "continuum of provision" across the country, and I believe that Penn school has a role to play within that provision.
The preferred option set out in the Green Paper is to encourage voluntary contribution between local education authorities and other providers, including non-maintained special schools. One of the core functions is defined as the planning of places for low-incidence disabilities. That includes pupils with hearing impairments and autism—the type of pupils who attend Penn school.
Another difficulty faced by the governors and the team putting together the bid is Camden's recent decision on the valuation of the site. The estimated value of the site and the buildings, for continued educational use, is £1.6 million. However, in mid-February, Camden stated that it must adopt as its basis for valuation the full market

853
price of the site, which would be some £2 million. The argument is that the council has a statutory duty to obtain the full market value on a best-consideration basis.
I urge the Minister to do what he can to persuade Camden to rethink its decision. The governors are prepared to give legal undertakings that, in the eventuality of the school's having to close, the London borough of Camden would be involved in any arrangement for its disposal; but I cannot emphasise too strongly that the team at Penn school see no reason why it should not have a thriving future for many years to come.
Camden's decision about the valuation is one more obstacle put in the way. There does not seem to be any reason why Camden should not accept an offer based on the valuation of the site operating as a school under the provisions of the Local Government Act 1972. When Camden council ratified the closure recommendation in September 1998, the education committee stated in writing:
"Members urged officers to work with the governors in their aim for Penn to become a non-maintained/independent school".
That effectively set the valuation as the utilisation of an existing use. What has happened since then could be described as a U-turn. If the Minister can wield any influence with the LEA to persuade it to rethink its strategy, my constituents and I—and the constituents of many other hon. Members—will be extremely grateful.
Children at Penn have often been placed once, twice or as many as three times before coming to the school. They eventually find the right school, and start to make good progress. If the school is closed, we shall also have to think about the consequences for pupils who will then have to travel far from home.
A former pupil, Shaun Wiggins, wrote this about his personal experience of the school and the effect that it had on him:
"When I started Penn School I had very bad speech problems and since I started I have improved a lot in my work. If people can keep Penn school open then more people will come and would be treated the same as other kids. Before I came to Penn School I went to a comprehensive school where I had no friends. When I came to Penn School I had friends for the first time and now I am very happy."
That is a great tribute to the work of the headmaster, Mr. Alan Jones, and his staff, and to the dedication of the school's governors, headed by Mr. John Tripp. Their greatest concern is for the welfare of the children in their care. They want the work of Penn school to continue for many years, as indeed do my hon. Friends and I.
I hope that Shaun Wiggins's eloquent plea will not be disregarded, and that other pupils with hearing or language impairment, or autism, can continue to receive the benefits of the education provided at Penn school.
I hope that, today, the Minister will give the Penn school the future that it desires. It is a centre of excellence. I have been delighted to visit the school, and to see the outcome of the education provided to its pupils. I cannot tell the Minister how dedicated the parents, the governors, the staff and the pupils are to the school's continuation.
The Minister has a golden opportunity today to set at rest the minds of deserving people and their children. I hope that he will grasp the opportunity with both hands.
11.20 pm
Mr. Tom Levitt: I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on securing this Adjournment debate on such an important topic for children with the special need of hearing impairment—in which I have great interest. I do not know an awful lot about land valuation, but I know something about teaching and—as trustee of the Royal National Institute for Deaf People—a bit about deafness.
I shall speak only briefly, simply to make the point that if children—any child in any culture—are to develop language effectively, they have to grow up in an environment that is rich in that language. That is as true for a hearing child, in any language, as it is for a deaf child growing up, who is developing sign language as his or her first language—as it is for 50,000 people in the United Kingdom.
As far as I know, the Penn school provides that type of rich cultural environment for hearing-impaired children. I therefore urge my hon. Friend the Minister to do what he can to respond positively to the pleas of the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham.
11.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on securing this debate. Not all hon. Members will know that she spent much of her early life in my constituency, in Cringleford, which is just outside Norwich. For some reason, she decided to depart—to Cheltenham Ladies college and to Amersham and Chesham. I do not know why she left, but I know that our loss in Norwich was their gain in Chesham and Amersham. I congratulate her on the way in which she made her case.
I very much welcome the opportunity of discussing the future of Penn school, which, judging from the correspondence that I have received, is a subject close to the hearts of many hon. Members and people elsewhere, such as parents at the school and others who are interested in the education of deaf children.
I really am grateful to all those who, in the past few months, have contributed their views on the school. The Department and I have received submissions from hon. Members representing south-east Buckinghamshire—I am glad to see the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in the Chamber—and the hon. Members for Chesham and Amersham, for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone), for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell), for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), for Finchley and Golders Green (Dr. Vis), for Wycombe (Sir R. Whitney), for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas), for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning). From the other place, I have received representations from Earl Howe and Lord Ashley of Stoke. It is a testament to the quality of the school that so many Members of the House and of the other place should have decided that they wished to make representations in the manner that they have.
We have received representations also in a petition of 1,200 names, from the National Deaf Children's Society and from a variety of local education authorities—

855
which I suspect are among those that the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham said would be keen to use the school.
Mrs. Gillan: It is quite obvious that there is tremendous support for the school, and I am glad that the Minister has catalogued the number of representations that he has received. May I also, through him, thank his officials, who I believe have visited the school several times, most recently last week? I was pleased to note that officials took such close interest in the school and in the outcome. I therefore hope that the Minister will today be giving us the response that we wish to hear.
Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that remark, and shall certainly pass it on to officials in my Department. As the hon. Lady said, they have worked hard on the matter, and I join her in thanking them for their work.
Mr. Gareth R. Thomas: My hon. Friend has already mentioned the written representations that other hon. Members and I have made to him. May I underline the point about the considerable uncertainty facing parents—such as Mr. and Mrs. Wilson, who have a child at the school and live in my constituency—because of continued uncertainty about the school's future? An early decision to end that uncertainty would be particularly welcome for them.
Mr. Clarke: I appreciate that point and I hope that I can help my hon. Friend during the debate.
Special educational needs is an important issue for the Government. Our Green Paper in October 1997, followed by our action programme in November 1998, set out a clear plan for dealing with the issues. We are committed to taking all possible steps to improve the situation for people with special educational needs. That is the context in which I turn to the proposal from Camden local education authority to cease to maintain the school and the school's application to become a non-maintained special school.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham on the clarity with which she made her case. Penn school is a special school in Penn in Buckinghamshire, but maintained by Camden LEA, for children with hearing impairments and communications difficulties. Most of the children also have other learning difficulties. As the hon. Lady said, it is an important regional facility for that group of children.
Camden LEA inherited the school when the Inner London education authority was abolished in 1990. The school serves a wide area, with children from a number of authorities. None of the children currently at the school is from Camden. The school received a good Ofsted report in June 1998, which was a commendation of all those working at the school and the service that it offers.
However, because of the consideration that I mentioned earlier, Camden LEA served notice on the Secretary of State on 6 October 1998 of its proposal to cease to maintain the school from the end of the current academic year. Later that month, the school applied for non-maintained special school status. Non-maintained special schools are run by charitable trusts on a non-profit
856
making basis. The governors of Penn school have already established the Rayners special education trust, with a view to running the school under the proposed new arrangements. We have received many letters of support for the continued existence of the school and my officials have kept in close contact with Camden LEA and Penn school throughout.
I am pleased to be able to announce that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered all the information available to him and has decided that he is minded to approve Camden LEA's proposal to cease to maintain the school from 31 August 1999 and the school's application to become a non-maintained special school from 1 September this year. I hope that that will allow the school to plan for its future as a non-maintained special school.
As the hon. Lady mentioned, substantial independent research has been carried out and a business plan has been developed that gives the governors of the school confidence that they will be able to develop it as they have proposed.
I said my right hon. Friend is minded to approve. Final approval will be given when the school and Camden have agreed terms and conditions for the sale of the site, which is currently being negotiated, and when the Secretary of State is satisfied that the school's sponsors have provided formal confirmation that they will provide financial security for the school for its first five years as a non-maintained special school. I understand that that is expected shortly.
Mr. John McDonnell: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his announcement, which will bring great relief to many of my constituents as well as to many others. When I was the chief executive of the Association of London Authorities, I was involved in the transfer of properties from ILEA to the boroughs. They were transferred largely as trusts so that they would be maintained for the benefit of London and the whole country. It behoves the Government to ensure that that concept is taken into account in the consideration of the financial arrangements between Camden and the school. The school was designed to provide educational value and service to the whole community. Any pricing of the property should be on that basis. Under the Wednesbury principles, it would be reasonable to take that into account.
Mr. Clarke: I take that point, which was also made by the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham. I was coming to that. I cannot give any detailed comfort on that, save to say that I understand the powerful and forceful points that have been made and I shall give careful consideration to the situation to see what good offices my Department can offer to try to ensure that an agreement is reached at a reasonable level.
Mrs. Gillan: On behalf of my constituents, the school, the governors, the parents and the children, may I thank the Minister for arriving so speedily at a "minded-to" decision tonight? He knows that this is a subject close to my heart, and one about which I feel strongly. To be able to send those with the greatest interest in the school home tonight with happiness in their hearts means a great deal. I unreservedly thank him for the decision. I note that there are some precursors to the final signing of the document,

857
but I feel sure that, as the Minister has come to the Dispatch Box tonight to make the announcement in response to this Adjournment debate, most barriers will melt away.
Mr. Clarke: If only that were true in all walks of life, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I appreciate the sentiment that the hon. Lady has just expressed, and I hope that the decision provides some of the security for which my hon. Friend the Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) has asked. There are matters to be sorted out, but I, too, am confident that they will be sorted out. The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham referred to the definition of impairment, to the boarding facilities and to restorative care, and those issues will be addressed positively and constructively.
My Department has written today to Camden LEA and to the chair of the governors of Penn school to inform them of the decision. I am sure that they, too, would want to pay tribute to all those who have campaigned so hard to support and maintain the facility.
858
The hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham will wish to know that Camden LEA has undertaken to invest the proceeds from the sale of the site specifically to improve the special educational provision for children in Camden. I believe that that is an important commitment, which will be of benefit. I appreciate what has been said from Members on both sides of the House, and I hope that everybody will agree that that is good news.
I want to conclude by wishing the school every success in the future, and by congratulating the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham and all her parliamentary colleagues who have argued so forcibly, constructively and patiently to ensure that the issue is resolved. The school is an important resource, and I wish the teachers, pupils and governors well in the future.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Drugs Companies
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will refer to the Serious Fraud Office recent allegations that irregular and unauthorised payments have been made by a drugs company(a) to avoid tax and (b) to encourage doctors to prescribe certain drugs; and if he will make a statement. [73527]

  The Attorney-General
  Section 1(3) of the Criminal Justice Act 1987 empowers the Director of the Serious Fraud Office to investigate any suspected offence which appears to her on reasonable grounds to involve serious or complex fraud. If my hon. Friend has relevant evidence or information, he should make it available to the Director of the Serious Fraud Office.

WALES

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Rowlands
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what his current estimate is of the number of households of working age in which there is no-one in work for each local authority area in Wales. [72641]

  Mr. Hain
  According to the Spring 1998 Labour Force Survey household dataset, there were an estimated 195,000 working-age households in Wales with no-one in employment; a breakdown by local authority area is not available due to the sample size.

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

  Primary Class Sizes
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what proportion of ordinary classes in primary schools contained more than 30 pupils in January 1998. [73110]

  Mr. Hain
  In January 1998, 28 per cent. (2,735) of ordinary classes in primary schools had more than 30 pupils.

  On the basis of grant approvals for local authorities to employ additional teachers from September 1998 to reduce infant class sizes, it is estimated that there are 722 fewer infant classes with over 30 pupils than would have been the case without grant. The additional £50m provided for schools in the local government revenue settlement for 1998–99 will also have had an impact. The results of the January 1999 schools' census will give the actual position.

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

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity; and who or what organisation was acting as their sponsor or host. [73348]

  Mr. Michael
  The Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), was at the awards as the guest of BPI (the British Phonographic Industry Ltd.).

  National Assembly
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he or his predecessors have signed an agreement to lease land adjacent to Crickhowell House in Cardiff for use as a site for the National Assembly Building. [73620]

  Mr. Michael
  A lease has been signed for a parcel of land of approximately one acre which comprises one half of plot 1E adjacent to Crickhowell House for a term of 150 years from 29 September 1998.

  Rural Development Grants
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much matching funding has been given for European rural development grants in Wales in the current financial year; how many projects are awaiting match funding and what would be the total requirement of matching funds to enable them to progress; and what funding has been agreed for such match funding for 1999–2000. [72824]

  Mr. Hain
  In the current financial year Rural Development Grant of £809,000 has been committed to support European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) Objective 5b awards.

  There are currently 35 projects under consideration arising from successful EAGGF Objective 5b bids under Rounds 7 and 8. These represent a total bid of some £3.8m over the financial years 1998–99 to 2001–2002.

  The Secretary of State will be making decisions shortly about further funding for the scheme based on the merits of individual projects and our priorities for securing the long-term future of the agriculture and food industries.

  Supermarkets (Regional Selective Assistance)
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much his Department has paid in regional selective assistance for supermarket developments in Wales in each of the past three years. [73566]

  Mr. Hain
  Retail developments of this type are not eligible for regional selective assistance.

TREASURY

  Tax Burdens (Businesses)
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many representations he has received regarding the tax burden on business. [72341]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have received a number of representations on this issue.

  Taxation (Charities)
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the ending of ACT recovery on the finances of charities; and if he will make a statement. [72773]

  Ms Hewitt
  The withdrawal of payable tax credits will be completed from 6 April 1999. We recognise the special position of charities and provided generous compensation for them through public expenditure, for the withdrawal of their payable tax credits. This compensation takes the form of a payment to a charity of a percentage of the dividends it receives, and will apply for five years from 6 April 1999 on a tapering basis, giving charities an opportunity to adjust to the withdrawal of payable tax credits.

  Sierra Leone (Weapon Supplies)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action Customs and Excise is taking to investigate allegations that Sky Air Cargo of London and Occidental Airlines have been supplying weapons to rebels in Sierra Leone. [73266]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The investigation of alleged breaches of United Kingdom legislation implementing arms embargoes is a matter for the Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise. It is not the Commissioners' general practice to comment publicly about the existence or nature of such investigations.

  Fatal Illnesses
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the 20 most prevalent fatal illnesses in terms of annual death rates. [72713]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Maclean, dated 1 March 1999:
  To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he will list the 20 most prevalent fatal illnesses in terms of annual death rates.
  The information requested is given in the attached table.
  The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) breaks down causes of death, disease and injury into 17 Chapters. It assigns different code numbers to different causes, thus providing a language-independent method of coding causes of death, injury and disease. Since many diseases have alternative names, the ICD system groups all synonymous terms for a particular condition under the one ICD code number assigned to the condition.
  We have avoided including in the ranking the ICD Chapter heading or diseases that cover too broad a range of codes e.g. malignant neoplasms (cancers) coded 140–208 are the most common cause of death, accounting for approximately 1 in 4 deaths in 1997. Rather than present this as a single cause we have broken it down into significant identifiable illnesses.
  The table presents diseases defined by either a group of codes or an individual code, depending on the disease e.g. ischaemic heart disease is coded 410–414, but female breast cancer is coded 174.
  502

  Crude death rates1 for the twenty most common causes of death in England and Wales, 1997

  Rank

  Cause of death (ICD9 codes3)

  Rate per 100,000

  All causes2

  1,064

  1

  Ischaemic heart disease (410–414)

  234

  2

  Cerebrovascular disease (430–438)

  111

  3

  Pneumonia (480–486)

  109

  4

  Malignant neoplasm of trachea, bronchus, and lung (162)

  57

  5

  Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (490–496)

  52

  6

  Malignant neoplasm of female breast (174)

  445

  7

  Malignant neoplasm of prostate (185)

  533

  8

  Malignant neoplasm of colon (153)

  20

  9

  Malignant neoplasm of lymphatic and haematopoietic tissue (200–208)

  19

  10

  Malignant neoplasm of ovary (183)

  415

  11

  Senile and presenile organic psychotic conditions (290)

  13

  12

  Malignant neoplasm of stomach (151)

  13

  13

  Diabetes mellitus (250)

  11

  14

  Malignant neoplasm of oesophagus (150)

  11

  15

  Malignant neoplasm of pancreas (157)

  11

  16

  Malignant neoplasm of rectum, rectosigmoid junction and anus (154)

  9

  17

  Malignant neoplasm of bladder (188)

  9

  18

  Chronic liver disease and cirrhosis (571)

  8

  19

  Ulcer of stomach and duodenum (531–533)

  8

  20

  Accidental falls (E880-E888)

  7

  1 Rates per 100,000 population

  2 The death rate for 'all causes' includes deaths to those under 28 days old. Rates for individual causes of death do not.

  3 International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision

  4 Per 100,000 female population

  5 Per 100,000 male population

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the issues for discussion before the ECOFIN Council on 15 March indicating the position he proposes to take on each issue. [72741]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]Every six months, at the beginning of an EU Presidency, the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), outlines to the House the main items of business expected during the Presidency. Every month, she gives the House details of the items expected at meetings of the Council of Ministers during the month. After each meeting of the ECOFIN Council, I report back to the European Scrutiny Committee on the business conducted at the ECOFIN meeting. This has been the practice under successive Governments.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity; and who or what organisation was acting as their sponsor or host. [73494]

  Ms Hewitt
  None.

  European Central Bank
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the consultations he has had with the European Central Bank since 1 January. [71495]
  503
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]The Chancellor regularly meets his colleagues from other Finance Ministries and Central Banks.

  Single Ombudsman Scheme
  Ms Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what responses he has received to proposals for a single ombudsman scheme as set out in the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill; and if he will make a statement. [74393]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government are committed to improving consumer protection, and the creation of the single ombudsman scheme is an important element in delivering such protection. The response to the draft Bill published in July 1998 showed strong support for the creation of the single ombudsman scheme. The Government, however, intend to amend some of the relevant provisions of the Bill to meet valid concerns raised.

  The draft Bill allows for an appeal to the courts against the ombudsman's determination by either respondent or complainant on a point of law. Consistent with the objective of resolving disputes quickly and with minimum formality, we have decided to remove this provision.

  Currently, the Bill allows the Ombudsman to order complainants to pay costs if they behave improperly or unreasonably. In order that complainants should be able to approach the Ombudsman without the fear of being ordered to pay the respondent's costs, we have decided to provide for the scheme operator to make rules authorising awards of the scheme's costs against either party, limited in the case of the complainant to the costs of the scheme operator.

  We also intend to widen the FSA's discretion over which complaints are to be included in the compulsory jurisdiction. The FSA will be able to include all financial services carried out by authorised persons, not just those listed in Schedule 2 to the Bill. This change will allow the FSA to bring within the compulsory jurisdiction the large majority of disputes involving authorised persons which can currently be dealt with by the existing schemes, including the Banking and Building Societies Ombudsmen. We will also give the FSA sufficient flexibility to exclude some categories of regulated firms where there is a case to do so. We propose that the scheme operator should have similar discretion over the scope of the voluntary jurisdiction.

DEFENCE

  Defence Medical Services
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what will be the cost of creating a new chief of staff post on the Surgeon General's staff; and if he will make a statement on the nature of the employment that will be covered under that part of his remit which involves the implementation of the changes following the strategic review of defence medical services. [70879]

  Mr. Spellar
  The upgrading of the Chief of Staff post in the Surgeon General's Department will not result in any additional personnel cost as the new incumbent will replace the current Chief of Staff who, as a medical 504
  officer, is in receipt of additional remuneration to reflect his professional qualifications. The new Chief of Staff's responsibilities will include ensuring that the changes to the Defence Medical Services announced by the Secretary of State for Defence on 14 December 1998 are implemented expeditiously and cost-effectively.

  South Africa (Military Cargo)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has had from South African police on the incident in May 1998 involving a cargo of military equipment flown from RAF Manston destined for South Africa which failed to reach its destination; and what his response was. [71565]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The Ministry of Defence has not received any representations from the South African police or other authorities on this matter. This is a matter for Customs and Excise. I refer my hon. Friend to the response given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary on 8 February 1999,Official Report, column 22.

  Fast Insertion Craft
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which organisation supplies his Department with fast insertion craft; and which other countries have been supplied with similar vessels. [72644]

  Mr. Spellar
  Fast insertion craft are currently supplied to the Ministry of Defence by Halmatic, who are now part of the Vosper Thornycroft group of companies. Vessels of this type have been procured by Singapore.

  Sir Charles Masefield
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how long after he ceased to be Head of Defence Export Services Sir Charles Masefield joined the Board of GEC; and if he will make a statement. [73267]

  Mr. Spellar
  Sir Charles Masefield joined GEC on 14 December 1998, the day that Mr. Tony Edwards succeeded him as Head of Defence Export Services, HDES. Sir Charles originally joined the MOD on 1 September 1994 on secondment from his previous employer, Airbus Industrie, a subsidiary of BAe. As a secondee, we would have expected Sir Charles to return to industry on completion of the HDES appointment.

  RN Personnel (Drug Trafficking Control)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many times in each of the last five years Royal Navy personnel have been involved in activity to assist Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and other agencies to control drug trafficking. [72937]

  Mr. Spellar
  The number of occasions on which Royal Navy personnel have been involved in support of HM Customs and Excise counter-drug operations over each of the last five years is as follows:

  1998: 3

  1997: 3

  1996: 6

  1995: 3

  1994: 4

  505
  In the Caribbean, the West Indies Guardship has been operating in support of the US led Joint Inter-Agency Task Force (East) on a regular basis throughout the past five years.

  Defence Agencies
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the(a) Defence Medical Training Organisation and (b) Army Personnel Centre published its report for the year 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [73012]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executives of the Agencies concerned. I have asked them to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Major General C. G. Callow to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 1 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the date that our annual report for 1997–98 was published and the cost as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Medical Training Organisation.
  It was published on 27 July 1998 at a cost of £2,130.

  Letter from G. A. M. Hammond to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 1 March 1999:
  I am replying on behalf of the Chief Executive of the Army Personnel Centre (APC), in his absence on business, to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the date upon which the APC published its report for the year 1997–98 and the cost of producing the report, as this matter falls within the responsibility of this Agency.
  The APC Annual Report and Accounts for the year 1997–98 was published on 29 July 1998 at a cost of £4035 (excluding VAT).

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what official visits he, his Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73457]

  Mr. Spellar
  There have been no visits by MOD Ministers to Zimbabwe since May 1997. Two senior MOD officials visited Zimbabwe in 1998 where they met UK staff working for the regional British Military Assistance Training programme, gave presentations on the UK Strategic Defence Review, held workshops on management issues and paid office calls on Defence Ministers, senior members of the Armed Forces and senior officials. A senior MOD official has been on secondment since May 1995 assisting in the restructuring and management of the Zimbabwean MOD.

  There have been a number of visits by other officials and military staff for a variety of reasons. The cost of listing them all would be disproportionate.

  ASTOR
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to deploy unmanned aerial vehicles in tandem with an airborne stand off radar system. [72755]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]The planned Airborne Stand-Off Radar, ASTOR, programme, together with the in-service Phoenix unmanned aerial 506
  vehicle and future UAV programmes, such as SENDER and SPECTATOR, will form an important part of our integrated Intelligence, Surveillance, Target Acquisition and Reconnaissance, ISTAR, capability.

  Long range surveillance and reconnaissance assets, such as ASTOR and longer range radar and UAVs, will help to cue and subsequently direct medium and short range reconnaissance and target acquisition assets, such as Phoenix, to identify, prioritise and engage enemy targets from long range before they can inflict damage on our and friendly forces. This integrated approach ensures our ground attack air assets and long range artillery assets are used to maximum effectiveness.

  Army Training and Recruiting Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency; and what was the figure at its inception. [72818]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Army Training and Recruiting Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. H. Gordon to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 1 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the numbers of people currently employed by the Army Training and Recruiting Agency, and at its inception, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Deputy Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The numbers employed are as follows:

  Military Personal

  Civilian Personnel

  Total

  1996–971

  5,832

  4,360

  10,192

  1997–981

  6,101

  4,541

  10,642

  31 Dec 19982

  6,178

  4,410

  10,588

  1 average over the year

  2 actual numbers at this date

  The Agency was formed as the Army Individual Training Organisation on 1 April 1996. It was relaunched as the Army Training and Recruiting Agency with effect from 1 July 1997, although it was effectively restructured on 1 April of that year, when it absorbed the functions of the former Directorate of Army Recruiting.

  Old Gym, Caerwent
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the Old Gym at Caerwent military base. [73649]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]The Army is currently in discussions with Caerwent Community Council regarding the sale or lease of the Old Gym at Caerwent Training Area to the Council.

  Defence Dental Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to set targets for the Defence Dental Agency for the year 1999–2000. [72979]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I aim to announce the key targets for the Defence Dental Agency in April.

  Military Exercises (Poland)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries had armed forces involved in the brigade exercise in Poland carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72847]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Exercise ULAN EAGLE, which took place at the Drawko-Pomorskie training area in north east Poland in October 1997, was a British Army exercise undertaken by 20th Armoured Brigade. No other countries' armed forces were involved.

  Defence Codification Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Defence Codification Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [73035]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Codification Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. A. Bradshaw to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 1 March 1999:
  Publication of the Defence Codification Agency's Annual Report for 1997–98
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about publication dates and costs associated with the Annual Report for 1997–98 of the Defence Codification Agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Defence Codification Agency published its annual report on 27th of July 1998. The cost of the publication was £2695.00.
  For background information, this was the Defence Codification Agency's first Annual Report since its launch in July 96, it was published using the services of the Stationery Office and the Agency has a Treasury Direction and a clean audit opinion.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Codification Agency; and what the figure was at its inception. [72978]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Codification Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from K. A. Bradshaw to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 1 March 1999:
  Staff Employed by the Defence Codification Agency
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about staff employed within the Defence Codification Agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The Defence Codification Agency currently employs 93 staff (including nine surplus staff). At the Agency inception in July 1996 we employed 168 staff.
  For background information, following the vesting of the Defence Codification Agency in July 96 a Competing for Quality Feasibility Study was conducted. This included details of plans to increase efficiency and reduce staffing levels. These measures have been implemented and a staff reduction of 50% will have been achieved once the nine surplus staff have been assigned to new posts.

  Defence Bills Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Defence Bills Agency; and what was the figure at its inception. [72839]
  508
  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Bills Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from I. S. Elrick to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 1 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about numbers employed in the Defence Bills Agency, as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  There were 699 people employed in the Agency as at 31 January 1999 and these equate to 662 full-time equivalents. The comparable figures for 1 January 1996 are 680 and 655 respectively, while the full-time equivalent figure for the base line year against which the Agency's effectiveness is measured is 716.
  For a meaningful comparison of numbers employed currently against those employed at the Agency's inception, due allowance should be made for changed circumstances in the intervening period. The Service Level Agreement which the Agency has with the Department was amended on 27 June 1997, to effect a budget increase which was based on an additional 30 employees who were required to cope with changed business practices which were introduced to facilitate the introduction of Resource Accounting.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Immigration (Adjudicators' Decisions)
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department by what means members of the public may obtain access to an indexed collection of determinations by immigration adjudicators in order to find out if there is a relevant decision relating to their case. [72862]

  Mr. Hoon
  No collection of indexed adjudicator determinations exists. Adjudicators' decisions are not binding on other adjudicators. Determinations are retained on tribunal files and are available to the public only with an adjudicator's permission.

  Immigration Appeal Tribunal decisions are available from the Supreme Court Library on request and are available to subscribers on the Electronic Immigration Network Database via the internet.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) on how many occasions(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have (i) spoken with and (ii) received representations regarding genetic modification from Mr. Stan Greenberg of Greenberg Research; [72248]

  (2) on how many occasions (a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have (i) spoken with and (ii) received representations regarding genetic modification from Dave Hill of Bell Pottinger; [72066]

  (3) on how many occasions (a) Ministers and (b) officials of his Department have (i) spoken with and (ii) received representations regarding genetic modification from Cathy McGlynn of Bell Pottinger. [72059]
  509
  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 23 February 1999]I and my officials are in regular contact with representatives of all those with an interest in biotechnology—including environmental groups, consumer groups and biotechnology companies. It is not the normal practice of Governments to give details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations(a) he and (b) his ministers have received on genetically modified organisms and the biotechnology industry from the US Government. [72762]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Department has received one representation on this subject from the US Government.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the sites in Northavon where genetically modified crops(a) are currently grown and (b) have been grown in the last three years. [73910]

  Mr. Meacher
  No genetically modified crops are currently grown or have been grown in the last three years in Northavon.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will require the Health and Safety Executive to institute prosecution proceedings against Zeneca for a breach of the regulations governing the escape into the environment, through the consumption by Zeneca staff, of genetically modified tomatoes and tomato seeds. [73402]

  Mr. Meacher
  HSE inspectors have sought clarification from Zeneca regarding reports in the national press that members of staff have eaten whole genetically modified tomatoes as part of taste trials. If this had taken place it would have represented a possible breach of environmental safety regulations. This is because tomatoes are a seed bearing fruit and the inadvertent dispersal of seeds from genetically modified tomatoes could have given rise to growth of genetically modified plants in the environment. The concern would have been that seeds would have dispersed through the sewage system, thereby breaching containment requirements.

  It has been found that there were major inaccuracies in the reporting. In particular, it would appear that taste trials have been undertaken only using tomato tissues from which all seeds have been removed. Therefore, there would not appear to have been any breach of environmental safety legislation.

  The photograph of Zeneca staff eating whole tomatoes, which appeared in one newspaper, was posed for the cameras using non-modified tomatoes.

  Pilot Projects
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the pilot projects instigated by his Department since 1 May 1997, indicating the area in which each pilot took, or is taking, place. [72634]

  Mr. Meale
  A table setting out the pilot projects which have been instigated by my Department and its Executive Agencies since 1 May 1997 has been placed in the Library.

  Empty Council Properties (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with London borough councils as to the number of empty council properties within their boroughs and the period of time that such properties are empty; and if he will make a statement. [72629]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have had no such discussions. However, officials of the Government Office for London regularly discuss with Borough officials, as part of the annual Housing Investment Programme determination, many aspects of the Borough's housing strategy and of its performance as a housing authority. Empty council properties are one aspect of that discussion. The Government regularly mention the number of empty houses in each local authority area, and encourage all local authorities to implement strategies to minimise the number of empty houses in their area.

  Special Areas of Conservation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of the United Kingdom land area he has designated as special areas of conservation; and what the percentage is for other EU member states. [72775]

  Mr. Meale
  A total of 333 UK sites have been submitted to the European Commission as candidate SACs covering over 1,687,000 hectares. This accounts for 3.4 per cent. of the UK land surface. A similar additional area is covered by marine sites below mean low water. The Department does not have official information about other Member States, which is a matter for them and the European Commission.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received on the designation of new special areas of conservation; and what was his evaluation of each suggestion. [72647]

  Mr. Meale
  333 UK candidate Special Areas of Conservation have been submitted to the European Commission following consideration of all representations made as a result of consultation. Many representations related to specific proposed sites; others, mainly from environmental organisations, suggested additions to the list. Where these suggestions were judged, on the advice of the nature conservation agencies through the JNCC, to be consistent with the Habitats Directive's criteria and requirements, they have been adopted. The JNCC publications, The Habitats Directive: selection of Special Areas of Conservation in the UK (Report No. 270), sets out the rationale that has been applied. It was published in October 1997 and placed in the Library of the House at the time.

  Transport (London)
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will lay a specific duty on Transport for London to provide services at their existing levels on those parts of the Underground network outwith Greater London. [72653]
  511
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We do not intend to place such a duty on Transport for London. TfL will be directly accountable to the Mayor who, subject to the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill, will be responsible for arranging for the setting of the general level of services provided or secured by Transport for London. More widely, the Mayor will be under a duty to develop and implement policies for the promotion and encouragement of safe, integrated, efficient and economic transport facilities and services to, from and within Greater London. This duty therefore encompasses services to be provided by Transport for London outside the Greater London boundary.

  The Mayor will also have a duty to draw up an integrated transport strategy for London, while taking account of national policy including the Government's integrated transport strategy. The Government have made it clear that their policy is to promote and encourage integrated public transport and the Mayor will need to bear that in mind when making decisions about the level of services provided or secured by Transport for London outside the Greater London boundary.

  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how he proposes that representatives of those areas served by Transport for London railways outside Greater London will be consulted on the development of the services. [72654]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Subject to the passage of the Greater London Authority Bill, the Mayor will be under a duty to prepare a transport strategy document. It will be open to the Mayor to consult any body or person he or she thinks it appropriate to consult about the preparation of his or her transport strategy.

  In addition, we will establish a new body to represent the interests of users of all modes of transport in London, including all services and facilities provided or secured by Transport for London. The new body will be known as the London Transport Users' Committee (LTUC). We envisage that LTUC will have regular contacts with Transport for London.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he plans to give to London's Mayor over the former British Rail network within Greater London. [73171]

  Dr. Reid
  Our proposals were set out in our White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" (Cm 3897). Paragraph 5.27 of the White Paper indicates that the Mayor will be able to:issue guidance to OPRAF regarding franchisees in London;
  secure the provision of new passenger services to be operated in London;
  promote or fund new network improvements, as well as investment in new stations or improvements to existing ones;
  require operators to participate in new multi-modal ticketing arrangements or concessionary travel schemes; and
  ensure Transport for London is consulted on timetable decisions to ensure that bus, rail and tube services can be planned to complement each other.

  The White Paper made it clear that OPRAF would not be bound to accept the Mayor's guidance if it would have an adverse impact beyond London or would result in additional financial liability to the taxpayer. Transport for London will also be able to exercise powers inherited from London Transport to ensure consistency between
  512
  rail, Underground and bus services in terms of Travelcard fares and ticketing, marketing and passenger information. Transport for London will also have the power to oppose rail schemes which it thinks are contrary to the Mayor's transport strategy or other policies, or to the interests of Londoners.

  Clauses 163 to 166 of the Greater London Authority Bill currently set out the draft provisions which will give effect to our proposals. Those clauses were debated in Standing Committee on 23 February 1999, Official Report, Standing Committee A, columns 723–49.

  Thameslink 2000
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the current estimate for the start date of the construction of the Thameslink 2000 rail scheme. [73092]

  Dr. Reid
  The start of construction work on the Thameslink 2000 rail project is dependent on two factors:

  Firstly, the project requires construction powers to be granted under the Transport and Works Act 1992 (TWA). Railtrack submitted an application for a TWA Order for Thameslink 2000 in November 1997. Following consideration of representations made in respect of that application, and changes resulting from a review of the project, Railtrack is currently preparing a supplementary TWA Order application. A decision on when any public inquiry into the proposed scheme might be held has therefore been deferred until December 1999. The earliest an Inquiry could realistically be expected to commence is Spring of 2000. The timing of the Secretary of State's decision on whether to grant powers following the Inquiry Inspector's report, and—if powers are granted—the start of construction work, would depend on a number of factors, including the length of the Inquiry and the Inspector's findings.

  Secondly, the Thameslink 2000 project is dependent on Stage 2 of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) for the provision of certain works at St. Pancras. Railtrack has said that it intends to proceed with the exercise of its option to construct Stage 2 of CTRL, but believes that it would be inappropriate to make such a commitment until after the outcome is known of the Rail Regulator's review of access charges. If this option were exercised in 2001, construction of Thameslink 2000 would start in early 2002 and the service could be operational in 2006.

  Robin Hood Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he plans to take to provide future funding security for, and protection of, existing service levels on the Robin Hood line between Nottingham and Mansfield. [73095]

  Dr. Reid
  The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising (OPRAF) is in discussion with the local authorities and Central Trains about the future arrangements for the funding and provision of services on the Robin Hood line. For the current financial year (1998–99), OPRAF is providing a contribution of £350,000 to Central Trains in respect of Robin Hood Line services.

  OPRAF
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising has concerning proposals made by train operating companies to(a) reduce staffing levels and (b) change staff pay and conditions. [73107]

  Dr. Reid
  The Franchising Director does not have any power to prevent train operating companies from reducing their staffing levels. He has rights of approval over changes to pension arrangements and changes to pay and conditions which would leave undesirable legacies for the next franchisee.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising made of the likely impact on staffing levels of the successful bids for rail franchises; and if he will place a copy of each such assessment in the Library. [73152]

  Dr. Reid
  Bids for franchises were assessed on value for money for the provision of passenger rail services. The contents of the bids remain confidential and therefore copies of the assessments cannot be placed in the Library.

  Rail Staff Redundancies
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many rail staff took redundancy in each of the years between 1992–93 and 1997–98. [73169]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), on 16 December 1997,Official Report, columns 152–53. I understand from the British Railways Board that, in 1997–98,310 British Rail staff were made redundant.

  East Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Government will take into account Sea Containers' punctuality record when evaluating the company's request for a franchise extension for the East Coast main line. [73090]

  Dr. Reid
  As I announced at the rail summit on 25 February, the track record of franchisees will be one of the factors in considering proposals for renegotiation.

  Rail Network (Crime)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what surveys of public opinion(a) his Department and (b) the British Transport Police have carried out in the last five years into fear of crime on the national rail network. [73104]

  Dr. Reid
  In 1997 the Department published a report entitled "Perceptions of safety from crime on public transport". This was the outcome of a number of surveys and focus groups carried out across England which included train travel. In the last five years the British Transport Police have carried out annual surveys alternately with railway passengers or staff and these included questions on the fear of crime.

  Disabled Travellers
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total sum invested in measures specifically to improve access to stations for travellers with disabilities in each of the years between 1987–88 and 1997–98. [73103]

  Dr. Reid
  Information on specific expenditure on disabled access is not available for those years.

  However, all new stations planned or in build will provide full unassisted wheelchair access. In addition, Railtrack are on course to meet the target, set in the Network Management Statement 1998, of providing unassisted wheelchair access at a further 119 stations this year.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what duties will be given to the Strategic Rail Authority in regard to improving access to the rail network for travellers with disabilities. [73102]

  Dr. Reid
  Subject to Parliament's' consideration of the necessary legislation, the Strategic Rail Authority will have a duty to have regard, in particular, to the interests of disabled people. The SRA would also inherit the Rail Regulator's code of practice for protecting disabled railway passengers and a duty to revise it from time to time and encourage its adoption and implementation. The Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations 1998, which came into effect on 1 January this year, have set clear technical requirements for wheelchair access and a range of other features that will apply to all new rolling stock coming into service from that date.

  Rail Tickets
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been the average annual increase in the cost of(a) supersaver, (b) cheap day return and (c) standard single tickets on the national rail network for each year from 1992–93 to 1997–98. [73091]

  Dr. Reid
  This information is not available in the form requested. However, I will write to my hon. Friend about the data that are available.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many, and what proportion, of journeys on the InterCity and former InterCity network were made using(a) supersavers and (b) savers in each of the last 10 years. [73106]

  Dr. Reid
  This information is not available in the form requested.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) family railcards, (b) network cards, (c) forces railcards and (d) all-line rail rovers were issued in each of the last 10 years. [73105]

  Dr. Reid
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if those rail services provided under the Rail Regulator's Moderation of Competition proposals will be required to accept national interavailable protected fares. [73190]
  515
  Dr. Reid
  In all the access agreements which the Rail Regulator has approved to date, the acceptance of national interavailable protected fares has been a requirement. The Rail Regulator has indicated that he would not expect to approve access rights for new services where he had reason to believe that approval was likely to result in the loss of network benefits. Those benefits include the provision of interavailable tickets. For franchise operators, the obligation to accept interavailable tickets is a condition of their franchise agreement.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what instructions he gave to passenger transport authorities in regard to fares levels in connection with the payment of the special rail grant to passenger transport executives. [73094]

  Dr. Reid
  None. Where Passenger Transport Authorities (PTAs) have chosen to retain responsibility for setting fares on the rail services which they support, they are free to raise or lower fares as they wish. However, the amount of grant entitlement will take account of the financial consequences of fares changes which diverge from the national fares cap set by the Franchising Director. Fares in the areas of the two PTAs which have chosen to pass responsibility for setting fares to the train operating companies are subject to the regulated fares cap set in franchise agreements, i.e. RPI-1 from 1 January 1999.

  West Coast Main Line
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria were used by the Office of Passenger Rail Franchising to assess the impact on existing or potential rail services of the coach links which OPRAF approved as part of the Virgin/Stagecoach deal for the InterCity West Coast Main Line and Cross Country Franchises. [73089]

  Dr. Reid
  The Criterion for securing the bus links was the integration of public transport in line with our recent White Paper, ANew Deal for Transport. The primary aim was to transport passengers to rail heads by bus from areas not currently served by rail services and thus to encourage greater use of train services from these rail heads.

  Passenger Train Services
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the total number of passenger train services on the national rail network for each year between 1985–86 and 1997–98. [73093]

  Dr. Reid
  Information is not held in this form. However, I will write to my hon. Friend about alternative statistics that are available.

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress is being made by the DVLA in reaching their target to deliver 95 per cent. of vocational licences within nine working days. [73097]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Since the beginning of 1998–99 the target has been met or bettered during every month except for April 1998, when a 10 day turnaround was recorded. DVLA expects to deliver an 8 day performance for the year as a whole.

  Structure Plan (Hampshire)
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from Eagle Star in relation to the structure plan for Hampshire. [73181]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Following publication of the Hampshire Structure Plan Examination in Public panel report in May 1997, Eagle Star forwarded to the Secretary of State in October 1997 a copy of the Company's response to Hampshire County Council Conservative Group's press release on the structure plan. In October 1998 the Secretary of State received two representations from Eagle Star asking him to intervene in the Hampshire Structure Plan.

  Number Plates
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to require motor vehicle registration number plates to comply with the laid-down specification. [73255]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Enforcement is a matter for the police. We are, however, planning to introduce new regulations, later this year, on the display of number plates which will facilitate enforcement and should reduce abuse. From 1 March this year, motorists who mis-represent their vehicle registration marks may also have them withdrawn.

  London Regional Transport
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he last advertised posts of(a) Chairman, (b) Vice-Chairman, (c) Executive members and (d) non-executive members of the Board of London Regional Transport. [73506]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is set out:

  Chairman
  It is not common practice for posts at Chairman level to be advertised. PricewaterhouseCoopers were appointed last spring to assist us in the search for a new Chairman.

  Vice-Chairman
  It has been the practice to appoint the Vice-Chairman from within the existing Board, rather than through external advertising. This appointment is made by the LT Board itself, not by the Secretary of State.
  517
  Executive Members
  The post of Managing Director of London Underground Limited was advertised last July.

  Non-Executive Members
  It has been the practice to appoint non-executives from recruitment searches, or from names supplied by the Public Appointments Unit (PAU). Those appearing on the PAU's list are largely self-nominated.

  Member

  First appointed to Board

  Qualifications and Experience

  Chairman: Sir Malcolm Bates

  11 February 1999

  Sir Malcolm is Chairman of the Pearl Group and Premier Farnell plc. Until Easter 1997 he was also Deputy Managing Director of GEC plc, and Joint Managing Director of Wm. Brandt & Sons. He is also a member of the Industrial Development Advisory Board, has chaired the Government's Engineering Deregulation Task Force, and was a member of the Treasury's Private Finance Panel.

  Chief Executive: Denis Tunnicliffe

  1 November 1993

  Mr. Tunnicliffe joined London Transport as Managing Director of London Underground in 1988, and became a full Board member in 1993. This led to his becoming Chief Executive last May. Prior to joining London Transport, Mr. Tunnicliffe worked for British Airways, and subsequently the International Leisure Group.

  Managing Director, London Underground: Derek Smith

  1 February 1999

  Mr. Smith worked in NHS management prior to joining the LT Board. He has experience of running a large organisation through a period of change, and has experience of dealing with Private Finance programmes.

  Managing Director, London Transport Buses: Clive Hodson

  1 August 1995

  Mr. Hodson became Managing Director of London Buses Ltd. in 1989. His performance there, and his stewardship of the privatisation of the LBL subsidiaries led to his joining the LT board in 1995 as MD of London Transport Buses.

  Non-executive Vice-Chairman: Brian Appleton

  1 September 1995

  Mr. Appleton is a former Director of ICI and Polymers, and assessor to the Piper Alpha Inquiry. In 1992 he carried out a study for the HSE of the extent to which London Underground had achieved the right balance in responding to fire and bomb threats. He advises LT on safety matters.

  Non-executive: Michael Lawrence

  29 June 1994

  Mr. Lawrence was formerly Chief Executive of the London Stock Exchange. His previous experience included being a partner in Price Waterhouse, Group Finance Director for the Prudential Corporation, non-executive Director of the Port of London Authority, and Chairman of the Hundred Group of Finance Directors. He is Chairman of the Financial Audit Committee at LT.

  Non-executive: Sally O'Sullivan

  1 August 1995

  Ms O'Sullivan's background is in publishing. She is also a member of the Broadcasting Standards Council, and of the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs. She focuses on consumer issues at LT.

  Non-executive: Sir Alan Bailey

  1 December 1991

  Sir Alan was formerly a Permanent Secretary at the Department of Transport, and formerly worked within the Treasury, Civil Service Department and Cabinet Office. He is Vice-Chairman of London Transport Buses.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many Air Miles have been earned by him and each of his Ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73336]

  Mr. Prescott
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of air miles was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.

  Detailed information on any air miles earned by Ministers as a result of office travel is not recorded centrally.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what official visits he, his Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73462]

  Mr. Prescott
  There have been no official visits by DETR Ministers to Zimbabwe since May 1997.
  518
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list(a) the current members of the Board of London Regional Transport, (b) the dates on which they were first appointed and (c) their (i) qualifications and (ii) experience.

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The information requested is set out.

  There has been one official visit on 27–30 January 1998 when a senior Departmental official represented DETR at an International Workshop on Strategic Approaches to Freshwater Management. The event was attended by some 80 countries, together with NGOs, industry and International agencies. This event was hosted by the Zimbabwe Government with EC support, and helped pave the way for the Commission for Sustainable Development's Sixth meeting at which a formal Decision on Strategic Approaches to Freshwater Management was adopted by CSD, and later endorsed by UNGASS.

  Zoos
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what criteria are used in assessing the suitability of people to be appointed to Government Zoo Inspectors' List A and Government Zoo Inspectors List B; [73725]

  (2) what plans he has to assess the continuing suitability of those on the Government Zoo Inspectors Lists A and B. [73726]
  519
  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]The requirements for selecting zoo inspectors are set out under Section 8 of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. The list of inspectors is compiled after consultation with the British Veterinary Association, the Federation of Zoological Gardens and other bodies. The list consists of two parts: the first part contains the names of veterinary surgeons and practitioners who have experience of animals of the kinds that are or may be kept in zoos; the second part contains the names of other persons who are in the Secretary of State's opinion competent to inspect animals in zoos, to advise on keeping them and on their welfare, and to advise on the management of zoos generally. The Secretary of State may, after the required consultation, vary the list of inspectors by adding or deleting names.

  Following the Government's review last year of the operation of the Zoo Licensing Act 1981 we plan to revise and update the current list of zoo inspectors. A new advisory body, the Zoos Forum, which we will be establishing shortly will also have an important part to play in reviewing the current list of inspectors and advising on further nominations for appointment.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what standards his Department uses to determine whether a(a) circus and (b) zoo elephant has been excessively shackled; and if he will make a statement; [73727]

  (2) what guidance he has given Government Zoo Inspectors on action to be taken in respect of elephants which have been excessively shackled. [73728]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]All zoos in Great Britain are required to comply with the Standards of Modern Zoo Practice issued by the Secretary of State under the Zoo Licensing Act 1981. The Standards do not at present specifically cover shackling. We announced a package of proposals in September last year to modernise the British zoo licensing system, and this included a review of the Standards, which is currently under way.

  Local authorities are responsible for the issuing of licences and other executive functions under the Act. In considering whether to issue a new or renewed licence under the Act, local authorities may attach any conditions or recommendations which they consider necessary or desirable, having regard to the Standards. Local authorities may also refuse to grant a licence, or to revoke an existing licence, if a zoo is not meeting required standards. The Act provides for inspections of zoos by teams of experts to ensure that the arrangements for accommodation, staffing or management are adequate for the proper care and well being of zoo animals.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has the lead responsibility in Government for the regulation of circuses.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 445, what consultation is taking place regarding further assistance and protection for homeless people; what representations he has received on the restoration of a duty
  520
  to fund permanent housing; when he plans to complete his consideration of the further steps to be taken referred to in his answer; and if he will make a statement. [73526]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]The Government have received representations from Shelter about making changes to the homelessness legislation which we are considering carefully. The Government intend to consult very widely on any proposals for strengthening the assistance and protection available to homeless people which it brings forward. No date has been set for completion of consideration of the steps that might be taken.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what strategy he has to meet the need for social housing over the next 20 years; and if he will make a statement. [73517]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]Our aim is to offer everyone the opportunity of a decent home and so promote social cohesion, well-being and self-dependence. The provision of good quality, efficiently managed social housing plays an important part in meeting that aim.

  We are making available an extra £5 billion for housing over the life of this Parliament, giving local authorities increased scope to invest in new social housing where this best reflects local needs and priorities, and boosting the Housing Corporation's support for new social housing relative to the last Government's spending plans.

  However, the overall number of new social houses built is not a full or satisfactory measure of a successful housing strategy. Decisions on investment have to strike a balance between the need for new social housing and the requirement to invest in improvements to the existing social and private sector stock. They must also take proper account of the demand for social housing, which varies greatly between regions and even between local neighbourhoods. It is important, therefore, that investment decisions reflect local circumstances. The policies we are putting in place following the Comprehensive Spending Review are designed to ensure that investment decisions are based on robust local assessments of housing need, reflected in housing strategies drawn up by local authorities in partnership with their communities.

  Revenue Support Grant (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the revenue support grant for Gloucestershire for the last five years for which figures are available; and what revenue support grant he is providing for 1999–2000. [73140]
  521
  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]The information requested is shown in the table:

  £ million

  1994–1995

  1995–1996

  1996–1997

  1997–1998

  1998–1999

  1999–2000

  Gloucestershire

  County Council

  122.009

  116.893

  114.407

  121.930

  125.861

  128.611

  Cheltenham

  3.909

  3.861

  3.688

  3.779

  3.393

  3.237

  Cotswold

  2.125

  2.042

  1.659

  1.811

  1.556

  1.509

  Forest of Dean

  1.861

  1.702

  1.322

  1.690

  1.470

  1.394

  Gloucester

  4.423

  4.289

  4.269

  4.560

  4.379

  4.233

  Stroud

  2.098

  1.920

  1.515

  1.736

  1.462

  1.306

  Tewkesbury

  2.510

  2.318

  1.902

  2.015

  1.499

  1.450

  Gloucestershire

  Police

  1—

  9.589

  9.004

  9.280

  9.455

  9.105

  1 Gloucestershire Police Authority came into existence in April 1995. In 1994–95, police services were provided by the County Council.

  Transport on Water Association
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what representations he has received recently from the Transport on Water Association regarding river transport to and from the Millennium Dome; and if he will make a statement; [73528]

  (2) what correspondence he has received from the Transport on Water Association since 1998; and if he will lay copies of the letters and his replies in the Library; [73530]

  (3) when he first received a copy of the Transport On Water Association's study of the future of passenger services on the River Thames; and what assessment he has made of their recommendations. [73529]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  My hon. Friend the Minister for London and Construction received a letter from the Chairman of the Transport on Water Association dated 27 July 1998 asking a number of questions about the Government's plan for encouraging new river transport services on the Thames, including services to the Millennium Dome. I replied on 28 September. As requested, I am placing copies of both letters in the Libraries of the House.

  My Department first received a copy of the Association's proposals for a system of passenger transport on the Thames in 1994. These were taken into account, along with other studies and advice, in developing the Government's own proposals under our Thames 2000 initiative.

  Planning Appeals
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of planning appeals dealt with by means of written representations since 1 May 1997 have conformed with the timescales required by the Written Representations Regulations 1987. [73403]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The provision of information on planning appeals is the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. I have asked the Inspector's Chief Executive, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to the hon. Member.
  522
  Letter from C. J. Shepley to Mr. Norman Baker, dated 1 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your Question about planning appeals which have conformed with the timescales required by the Written Representations Regulations.
  The Written Representations Regulations 1987 require parties to an appeal (including third parties) to comply with a number of timescales set out in the Regulations. These cover such things as the time when the LPA should notify other parties that they have received the appeal (within 5 days) and other timescales for submitting statements and responses. If these are all conformed to the date for the site visit, which would be set by the Inspectorate, could be in 8–10 weeks from the appeal start date.
  In a significant number of cases, however, we are not placed to set the site visit in the 8th week because one or other of the parties fails to abide by the time limits (as provided for by the Regulation). Because of the number of stages (or time limits) involved we do not keep records of conformity in the procedural stages.
  However the Inspectorate is set performance targets by the Minister. For Written Representation cases the timeliness target for this year is that in 80% of cases a decision should be issued within 18 weeks of the receipt of the appeal. So far since April 1998 we have achieved this target in every month.

  Tufnell Park Railway Station
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evaluation his Department has made of proposals for the possible construction of a new railway station at Tufnell Park on the Barking to Gospel Oak line. [73160]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  This is a commercial matter for Railtrack. The construction of a new station at Tufnell Park is dependent on an approach from the train operating company and/or the local council. I am advised that to date no formal proposal has been received.

  Railway Lines (Re-openings)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the proposals currently being considered by his Department for the re-opening of closed railway lines. [73159]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  No specific proposals are currently under consideration, but we announced on 25 February that the Franchising Director is taking forward a wide ranging consultation on the future development of rail services. Proposals for the re-opening of lines may also be submitted under the Rail Passenger Partnership Fund effective from 1 April. The Office of Passenger Rail Franchising will be publishing guidance for bidders shortly.

  Antarctica
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment his Department has made of the environmental changes in Antarctica since the agreement of the Environmental Protocol. [73166]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environmental Protocol entered into force in January 1998, although the UK had implemented its provisions soon after its adoption in 1991. Operational procedures in Antarctica have changed considerably within the past few years to take on board the tough provisions of the Protocol, e.g., the regular use of Environmental Impact Assessments, rigorous waste
  523
  disposal standards, etc. All activities of British citizens in Antarctica, including the scientists of the British Antarctic Survey, are the subject of permits issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. An assessment of compliance with environmental standards is a routine part of permitting procedures. From our knowledge of the operations in Antarctica of other Treaty parties it is apparent that all, to a greater or lesser extent, have embraced the provisions of the Protocol.

  Scientists from the British Antarctic Survey continually monitor conditions in Antarctica. Whilst the Environmental Protocol has strengthened the environmental protection of Antarctica from activities which are carried out there, changes to Antarctica's environment are occurring due to the impact of wider global events, e.g., pollution from industrial areas outside of Antarctica.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions partly funds the Hadley Centre to analyse global temperature trends, although they have not studied Antarctica specifically. We do not fund measurements of ozone depletion in the Antarctic although the British Antarctic Survey do so, funded by the National Environmental Research Council.

  The Department does, however, follow the work of scientists working in the region. We have also just let a contract to make a risk assessment on the possibility of collapse of the West Antarctic Ice Sheet in the face of climate change. The results of this survey should be available by the end of this year.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the incidence of elderly people living alone because their extended families have moved elsewhere due to the lack of local affordable housing. [73164]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My Department has made no specific assessment of this issue. Indeed, given the number of factors likely to affect the decisions of individual households, it is difficult to envisage any meaningful conclusions arising from any such assessment.

  Rate Support Grant (Islington)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of, and what representations he received on, the spending needs of Islington Council prior to the rate support grant announcement for 1999–2000. [73165]

  Ms Armstrong
  We looked carefully at the pressures and burdens on all local authorities and the scope for further efficiency savings, taking into account the views of the Local Government Association, when considering the level of provision for local government over the next three years, as set out in the Comprehensive Spending Review. We also looked in detail with local authorities at the distribution of grant to continue our aim of providing a fairer distribution of resources. We consulted local authorities during December and early January on the local government finance settlement 1999–2000 which was approved by Parliament on 4 February. Islington Council did not comment on our proposals during that consultation.

  Traffic Speeds (Central London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimates his Department has made of average traffic speed in central London(a) in each of the last 15 years and (b) at the latest available date. [73157]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Speed surveys covering central, rest of inner, and outer London are conducted on a rotating basis, with each of these three areas surveyed every three to four years. The latest survey in central London was carried out in 1997. The estimates of average traffic speeds (mph) in central London over the last 15 years are as follows:

  Morning peak

  Daytime off-peak

  Evening peak

  1983

  11.8

  11.9

  11.5

  1986

  11.5

  11.0

  11.0

  1990

  10.3

  10.6

  10.3

  1994

  10.9

  10.9

  10.8

  1997

  10.0

  10.0

  10.2

  Peak times

  7.45am-9.15am

  10.00am-4.00pm

  4.45pm-6.15pm

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the effect of the Millennium Dome on economic regeneration in London. [72127]

  Mr. Meale
  The building of the Millennium Dome, and its proposed long-term retention, will have major regenerative benefits for London, the full effects of which will become increasingly apparent over time.

  Before the decision was taken to site the Millennium Dome at Greenwich, the Greenwich Peninsula was one of the largest derelict sites in the country, suffering from heavy contamination. Yet it lies only a few miles from the centre of London and close to the many historic attractions of Greenwich. The extensive site preparation works and infrastructure improvements required for the Millennium Experience have acted as the catalyst for a major mixed-use development project on the Greenwich Peninsula, under the direction of English Partnerships. This project, including the new Millennium Village that is being built in the southern part of the site as a model for sustainable regeneration of a brownfield site, will establish the Peninsula as a vibrant new urban quarter for London, with ensuing economic, social and environmental benefits for the capital—and beyond.

  Furthermore, the Government intend shortly to launch a competition to find an alternative use for the Dome after the Millennium Experience finishes. We consider that retention of this unique structure with a new use that is both suitable and sustainable can make a substantial and lasting contribution to development of the Greenwich Peninsula, and give an added impetus to the long-term regeneration of the Thames Gateway. My hon. Friend will appreciate that different types of use could have widely varying impacts, both locally and nationally. We are confident, however, that the competition will bring forward a wide range of imaginative proposals and an outcome that will be of major benefit to London.

  Red Squirrels
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what has been his Department's expenditure on research on red squirrels since May 1997. [73906]

  Mr. Meale
  The Department's statutory scientific advisers, English Nature, have spent approximately £100,000 on a Species Recovery Programme for the red squirrel, which includes a research element.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the presence of red squirrels in South East Britain. [73907]

  Mr. Meale
  Red squirrels are absent from South East Britain, with the exception of the Isle of Wight and islands in Poole Harbour, where the populations are estimated to number 4,000 individuals.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures the United Kingdom Red Squirrel Group is taking to encourage red squirrels in West Sussex. [73905]

  Mr. Meale
  There are no known populations of wild red squirrels in West Sussex. The focus of work by the UK Red Squirrel Group is currently in areas where there is the best chance to assist the long-term survival of red squirrel populations.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Millennium Compliance
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the President of the Council what recent discussions she has had with transport providers on problems concerning millennium compliance and insurance cover for travel on 1 January 2000; and if she will make a statement. [72134]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I have not had any discussions with transport providers on the issue of insurance cover for travel on 1 January.

  Responsibility for the transport and insurance industries rests with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Treasury respectively. In my role as Chairman of MISC4 I have however received reports on Year 2000 preparations across the transport and insurance sectors.

  House of Lords Reform
  Mr. Plaskitt
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress being made towards establishing a royal commission on reform of the House of Lords. [72135]

  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress being made towards establishing a royal commission on reform of the House of Lords. [72137]

  Mr. Tipping
  The members of the Royal Commission have all been appointed and the Secretariat has started work in its new premises. The first formal meeting of the Royal Commission is being held today.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council how many Air Miles have been earned by her and her Minister; and how she proposes to use them. [73342]

  Mrs. Beckett
  As part of our official duties at the Privy Council Office neither I nor the Parliamentary Secretary have earned any Air Miles.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council what official visits she, her Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73460]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No visits have been made.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Regional Affairs Committee
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress on reviving the Standing Committee on the English regions. [72139]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer I gave today to my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton).

  Reporting
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what action she plans to take to improve the facilities for reporting of the House. [72130]

  Mrs. Roe
  There are no plans at present to change the arrangements for access to, or the facilities available in, the Reporters' Gallery and Lobby. The latter consist of working space (which includes the Press Gallery library, dining room, cafeteria and bar), and telephones for representatives of the media provided free of charge over three floor levels in the area behind the Speaker's Chair. Filmed interviews of hon. Members by the media may take place in the Interview Rooms off Westminster Hall, the Jubilee Room and the Conference Rooms in the Parliamentary Outbuildings and are also permitted on the Terrace, in New Palace Yard and on Abingdon Green, where permanent power cables are provided for this purpose. It is always open to officers and members of the Press Gallery and Lobby Journalist Committees to present proposals for improvements to these facilities, should they wish to do so.

  With respect to the availability of the Official Report, on the Parliamentary website, a matter which I understand is of interest to the hon. Lady, the recommendation of the Procedure Committee was that the electronic Hansard should be made available on the day that the printed report is available. The rules governing the production of the Official Report stipulate that no one may see the contents of the printed report before it is available in the Vote Office the following morning. The only exceptions to that rule are that an hon. Member may read his or her own speech and, of course, the Chair has access to the report if needed.

PRIME MINISTER

  Ministerial Flights
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 1999,Official Report, column 283, on Concorde flights, if he will list the Ministers who have taken a Concorde flight; and what was the total cost of the flights. [71307]

  The Prime Minister
  Since 2 May 1997, I and the following Ministers have taken scheduled Concorde flights: my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister; the Secretary of State for Defence; the Secretary of State for Health; the Foreign Secretary; the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett); the Minister for the Cabinet Office; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department. The total costs of these flights is some £86,800. This compares with 11 Ministers using Concorde on a total of 13 occasions during the last two years of the previous Administration.

  Expenditure on these flights is part of the Government's expenditure on Ministers visits overseas of £6.1 million for the period 1 May 1997 to 31 March 1998, and £4.0 million for the period 1 April to 31 December 1998. By comparison, in the last year of the previous Administration, expenditure on overseas visits was £7.8 million.

  In addition, as accounted for in answers to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) on 14 July 1997, Official Report, column 46, and the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) on 13 March 1998, Official Report, columns 366–67, I have also chartered Concorde, as did my predecessor.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what factors underlay his statement that genetically modified food is beneficial for human consumption. [72240]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 February 1999]All genetically modified food produced in the United Kingdom has been approved by independent expert scientific advisers as part of an extensive regulatory process designed to protect both consumers and the environment. No approvals have been given since 1 May 1997.

  Genetic modification has the potential to enable us to produce food that is more nutritious and better tasting.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received on genetically modified organisms and the biotechnology industry from the US Government. [72763]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 31 July 1998,Official Report, column 600.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 23 February 1999,Official Report, columns 179–84, what his definition is of the term "pooling sovereignty". [73597]
  528
  The Prime Minister
  In his statement to the House on 27 October 1997,Official Report, columns 583–88, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that to share a common monetary policy with other Member States represents a major pooling of economic sovereignty.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on progress made on passing each of the five economic tests for joining the euro; if deadlines have been imposed; and what staff have been tasked to monitor progress. [73596]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have said that, barring some fundamental and unforeseen change in economic circumstances, making a decision during this Parliament to join the single currency is not realistic. The UK economy needs a period of stability in order to demonstrate sustainable convergence. The Government have put in place a new macroeconomic framework and introduced a series of microeconomic reforms which are both in the national economic interest and will help to deliver the stability required to demonstrate that convergence is sustainable. As I said in my statement to the House on 23 February 1999,Official Report, columns 179–84, we cannot say that yet.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister who will judge whether the five economic tests for United Kingdom participation in the EMU have been passed; and who will be consulted. [73594]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government have said that the determining factor in any decision to recommend membership of the single currency will be the national economic interest. In order to make the assessment the Government have set out five economic tests which must be met before the UK could join. The final decision on whether or not the UK should join is for Government, Parliament and the British people in a referendum.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 23 February 1999,Official Report, columns 179–84, if he will list the Ministers in each department responsible for euro preparation. [73519]

  The Prime Minister
  The following Ministers have responsibility for departmental euro preparations:

  Department

  Minister

  HM Treasury

  Ms Patricia Hewitt MP

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Lord Simon of Highbury

  Ministry of Defence

  Doug Henderson MP

  Department of Health

  Baroness Hayman

  Department of Social Security

  Ms Angela Eagle MP

  Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food

  Lord Donoughue

  Department for Education and Employment

  George Mudie MP

  Home Office

  Ms Kate Hoey MP

  Foreign and Commonwealth Office

  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean

  Department for International Development

  George Foulkes MP

  Department for Culture, Media and Sport

  Mrs. Janet Anderson MP

  Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  Alan Meale MP

  Northern Ireland Office

  Paul Murphy MP

  Welsh Office

  Peter Hain MP

  Scottish Office

  Lord Sewel

  529
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 23 February 1999,Official Report, columns 179–84, what estimate he has made of the cost to private sector business of conversion to the euro. [73520]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]The level of costs would depend on the approach adopted by individual companies. The Outline Changeover Plan should help businesses as they develop their thinking on this issue. Effective preparations undertaken in good time and with a clear planning lead by Government should reduce the total costs involved.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 23 February 1999,Official Report, columns 179–84, what estimate he has made of the cost to the public sector of conversion to the euro. [73521]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]The cost to the public sector of conversion to the euro would depend on the detailed approach that the UK took to the changeover. The outline National Changeover Plan is a first step in planning how the UK would make the changeover to the single currency. A further plan will be published in around a year's time.

  The cost to the public sector would also depend on the extent to which organisations are able to build in euro compatibility where IT systems are being upgraded or purchased for other reasons. Effective preparations undertaken in good time and with a clear planning lead by Government should reduce the total costs involved.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 23 February 1999,Official Report, columns 179–84, what estimate he has made of Government expenditure necessary to inform the public of the facts regarding the euro. [73522]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]As outlined in chapter eight of the Outline Changeover Plan, if the UK were to join the single currency, there would need to be provision of practical and objective information delivered to the general public and consumers to enable these groups to deal with each of the phases of the changeover.

  The cost of any such public information campaign would depend on the particular requirements of the audiences involved and would also be dependent on the extent to which other bodies (for example, banks and retailers) were themselves providing appropriate information. Effective preparations undertaken in good time and with a clear planning lead by Government should reduce the total costs involved.

  European Movement
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister when he last met representatives of(a) the European Movement and (b) the Federal Trust; and if he will list the subjects discussed. [73595]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Sir R. Body) on 19 October 1998,Official Report, column 917.

  Terrorism
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the nature of the material evaluated in preparing the periodic terrorism threat assessment document. [73771]

  The Prime Minister
  A number of reports and assessments are used within Government, and the threat from terrorism is kept constantly under review in the light of all the available information.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 39–40, on departmental asset sales, if he will give details of the two fixed related assets which have been sold; what the sales processes were in each case; and if he will make a statement. [73732]

  The Prime Minister:
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]The two related fixed assets which have been sold were an electrically operated fork lift truck and associated battery charging unit which I am advised was used by Recruitment and Assessment Services (RAS) at their Basingstoke office.

  Expressions of interest were invited to buy them as one lot. Three companies responded; the highest final bid was accepted.

  Referendums
  Sir George Young
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his oral statement of 23 February 1999,Official Report, column 193, when he will respond to the Committee on Standards in Public Life's recommendations on conduct of referendums. [73965]

  The Prime Minister
  As we made clear when the Neill Committee report on the funding of political parties in the United Kingdom was published in October 1998, the Government will announce their conclusions on the recommendations contained in the report, including those on the conduct of referendums, when we publish a White Paper and draft Bill before the Summer Recess.

  EU Meeting (Petersberg)
  Mr. Connarty
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will report on the outcome of the informal meeting of the EU Heads of State and Government in Petersberg, Germany on 26 February. [74131]

  The Prime Minister
  The meeting at Petersberg was an informal meeting in preparation for the full European Council in Berlin on 24–25 March, at which a broad range of issues were discussed. No formal decisions were taken. The meeting reviewed progress on the "Agenda 2000" package of negotiations on European Union finances and expenditure, the Common Agricultural Policy and the Structural and Cohesion Funds. I set out the Government's objectives: control and stabilisation of expenditure, genuine and affordable reform of the CAP, a fair outcome for United Kingdom recipients of the structural funds, and a fair deal for taxpayers. I made it clear that the Government will maintain the United Kingdom abatement.
  531
  Negotiations will continue in the Agriculture Council, which reconvenes on 2 March, and the ECOFIN and General Affairs councils, in preparation for the European Council meeting later this month, when the Presidency hopes to bring the negotiation to a conclusion.

  Heads of State and Government also discussed duty free sales, negotiations between the EU and South Africa, relations between the EU and Russia, and the situation in Kosovo and the Middle East.

  Select Committees (Leaked Documents)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his Department's policy to return to the relevant Select Committee leaked copies of unpublished committee documents. [73935]

  The Prime Minister
  As Members of the House, Ministers abide by its practices and conventions. I note that the Speaker has said in her letter of 1 March to the Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges that the fundamental responsibility of Members who find themselves in possession of leaked committee papers must be to act in a way which does not impede the committee in the discharge of its responsibilities to the House. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary made it clear on 24 February 1999,Official Report, column 417, that he and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), had acted properly in this regard by not taking any action to interfere with the work of a Select Committee or give premature disclosure.

  I also note that the Speaker has requested that, in the absence of an existing decision by the House, the Committee consider the points of order raised with her by the hon. Member and the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) with a view to drawing up guidance for general application in such circumstances. Ministers, as members of the House, would of course abide by any future ruling on this matter.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  World Cup Bid
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what current actions his Department is taking in support of the 2006 world cup bid. [72096]

  Mr. Banks
  The Government will continue to provide the fullest diplomatic and promotional support for The FA's bid in accordance with FIFA bidding guidelines. I believe it is an excellent bid with a very good chance of success. My Department is currently helping The FA draft the formal bid submission and I have arranged to meet members of the FIFA Executive visiting this country over the coming weeks.

  I am determined that The FA's bid should continue to be pursued with the utmost vigour and integrity, and very much hope that the bidding process between now and March 2000 will be conducted in a spirit of friendly rivalry.

  Performing Arts
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures he proposes to (i) extend access to the performing arts and (ii) reduce the costs of(a) performances and (b) tuition. [72098]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My Department regards increasing access to all artforms as a key objective. The Arts Council's New Audiences programme is already funding a number of pilot projects which reduce the cost of performances, and further grants have recently been announced.

  My Department is setting up the Youth Music Trust which, as an early priority, will wish to review the issue of charging for music lessons. New arrangements were also announced in November to provide more equitable funding support for professional dance and drama students.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps he is taking to improve the accessibility of the productions of national theatre, opera and ballet companies for those living outside London. [72099]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  The Arts Council of England encourages the national companies to ensure the widest possible access to performances. Many of the national companies, including Royal Ballet, Birmingham Royal Ballet, Royal Shakespeare Company and Royal National Theatre, tour extensively across the country. In addition, the Arts Council announced last month a range of initiatives under the New Audiences programme which will cover the whole of England.

  Library Service
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department is taking to improve standards in public libraries. [72102]

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment his Department has made of the service currently being provided by public libraries; and if he will make a statement. [72107]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  For the first time in 1998 all library authorities were required to prepare an Annual Library Plan. I have sent each library authority both an overall appraisal of the 1998 Annual Library Plans and individual feedback about their own. The vast majority are to be congratulated on their Plans to build on and improve library services we can all be proud of, but I am asking 15 authorities to carry out more work on their Plans and a further 6 authorities to explain proposed cuts in services.

  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how he is encouraging Britain's library service to extend access to the new technologies. [72112]

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to help Britain's library service to extend access to new technologies. [72100]
  533
  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government are committed to ensuring that every public library is connected to the National Grid for Learning through the Public Library IT Network by 2002, where practicable. To this end, £70 million of Lottery funding will be available from the New Opportunities Fund for the development of new digital resources and the provision of ICT training for public library staff together with £6 million from the DCMS/Wolfson Challenge Fund for pathfinder projects to support the development of ICT infrastructure.

  The Government are now considering responses to the consultation document 'New Links for the Lottery' which set out proposals for a programme of 'Community Access to Lifelong Learning' which will further support the development of ICT infrastructure for public libraries.

  Hospitality and Tourism Industries
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has for improving the competitiveness and quality of service of the UK hospitality and tourism industries. [72103]

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what his priorities are for improving the competitiveness and quality of the UK hospitality and tourism industries. [72105]

  Janet Anderson
  "Tomorrow's Tourism", the new strategy which we published on 26 February, contains a number of recommendations for action by central and local government, the tourism industry and other key players to improve the competitiveness and quality of the industry, and thus make it a world leader.

  A copy of the strategy has been sent to every hon. Member.

  Millennium Awards
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many communities have received Millennium awards. [72108]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Thousands of communities throughout the UK are benefiting from awards from the Millennium Commission. Work is underway on capital projects on over 3,000 sites. Nine hundred and fifty communities across the UK have benefited so far from the awards scheme for individuals and last week I announced over 1,000 celebratory events as part of the Millennium Festival.

  BBC (Free Television Licences)
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will assess the benefits of using advertisements as a means to fund free television licences for pensioners as part of the review of future funding of the BBC. [72109]

  Janet Anderson
  The current review of the future of the BBC licence fee after 2002 includes a consideration of the structure of the existing concessionary television licence scheme and whether a suitable alternative structure could be available. The independent review panel has invited written submissions on a number of matters, including possible alternative concessionary 534
  arrangements and how they might be funded. The panel will report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State by the end of July this year. There will then be a period of public consultation on the panel's recommendations. It would not be right for the Government to preempt the outcome of the review.

  Chess
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to promote the designation of chess as a sport. [72111]

  Mr. Banks
  I am very supportive of chess and have impressed on the Sports Councils the need for them to review their recognition criteria. My Department provides some £49,000 each year to the British Chess Federation (BCF) and I am looking very carefully at the ways in which chess can benefit from additional sources of funding.

  Liquor Licensing Laws
  Mr. Grogan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received regarding the effect on tourism in England and Wales of liberalising the liquor licensing laws. [72113]

  Janet Anderson
  We have received a number of representations from organisations and individuals in the tourism, hospitality and leisure industry. These have arisen in correspondence, in the course of meetings I have held with trade organisations, and during visits to industry events. I have also met my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for fire and emergency planning, liquor, drugs and local elections to make him aware of the importance of this issue to the tourism industry.

  Tourism
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department will take to ensure that growth in tourism is sustainable and does not damage the countryside or built heritage. [72115]

  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps his Department will take to ensure that growth in tourism is sustainable and does not damage the countryside or built heritage. [72117]

  Janet Anderson
  The long-term success of our tourism industry depends upon our safeguarding the best of our countryside and built heritage for future generations. The Government's new Tourism Strategy,Tomorrow's Tourism: A growth industry for the new Millennium, places sustainability at its core. It contains specific proposals for action to help tourism move towards a more sustainable future.

  Sports Council
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of the Sports Council's Lottery grants have been directed to the council's priority areas. [72116]

  Mr. Banks
  Since the introduction of the Lottery Sports Fund, over £880 million has been awarded to over 2,700 projects. Of these, over 400 grants have
  535
  been made to areas of identified deprivation, totalling over £240 million. This accounts for 15 per cent. of all awards and 27 per cent. of the total amount awarded.

  Millennium Experience
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to include exhibits in the millennium experience relating to the brain's capacity to make ethical distinctions. [72121]

  Janet Anderson
  As the New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) announced in November 1998, the MIND zone within the Dome will combine art and technology in its exploration of many aspects of the human mind—celebrating the unique creativity of the human brain. In addition, the Body and the Spirit zone will provide an opportunity to explore wider ethical issues.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list those who have agreed to sponsor the spirit zone. [72124]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) is in positive discussion with a number of charitable organisations affiliated to major faith groups about support for the Spirit Zone. The company will confirm the involvement of particular organisations at an appropriate stage in those discussions.

  Royal Naval College
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions the New Millennium Experience Company has had with the Royal Naval college, Greenwich, about co-operation during 2000. [72125]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The New Millennium Experience Company's very successful Visitor Centre is located at the Royal Naval College in Greenwich and working relationships between the two organisations are excellent. These include discussions about plans for co-operation during the year 2000.

  Millennium Dome (Insurance)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much the dome is insured for. [72126]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has a range of insurance cover relevant to different aspects of its legal and other responsibilities—and that includes building insurance. As is normal practice, the maximum sum payable under certain circumstances would enable the Dome to be rebuilt should that be necessary.

  UK Sports Institute
  Mr. Caplin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what progress he has made on the establishment of the UK Sports Institute. [74117]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The English Sports Council is announcing today, Monday 1 March, with the Government's support, the United Kingdom Sports Institute's (UKSI's) network of centres around England.536
  The English Sports Council is prepared to commit, in principle, up to £100 million of Lottery funding to help British athletes achieve future gold medals.

  The provision of Lottery funding for the English network will, of course, remain a matter for the English Sports Council to decide on the basis of a full and proper assessment of suitable applications from the sites that have been identified, in line with the Policy and Financial Directions I have given them, and in line with advice from the UK Sports Council and UK Sports Institute when operational.

  The Government are determined to ensure our leading sportsmen and women—now and in the future—have access to the very best sporting facilities and services to enable them to compete successfully against the world's top athletes. We have listened to their needs and concerns. The package announced today will deliver the right blend of local provision and central co-ordination. This is what sports want, it is what competitors want and I am confident we have got it right.

  The network centres are central to delivering the UKSI's objectives. They will enable our sportsmen and women to have access to the most modern training facilities and methods in the world, near where they live. Competitors will in future be able to spend more time and energy in improving performance and less on struggling to find and get to the right place to train.

  Facilities, expertise, resources and services will be sport specific and delivered where, when and how athletes want them. All sports will be able to make use of the facilities and services. There will be a mix of private and public investment. The public investment will be through Lottery funding. The UKSI will concentrate on the Olympic sports and those minority sports lacking a commercial element.

  The UKSI will consist of a Headquarters in Sheffield, already announced, supported by network centres across England in 10 areas of England, as well as centres in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. In England these will be at Bath University, Bedford, Bisham Abbey, Crystal Place, Gateshead, Holme Pierrepont/Loughborough, Lilleshall, Manchester, Southampton University and Sheffield. These will be supported by regional sites of expertise; ensuring all best practice is harnessed for the benefit of athletes and coaches through a consortium approach.

  The investment of £100 million of Lottery Funds into the network in England brings with it a commitment from the sports in the programme to make use of the services and facilities for a significant amount of time. Therefore the Sports Councils will expect the commitment to the network by the governing bodies of sport to be linked to the Lottery funding they receive through the World Class Performance Plans they produce.

  Each of the networks in England, plus those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, will have access to specialist science and medical advice from the UKSI's headquarters in Sheffield. The HQ will also co-ordinate research and other athlete services and training support to ensure that the UK's top athletes, wherever they may live, have access to the very best facilities and services through UKSI, with an emphasis on making the facilities easily

  537
  accessible throughout the country. A separate announcement has already been made in respect of Scotland.

  The UKSI's headquarters in Sheffield is also moving forward and announcements will be made at each key stage, as appointments are made and designs finalised.

  Today's announcement adds another dimension to the extensive support now being provided to the UK's leading athletes. It will build on the success of the World Class performance programme and the English Sports Council's recent announcement extending this Lottery support to programmes for World Class Start and World Class Potential.

  Sporting success brings with it an enormous sense of pride. Pride for the individual competitor; pride for those close to them; and pride for those of us who support the endeavours of British athletes. The UKSI is not a quick fix. It is a long term investment in the future performance of British sportsmen and women.

  Work has already been undertaken in full consultation with Performance Directors, coaches, athletes and service providers to develop a menu of 40 UKSI services to be delivered directly to athletes by the network. The list has been further refined to indicate those which would be provided from the HQ and those services which must be provided via each of the network locations.

  There has always been a commitment to deliver urgently needed support services as soon as they are ready, particularly those that do not currently exist. The athlete personal development programme, ACE UK, will be the first of these launched in May this year.

  With the very best facilities, the best coaching, and the best scientific and medical support, I am confident that our top athletes—both those of today and of future generations—will have the best opportunity to turn potential into medals.

  Departmental Asset Sales
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the items sold by his Department, its agencies and associated public bodies from those listed in the National Assets Register of November 1997; if he will give in each case the amount of money realised; if he will estimate the total cash raised from such sales to date; and if he will make a statement. [70408]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]The Department itself has sold no assets since November 1997 and its agency, the Royal Parks Agency, has sold one horse which generated proceeds of £2,800. The information for the Department's associated public bodies is listed by asset category, which is in the format as shown in the National Asset Register. The total proceeds from asset sales by associated public bodies amounts to £195,082.

  Associated Public Bodies

  (i) Arts Council of England

  Equipment, fixtures, and fittings—proceeds £1,000

  Works of Art—proceeds £9,000

  538

  (ii) British Tourist Authority

  Motor Vehicles—proceeds £11,000

  Fixtures and fittings—proceeds £4,000

  (iii) English Tourist Board

  Computer Equipment—proceeds nil

  (iv) British Library

  Motor Vehicles—proceeds £5,397

  (v) Royal Commission on Historical Monuments (England)

  Computer Equipment—proceeds £1,000

  (vi) Imperial War Museum

  Exhibitions—proceeds £31,115

  (vii) Museums & Galleries Commission

  Fixtures and Fittings—proceeds £1,045

  (viii) National Maritime Museum

  Equipment and Vehicles—proceeds £180

  (ix) Natural History Museum

  Land and Buildings—proceeds £125,000

  (x) British Film Institute

  Motor Vehicles—proceeds £3,000

  (xi) Channel 4 Wales

  Plant and Equipment—proceeds £1,000

  (xii) English Heritage

  Plant and Fixtures—proceeds £1,050

  Equipment—proceeds £1,295

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, columns 29–30, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred by (a) his agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (b) the Central Office of Information for relevant work carried out for his Department. [71026]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]No expenditure has been spent on behalf of my Department by its agency, non-departmental public bodies or the Central Office of Information. However, the following expenditure has been incurred by my Department's agency and non-departmental public bodies from their own resources.

  £

  Public Opinion Research

  2,849,124

  TV, Radio and Newspaper Advertising

  12,507,977

  Direct Mail

  1,056,080

  The figures may also include expenditure met from non government funding.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, columns 29–30, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred (a) by task forces and review bodies, (b) by focus groups, (c) on market research and (d) for publications and publicity; and if he will list the bodies which incurred the expenditure. [71027]
  539
  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The following expenditure has been incurred by my Department's task forces and review bodies. I have no focus groups.

  Title

  Cost incurred to date £

  Creative Industries Task Force

  53,000

  Publication costs for the Mapping Document into Creative Industries

  The Football Task Force

  112,825

  Costs incurred, including the publication of three Reports

  The Film Policy Action Committee

  78,300

  All Industry cost-benefit analysis report

  9,400

  London Film Market feasibility study

  Review of Film Policy

  23,345

  Cost of producing the report "A Bigger Picture"

  60,479

  Consumer research costs

  Review of the List of Nationally Important Sporting Events which must be made available on Free-to-Air Terrestrial TV Channels

  1,924

  Costs incurred to date

  Independent review of the Future of the Royal Opera House and the English National Opera 15,057

  17,385

  Report publication costs

  Title

  Other costs incurred to date

  The Library and Information Commission's public library network implementation Committee

  200,000

  Costs incurred to date

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what reviews, task forces and 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. [71520]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The following table gives the information required.

  Title

  Costs incurred to date1

  Reports published

  Task Forces

  Creative Industries Task Force: to recommend steps to maximise the economic impact of the UK creative industries at home and abroad

  £53,156—Publication of the Mapping Document including design, print and paper costs and arrangements for the launch, cost £53,000. Refreshments for 8 meetings of the Taskforce held so far have cost £156

  Mapping Document into the Creative Industries published in November 1998

  540

  Title

  Costs incurred to date1

  Reports published

  The Football Taskforce: establishing to investigate and recommend measures to deal with public concern on a number of issues associated with the game

  £112,825 of which the costs to the Department are £64,604, and costs to the English Sports Council are £48,221

  Eliminating Racism from Football report published 30 March 1998 Improving Facilities for Disabled Supporters report published 29 July 1998. Investing in the Community report published 11 January 1999.

  The Film Policy Action Committee: established to take forward the recommendations of the Film Policy Review

  (i) £78,300

  (i) All Industry cost-benefit analysis report published in November 1998.

  (ii) £9,400

  (ii) London Film Market feasibility study expected to report Spring 1999.

  A group of sponsorship experts will assist sports currently in receipt of tobacco sponsorship to find replacement sponsors by: assessing the needs of each sport; offering advice on best practice in establishing commercial relationships with sponsors; and, assist the sports in making links with potential new sponsors

  Nil

  The group provides advice direct to the sports affected.

  Advisory Groups2

  Tourism Forum

  £4,200

  Advice given to Ministers on an ad-hoc basis

  Music Industry Forum

  Nil

  Advice given to Ministers on an ad-hoc basis

  Reviews

  Review of Film Policy

  £81,824—Cost of producing the report "A bigger Picture" was £23,345. Costs of consumer research was £60,479

  "A Bigger Picture" published March 1998

  Review of arrangements for celebrating the Millennium

  Nil

  June 1997

  Review of the National Lottery, leading to the publication of a White Paper

  Nil

  White Paper published 21 June 1997

  Review of Policy on Admission Charging by National Museums. (Subsumed within the Departmental Spending Review).

  Nil

  Department Spending Review consultation document published 24 July 1998

  Review of the List of Nationally Important Sporting Events which must be made available on Free-to-Air Terrestrial TV Channels

  £1,924

  Reported to Ministers on 20 March 1998 and announced 20 June 1998

  541

  Title

  Costs incurred to date1

  Reports published

  An independent review of the Future of the Royal Opera House and the English National Opera

  £32,442, which include publication costs at £17,385

  Report published on 30 June 1998

  Review of the Future Funding of the BBC

  Nil spend to date

  Report not due to be published until July 1999

  Review of the efficiency and effectiveness of Government sponsored museums and galleries

  Nil spend to date

  Report due to Ministers during 1999

  Working Group on Legal Deposit

  Costs, which covered refreshments, were met by the British Library

  Report published 17 December 1998

  The Library and Information Commission's public library network implementation Committee

  £200,000

  Report "Building the New Library Network" published October 1998

  1 DCMS staff costs for all reviews, taskforces and advisory groups were met from within the Department's existing running costs.

  2 This excludes Advisory NDPBs which have been established since 1 May 1997.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what amounts in his Department's budget for 1998–99 can be attributed to spending on disabled people; and what proportion this represents of total departmental spending. [71285]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My Department takes the principle of equal opportunities very seriously. Facilities and support to ensure reasonable access to persons with disabilities is built into many of my NDPBs' main programmes. However, it is not always possible to disaggregate all spending on specific initiatives/activities for disabled people within those programmes. It is not, therefore, possible to provide a meaningful answer on the amounts spent attributable to disabled people and the proportion this represents of my Department's total budget.

  Heritage Lottery Fund
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 1999,Official Report, columns 77–78, on the Heritage Lottery Fund, if he discussed his answer with the (a) former and (b) present Chairman of the Heritage Fund. [72228]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  My hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts did not discuss the Answer with either the former or the present Chairman of the Heritage Lottery Fund. The guarantee we have given that there will be no further adjustments to the percentage shares of Lottery income for the arts, sport, heritage and charities, and that each can count on receiving 16 per cent. after the current temporary reduction ends in May, and beyond 2001, is excellent news for these good causes and for the Heritage Lottery Fund.

  Award Ceremonies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what awards ceremonies he has attended since becoming Secretary of State. [72708]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]I have attended the following awards ceremonies:

  1997

  Annual Sony Radio Awards Presentation and Dinner on 12 May 1997

  Hotel of the Year Awards on 10 September 1997

  Grand Final of the World Piano Competition on 7 October 1997

  1997 Mental Health Media Awards on 8 October 1997

  Booker Prize for Fiction o 14 October 1997

  The Gramophone Awards 1997 on 27 October 1997

  Prudential Awards for the Arts on 30 October 1997

  Museum of the Year Awards on 10 November 1997

  Musicians of Black Origin Awards on 10 November 1997

  Ambassadors for London Awards on 13 November 1997

  The 1997 Stirling Prize for Architecture on 20 November 1997

  ABSA Pairing Scheme Reception on 24 November 1997

  Highland Park/Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year Awards on 26 November 1997

  Reception to present the Mike Rhodes and Pink Paper Awards on 27 November 1997

  Dinner for the 1997 Turner Prize on 2 December 1997

  The ABSA Goodman and Garrett Awards on 15 December 1997

  1998

  Presentation of Designation Award on 21 January 1998

  Whitbread Book of the Year Awards on 27 January 1998

  Evening Standard British Film Awards on 1 February 1998

  BRIT Awards, Docklands Arena on 9 February 1998

  Variety Club Business Awards on 10 February 1998

  The Laurence Olivier Awards on 16 February 1998

  London Press Club Annual Press Awards on 24 February 1998

  Perrier Young Jazz Awards 1998 on 24 February 1998

  Arts Council Writers' Award on 10 June 1998

  1998 Nat West Art Prize on 16 June 1998

  ABSA Pairing Scheme Reception on 25 June 1998

  Designation Certificate for Harewood House, Leeds on 8 September 1998

  Opening of the Jerwood Space and award of the 5th Jerwood Painting Prize on 21 September 1998

  ABSA Pairing Scheme Reception on 28 October 1998

  Fourth Annual British Diversity Awards on 6 November 1998

  IBBY Conference and Announce the Children's Laureate Award on 14 November 1998

  The Turner Prize 1998 dinner on 1 December 1998

  1999

  1998 Charter Mark Awards on 26 January 1999

  Whitbread Book of the Year Presentation Dinner on 26 January 1999

  BFI Fellowship Award for Sir John Paul Getty on 29 January 1999

  Hunting Art Prizes 1999 on 3 February 1999

  Laurence Olivier Awards on 12 February 1999

  BRIT Awards on 16 February 1999

  ABSA Pairing Scheme Reception on 24 February 1999

  Local Radio Licences
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what representations he has received from the Chairman of Southampton City Radio Ltd. concerning that company's bid for a local radio licence; [73117]

  (2) what representations he has received concerning the award of local radio licences in Southampton, Bournemouth and Winchester. [73116]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]I have received one letter from a company in support of the Radio Authority's award of a licence to Southampton City Radio Ltd. and one from a group expressing their concern about the award of independent local radio licences in the area of Southampton, Bournemouth and Winchester.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what official visits he, his Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73455]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  Neither my Ministers, officials nor I have visited Zimbabwe since May 1997.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many Air Miles have been earned by him and each of his ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73334]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of air miles was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.

  No air miles have been received by me or my Ministers in connection with any travel on official business.

  Arts Boards
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent representations he has received on the funding of arts boards. [72092]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My department has received a number of representations concerning the Regional Arts Boards on a variety of issues, including funding.

  Musical Instrument Tuition
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what action he has taken to increase young people's access to musical instrument tuition. [72110]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced last summer the creation of a new independent Youth Music Trust with £10m Arts Council Lottery funding a year, which will work to enable greater access to instrumental music making for young people. It will be operational in April. Taken together with the Standards Fund announced on 27 January by my right hon. Friends the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media 544
  and Sport, this provides a total minimum investment of £180m over three years for the improvement of music making opportunities.

SCOTLAND

  New Housing Partnership
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the timescale is for the implementation of the New Housing Partnership scheme. [70314]

  Mr. Macdonald
  New Housing Partnerships were introduced in 1997–98 there were two rounds of bidding for resources. A third round, for resources in the period 1999–2002, is at present in progress.

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

  Fisheries
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list (i) the successful applications(a) by location and (b) by value and the (ii) the total value of the awards made in the most recent round of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance scheme. [70714]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The information is as follows:

  Aquaculture Projects—Objective 1 Area

  £

  Company

  Location

  FIFG Award

  Kinloch Damph Ltd.

  Kishorn, Ross-shire

  197,000

  Lock Laxford Shellfish Ltd.

  Loch Laxford, Sutherland

  78,110

  Caledonian Oyster Company

  Loch Creran, Argyll

  48,740

  Rubha Mor Oysters

  Loch Creran, Argyll

  15,070

  Skerries Salmon

  Shetland

  23,000

  Shetland Norse Fish Farm

  Yell, Shetland

  58,500

  Hydro Seafoods GSP Ltd.

  Bixter, Shetland

  35,250

  Clousta Shellfish

  Aithsing, Shetland

  5,450

  Catfirth Bay Shellfish

  Catfirth Bay, Shetland

  12,870

  Total

  473,990

  FIFG Processing and Marketing—Objective 1 Area

  Shetland Catch Ltd.

  Lerwick

  220,500

  Whalsay Fish Processors Ltd.

  Whalsay

  22,925

  Saga Seafoods 1994 Ltd.

  Scalloway

  88,025

  Lerwick Fish Traders Ltd.

  Lerwick

  44,380

  D. Watt (Shetland) Ltd.

  Trondra, Shetland

  129,052

  Total

  504,882

  FIFG Processing and Marketing—Non-Objective 1 Area

  Granite City Fish Ltd.

  Aberdeen

  25,163

  International Fish Canners (Scotland) Ltd.

  Fraserburgh

  109,400

  Cool Seas (Seafoods) Ltd.

  Peterhead

  250,000

  Young's Seafood

  Annan

  25,998

  Whitelink Seafoods Ltd.

  Fraserburgh

  51,500

  Macfish Ltd.

  Fraserburgh

  89,300

  Laeso Fish Ltd.

  Peterhead

  35,308

  Croan Seafoods Ltd.

  Peterhead

  89,182

  Crube International Ltd.

  Fraserburgh

  48,712

  Messrs. George Downie

  Whitehills

  70,630

  Taste the Sea Ltd.

  Castle Douglas

  53,570

  Total

  848,763

  545

  Aquaculture Projects—Objective 1 Area

  £

  Company

  Location

  FIFG Award

  FIFG Ports Facilities—Objective 1

  Stornoway Pier and Harbour

  Stornoway

  164,325

  FIFG Ports Facilities—Non—Objective 1

  Smith Maritime Ltd.

  Peterhead

  79,672

  Total

  243,997

  Total FIFG Assistance

  2,071,632

  These awards will also trigger Member State contribution from Scottish Office and Enterprise Network in excess of £600,000.

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

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the number of eligible applications received by location which were not grant aided in the most recent round of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance scheme, indicating which had been carried forward from one or more earlier rounds. [70716]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The lists of eligible applications received which were not grant aided under the most recent round of awards under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance scheme are as follows:

  Applicant

  Location

  Number of times deferred

  Aquaculture Projects—Objective 1 area

  North Minch Shellfish

  Lock Inchara

  1st deferment

  Norquay Fish Farms

  Echnaloch Bay, Orkney

  1st deferment

  John Eccles Hatcheries

  Hoy, Orkney

  1st deferment

  Orkney Sea Farms

  Shapinsay, Orkney

  1st deferment

  Ardencaple Oysters

  Ardencaple Bay, Argyll

  1st deferment

  Balta Island Seafare Ltd.

  Balta Island, Shetland

  1st deferment

  West Coast Oysters

  Oban, Argyll

  1st deferment

  Slett Salmon Farms Ltd.

  Binna Ness, Shetland

  1st deferment

  David Pollard

  Oban, Argyll

  2nd deferment

  Highland Fish Farmers Ltd.

  Portree, Isle of Skye

  2nd deferment

  Loch Ness (Lachs) Ltd.

  Loch Ness

  2nd deferment

  Lakeland Unst Ltd.

  Hamar's Ness, Shetland

  2nd deferment

  Migdale Smolt Ltd.

  Sutherland

  2nd deferment

  Shetland Norse Fish Farm Ltd.

  Reafirth, Shetland

  2nd deferment

  Ardvar Salmon Ltd.

  Drumbeg, Sutherland

  2nd deferment

  Aquaculture Projects—Non-Objective 1 area

  Kinnaird Mill Trout Farm

  Brechin, Angus

  1st deferment

  Mill of Elrick Fish Farm

  Auchnagatt, Aberdeenshire

  1st deferment

  Processing and Marketing Projects—Objective 1 area

  Osprey Seafoods (Highland) Ltd.

  Inverness

  1st deferment

  Scrabster Seafoods Ltd.

  Scrabster

  1st deferment

  Catfirth Bay Shellfish

  Scalloway

  1st deferment

  Euroscot Seafoods Ltd.

  Inverness

  1st deferment

  Lerwick Fish Traders Ltd.

  Lerwick

  1st deferment

  Saga Seafoods 1994 Ltd.

  Scalloway

  1st deferment

  Shetland Apero

  Lerwick

  2nd deferment

  546

  Applicant

  Location

  Number of times deferred

  Processing and Marketing Projects—Non-Objective 1 area

  Fintarn Ltd.

  St. Monans

  1st deferment

  Fresh Catch Ltd.

  Peterhead

  1st deferment

  Caley Fisheries Ltd.

  Peterhead

  1st deferment

  t/a Stephen Buchan

  R. Croan & Sons Ltd.

  Edinburgh

  2nd deferment

  Ports facilities projects—non—objective 1 area

  Aberdeen Harbour Board

  Aberdeen

  1st deferment

  Alfred Cheyne Engineering Ltd.

  King Edward, Banff

  1st deferment

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

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what advice he has sought from the LECs in determining which projects to assist under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance scheme. [70715]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The views of the Local Enterprise Companies are taken into account in the appraisal process which precedes every round of awards under the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance.

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

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the next round of the Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance scheme will open. [70717]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]Applications for the next and final round under the current Financial Instrument for Fisheries Guidance had to be submitted by 31 December 1998. Decisions on these awards are expected to be announced before the end of June 1999. The possibility of a successor scheme and its funding is being negotiated in the context of the Agenda 2000 proposals.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the food industry anent the production of genetically modified food; and if he will make a statement. [69799]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]Scottish Ministers have had no recent discussions with the food industry about the production of genetically modified food. However, the industry is included in the broad public consultation on the biosciences currently being undertaken to ensure that the comprehensive framework to regulate and assess genetically modified products will continue to keep pace as this potentially very beneficial area of science develops.

  The Government's overriding duty is to safeguard the public and the environment and this is achieved through rigorous regulation and assessment of products based on the best possible scientific advice.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  547
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library the full research findings of Dr. Pusztai in respect of genetically modified food. [72208]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Copies of the Audit Committee Report and the accompanying Press Release issued by the Rowett Research Institute on 28 October 1998; Dr. Pusztai's Report in response to the Audit Committee's Report; the Audit Committee's further response to Dr. Pusztai's report and the accompanying Press Release by the Rowett Research Institute on 16 February 1999, have been placed in the House of Commons Library. These reports cover all the relevant experiments carried out at the Rowett Research Institute.

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

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the parliamentary constituencies which he has visited in an official capacity in the past 12 months. [71340]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The information requested, for visits I have made during the past 12 months in my capacity as Secretary of State, is shown in the table.

  Glasgow, Kelvin

  Edinburgh, Central

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  Stirling

  Glasgow, Ballieston

  Dundee, West

  Linlithgow

  Edinburgh, North and Leith

  Edinburgh, South

  Dumfries

  Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber

  Glasgow, Maryhill

  Renfrewshire, West

  Ross, Skye and Inverness, West

  Glasgow, Govan

  Aberdeenshire, West and Kincardine

  Edinburgh, Pentlands

  Moray

  Cities of London and Westminster

  North-East Fife

  Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  Ochil

  Aberdeen, North

  Aberdeen, Central

  Manchester, Central

  Ayr

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  Perth

  Glasgow, Pollok

  Glasgow, Shettleston

  Edinburgh, East and Musselburgh

  548

  Edinburgh, West

  Paisley, North

  Dunfermline, East

  Dundee, East

  Livingston

  Glasgow, Cathcart

  Clydesdale

  Dumbarton

  Kirkcaldy

  Fife, Central

  Cunninghame, South

  Paisley, South

  Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross

  Falkirk, East

  Holborn and St. Pancras

  Glasgow, Rutherglen

  Aberdeen, South

  Cunninghame, South

  Glasgow, Springburn

  Hamilton, North and Bellshill

  Open Countryside
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how much land held by his Department he estimates would fall within the definition of open country as set out in the consultation document Access to the Open Countryside of February 1998. [71634]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]The consultation document Access to the Open Countryside did not apply to Scotland where the law and traditions relating to access differ from those in England and Wales. Earlier this month my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced our intention to lay formal legislation for consideration by the Scottish Parliament that would introduce a right of access, to be exercised responsibly for informal recreation and passage.

  The land held by the Scottish Office has not been classified according to the definition of open country set out in the consultation document.

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

  Further Education
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) if the costs for(a) line management time, (b) teaching time spent on commercial activities, (c) non-summable teaching time, (d) in-service training, (e) costs for premises not used for summable teaching activity and (f) administration staff costs not related to summable teaching staff activity are included in the staff cost per weighted sum shown on pages 44 and 45 of the Further Education in Scotland 1997 report; [71955]

  (2) if the costs for (a) teaching non-staff costs related to non-summable teaching activity, commercial activity and line management, (b) other premises costs for premises not used for summable teaching activity and (c) other administration costs not related to summable

  549
  teaching activity are included in the non-staff cost per weighted sum shown on pages 44 and 45 of the Further Education in Scotland 1997 report. [71956]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The unit cost tables on pages 44 and 45 of the Further Education in Scotland 1997 Report include only costs relating to college activity which is fundable by The Scottish Office. No costs relating to non-SUMmable activity are therefore included in either the staff or non-staff costs per weighted SUM shown on those pages.

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

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in what year funding in respect of bursaries was classed as income for further and higher education colleges. [71937]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The incorporated further education colleges in Scotland assumed responsibility for bursaries from 1 April 1996. Since that date annual grant in aid allocations have been made by the Secretary of State to the colleges for bursary purposes.

  From 1 July 1999 the Secretary of State's powers to fund further education colleges will pass to the Scottish Further Education Funding Council.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what steps he is taking to ensure that Unit Costs Data Form BMU submissions by incorporated colleges are(a) accurate and (b) submitted on a comparable basis; [71935]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the (a) internal and (b) external auditing arrangements for the Unit Cost Data Form BMU submitted by incorporated colleges. [71936]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Scottish Office provides detailed guidance to colleges regarding completion of the Unit Cost Data Forms BMU, in order to ensure accuracy and comparability. Although the forms are not themselves audited the figures are reconciled with colleges' audited annual accounts.

  From 1 July 1999 the responsibility for issue or analysis of such forms will pass to the Scottish Further Education Funding Council.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the public funds available to further and higher education colleges as income. [71938]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The public funds available to colleges of further and higher education as income include grant in aid allocations made by the Secretary of State, tuition fees paid by the Student Awards Agency for Scotland, contractual income form the Employment Service (including in respect of New Deal activity), the local enterprise network (for Skillseekers and other training) and the Secretary of State (for Project 2000 nurse training) and other grant income which may include European Regional or Social Funds, local authority grants and research grants.

  From 1 July 1999 these will be matters for the Scottish Parliament, apart from the grant in aid allocations which from that date will become the responsibility of the Scottish Further Education Funding Council.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount each further and higher education college has acquired from his 550
  Department's budget in terms of (a) recurrent grant in aid, (b) bursaries, and (c) restructuring and capital costs in each year since incorporation in (i) cash terms and (ii) real terms at 1998–99 prices. [72039]

  Mrs. Liddell
  In view of the volume of information requested I shall write to the hon. Member and place a copy of the letter in the Library of the House of Commons.

  From 1 July 1999 the Secretary of State's powers to fund further education colleges will pass to the Scottish Further Education Funding Council.

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what(a) guidelines and (b) penalties apply to spending by incorporated colleges of grant allocation on (i) non-teaching staff, facilities and equipment and (ii) teaching staff, facilities and equipment. [71934]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Financial Memorandum between the Secretary of State and the Boards of Management of the Colleges of Further Education, dated February 1996, sets out the guidelines and penalties which apply to spending by incorporated colleges of all grant in aid allocations. The Secretary of State may require the repayment, in whole or in part, of sums paid by him if any condition subject to which sums were paid is not complied with.

  From 1 July 1999 the Secretary of State's powers to fund further education colleges will pass to the Scottish Further Education Funding Council.

  Dr. Pusztai
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what employment procedures were followed during the recent dismissal of Dr Pusztai from the Rowett Institute. [71952]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Following his formal retirement from the Rowett Research Institute in 1990, at the age of 60, Dr. Pusztai was engaged as a consultant and Senior Research Fellow on a year-to-year contract, while drawing full pension. The Director of the Rowett Research Institute informed him in August 1998, in writing, that his existing contract would not be renewed when it ended on 31 December 1998.

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

  Scottish Parliament
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what guidance he has given to businesses in central Edinburgh on the potential impact of(a) the interim location of the Scottish Parliament in the Assembly Rooms, (b) the new parliament building at Holyrood on its completion, (c) the estimated completion date of the new building and (d) the estimated date of transfer of the parliament from the Assembly Rooms to Holyrood; how often he gives local business such guidance; and if he will make a statement. [72299]

  Mr. Dewar
  My Ministerial colleagues and I meet regularly with a wide variety of representatives of the Edinburgh business community and other local organisations. Views are exchanged on the impact of the new Parliament in both of the proposed locations.
  551
  The Scottish Office, the City of Edinburgh Council and Lothian and Edinburgh Enterprise Ltd. are joint sponsors of a study on "The Scottish Parliament: Maximising Local Economic Benefit through Area Regeneration". The study team has consulted with all identified interested parties, including representatives of local commerce and industry. The final report is expected shortly.

  The estimated completion date of the new Parliament building at Holyrood is autumn 2001; the transfer date will be a matter for Members of the new Scottish Parliament to decide.

  Caesarean Sections
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many caesarean sections took place in Scotland in each of the last five years; and what they were in each year as a percentage of all deliveries. [72534]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information requested is as follows:

  Maternities—Scotland Number and percentage involving a caesarean section;

  Caesarean sections

  Year ending 31 March

  Maternities

  Number

  Percentage

  1994

  61,954

  9,716

  15.7

  1995

  59,862

  9,688

  16.2

  1996

  58,478

  9,604

  16.4

  1997

  57,499

  9,802

  17.0

  19981

  57,478

  10,386

  18.1

  1Provisional data

  Notes:

  1. The information shown in the table has been extracted from the Scottish Morbidity Record (SMR02)—Maternity discharge.

  2. Maternities are defined as a pregnancy which results in a live or stillbirth, multiple pregnancies being counted only once.

  3. In multiple deliveries individual babies may have different modes of delivery.

  4. The data exclude maternities delivered at home.

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

  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland in how many health authorities in Scotland, and in which ones, the rate of caesarean section exceeds the WHO recommended rate. [72533]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The World Health Organisation (WHO) does not make specific recommendations about rates of caesarean delivery which will inevitably vary from place to place and will reflect the health and nutritional status of pregnant women and the level of maternity care provision. The rate of caesarean section for each Health Board in Scotland is as follows:

  Maternities—Scotland; by Health Board area of treatment Number and percentage involving a caesarean section Year ending 31 March 1998

  Caesarean sections

  Area of treatment

  Maternities

  Number

  Percentage

  Scotland

  57,478

  10,386

  18.1

  Argyll and Clyde

  4,517

  927

  20.5

  Ayrshire and Arran

  3,864

  770

  19.9

  Borders

  973

  169

  17.4

  Dumfries and Galloway

  1,531

  258

  16.9

  Fife

  3,181

  598

  18.8

  Forth Valley

  3,288

  536

  16.3

  552

  Maternities—Scotland; by Health Board area of treatment Number and percentage involving a caesarean section Year ending 31 March 1998

  Caesarean sections

  Area of treatment

  Maternities

  Number

  Percentage

  Grampian

  5,996

  1,064

  17.7

  Greater Glasgow

  12,877

  2,283

  17.7

  Highland

  2,393

  470

  19.6

  Lanarkshire

  4,635

  872

  18.8

  Lothian

  9,053

  1,635

  18.1

  Orkney

  116

  18

  15.5

  Shetland

  193

  10

  5.2

  Tayside

  4,667

  743

  15.9

  Western Isles

  194

  33

  17.0

  Notes:

  1. The information shown in the table has been extracted from the Scottish Morbidity Record (SMR02)—Maternity discharge.

  2. Maternities are defined as a pregnancy which results in a live or stillbirth, multiple pregnancies being counted only once.

  3. In multiple deliveries individual babies may have different modes of delivery.

  4. The data exclude maternities delivered at home.

  5. The data provided are provisional.

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

  Rowett Institute
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to receive the annual reports of the Rowett Institute for the years 1997 and 1998. [71953]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Rowett Research Institute's Annual Report for 1997–98 should be available in March-April 1999. The Report for 1998–99 should be available at the same time next year.

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

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make publicly available all the research documentation concerning the experiments carried out with genetically modified potatoes at the Rowett Institute. [71954]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Copies of the Audit Committee Report and the accompanying Press Release issued by the Rowett Research Institute on 28 October 1998; Dr. Pusztai's Report in response to the Audit Committee's Report; the Audit Committee's further response to Dr. Pusztai's Report and the accompanying Press Release by the Rowett Research Institute on 16 February 1999, have been placed in the House of Commons Library. These reports cover all the relevant experiments carried out at the Rowett Research Institute.

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

  Sheriff Court, Dumbarton
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) solemn and (b) summary, (i) civil and (ii) criminal cases which have been adjudicated upon at the Sheriff Court in Dumbarton in each of the past five years. [72884]
  553
  Mr. McLeish
  The information requested is given in the following table:

  Dumbarton Sheriff Court

  Cases Concluded

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Criminal

  Summary Cases

  2,775

  2,584

  2,646

  2,654

  2,419

  Solemn Cases

  92

  80

  72

  76

  90

  Civil1

  Ordinary Actions

  1,000

  1,038

  967

  895

  1,052

  Summary Cause

  2,544

  2,150

  1,996

  2,040

  2,042

  1Civil does not include miscellaneous civil proceedings e.g. adoptions, simplified divorces, sequestrations etc.

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

  Social Exclusion
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the progress made by the Government in tackling social exclusion in Scotland. [74118]

  Mr. Dewar
  Social exclusion is a pernicious phenomenon and we have made clear our determination to confront it. Since coming into office we have put in place a wide-ranging and well resourced programme of action. We have today published a social inclusion strategy for Scotland, which has been developed and endorsed by the Scottish Social Inclusion Network, chaired by my noble Friend Lord Sewel. The strategy aims to ensure that action already underway achieves the greatest possible impact, and that future action to promote social inclusion is integrated, evaluated and informed by new ideas and existing best practice.

  A statement of the Government's programme of action is set out in a companion document to the strategy, also published today. Copies of both documents are available from the House Library.

  From 1 July 1999 action taken forward under the social inclusion strategy will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Elderly (Long-term Care)
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects to respond to the report of the Royal Commission on Long Term Care of the Elderly. [74394]

  Mr. Dewar
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health has indicated today, we have just received the Royal Commission's very full and detailed report. I join my right hon. Friend in his tribute to the work of the Commission, under the chairmanship of Sir Stewart Sutherland. We are grateful to all the Commission members, including the other Scottish-based member, Professor Mary Marshall of the Dementia Services Development Centre at the University of Stirling.

  The report's recommendations are important and wide ranging. They will require very careful consideration. Some relate to matters such as social security and pensions which are to be reserved to Westminster. Scottish Ministers and officials will play a full part in inter-departmental discussions on these matters, both now and, I am sure, after devolution. Other recommendations
  554
  relate to matters such as social work, health and housing, which will be devolved. From 1 July 1999 these will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament and the response to the recommendations will be for the Scottish Executive and Parliament to take forward in the light of the informed debate which the Commission hopes to see, and our proposals for modernising social work services which will be set out in a White Paper later this month.

  The Commission has made two key recommendations. The first is that personal care as defined by the Commission (that is, not including the costs of board and lodging) should be free in all settings. This recommendation will clearly have to be addressed in the light of the spending priorities of the Scottish Parliament. The second is that there should be a National Care Commission to look at the whole system in a strategic way, represent the interests of older people receiving services and produce national benchmarks. Again this will have to be considered carefully.

  I congratulate the Royal Commission and Sir Stewart on the production of this report. I am confident that the Scottish Executive and Parliament will give it the full consideration it deserves and requires.

  Seals
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of seal damage to salmon in the last five years. [73908]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Seals are opportunistic predators which take whatever prey is locally abundant, and only by studying rivers on a site-by-site basis can the effects of seals on salmon be measured.

  A study based on direct observation of seals and their impact on salmon in the estuaries of the Rivers Dee and Don was conducted between 1993 and 1996. This found that common seals were the most prevalent species, that peak numbers were seen in the winter months, but that the number of individual seals was very low.

  A new project studying the interaction between the two species has begun on the River Conon, funded by The Scottish Office, through the Marine Laboratory, and Aberdeen University.

  There are no estimates of predation on salmonids in the open sea.

  From 1 July 1999 the protection and management of seals in Scottish waters will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what proposals he has to control the seal population. [73909]

  Mr. Macdonald
  A delicate balance must be struck between maintaining a sustainable population of seals and protecting legitimate fishing interests. Current legislation provides local solutions to local problems.

  Under the Conservation of Seals Act 1970, fishermen are permitted to shoot seals during the open seasons, providing an appropriately licensed firearm is used. Limited shooting under licence is permitted during the close seasons for the prevention of damage to fisheries.

  555
  Throughout the year, fishermen may shoot seals to prevent them from causing damage to a fishing net or fishing tackle, or to any fish captured by that net or tackle.

  In April 1998 we announced the lifting of the year round protection given to common seals in Shetland under the Conservation of Seals (Common Seals)(Shetland Islands Area) Order 1991. We have no plans at present to change the existing management regime. This matter is kept under constant review.

  From 1 July 1999 the protection and management of seals in Scottish waters will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Criminal Cases Review Commission
  Mr. Singh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is the total number of cases referred to, and awaiting review by, the Criminal Cases Review Commission; [72772]

  (2) how many cases are awaiting intensive review by the case review managers that work for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. [72771]

  Pilot project

  Area

  Date pilot started

  Youth Justice—Measures contained in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998:

  (1) The final warning scheme

  London Boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham,

  30 September 1998

  (2) The repatriation order

  Kensington and Chelsea and the City of Westminster;

  (3) Action plan order

  Southampton; Portsmouth and the Isle of Wight;

  Wolverhampton; Sheffield (1) to (5)

  (4) Child safety order and parenting order

  Blackburn (1) (2) (5)

  (5) Youth offending teams

  London Borough of Lewisham; Luton and Bedfordshire;

  Devon; St. Helens; Sunderland (4) (5)

  Reducing delays in the criminal justice system—pilots of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 provisions to speed up the criminal justice system:

  Blackburn and Burnley; Croydon, Bromley and Sutton; Northamptonshire; North Staffordshire; North Wales; and Tyneside

  October 1998. January 1999 for those relating to the sending of cases to the Crown Court

  Getting cases into court the day after charge or as soon as possible thereafter;

  Crown Prosecution Service staff working alongside the police in the police stations to get cases ready for court;

  Crown Prosecution Service using trained lay staff to prosecute straightforward guilty plea cases in the magistrates' courts in Early First Hearings.

  Introduction of Early Administrative Hearings in the magistrates' courts to be presided over by a single Justice or Justices' Clerk to manage the pre-trial preparation of all magistrates' court cases;

  Free legal advice from the duty solicitor at court for defendants attending Early First Hearings or Early Administrative Hearings. Introduction of tougher bail conditions to increase the use of securities and enable the courts to require a defendant to attend an interview with his legal representative.

  Sending indictable-only cases to the Crown Court after only one preliminary hearing in the magistrates' court.

  Probation

  Drug Treatment and Testing Orders

  Liverpool; Gloucestershire; Croydon

  1 October 1998

  Pathfinder projects—to identify examples of best practice and share them amongst probation services:

  September 1998

  1. Programme Solving, Training and Offending Behaviour

  Devon, Teesside and Greater Manchester

  2. Thames Valley Sex Offender Programme

  Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire and Berkshire

  3. Women Offenders Programme

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  556
  Kate Hoey
  I understand that, at the end of January, 1,055 cases were awaiting review by the Criminal Cases Review Commission (of which 1,010 were awaiting detailed review) and 482 cases were under active review.

  Police (Millennium Celebrations)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 1999,Official Report, columns 92–93, on policing Millennium celebrations, what proportion of the £176 million additional special payment is in respect of the Millennium. [72665]

  Mr. Boateng
  The £176 million special payment allocated to the Metropolitan Police is in recognition of the force's distinct national and capital city functions which, in the next financial year, include policing related to Millennium celebrations. It is a matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis to decide on the operational deployment of his resources.

  Pilot Projects
  Yvette Cooper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the pilot projects instigated by his Department since 1 May 1997, indicating the area in which each pilot took, or is taking, place. [72638]

  Mr. Straw
  Details of key pilot projects instigated by the Home Office since 1 May 1997 are as follows:
  557

  Pilot project

  Area

  Date pilot started

  Electronic Tagging

  1. Community Service Orders and Curfew Orders on Persistent Petty Offenders, Curfew Orders on Juveniles (aged 10 to 15), Driving Disqualifications on Offenders and Fine Defaulters

  Norfolk Greater Manchester

  January 1998 April 1998

  2. Electronic Monitoring as a Condition of Bail

  Norfolk Greater Manchester

  April 1998 July 1998

  Integrating business and information systems (IBIS)— to enable the exchange of electronic case files and case-tracking information between the police, Crown Prosecution Service and the magistrates' courts

  Stockport

  November 1998

  Police dogs—Trials of scent discrimination methods of training police dogs using bloodhounds and German Shepherds

  Essex police force

  April 1998

  Fire safety—community fire safety pilot publicity campaign that concentrated on chip pan safety to test out an integrated approach to communications. TV advertising ran throughout Granada TV area

  Lancashire

  3 April 1998 to 5 May 1998

  Review of Fire Cover—Pathfinder projects with selected fire brigades to trial a new scheme for providing fire cover based on the risk

  London, Strathclyde (Glasgow); Lothian and the Borders; South Wales (Cardiff); Oxfordshire; Devon

  January 1998

  Passport issuing—project to introduce a more secure digitally printed British Passport

  Passports issued by the Liverpool and Newport Passport Offices (North West, North and South of England and Wales)

  5 October 1998

  Prison Service Welfare to Work

  11 prisons across the estate

  April 1998

  Video Links

  South-West (Bristol and Eastwood Park prisons linked to Bristol and Swindon magistrates court)

  November 1998

  North-West (Manchester prison and Hindley YOI linked to Manchester Magistrates court)

  New Security passes

  Bullwood Hall prison, Essex; The Mount prison, Herts; Hull prison

  April to June 1998

  Prisoner Escort Form

  Brixton and Holloway prisons; London prisoner escort service and 9 London police stations

  May to June 1998

  Extended Sex Offender Treatment Programme

  Albany, Wakefield, channings Wood, Swinfen Hall and Wandsworth prisons

  1997 to 1998

  Improved regimes for women prisoners

  Holloway prison, London Styal prison Cheshire

  December 1998 November 1998

  Dyslexia screening

  5 dispersal prisons: Frankland, Full Sutton, Long Lartin, Wakefield, Whitemoor

  January 1999

  Family literacy

  Stoke Heath YOI; Norwich, Bullwood Hall Cookham wood Dover YOI

  September 1998 October 1998 February 1999

  Volunteer tutoring schemes

  Frankland, Full Sutton and Wakefield prisons

  January 1999

  Peer partnership (basic skills)

  7 prisons across the estate

  August to September 1998

  Birmingham

  January 1999

  Disinfecting tablets

  11 prisons across the estate

  July to November 1998

  A number of pilot projects will also form part of the Crime Reduction Programme, beginning in April 1999. There will be about 70 projects initially, launched as part of the burglary and targeted policing initiatives within the Programme. There will be others to follow. The first projects are expected to be confirmed shortly, following validation of the bids that have been submitted to the Home Office.

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Wicks
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 on domestic violence. [72769]
  558
  Mr. Boateng
  Tackling domestic violence requires partnership working between agencies in the public, private and voluntary sectors. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 has reinforced the statutory framework under which such partnership working can take place. We have always made it clear that we expect the local crime and disorder partnerships set up under the Act to identify the level of domestic violence in their area and to develop and implement strategies for reducing it.

  The first crime and disorder audits and strategies should be in place by 1 April 1999 and are currently being drawn up. It is too early to draw from them any general

  559
  conclusions, but a number of audits—including Croydon's—have already identified domestic violence as a priority.

  Deportations
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment(a) have been deported upon release in each of the last five years and (b) will be deported on release; and to which countries in each case. [72930]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that the precise information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The available information, relating to deportation removals following recommendation by a court, or on grounds conducive to the public good following conviction for a criminal offence, is given in the table.

  Deportation removals1 following recommendation by a court2 or on grounds conducive to the public good3 following conviction for a criminal offence, 1994–19984,5

  Number of persons

  Removed or departed voluntarily1,4

  1994

  320

  1995

  340

  1996

  370

  1997

  360

  19985

  320

  1 Includes persons departing voluntarily following initiation of deportation action against them.

  2 Under section 3(6) of the Immigration Act 1971.

  3 Under section 3(5)(b) of the Immigration Act 1971.

  4 Data are rounded.

  5 1998 data are provisional and relate to 1 January to 30 November only.

  Drugs Misuse
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the occasions on which gammahydroxybutyrate has been referred to the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs; and what representations have been made on its use; [72902]

  (2) what criteria are applied in determining whether the degree of abuse of a drug and the social consequences arising from its misuse are sufficient to warrant (a) the banning of the drug under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 and (b) other Government action. [72903]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Representations have periodically been made since 1994 for the control under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 of gammahydroxybutyrate. In total, eight Parliamentary Questions have been answered in this House and nine letters from Members.

  The Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which is established under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 to advise the Government on drug misuse issues, has considered the misuse of gammahydroxybutyrate on three occasions—in May 1994 shortly after the drug first appeared as a drug of misuse in this country; in November 1996; and in May 1998.

  Section 1 of the 1971 Act provides that the Council has a duty to keep under review drugs which are being or appear likely to be misused and of which the misuse is
  560
  having to appear capable of having harmful effects sufficient to constitute a social problem; and to give to Ministers advice on measures (whether or not involving alteration of the law) to be taken for preventing the misuse of such drugs or dealing with social problems connected with their misuse.

  When reviewing the misuse of a substance and deciding what measures should in its opinion be taken, the matters which the Council take into account include the substance's pharmacology; availability (including any existing controls on the substance); prevalence of misuse; effects on health; abuse liability; dependence potential; and therapeutic usefulness.

  EU Nationals
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters have been sent to Community nationals in the United Kingdom advising them that they are no longer considered to be exercising treaty rights and should therefore leave the United Kingdom since 1 February 1998. [72865]

  Kate Hoey
  Between 1 February and 31 August 1998, 9 Residence Permits or Documents were revoked.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many EU nationals are estimated to have been exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom during the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72871]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The information available relates to the number of nationals of other European Union countries who were usually resident in the United Kingdom in autumn 1998. There were some 870,000 such persons, of whom 450,000 were citizens of the Irish Republic.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what was the average time for consideration of applications for residence documents or evidence of residence made by third country family members of EU nationals exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom during the period 1 February 1998 to date; [72870]

  (2) what was the average time for consideration of applications for residence documents for EU nationals exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom during the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72869]

  Kate Hoey
  The information sought is not recorded in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for(a) residence permits and (b) leave to remain as the spouse of an EEA national exercising treaty rights, were refused on the basis that the marriage was one of convenience over the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72875]

  Kate Hoey
  From 1 February to 31 August 1998, 216 applications for residence documents on the basis of marriage to an European Economic Area (EEA) national were refused. The reasons for refusal are not separately categorised. The granting of leave to remain relates to applications made under the Immigration Rules and does not apply to requests for residence documents by the spouses of EEA nationals exercising treaty rights.
  561
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the length in time of residence documents or endorsements given to third country national spouses of EC nationals exercising treaty rights who have been granted indefinite leave to remain. [72855]

  Kate Hoey
  Where a European Economic Area (EEA) national has been granted indefinite leave to remain, the third country national spouse may apply either for leave to remain under the Immigration Rules on the basis of marriage to a person present or settled in the United Kingdom or for a residence document in accordance with European Community law. In the former case, the applicant, if successful, would be granted 12 months' leave to remain in the first instance; in the latter case, the third country national spouse may apply for a residence document which, if issued, would have the same validity as any extant residence permit issued to the EEA spouse. If the EEA spouse no longer holds a valid residence permit, one would be issued with five years' validity as the basis for the issue of a residence document of the same validity to the third country national.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many EU nationals were refused entry to the United Kingdom on the grounds of(a) public policy, (b) public security and (c) public health during the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72866]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The available information relates to European Union nationals who were refused leave to enter because their exclusion from the United Kingdom was deemed conducive to the public good or because they were medically undesirable. A provisional total of 46 persons in the first of those categories were removed between February and December 1998. During the same period, no European Union nationals were recorded as having been refused and removed on health grounds.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measure has been implemented in the United Kingdom to give effect to the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of Vander Elst [1994] ECR 1–3803 to the effect that third country national employees of service providers based in another member state are entitled by Community law to exercise on behalf of their employers the right to provide services in the United Kingdom. [72873]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Effect is given to implementing this judgment through instructions that third country national employees of service providers established in another member state are not required to obtain work permits when they are sent to provide services in the United Kingdom.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for residence permits were made by EU nationals exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom in the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72861]

  Kate Hoey
  From 1 February to 31 August 1998, 1,424 applications for residence permits were received.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for residence documents and endorsements by third country national spouses of Community nationals exercising treaty rights 562
  were refused entry on the basis that he considered the marriage to be one of convenience during the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72872]

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

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for residence documents by third country national family members of EU nationals exercising treaty rights were made in the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72877]

  Kate Hoey
  From 1 February to 31 August 1998, 2,608 applications for residence documents by third country national family members of European Union nationals exercising treaty rights were received.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for residence documents by EU nationals exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom were granted in the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72857]

  Kate Hoey
  Between 1 February and 31 August 1998 (the latest date for which figures are available), 894 residence permits were issued to European Union nationals exercising Treaty rights.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many residence documents and evidence of residence were granted to third country national family members of EU nationals exercising treaty rights in the United Kingdom during the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72864]

  Kate Hoey
  From 1 February to 31 August 1998, 1,596 residence documents were issued to third country national family members (spouses and other family members) of European Union nationals.

  Passports and Identity Documents
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) passports and (b) identity documents purporting to be issued by a member state presented on arrival in the United Kingdom have been the subject of inquiries with the authorities of the member state as to their (i) genuineness and (ii) correct issuance during the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72858]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Statistics are not kept of the number of such inquiries. Normally, document abuse is identified without the need to refer to the issuing authority. In 1998, 3,478 forged European Union/European Economic Area travel documents were detected at our ports of entry.

  Entry Clearance
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-EEA family members who arrived in possession of entry clearance holding an EEA family permit were refused entry by the immigration officer at a British port of entry during the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72874]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret the information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  563
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many applications for leave to remain in the United Kingdom were submitted in the last year; and how many are currently outstanding. [73002]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I regret that full information is not available in the form requested. In 1998, some 46,000 asylum applications, including those at the ports of entry but excluding dependants, were received and at the end of the year 68,400 applications were outstanding. The number of applications received from non-European Economic Area nationals for an extension of stay is not available, but 157,000 initial decisions were made in 1998 and it is estimated that around 27,000 applications were outstanding at the end of the year.

  Lowdham Grange Prison
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the progress of the arrangement between Premier Prisons Services and his Department for the employment of prisoners at Her Majesty's Prison Lowdham Grange, Nottingham; and how many other such arrangements are proposed, where and with whom. [73173]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The aim is to generate work for the certified normal accommodation of 500 prisoners at Lowdham Grange prison. Approximately 150 prisoners are employed on jobs servicing the prison such as in the kitchens, cleaning and gardening. There is capacity for 350 prisoners at the industrial complex within the prison. At present, some 250 prisoners are employed at the complex on work for five different companies. The work consists of coat hanger recycling, paper hat manufacture for the catering industry, welding, painting model soldiers and folding and enveloping charity bags. Premier Prison Services Ltd. manages the prison and is actively seeking work for the remaining 100 prisoners from other companies in the locality.

  Premier Prison Services' policy, which is in line with that of the Prison Service, is to seek work for prisoners which is not economically viable elsewhere, cannot be done in the United Kingdom or cannot be organised by a company due to restrictions on its premises or labour force.

  The industrial complex at Lowdham Grange is operated on a cost recovery basis and, should any profit be generated, it would be returned to the prisoners' amenities fund.

  Turkish Workers
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what statutory provision gives effect to the rights of Turkish workers as regards residence and employment in accordance with Article 6(3) of the Association of Council Design 1/80 adopted under the Turkey/EC Association Agreement 1963 and its Protocol. [72867]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There is no separate statutory provision which gives effect to Article 6(3) of the Agreement. Instructions to caseworkers ensure that Turkish nationals who have rights under the Agreement are granted leave to remain in the United Kingdom, as appropriate.

  Immigration and Nationality Department
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people, on average, were employed in the EC group of the Immigration and Nationality Department between 1 February 1997 and 31 January 1998. [72863]

  Kate Hoey
  The number of staff in post for each month from February 1997 to December 1998 is given in the table. Responsibility for EC casework was transferred from EC group of the European Directorate to the Integrated Casework Directorate in December 1998.

  European Directorate (EC group) monthly staff in post

  Month

  1997

  1998

  January

  —

  28

  February

  22

  28

  March

  21

  28

  April

  23

  28

  May

  23

  28

  June

  23

  28

  July

  23

  28

  August

  23

  28

  September

  23

  28

  October

  23

  29

  November

  27

  27

  December

  27

  0

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many letters sent to the Immigration and Nationality Department by special and recorded delivery in the last six months have not yet been opened. [72859]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are currently 4,730 items of recorded and registered post to be opened in the Integrated Caseworking Directorate Mail Handling Section. The earliest date of unopened post is 9 February 1999. There are a further 507 items to be opened in the Travel Documents Section. The earliest date of unopened post is 3 February 1999. Despite the disruption caused by the move of offices, the backlog on post opening should reduce further in the weeks to come.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to publish the report on the former young offenders' institution at the Military Corrective Training Centre, Colchester. [73238]

  Mr. George Howarth
  It is intended to publish the full results of the evaluation of the young offender regime at Colchester Military Corrective Training Centre at the end of 1999, when one-year reconviction data will be available.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the education facilities that exist in each of the establishments in England and Wales where young offenders are held. [73497]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to him on 13 January 1999,Official Report, column 198.
  565
  Education for prisoners over the age of 16 years is entirely optional. Education provision in prison establishments in England and Wales where young offenders are held focuses on remedial education in basic skills, combined with a wide variety of experience and training to equip young offenders to deal more effectively with life after imprisonment.

  Education provision for those under 17 years of age is linked to the National Curriculum for schools insofar as facilities allow.

  Information on educational facilities in each of the establishments in England and Wales where young offenders are held is not held centrally. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Unsolved Murders
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the police officers in England and Wales who have been murdered in the last 10 years and in respect of whom no one has been brought to court charged with their murder; and if he will make a statement. [73554]

  Mr. Boateng
  I will write to the right hon. Member with full details.

  Speeding (Loughton)
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been fined for exceeding the speed limit at Forest Side, Claypit Hill, Gravel Hill, Pynest Green Lane and Wellington Hill, all situated in High Beech, Loughton, in each of the last five years. [73615]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not available.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Air Miles have been earned by him and each of his ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73340]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of air miles was set out by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.

  Detailed information on any air miles earned by Ministers as a result of official travel is not recorded centrally.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Government funding for Victim Support has been for each of the last 12 years. [73553]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office grant to Victim Support in each of the last 12 financial years is as follows:

  Financial Year

  Grant (£ million)

  1987–88

  1.763

  1988–89

  2.740

  1989–90

  3.910

  566

  Financial Year

  Grant (£ million)

  1990–91

  4.735

  1991–92

  5.670

  1992–93

  7.260

  1993–94

  8.375

  1994–95

  10.016

  1995–96

  10.817

  1996–97

  11.682

  1997–98

  12.682

  1998–99

  12.682

  As announced on 23 February 1999, Official Report, column 210, the grant is being increased substantially from 1 April 1999 and, by 2001–02, will have risen to some £19 million, a 50 per cent. increase over the current figure.

  Schizophrenia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of those convicted of crimes in England in the last year for which figures are available have ever been admitted to National Health Service mental illness hospitals and units with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses. [73358]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 25 February 1999,Official Report, column 393.

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry
  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 21–34, if he will describe the procedure to be used in the inquiry by his Permanent Secretary into the unauthorised publication of extracts from the Macpherson report; when he expects the inquiry to be completed; and if he will make a statement. [73518]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]My Permanent Secretary has instituted a leak investigation under well established procedures. An independent investigator will be assisted by my Department's Security Unit. He will report in the first instance to the Permanent Secretary, who will report to me. It is not known how long the investigation will take. I will inform the House of its outcome in due course.

  Sir Norman Fowler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his oral statement of 22 February 1999,Official Report, columns 21–34, how many copies were in circulation of the Macpherson report prior to 21 February and who had access to them; what steps were taken to preserve the security of the report; and if he will make a statement. [73525]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]It would not be in the interests of the investigation now under way into the leak of parts of Sir William Macpherson's Report on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry to give these details. I will inform the House of the outcome of that investigation in due course.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will publish in full the diary of official appointments for the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), from 15 February to 21 February; [73713]
  567
  (2) if he will list those journalists who entered the Home Office to meet Ministers or officials during the period 15 February to 21 February; [73710]

  (3) if he will list the journalists met by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), in his official capacity in (a) the Home Office and (b) his room at the House from 15 February to 21 February; [73712]

  (4) if he will list all those questioned by the leak inquiry team on the Macpherson report; [73734]

  (5) which Home Office Ministers were provided with a full copy of the Macpherson report prior to 21 February; on what date each was given the copy; and if any Ministers were given extra copies; [73711]

  (6) if he will list those journalists granted a pass to visit ministers in the Home Office in the period 15 February to 21 February. [73709]

  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each day from his receipt of Sir William Macpherson's report on Stephen Lawrence's death of 21 February, how many copies were out of the Department and in whose possession each copy resided while out of the Department. [73800]

  Mr. Straw
  It would not be in the interests of the investigation now under way into the leak of parts of Sir William Macpherson's Report on the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry to give these details.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report on the leak inquiry on the Macpherson report. [73733]

  Mr. Straw
  There is no fixed length of time for the leak investigation; the investigating officer will make his report as soon as he is able to do so.

  Airport Liaison Officers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each airport to which an airline liaison officer has been posted, the number of people who have been prevented from boarding planes as a result of action taken by the officers. [73888]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Airline liaison officers are posted overseas to offer advice and assistance to airlines on inadequately documented passengers. Any decision to refuse carriage to a passenger is solely a matter for the airline concerned. In 1998, airlines operating from the five locations where airline liaison officers were based refused carriage to 2,095 prospective passengers who were not adequately documented for travel to the United Kingdom. The figures for each location are: Accra 592; Colombo 191; Delhi 922; Dhaka 220; and Nairobi 170.

  Police (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with senior police officers of Gloucestershire Constabulary concerning the impact on services of the 1999–2000 financial settlement; and if he will make a statement. [73138]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]The Chief Constable of the Gloucestershire Constabulary (Mr. Tony Butler) wrote to my officials 568
  about the 1999–2000 funding settlement and met them subsequently to discuss the force's financial position. My officials replied to Mr. Butler on 18 January.

  Gloucestershire Constabulary's funding will be £62.4 million in 1999–2000, an increase of 1.4 per cent. over 1998–99. According to latest information from the Audit Commission, expenditure on policing per head of population in Gloucestershire is £105.79. This expenditure level is higher than that in 19 other forces.

  It is for the chief officer of each force to decide on the operational deployment of the total resources allocated to them.

  Security Service
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the present remit of MI5 extends to monitoring pressure groups involved in campaigns against genetically modified food. [73399]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service has no powers to investigate any such pressure group and therefore does not do so unless it is suspected of presenting a threat to national security or to the economic well-being of the United Kingdom; or unless the Service has been tasked by a law enforcement agency to investigate the group because it is suspected of involvement in serious crime.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if MI5 is empowered to disconnect phone lines connected to organisations for the purpose of preventing possible subversion; if explicit authorisation is required from him for such action; and if he will make a statement. [73407]

  Mr. Straw
  The Security Service will undertake operations involving entry onto or interference with property only in accordance with its statutory functions and under the authority of a warrant issued by the Secretary of State in accordance with section 5 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994. It has been the policy of successive Governments not to disclose information about Security Service operations.

  Greenpeace
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Merseyside into the incident in which his officers recently intercepted a number of members of Greenpeace at a Cheshire motorway service station. [73398]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have received a report from Merseyside Police who have informed me of the following:

  On Wednesday 17 February, Merseyside Police became aware of the presence of a large group of Greenpeace activists at Hapsford Service Station on the M56 in Cheshire. It was apparent to the police that the members of Greenpeace were intending to demonstrate at Liverpool Docks in order to disrupt commercial trade. After consultation with Cheshire Constabulary, Merseyside Police officers attended and, given the dangers of any potential demonstration, seized a number of dinghies under section 19(3) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984; section 3 of the Criminal Damage Act 1971 and section 12(1) of the Aviation and Maritime Security

  569
  Act 1990. I understand that the seizure was carried out with the co-operation of the demonstrators and the dinghies were placed in a safe location.

  The following day, Thursday 18 February, 11 Greenpeace activities were arrested for aggravated trespass under section 68 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 at the Seaforth Dock on Merseyside. Ten people were later charged and will appear at South Sefton Magistrates Court on 25 March.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of administration of the subsistence benefit system for asylum seekers by local authorities. [73158]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Local authorities can include reasonable administration costs in their claims for asylum seekers subject to an overall unit cost limit. Administration costs are not disaggregated.

  Charities
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions have taken place between his Department and the Treasury over the future fiscal framework under which charities will operate. [72106]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Home Office continues to work closely with the Treasury and all Government Departments on matters relating to the charitable sector. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor intends to publish the consultation document on the Charity Taxation Review at the time of the budget.

  Licensing Hours
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what will be the licensing hours that his Department will recommend to licensing justices for the period of 30 December 1999 to the 2 January 2000 inclusive. [73565]

  Mr. Straw
  We have just consulted on proposals for extending permitted hours on the Millennium Eve and subsequent New Year's Eves. Our preference was for an all-night relaxation, but we also sought views on a more modest extension to 4am. We will announce the outcome shortly.

  We have not proposed any change to the hours on 30 December or 2 January.

  Green Goddess Fire Appliance
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for supply of fuel for the Green Goddess fire appliances when the new petroleum regulations on leaded petrol are implemented. [74037]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Extensive tests undertaken on two appliances indicate that the engines will run on unleaded fuel with minor routine adjustment. We have also carried out conversions to the cylinder heads of two engines, which should enable them to run on unleaded fuel without further adjustment. The converted engines will be evaluated under test conditions before further conversions are undertaken. We are also evaluating 570
  proprietary fuel additives, which are claimed to allow vehicles such as the green goddesses to run on unleaded fuel without polluting the environment.

  Au Pairs
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the immigration status of au pairs; and if he will make a statement. [71967]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [pursuant to his reply, 25 February 1999, c. 392–93]Under the Immigration Rules, an au pair must be unmarried, aged between 17 and 27 and without dependants, and come from one of the designated countries. They may stay in the United Kingdom for up to two years, living as part of an English speaking family and learning the language. They may help in the home for no more than five hours a day, with two days off per week, in return for a reasonable allowance.

  Drug Conference (Rangoon)
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if Her Majesty's Government will be represented at Interpol's fourth International Drug Conference in Rangoon on 23 to 26 February. [72886]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I have been asked to reply.

  The UK, along with a majority of EU Member States, was not represented at Interpol's International Drug Conference in Rangoon held from 23 to 26 February.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Plutonium Shipments
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment was made of the security and safety arrangements covering the plutonium shipments from France to Japan in 1992 prior to deciding upon the appropriate arrangements for the forthcoming shipment of plutonium MOX fuel from Sellafield to Japan. [72962]

  Mr. Battle
  The transport of MOX fuel from Europe to Japan will be undertaken in full accordance with internationally agreed commitments and recommendations on physical protection, reflecting the concern of all parties to prevent the proliferation of sensitive nuclear materials. The Government are satisfied that the security measures proposed for the shipment of MOX fuel provide at least the same level of protection as the arrangements which were in place for the 1992 shipment of plutonium from France to Japan and that they are adequate and make the security risks negligible.

  The ships which will be used for the shipment of MOX fuel meet the highest safety rating of the International Maritime Organisation (IMO), a United Nations agency, which regularly reviews its regulations. The design and construction of the ships are approved by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and by Lloyds Register. The ships have a range of safety features which exceed those found on conventional cargo vessels. PNTL has been safely transporting nuclear fuel by sea for over thirty years during which time its ships have covered over 4.5 million miles without a single incident involving an escape of radioactivity.

  Wind Turbines (North-East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with north east industrialists involved in the manufacturing and supply of components for off-shore wind energy turbines; and if he will make a statement. [73174]

  Mr. Battle
  Last year I addressed two conferences held by the British Wind Energy Association (BWEA), many of whose members are based in the North East of England. At the Cardiff conference I launched a consultation exercise on the most suitable arrangements for incorporating the development of offshore wind energy into the NFFO process. I have also visited several wind projects including that of Border Wind at Blyth Harbour which will be one of the first UK offshore wind installations.

  Through the New and Renewable Energy (NRE) programme, my Department has also held seminars aimed at encouraging engineering companies to invest in the manufacturing and supply of components for wind farm sites. One such event was held in September 1997 in Durham where firms from the region were given a detailed outline of the technology, the market and the opportunities open to engineering industry. The programme has supported 10 projects to develop wind turbine components to date. These projects are worth a total value of £2.4 million. In addition, the programme has supported a number of companies visits to wind turbine manufacturers in Europe as part of this initiative.

  Transatlantic Post
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the criteria which the United Kingdom and United States of America Governments use in tendering for the contracts to transport post in each direction between the United Kingdom and the United States of America. [72882]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Within the United Kingdom it is the Post Office rather than the Government that has responsibility for postal operational matters such as the tendering for contracts to transport mail. Contracts are awarded by the Post Office, in accordance with public procurement regulations, based on the most economically advantageous tenderer against a range of criteria which may vary from one route to another including, but not limited to, the ability by an airline to serve the destination; carry the weight of traffic tendered; achieve required handover time; service quality; price; and acceptance of Post Office terms and conditions. I am advised by the Post Office that routes are normally tendered annually or bi-annually.

  I am unable to comment on the detail of procurement procedures that are applicable to the operations of the postal administration of the United States of America.

  Steel Products (Dumping)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to prevent dumping of steel products in the United Kingdom. [73472]

  Mr. Wilson
  It is the responsibility of the European Commission, on behalf of the Community and Member States, to investigate complaints about dumped or 572
  subsidised imports if they believe there is sufficient evidence to warrant doing so. The Commission is currently investigating six complaints of allegedly dumped steel imports and three complaints of allegedly subsidised steel imports.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what official visits he, his Ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73557]

  Mr. Byers
  The information is as follows: 15–20 November 1997: Peter Watford, Export Promoter for Southern Africa. Met with Government Officials, representatives from UK and Zimbabwean Industry. Trade and commercial issues were discussed.

  3–5 February 1998: Lord Clinton Davis, as Minister for Trade. (To attend UK/Zimbabwe Co-operation week.) Met with Zimbabwean Ministers, Government Officials, representatives from the UK and Zimbabwean Industry. Trade and commercial issues were discussed.

  3–6 February 1998: Peter Watford, Export Promoter for Southern Africa; Dave Waring Head of Southern Africa Region; Steve Clarke, Country Manager for Zimbabwe. (To attend UK/Zimbabwe Co-operation week.) Met with Government Officials, representatives from UK and Zimbabwean industry. Trade and commercial issues were discussed.

  17–18 September 1998: Mark Runacres, Director, Trade Promotion for Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia. Met with Government Officials, representatives from UK and Zimbabwean industry. Trade and commercial issues were discussed.

  17–19 September 1998: Peter Watford, Export Promoter for Southern Africa. Met with Government Officials, representatives from UK and Zimbabwean industry. Trade and commercial issues were discussed.

  British Shoe Manufacturing Industry
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what measures he proposes to take to limit job losses in the British shoe manufacturing industry. [73306]

  Mr. Battle
  My Department is working closely with the British shoe manufacturing industry to improve its competitiveness in domestic and overseas markets. I launched an Action Plan designed to achieve this at the National Footwear Conference in Rossendale in February 1998. The Plan is being taken forward by the Footwear Liaison Action Group (FLAG). This is an industry led Group which has representatives from companies, trade associations, unions, training organisations, Business Links, DTI and DFEE. My Department is supporting a number of projects developed under this initiative.

  Quidhampton (Power Plant Construction)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he will announce his decision on the proposed construction of a mini-power plant at Quidhampton near Salisbury. [73382]
  573
  Mr. Battle
  This is one of a number of cases which are being carefully considered and on which an announcement should be made shortly.

  Caribbean Countries
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what efforts his Department is making to increase the volume of United Kingdom trade with the countries of the Caribbean; and if he will make a statement. [72630]

  Mr. Wilson
  My Department offers a full range of services, including support for trade missions and trade fairs, to British companies seeking business in the Caribbean.

  During the current financial year, we have provided financial support and assistance for trade missions organised by CARITAG (to Cuba and the Dominican Republic), the Hull & East Riding Chamber of Commerce and Shipping (to Trinidad & Tobago, Barbados and Jamaica), the Bristol Chamber of Commerce and Initiative (to Trinidad and Tobago, Barbados and Jamaica) and CARITAG in association with the Leicester African Caribbean Business Association (to Antigua, St. Kitts, St. Lucia and St. Vincent). We also provided financial support, under the Trade Fair Support Scheme, for a British pavilion at the Havana International Trade Fair, which took place in November 1998.

  Working closely with multiplier organisations in the United Kingdom, we also arrange seminars and workshops throughout the country to promote market opportunities in the Caribbean region.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the Ministers from his Department who have visited Caribbean countries since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [72632]

  Mr. Wilson
  I visited Cuba in November 1998. No other Minister from this Department has visited the Caribbean since 1 May 1997.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations(a) he and (b) his ministers have received on genetically modified organisms and the biotechnology industry from the US Government. [72761]

  Mr. Battle
  My Ministerial colleagues and I have regular contacts with US Government representatives across the whole range of issues for which we are responsible. Trade in genetically modified crops and the biotechnology industry are two subjects amongst a great many which have been raised in those contacts.

  Recycling
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has made to the EU regarding the harmonisation of recycling requirements and certification for all firms selling their products within the EU. [73653]

  Mr. Battle
  Prevention of distortions in the Internal Market is a key objective in the Government's consideration of any proposed EU measure to promote 574
  recycling, and will be among the issues that the UK will ensure is brought out during the discussions now taking place in the EU Recycling Forum, where options for improving the competitiveness of the recycling industries are currently being considered.

  The Packaging and Packaging Waste Directive (94/62/EC), the only Directive containing recycling targets so far adopted, harmonises Member States' management of packaging waste. It also lays down certain "essential requirements" with which packaging must comply before being allowed to circulate within the Community. These provisions in the Directive were transposed into UK law in the Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 1998.

  Digital Economy (Special Representative)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) budget and (b) resources will be available to the Special Representative on the Digital Economy. [72800]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]The detail of remuneration and day to day support for the e-Envoy will be agreed with the successful candidate. They will also be expected to draw resources broadly from this Department and others in Whitehall.

  New York Fashion Show
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his Department is doing to promote British fashion at the New York Fashion Show. [72705]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]My Department has taken many steps to promote British Fashion in the US market over the past year. Notably a major British promotion of SAKS Fifth Avenue which focused on fashion, culture, food and design took place over a week in September 1998.

  Internal Market
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the internal document on the development of the internal market. [73268]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]I am not entirely certain to which document the hon. Member is referring. A copy of the European Commission's latest document charting progress in the internal market, published in October 1998 and entitled Single Market Scoreboard No.3, can be found in the Library of the House. An explanatory memorandum on this document was submitted to the Parliamentary scrutiny committees on 11 December. I understand that the Commission intends to issue shortly a communication which assesses progress on the Single Market Action Plan. When published, this will be placed in the Library of the House according to normal procedures, although I expect that it will be available sooner via the European Commission's website.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will estimate how many workers in the
  575
  Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency will benefit from the implementation of the national minimum wage. [73373]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Jeff Ennis, dated 1 March 1999:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question requesting information about the number of people who will benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in the Barnsley East and Mexborough constituency.
  The New Earnings Survey (NES) can provide earnings data for small geographical areas. Estimates of the proportion of people who are currently earning below the proposed minimum wage for a range of geographical areas have been placed in the House of Commons Library under the title of 'New Earnings Survey (NES) 1998—National Minimum Wage Distribution Tables'. However, figures for workers in Barnsley East and Mexborough earning less than the minimum wage are not given since the sample size is too small to provide reliable estimates.
  I will arrange for a copy of this letter to be placed in the Library.

  Petrol and Diesel Fuel
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what cost compliance assessment has been made for Directive 98/70/EC. [72532]

  Dr. Reid
  I have been asked to reply.

  A compliance cost assessment was provided to the House under cover of a Supplementary Explanatory Memorandum (SEM) dated 15 January 1998 reference number 8822/97 on the European Parliament and Council Directive relating to the quality of petrol and diesel fuel. A copy of the SEM is available in the House Library.

HEALTH

  Mental Health Services
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many mental illness hospital beds have been(a) opened and (b) closed in each health authority in England and Wales in the last year for which figures are available. [72579]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not available centrally.

  A national inquiry has been set up to give advice on the future number, mix and use of NHS beds in England. This inquiry has recently been extended to include psychiatric services which will cover the whole age range from child and adolescent mental health services through to services for older people and to consider services for learning disabilities. The inquiry's findings will be published in spring 1999.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent in England and Wales in the last year on the care and treatment of patients suffering from schizophrenia; and what percentage that figure represents of total expenditure on(a) mental and (b) all health services. [72578]
  576
  Mr. Hutton
  Over £2,767 million was spent on National Health Service care and treatment of patients suffering from a mental illness in 1997–98 in England, but we cannot break this down to separately identify each condition such as schizophrenia. The total expenditure on the purchase of healthcare for 1997–98 was nearly £28,956 million.

  Ministerial Meetings (US Ministers)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times Ministers in his Department have met their counterparts in the US Government since 1 June 1998; and if he will list the(a) dates, (b) locations, (c) ministers involved and (d) names of the US counterparts at each meeting. [71984]

  Ms Jowell
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met the United States Secretary of State for Health, Donna Shalala, in Washington DC on 21 October 1998. No other meetings have taken place.

  Respite Care
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, following the Devon High Court judgment, what plans he has to amend the eligibility criteria used by health authorities to make decisions on joint funding of respite care to include those in need of nursing home care. [72767]

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

  Medical Research Ethics Committee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) local medical research ethics committees, (b) members on each committee and their qualifications and (c) clinical trials each one has authorised in the last five years; and if he will place a summary of the result of each trial in the Library. [73239]

  Ms Jowell
  The latest available list of Local Research Ethics Committees (LRECs) has been placed in the Library. Information about LREC members, and clinical trials authorised by LRECs is available only from health authorities.

  Since 1991, LRECs are established under Departmental guidance. Each health authority is required to set up at least one LREC, and there are approximately 211 operating in England. In addition, Multi-Centre Research Ethics Committees (MRECs) were established in 1997 and there is one MREC attached to each English region, one in Scotland and one in Wales.
  577
  LRECs have eight to twelve members and should include hospital medical staff, nursing staff, general practitioners and lay persons who are appointed in a personal capacity and recognised for their experience and sound judgment in their respective fields. MRECs have 15 to 18 members from similar backgrounds to LREC members (some may also be serving LREC members).

  Information about clinical trials authorised by an LREC is available from the annual report which each is required to submit to the health authority. These annual reports should also name the members and give details of the number of research proposals considered. MRECs submit their annual reports to the my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which must include a list of proposals considered. MRECs considered about 600 applications in 1998.

  To achieve greater coherence and uniformity of practice in the operation of Research Ethics Committees we are currently conducting a review of the system as a whole.

  Prostheses Users
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps his Department has taken to ensure that prostheses users are able to obtain out of area treatment after April 1999 if their local limb centre cannot meet their needs for comfort, capability and cosmesis. [73182]

  Mr. Hutton
  The arrangements for commissioning patient services from 1 April 1999 will ensure that all referrals to National Health Service hospitals are covered by either the new long-term service agreements or the new arrangements for access to specialised services.

  Where there are consistent patterns of referrals to a service, whether a specialised service or more locally, these are being built into service agreements. Cases that do not fit this will be covered by the new arrangements for out of area treatments.

  All out of area treatment referrals will be covered by the standards for quality and effectiveness specified in the main commissioner's service agreement and will be treated under the same agreements and on exactly the same basis. Prior approval will not be required for out of area treatment.

  Under the new arrangements, general practitioners and consultants will retain the clinical freedom to refer patients for the most appropriate treatment. However, they should explore fully the scope to make maximum cost-effective use of local NHS facilities before contemplating recourse to non-NHS provision.

  The decision to commission services provided by non-NHS facilities will continue to be made locally and will be made in the interests of the patient.

  Smoking-related Diseases
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with his European counterparts on the cost of health services for the treatment of patients with smoking-related diseases. [73179]

  Ms Jowell
  We have had no discussion on this specific aspect of smoking policy.
  578
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate his Department has made of the annual cost to the NHS of the treatment given to patients with smoking-related diseases. [73180]

  Ms Jowell
  The annual cost to the National Health Service of treating smoking-related disease is estimated to be between £1.4 billion and £1.7 billion for England.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what official visits he, his ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; who they met; and what was discussed. [73456]

  Ms Jowell
  No official visits have been made to Zimbabwe by Ministers or officials of this Department since May 1997.

  NHS Staff (Pay)
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the increase in pay between 1984 and 1998 for NHS staff covered by the Pay Review Body; and what was the pay rise for the same period for those NHS professional staff not covered by the Pay Review Body separately identifying(a) laboratory scientists, (b) technicians, (c) clinical psychologists, (d) pharmacists and (e) speech and language therapists. [71806]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The percentage increase in basic pay rates for National Health Service staff covered by the Pay Review Body and those five groups not covered by the Pay Review Body between 1984 and 1998 is set out in the table.

  Percentage

  Name of profession

  Minimum

  Maximum

  Doctors

  125

  126

  D grade Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors (and 1984 equivalent)

  138

  123

  Professions Allied to Medicine

  146

  140

  Medical Laboratory Scientific Officers

  137

  122

  Technicians

  146

  145

  Qualified Clinical Psychologists

  113

  145

  Speech and Language Therapists

  158

  170

  Hospital Pharmacists

  118

  116

  Source:

  Advanced letters

  Primary Care Groups
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what date he plans to have completed the collection of information relating to the composition of primary care group boards. [73801]

  Mr. Denham
  The process for collecting the information relating to the composition of primary care boards will commence shortly. The data collection will be completed once all board members have been appointed.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the number of NHS dentists. [73204]
  579
  Mr. Denham
  The investing in dentistry (IID) initiative, which we launched in September 1997 is designed to help improve access to National Health Service dentistry. IID provides grants to enable dentists to expand existing practices or to set up new ones in those areas of the country where the provision of NHS dental services is inadequate and oral health inequalities are most acute.

  IVF Treatment
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 8 December 1999, when he expects to send a substantive reply to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury. [73536]

  Ms Jowell
  A reply setting out the current position on IVF and the Department's plans for re-assessment of infertility services in light of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists guidance will be sent shortly.

  Speech Therapists (West Sussex)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of speech therapists required in West Sussex; and how many are in post at present. [73904]

  Mr. Hutton
  Estimates of the number of speech therapists required in West Sussex are not available centrally.

  The latest information available is that 60 whole-time equivalent staff, rounded to the nearest ten, are classed as therapists working in the speech and language therapy area of work in West Sussex. West Sussex includes West Sussex Health Authority, Crawley and Horsham National Health Service Trust, Worthing Priority Care NHS Trust, Chichester Priority Care Services NHS Trust, Worthing and Southlands Hospitals NHS Trust, The Royal Sussex NHS Trust and Mid-Sussex NHS Trust. This information is taken from the Department of Health Annual Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many air miles have been earned by him and each of his Ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73333]

  Ms Jowell
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of air miles was set out by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.

  No air miles have been earned by Ministers in this Department on official business.

  Schizophrenia
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people with a main diagnosis of schizophrenia psychoses were discharged from mental illness hospitals in England in each of the last three years; and how many of them were taken into local authority residential care in the same year. [73362]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information is shown in the table. The figures provide information on the number of discharges 580
  from National Health Service trusts over the last three years where the patient was discharged to local authority care following inpatient care for schizophrenia. It is not possible to estimate the total numbers of patients who may have been referred to local authority residential care up to a year following their discharge from hospital.

  Estimated five discharges from NHS trusts with a primary diagnosis of schizophrenia (F20–F29), 1995–96 to 1997–98 England

  Year

  All discharges

  Intended discharge destination Local Authority care

  1995–96

  40,390

  540

  1996–97

  31,850

  430

  1997–98

  30,190

  350

  Note:

  Data has been rounded

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Service (Reserved Posts)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the criteria used to assign posts classified as reserved within the Civil Service. [72648]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Article 48 of the EC Treaty is concerned with the free movement of workers between Member States, but it contains a derogation in Article 48(4) which permits Member States to reserve to their own nationals posts which constitute"employment in the public service".
  The term
  "employment in the public service"
  has been interpreted by the European Court as meaning posts which involve direct or indirect participation in the exercise of powers conferred by public law and duties designed to safeguard the general interests of the State or of other public authorities.

  These criteria are applied on a case-by-case basis in determining whether a particular post in the civil service is reserved to a UK national.

  Ministerial Group on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the terms of reference of the Misc 6 Cabinet Committee and his responsibility for it as it relates to genetically modified crops. [73121]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The terms of reference of the Ministerial Group on Biotechnology and Genetic Modification, which I chair, are:To consider issues relating to biotechnology, in particular those relating to genetic modification.

  Public Appointments
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will put to the House proposals for a system of confirmation hearings for public appointments. [72138]
  581
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  No. The Committee on Standards in Public Life recommended that ministerial accountability and selection on merit should be the key elements of the appointment system for public bodies, overseen by an independent Commissioner for Public Appointments. The Government have accepted this recommendation and have no plans to propose confirmation hearings.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Montserrat
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessments she has made of toxic air pollution levels in Montserrat; and if she will make a statement. [73226]

  Clare Short
  We have since 1997 been providing health warnings and monitoring the effects of the ash on health in Montserrat. Preliminary studies into the toxicity of the ash and the respiratory health of children on Montserrat have recently been completed. The results have been disseminated on the island via radio and information leaflets. Ash levels continue to be monitored daily from various points on the island. We plan to support further research on ash toxicity later this year. Further clinical surveys of Montserratians living on the island will also be undertaken. We have sought proposals for this work and are improving facilities on the island so that the work can be undertaken to a satisfactory standard.

  Sudan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions her Department is having with the Government of the Sudan; and if she will make a statement. [73610]

  Clare Short
  We keep in touch with the Sudanese authorities' views on humanitarian issues through our frequent dialogues with UN and donor government partners. But we have had no substantive bilateral discussions on these matters with the Government of Sudan since they withdrew their Ambassador and Deputy from London and the consequent temporary withdrawal of British staff from our Embassy in Khartoum last August.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on British aid to the Sudan. [73941]

  Clare Short
  We were a key donor to the 1998 crisis. The UN 1999 Inter Agency Consolidated Appeal recently issued and we discussed it with other multilateral and bilateral donors at a meeting of the Operation Lifeline Sudan International Advisory Committee on 12 February. There will continue to be substantial humanitarian needs in Sudan this year and the UN World Food Programme (WFP) currently holds enough food stock until at least early summer. We continue to press WFP to make full use of all delivery methods in order to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of good aid delivery and targeting. British aid to Sudan will focus on supporting the most vulnerable groups of people, particularly in those areas in the south where the situation following last year's crisis is most fragile.
  582
  We also continue to press all parties to the civil war in Sudan to come to a negotiated settlement. Peace is the only long-term solution to the continuing suffering.

  Transnational Corporations
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to establish an international code of conduct for transnational corporations in developing countries. [73280]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no specific plans for such a code. However, the Government are participating fully in the current review of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, a set of recommendations representing Governments' firm expectations for multinational enterprise behaviour. A key question being addressed in the review is how the Guidelines relate to multinational enterprise activity outside OECD territories. We support also the use of voluntary codes of conduct by companies. Those based on internationally agreed core labour standards can bring improvements to the lives of millions of the poorest people.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what official visits she, her ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73454]

  Clare Short
  I visited Zimbabwe in January 1998 to meet the Department for International Development (DFID) staff in Harare. I also met the right hon. Herbert Murerwa, Minister of Finance, and discussed with him our White Paper on International Development as well as economic issues. Senior DFID officials have also visited Zimbabwe, to brief Harare-based staff on management and policy issues, and to discuss our development assistance programme with Zimbabwean Ministers and officials.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects in which British Government aid(a) workers and (b) advisers have been involved in Zimbabwe. [73297]

  Clare Short
  All development assistance projects funded by the Department for International Development are managed by British Government officials. I have already placed a list of projects funded in Zimbabwe in the Library of the House, as promised, in my answer of 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 15.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what representations she has made to the World Bank concerning developments in Zimbabwe. [73730]

  Clare Short
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]My officials in Washington work closely with the World Bank to address poverty in Zimbabwe. I am in continuous contact with my officials.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those countries in receipt of British aid which(a) have a record of

  583
  civil rights abuses, and (b) do not have a democratically-elected Government, indicating in each case the amount of aid they received in the last year for which figures are available. [73682]

  Clare Short
  Throughout our work, we seek to enhance respect for human rights, particularly those of the poorest. We consider civil and political rights and broader governance issues when we assess the scope for partnerships with developing countries and when we draw up country strategy papers. The position is kept continuously under review, but no country has a perfect record of respect for civil or other human rights and DFID work is concentrated in the poorest countries where it is difficult to secure all human rights for all citizens. Completed strategy papers are publicly available and provide details of progress to date and the prospects for development and partnerships. Full information of DFID's bilateral programmes in 1993–94—1997–98 was published in "Statistics on International Development" in December 1999.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Civil Servants (Misconduct)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will list the offences or acts of misconduct under which a civil servant in her Department could have his pension removed or reduced; and how often this has happened during the last five years. [70780]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Forfeiture Act 1970 provides for the automatic loss of pension rights where a person is convicted of treason.

  The rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme (Northern Ireland PCSPS (NI)), which provides pension benefits for staff in the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICs), give the Department of Finance and Personnel, the administrators of the Scheme, discretionary power to withhold benefits where a civil servant or former civil servant is convicted:

  (i) of one or more offences under the Official Secrets Acts 1911 to 1989 for which the person concerned has been sentenced to a term of imprisonment of at least ten years or has been sentenced on the same occasion to two or more consecutive terms amounting in the aggregate to at least ten years or more; or

  (ii) of an offence in connection with any employment to which the scheme applies, and a Minister of the Crown certifies that the offence is gravely injurious to the interests of the State or is liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service.

  The rules regarding the Home Civil Service (HCS) are as follows:
  Under the rules of the Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, the Minister for the Civil Service has the power to withhold pension benefits where a Civil Servant or former Civil Servant is convicted under the Official Secrets Act 1911 to 1989 to at least 10 years in prison or convicted of offences deigned to have been gravely injurious to the State or be liable to lead to serious loss of confidence in the public service.

  The above rules apply to the Home Civil Servants employed in the Northern Ireland Office.
  584
  The discretionary forfeiture provisions, which apply to both the NICS and the HCS, have not been applied in the last five years.

  Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what controls exist in respect of the importation of those animals which are subject to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 into Northern Ireland. [71420]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The import of those animals into Northern Ireland which are subject to the Dangerous Wild Animals Act 1976 is governed by the Importation of Animals Order (Northern Ireland) 1986 made under the Diseases of Animals (Northern Ireland) Order 1981. There are further legislative provisions setting controls in relation to the import of animals susceptible to rabies and to the import of animals covered by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). These controls are in line with those in Great Britain.

  Worktrain Programme
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how many trainees are(a) on the new Worktrain Programme and (b) what was the average number of trainees in each month on the Action for Community Employment scheme in the last 12 months for which figures are available; [72542]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of the Worktrain Programme; and if she will make a statement; [72543]

  (3) what special help will be made available to organisations which have used Action for Community Employment in order to help them adjust to the loss of funding. [72544]

  Mr. Ingram
  Responsibility for these matters has been delegated to the Training and Employment Agency under its Chief Executive, Mr. Ian Walters. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Ian Walters to Rev. Martin Smyth, dated 1 March 1999.
  Parliamentary question 72542–72544
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland has asked me as Chief Executive of the Training and Employment Agency to reply to your questions about the Action for Community Employment (ACE) and Worktrain programmes.
  Parliamentary question 72542

  (a) We are planning to introduce Worktrain on 1 August 1999 if not sooner. Currently there are no trainees participating in the programme.

  (b) The number of trainees in the ACE programme during 1998 is shown in the attached table.

  Parliamentary question 72543
  A major review of the provision for the long-term unemployed and an independent evaluation of ACE highlighted the need for the programme to be better targeted, tailored to the individual needs and focused on helping people into permanent jobs. The introduction of Worktrain reflects the findings of this research and the allocation of resources in accordance with Government objectives and priorities.
  The effectiveness of the programme will be fully evaluated.

  585
  Parliamentary question 72544
  I am pleased to say that help is being offered on several fronts to ACE organisations.
  Existing contracts with ACE providers have been extended to 31 July from their original expiry date of 31 March. This extension will allow ACE organisations more time to prepare for New Deal and Worktrain and to take business decisions about their future.
  The Management Committees of organisations which might find it hard to survive are being encouraged to urgently consider the possibilities of amalgamating with others, subcontracting and, of course, the preparation of bids for Worktrain. The Agency is working as quickly as possible to implement the tendering and contracting process for Worktrain to minimise any period of uncertainty for organisations.
  For those organisations already part of New Deal Consortia, there will be an increasing role for them to play under the Voluntary and Environmental Sector Options of the New Deal for 18–24 year olds and the Intensive Activity Period of the New Deal for the over 25s. As ACE numbers decline, New Deal numbers will increase, thereby helping to maintain an equilibrium within organisations.
  Organisations are also being encouraged to work together to develop innovative proposals within the framework of Worktrain. There is scope for new approaches customised to meet the needs and circumstances of local communities. Contracts will be awarded on the basis of competitive tendering and ACE organisations, either individually or as a member of a partnership, will be well placed to bid.
  The Minister, Mr. McFall, has established a cross departmental team which reports directly to him. The team is tasked with offering advice and whatever support may be possible to effect a smooth transition from ACE to New Deal and Worktrain.
  I hope you find this reply useful.

  ACE average occupancy January 1998-December 1998

  Month

  Occupancy

  January

  4,201

  February

  4,219

  March

  4,183

  April

  4,172

  May

  4,063

  June

  3,944

  July

  3,781

  August

  3,700

  September

  3,712

  October

  3,756

  November

  3,776

  December

  3,838

  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will publish waiting lists for hospital treatment and consultant appointments monthly. [72351]

  Mr. McFall
  In Northern Ireland waiting list figures are produced quarterly and are routinely available on request. I have asked officials within the Department of Health and Social Services to make arrangements for this information to be published each quarter.

  Sinn Fein Members (Ministerial Appointments)
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will make it her policy to oppose Sinn Fein members taking up ministerial jobs in Northern Ireland before a start is made on decommissioning their arms and explosives. [72605]
  586
  Marjorie Mowlam
  The Government's policy on the Belfast Agreement is clear—all parties must live up to all their commitments. This means that decommissioning must take place and it means that the new institutions of government in Northern Ireland must be established.

  As my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister, said in response to a question from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), 24 February 1999, Official Report, column 388, the whole of the Agreement must be implemented in full and we must know that violence has been given up for good. It is unreasonable to expect people to sit down together unless they know that that is the case.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Sugar
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to his answer of 11 January 1999,Official Report, column 120, what assessment he has made of the extent of competition within the UK sugar industry; and what assessment he has made of the impact of the sugar import levy on that competition. [66671]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have made no assessment of the extent of competition within the UK sugar industry. This is a matter for the competition authorities.

  EU import tariffs restrict imports of sugar from third countries, with the important exception of some 1.6 million tonnes per annum under preferential agreements with African, Caribbean and Pacific countries and India, most of which come to the UK. In accordance with the Uruguay Round agreements, these tariffs will have to be cut by 20 per cent. by 2000–01.

  The Government believe that the EU sugar regime imposes unnecessarily high prices on consumers and sugar-using industries, and will be seeking significant changes when it comes up for reform in 2001.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Ministry has made of the research work on genetically modified potatoes undertaken by Dr. Pusztai whilst at the Rowett Research Institute. [70046]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]I have been asked to reply as responsibility for this subject lies with The Scottish Office.

  The Department has itself made no assessment of the work in question, but following the publicity which surrounded this project the Rowett Research Institute arranged last August for an audit committee, including external experts, to carry out a full analysis of all data available. The audit committee concluded that the data did not support any suggestion that the consumption by rats of transgenic potatoes expressing the lectin GNA (Galanthus nivalis) has an effect on growth, organ development or the immune system.
  587
  The report of the Audit Committee was published by the Director of the Rowett Research Institute in October 1998.

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

  Agriculture Council (Brussels)
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome was of the Agriculture Council held in Brussels on 22 and 23 February; and if he will make a statement. [73486]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I represented the United Kingdom, accompanied by my noble Friends the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries for Scotland and for Northern Ireland and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales, at a meeting of the European Union Agriculture Council in Brussels beginning on 22 February.

  The Council embarked upon negotiations on the Commission's proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. These comprise proposals for reform of the arable crops, beef, milk and wine regimes, proposals on rural development and on common measures affecting direct payments to farmers, and a proposals concerning the financing of the CAP. My objective in the negotiations was to secure ambitious and worthwhile reforms in all sectors and to ensure that, by 2006, CAP spending is stabilised in real terms at its current level.

  By the early hours of Friday morning, after several days of intensive negotiation, the conditions were not yet ripe for an overall agreement to be reached. The Council will accordingly meet again on Thursday 4 March to continue the negotiations.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Teacher Training
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for 1998–99 the current number of applicants for(a) primary and (b) secondary teacher training courses including PGCE by (i) gender, (ii) age and (iii) subject. [69902]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As at 6 February 1999, the current number of postgraduate applicants to primary and secondary PGCE courses is as follows:

  Current applicants to postgraduate initial teacher training courses, by gender, phase and subject, in England and Wales, academic year of entry 1999–2000

  As at 6 February 1999

  Male

  Female

  Primary1

  1,992

  9,702

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  223

  228

  English

  343

  1,114

  Science

  392

  580

  Languages

  144

  656

  Technology

  183

  187

  History

  500

  526

  Geography

  210

  279

  Physical education

  589

  502

  588

  Current applicants to postgraduate initial teacher training courses, by gender, phase and subject, in England and Wales, academic year of entry 1999–2000

  As at 6 February 1999

  Male

  Female

  Art

  124

  373

  Music

  90

  178

  Religious education

  91

  244

  Other

  104

  165

  Total secondary

  2,993

  5,032

  Overall total

  4,985

  14,734

  1 GTTR have set a deadline on 1999–2000 primary applications of 15 December 1998. Applications received after this date will be considered if the institution still has vacancies for the named course.

  Note:

  Age of applicant is not available

  Source:

  Graduate Teacher Training Registry (GTTR)

  At the corresponding date in 1998, secondary applicants to 1998–99 PGCE courses made up about half of the final number of secondary postgraduate applicants. Over the last three years there has been a trend for postgraduate applications increasingly to be made later in the year.

  Information is not available about applicants to undergraduate ITT, but the following table gives information about applications as at 5 February 1999. Undergraduate applicants can make up to six applications.

  Current applications1 to undergraduate initial teacher training courses, by gender, phase and subject, in England and Wales, academic year of entry 1999–2000

  As at 5 February 1999

  Male

  Female

  Primary

  7,867

  48,458

  Secondary

  Mathematics

  102

  145

  English

  22

  98

  Science

  115

  156

  Languages

  7

  22

  Technology

  436

  290

  History

  0

  0

  Geography

  7

  17

  Physical education

  2,767

  2,613

  Art

  22

  64

  Music

  14

  6

  Religious education

  3

  15

  Other

  578

  553

  Total secondary

  4,073

  3,979

  Overall total

  11,940

  52,437

  1 UCAS count up to six applications per applicant.

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS)

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will develop fast track PGCE qualifications for British teachers who have taught with non-PGCE qualifications abroad. [73199]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The new employment-based training routes—the Graduate and Registered Teacher Programmes—which began last year, enable trainees to work as teachers at the same time as following an approved training programme designed to enable them to gain Qualified Teacher Status. In the case of people with
  589
  relevant teaching experience, which can include experience overseas, graduates can gain Qualified Teacher Status in as little as three months.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what systems he has in place to ensure that policies being developed by his Department are subject to a crime impact(a) assessment and (b) audit and are not likely to lead to enhanced criminal opportunities. [72692]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]Government Departments are co-operating on policy development and, therefore, I work closely with other Ministers on any likely implications for crime of new developments, as indicated by research.

  As far as my Department is concerned, all our policies should support Home Office Aim 1, which is to reduce crime and fear of crime. Giving everyone the chance, through education, training and work to realise their full potential and thereby contributing to the building of an inclusive and fair society supports this aim. Our research programme monitors and evaluates the effects of new policy and other interventions.

  School Funding (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the provision of capital funding for schools in Cumbria. [72668]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]The following table shows the total amount of capital funding made available to Cumbria Local Education Authority since 1997–98. There are a significant number of Grant Maintained schools in Cumbria, for which the Funding Agency for Schools has funding responsibility. I have asked the Agency to arrange for a reply to be sent to the right hon. Member.

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

  Capital allocations for Cumbria Local Education Authority

  £000

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Annual Capital Guideline

  3,450

  3,252

  3,720

  New Deal for Schools

  598

  856

  —

  Infant Class Size

  Reduction

  —

  113

  —

  Energy Improvement

  —

  119

  —

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  —

  143

  —

  Supplementary Credit

  Approvals (excluding Schools Renewal Challenge Fund)

  47

  416

  —

  Schools Renewal

  150

  —

  —

  Challenge Fund

  Total

  4,245

  4,899

  3,720

  NVQs
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of adults are qualified to NVQ(a) level 3 and (b) level 4; and what the figures were in each year from 1992. [73389]

  Mr. Mudie
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]The information requested is contained in the following table. Figures for 1992 are not available on a comparable basis with later years.

  Highest qualification held by people of working age, United Kingdom, 1993–98.

  Percentage

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Number of people working age (000s)

  33,242

  35,308

  35,407

  35,535

  35,678

  35,807

  NVQ level 5

  2

  2

  2

  3

  3

  3

  NVQ level 4

  17

  17

  18

  17

  17

  18

  NVQ level 3

  15

  16

  16

  16

  17

  18

  NVQ level 2

  20

  21

  21

  21

  22

  22

  Below NVQ level 2

  19

  21

  22

  20

  22

  21

  No qualification

  27

  23

  21

  22

  19

  18

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, Spring quarters.

  Education Funding (North Yorkshire)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on levels of education funding in North Yorkshire schools following the setting of the education standard spending assessment. [73974]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply of 23 February 1999,Official Report, column 281.

  Further Education Colleges
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to increase the number of staff with engineering assessor and verifier qualifications in further education colleges. [73208]

  Mr. Mudie
  We have no such plans.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what plans the Government have to introduce(a) best practice in strategic planning and (b) evaluation in course development in further education colleges; [73203]

  (2) what plans he has to improve the pass rates for GCSE courses in further education colleges; [73206]

  (3) what action he proposes to improve retention rates in further education colleges. [73207]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Government are strongly committed to raising standards in further education. We have increased funding for the sector and are introducing measures to secure year on year improvements in achievement across the board and to promote better retention rates in colleges.
  591
  In particular, we are introducing a new Further Education Standards Fund from April 1999, worth £115 million over the next two years. This will provide additional and targeted financial support for improvement plans prepared by colleges causing significant concern; support for other colleges to implement improvements following a Further Education Funding Council inspection; and support for all colleges for the professional development and training of staff and governors.

  The Fund will also be used to support the dissemination of good practice in all its forms by colleges identified as beacons of excellence.

  These policies to secure better standards will be taken forward in close partnership with the further education sector, including key national bodies such as the Further Education Funding Council, the Further Education Development Agency, the Association of Colleges and the Further Education National Training Organisation.

  Kingsbridge Primary School, South Devon
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what additional funds he plans to make available for essential works to the Kingsbridge Primary School, South Devon, following its application under the New Deal scheme of 3 February. [73650]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We expect allocations under the 3rd phase of the New Deal for Schools Programme to be announced at the end of March.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to reform the teachers' pay system. [73196]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government's proposals for reforming the teachers' pay system were set out in the Green Paper teachers: meeting the challenge of change (CM 4161), published on 3 December 1998, and the Technical Consultation Document on Pay and Performance Management, published on 1 February 1999. The consultation period on both documents ends on 31 March 1999.

  Teacher Recruitment
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to set up a teaching recruitment helpline. [73197]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Teacher Training Agency already operate a telephone Teaching Information line and website providing advice and information for those wishing to train as teachers. The information line received 72,841 calls in 1998. Responsibility for advertising vacancies and managing recruitment and selection rests with schools and local authorities and vacant posts are widely advertised in the national and local press and on the internet. In October last year, I announced £3 million of funding over the next year for a network of local advisers who will assist schools with recruitment and co-ordinate local recruitment efforts.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will provide a breakdown of teacher requirement and recruitment rates on a regional basis. [73200]
  592
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows the headcount of full-time teachers in service in the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector at 31 March 1996 together with recruitment rates1 by region.

  Government office region of service

  Teachers in service

  Recruitment rate

  North East

  23,000

  7.5

  North West

  61,000

  8.4

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  44,000

  9.1

  East Midlands

  35,000

  8.4

  West Midlands

  48,000

  9.4

  Eastern

  46,000

  10.6

  London

  57,000

  12.1

  South East

  63,000

  10.6

  South West

  39,000

  9.7

  England

  418,000

  9.8

  1 Recruitment rate is based on entrants to teaching in a region as a percentage of full-time and part-time teachers in service. "Entrants" means new entrants to teaching, returners to teaching, maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector teachers changing region, teachers moving to the maintained nursery, primary, secondary and special sector from other sectors, either in the same or a different region.

  New Deal (Public Sector)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to extend the New Deal within public sector employment. [73202]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The public sector has an important role in the labour market and we are keen to involve this sector in New Deal. We are working closely with public sector employers to encourage offers of public sector jobs to New Deal participants. However, the large majority of jobs in the economy are in the private sector, and we would expect this balance to be broadly reflected in job opportunities offered to New Deal participants.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what assessment he has made of the impact on his Department's policies of the goods and services provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to be implemented in October 1999. [71278]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are acting to ensure that the Department's policies meet the needs of disabled people and that we comply with our legal requirements. The Department already takes positive steps to make it easier for disabled people to make use of its services. We shall continue to do so, not only by complying fully with new duties in the Disability Discrimination Act but by aiming to exceed them where appropriate.

  The Department will ensure that all new and existing policies and programmes are assessed for any adverse impact not only on disabled people, but on any minority or disadvantaged group. That includes the need to ensure that our policies and their outcomes comply with the law. Where necessary we shall act to remove or reduce the impact on these groups. This complements the guidance

  593
  "Policy Appraisal for Equal Treatment" which the Cabinet Office issued to all Government Departments in November 1998, and which was signed jointly by my right hon. Friends the Minister for Women, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment and the Home Secretary.

  Asbestosis (North-west)
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have been awarded benefits related to asbestosis in(a) Bolton and (b) the north-west in the last five-year period for which figures are available; and, of these, how many previously worked in the locomotive industry. [72904]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Industrial Injuries Benefit is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Ms Ruth Kelly, dated March 1999:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people have been awarded benefits related to asbestosis in (a) Bolton and (b) the North West in the last five year period for which figures are available; and, of these, how many previously worked in the locomotive industry.
  The information is not available in the format requested. Data is only available for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit (IIDB). Information for Bolton is not available as figures for IIDB are collated by Benefit Agency (BA) Area Directorate which do not correspond to Parliamentary constituency or Local Authority boundaries. The BA Area Directorate which includes Bolton also includes Salford and other areas of Greater Manchester. Data about injuries specific to the locomotive industry are not kept.
  The information that is available is shown on the enclosed table.
  I am sorry I could not be of more help on this occasion.

  Industrial injuries disablement benefit asbestosis assessments in the North West

  Period

  Number of assessments

  1995

  140

  1996

  100

  1997

  104

  January to June 1998

  33

  Notes:

  Figures are provisional and subject to change

  Figures include Pneumoconiosis (PD D1), where the attributable agent has been asbestos, Diffuse Mesothelioma (PD D3), Primary Carcinoma of the Lung with accompanying evidence of one or both of the following: (a) asbestos (b) unilateral or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening (PD D8) and Unilateral or bilateral diffuse pleural thickening (PD D9).

  Figures for the North West are available by Government Office Region (GOR). The North West GOR covers the counties of Cumbria, Cheshire, Greater Manchester and Lancashire.

  Source:

  DSS (Analytical Services Division) 100% Data.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate how many families in the Barnsley, East and Mexborough constituency will benefit from the increase in child benefit. [73375]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Child Benefit is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to my hon. Friend.
  594
  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Jeff Ennis, dated March 1999:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking if I will estimate how many families in the Barnsley East and Mexborough constituency will benefit from the increase in child benefit.
  Unfortunately the information to identify families, by region, who are receiving Child Benefit is not readily available. These figures could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I can however explain the new rates of Child Benefit from April 1999. They will be £14.40 for the eldest child and £9.60 for each subsequent child. The increase for the eldest child includes the extra £2.50 a week announced in the March budget, plus uprating. This is an overall increase of £3.25 for a family with two children.
  I am sorry I could not have been of more help on this occasion but I am pleased to have had the opportunity to comment.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the total amount of money lost through fraud to his Department's budget for 1997–98, indicating that amount as a percentage of the budget for that year; and if he will break down these figures by individual benefits. [73969]

  Mr. Timms
  The Green Paper "Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business; securing the future" set out the difficulties of measuring a covert activity such as fraud. Previous work reviewing individuals' claims shows that at least £2 billion per year is lost through fraud. This figure is based on a sample of cases where we have obtained firm evidence or an admission of fraud. There are strong indications that a further £3 billion is lost. This figure is based on a sample of cases where there is strong suspicion, but it cannot actually be shown that the claimant was guilty of fraud.

  In other cases still, claim reviews have raised suspicions that there could be fraud, but the evidence is weak—for example, where people have been observed to be living above their means. Cases of this kind account for a further £2 billion per year in benefit claims. In addition, customer and staff errors lead to about £750 million being overpaid each year and £600 million being underpaid.

  £ billion

  Amount

  Confirmed fraud

  2

  Strong suspicion of fraud

  3

  Low suspicion of fraud

  2

  The annexe to the Green Paper showed the estimates of the levels of fraud available at the time. Since the Green Paper, we have published further estimates for Housing Benefit and Jobseeker's Allowance (Contributory). These estimated levels of fraud and strong suspicion of fraud at £610 million for Housing Benefit and £47 million for Jobseeker's Allowance (Contributory).

  We indicated in the Green Paper that we intended to overhaul how fraud was calculated. Working with the National Audit Office, we have developed and refined our methodology. We now have a continuous monthly programme of reviews using random samples of Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) cases in each area of the Benefits Agency. The results from the first six months were published in November and showed

  595
  around £640 million and £281 million fraud and error in Income Support and Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) respectively. We have further investigated those cases where there was strong suspicion that the benefit was wrong to see whether the payment was in fact wrong. The results of this investigation will give a more complete picture of fraud and error in these benefits.

  We shall extend this new methodology to other benefits to provide a complete picture.

  Income Support
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if a person of working age, who has been refused incapacity benefit, will no longer have 20 per cent. deducted from the personal allowance element of his income support, pending the outcome of his appeal to the ITS. [73758]

  Angela Eagle
  There are no plans to change the Income Support rules.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the rates of income support for pensioners would be in(a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000, if they had been increased in (i) April 1998 and (ii) 1999 in line with average earnings. [73395]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Weekly rates of Income Support based on average earnings uprating from April 1998

  £

  April 1998

  April 1999 (a)

  April 1999 (b)

  Single aged 60–74

  71.90

  73.60

  75.10

  Single aged 75–79

  74.20

  75.95

  77.55

  Single aged 80+

  79.10

  81.00

  82.65

  Couple one/both 60–74

  111.60

  114.40

  116.65

  Couple one/both 75–79

  114.80

  117.55

  120.00

  Couple one/both 80+

  120.30

  123.30

  125.75

  Notes:

  1. Average earnings growth has been estimated at 4.5 per cent. in each year, based on Treasury estimates.

  2. In column (a) the rates for April 1999 are based on uprating the actual rates which applied in 1998 by average earnings. In column (b), the rates for 1999–2000 are based on the rates for 1998–99 uprated by average earnings, and therefore show the cumulative effect of two successive earnings upratings.

  3. The weekly rates in the table are the total of the appropriate personal allowance and pensioner premium before any adjustments for other income, and do not include any additional amounts which may apply in a particular case.

  4. In the case of a couple, the age of the elder partner determines the rate which applies.

  Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill
  Dr. Moonie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill conforms with all the provisions of the Human Rights Act 1998, with particular reference to article 9, Clause 11 concerning Christian conscience; and if he will make a statement. [73535]
  596
  Mr. Timms
  Under section 19 of the Human Rights Act 1998, the Minister in charge of a Bill in the House must make a statement about the Bill's compatibility with the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Accordingly, before the introduction of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State signed the following statement, which is printed on the front page of the Bill:
  "In my view, the provisions of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill are compatible with the Convention rights."

  Benefit Payments
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the proportion of all benefit payments in 1997–98 which were accurate. [73940]

  Mr. Timms
  The figures used for reporting the accuracy of individual benefits to Parliament are reported to agreed levels of statistical confidence. The request to"estimate the proportion of all benefit payments in 1997–98 which was accurate"
  means providing a figure which does not carry statistical confidence. Bearing this in mind, it is estimated that 93.4 per cent. of recipients received accurate payments of benefit in 1997–98.

  Severe Disablement Allowance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently claiming severe disablement allowance in each quintile of income distribution. [73899]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is in the table.

  Number of people claiming severe disablement allowance in each quintile of income distribution

  Income quintile

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  Bottom

  30,000

  30,000

  Second

  70,000

  70,000

  Third

  90,000

  90,000

  Fourth

  50,000

  50,000

  Top

  20,000

  20,000

  Total

  260,000

  260,000

  Notes:

  1. Estimates are rounded to the nearest ten thousand. Estimates may not sum owing to rounding.

  2. Figures are an average of the recipients of Severe Disablement Allowance in the 1995–96 Households Below Average Income datasets based on the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and as such are subject to sampling error.

  3. The measure of income used is household equivalised net income before housing costs and after housing costs. Incomes are equivalised to adjust for household size and composition. No adjustment is made to household income to reflect any additional needs that recipients of severe disablement allowance might have. A household can comprise more than one benefit unit, for example a pensioner living with their grown up children.

  Source:

  The dates are taken from the Family Resources Survey (FRS) and all estimates are subject to sampling error. The total of recipients of Severe Disablement Allowance living in private households is estimated to be 260,000 while the total 1996–97 caseload was 355,000. Part of this difference will be due to the fact that the FRS does not survey those who do not live in private households, for example those in residential homes. However, there may also be under-reporting of benefit receipt within the FRS.

  Pensions
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) of 11 February 1999,Official Report, column 376, on pensions, what are the reasons for the lower cost of the state second pension compared with SERPS in 2010 and 2020. [73397]

  Mr. Timms
  Expenditure on State Second Pension will be lower than on SERPS over the first 20 years or so because the provisions for carers and the long-term disabled take longer to build up than the previous Government's policy of extending Home Responsibilities Protection to SERPS (which is included in the SERPS baseline). The main reason for this is that few carers of pre-school age children will reach State pension age before 2020.

  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) of 11 February 1999,Official Report, column 379, how much of the £2.5 billion package of measures to tackle pensioner poverty over the next three years is accounted for by the cost of (a) the minimum income guarantee, (b) winter fuel payments, (c) free eye tests and (d) concessionary travel, in each of those years. [73396]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on 22 February 1999,Official Report, column 173.

  Child Support
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what proportion of non-resident parents pay maintenance to their children; [73901]

  (2) what proportion of non-resident parents who pay maintenance to their children are paying it through the Child Support Agency. [73900]

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

  As at 30 November 1998, 70 per cent. of non-resident parents who had been assessed by the Child Support Agency to pay maintenance, use the Agency's collection service. Of these, 69 per cent. are fully or partially compliant.

  Widow's Benefit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of people who will no longer be able to claim widow's pension and will instead be entitled to the transitional time-limited allowance within each quintile of the income distribution. [73805]

  Angela Eagle
  The position in each quintile of the income distribution of future claimants of Bereavement Allowance cannot be known.
  598
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Position of recipients of current widow's benefit in income distribution by quintile

  Percentage

  Income quintile

  Before housing costs

  After housing costs

  First

  22

  18

  Second

  23

  19

  Third

  20

  24

  Forth

  21

  18

  Top

  15

  22

  Source:

  Figures in the table are from the 1996–97 Households Below Average Income dataset based on the Family Resources Survey.

  Mrs. Karen Adams
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will investigate the case of Mrs. Karen Adams of Llithfaen, Pwleheli, (Ref. D42/190/1998/00070) to establish the reasons for her appeal against the reduction of the attendance component of her disability living allowance not being determined; and if he will undertake an inquiry into the workings of the appeal system. [72821]

  Angela Eagle
  Appeals in respect of claims for Disability Living Allowance are matters for the Independent Tribunal Service (ITS). A copy of the letter the right hon. Member sent on 19 February 1999 to the Secretary of Medical Appeal Tribunals in Cardiff has been passed to ITS Headquarters so that a reply can be sent to the right hon. Member directly.

  We are currently overhauling the whole decision making and appeals system. We are firmly committed to tackling the unacceptable delays in the appeals service—currently averaging seven months, with some appellants waiting over a year for the decision on their case. Regulations will be debated shortly under affirmative procedures. Under the provisions of the Social Security Act 1998, which paves the way for modernising the delivery of Social Security, one of the major areas of change will be to reduce substantially the current waiting times for appeals. The intention of these changes is to provide a more effective and faster service and to reduce the kind of lengthy waiting period that Mrs. Adams suffered.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Visas (Supply Teachers)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current instructions issued by his Department to entry clearance officers on the admission of supply teachers on working holidaymaker visas, giving the date they were introduced and the criteria and reasons for their introduction. [71442]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]Instructions on the requirements to be met to qualify for entry clearance as a working holidaymaker (WHM) are contained in Chapter 20 of Diplomatic Service Procedure Entry Clearance Volume 1 which is available in the Library of the House. A specific concession has been
  599
  incorporated in the instructions to enable supply teachers to take advantage of the WHM scheme, under certain conditions. Provided applicants meet these requirements they may take employment as a supply teacher.

  The timing and policy reasons for the introduction of these requirements, as well as the terms of the concession for supply teachers, are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many parliamentary questions for written answer have been tabled to his Department in each session since May 1997; and how many have not been answered on grounds of disproportionate cost. [71932]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  In the 1997–98 session, this Department gave written answers to 3,137 questions, of which 131 could not be answered fully on grounds of disproportionate cost.

  So far in this session, 700 questions have been given written answers, with eight not answered on the grounds of disproportionate cost.

  Burma
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the situation of the Karen people in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [72951]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Burmese military regime's record of human rights abuses against ethnic minorities, including the Karen, is appalling. These include forced labour, forced repatriation, killings and torture. Many Karen have fled to neighbouring Thailand: there are over 80,000 in refugee camps in the border area. The UK urges the Burmese regime to stop all human rights abuses and to enter into dialogue with the democratic opposition, including ethnic minorities.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the Karen people in Burma. [72950]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Government have received many representations from non-governmental organisations lobbying on the plight of Burmese ethnic minorities including the Karen; and from Members of Parliament and members of the public expressing concern at human rights abuses in Burma, including those against the Karen.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Burma concerning its treatment of the Karen people. [72949]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Burmese military regime are well aware of our deep concerns about the plight of Burmese ethnic minorities, including the Karen. We take every opportunity, both in international forums such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and through our Embassy in Rangoon, to raise our concerns.
  600
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Myanmar about human rights, specifically in respect of the Karen people; what further action he intends taking; if he will arrange for EU foreign ministers to consider this matter; and if he will make a statement. [73488]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We take every opportunity to raise with the Burmese regime our concerns about their appalling human rights record, particularly against ethnic minorities. We support action within international forums; we support the efforts of the UN to bring about an improvement in Burma; we co-sponsored the UN General Assembly resolution on Burma last December; we, with our EU Partners, are working towards a tough resolution at the forthcoming UN Commission on Human Rights; and we expect Burma to be on the agenda of the forthcoming ILO session. EU Member States have taken strong action to bring pressure to bear on the Burmese regime in the form of a Common Position first adopted in 1996 and strengthened by EU Foreign Ministers last October. We also take bilateral action: our Ambassador in Rangoon makes representations to the Burmese regime about our concerns.

  EEA Family Permit Applications
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the average processing time of applications by non-EEA national family members applying for EEA family permits has been since 1 February 1998. [72880]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The information requested is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. However, guidance to overseas Posts stipulates that applications for Family Permits are to be given priority. Whenever possible, a decision should be taken at the time that the application is lodged (or interview conducted).

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for EEA family permits were refused on the grounds that the entry clearance officer judged the marriage to be one of convenience over the period 1 February 1998 to date. [72876]

  Mr. Fatchett
  This information is not recorded centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many non-EEA family member nationals applied for EEA family permits during the period 1 February 1998 to date; [72856]

  (2) how many EEA family permits have been refused to non-EEA family members of EEA nationals exercising treaty rights since 1 February 1998; [72879]

  (3) how many EEA family permits have been granted to non-EEA family nationals since 1 February 1998. [72878]

  Mr. Fatchett
  During the period 1 February 1998 until 31 December 1998, 11,275 non-EEA family member nations applied for EEA family permits, 10,522 were
  601
  issued and 109 were refused. The remainder (644) are accounted for by applications which were still being processed or had been withdrawn.

  Commonwealth Institute
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in respect of determining the future status of the Commonwealth Institute; and if he will make a statement. [73153]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The discussions between Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials and the senior management of the Commonwealth Institute are making good progress, but have not yet reached a stage where a formal decision can be made in respect of the institute's future status.

  Sudan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department is having with the Government of the Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [73609]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We continue to have regular contact with the Sudanese authorities both in London and Khartoum. Through these contacts we continue to work towards the normalisation of Anglo-Sudanese relations.

  Abdullah Ocalan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if it is the Government's policy to call for international observers to monitor the forthcoming trial of Abdullah Ocalan in Turkey; and if he will make a statement. [73611]

  Ms Quin
  We have urged the Turkish authorities to make provision for attendance at the trial of Mr. Ocalan by international representatives, in line with their normal practice. The Turkish government have made it clear that no provision exists in Turkey for formal "observer status" within their courts.

  Iran
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Iranian Government about human rights abuses in Iran. [73300]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We and our EU partners frequently raise our concerns over human rights with the Iranian authorities. The EU sponsored United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR) Resolution on human rights in Iran was adopted on 18 November 1998. We will also be supporting the EU sponsored UNCHR Resolution due for discussion in Geneva in March. We and our EU partners raised human rights issues during the EU/Iran talks in Tehran in July 1998 and in Vienna in December 1998. We frequently raise this issue also in working level contacts.

  In conjunction with our German and Austrian Partners we made a demarche to the Iranian Ministry of Foreign Affairs on 4 October 1998 about the cases of Mr. Dhabihi-Muqaddam and Mr. Najafabadi, two Baha'is who had been sentenced to death. The EU also
  602
  issued a declaration in December about the killings of dissidents in November/December last year. We welcome the Iranian government's determination to pursue the culprits, and the subsequent arrest of Ministry of Intelligence and Security officials.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will provide assistance to the National Council of Resistance of Iran; [73659]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the objectives and activities of the National Council of Resistance of
  Iran. [73294]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Government do not recognise the National Council for the Resistance of Iran, which is a coalition dominated by the Mujaheddin-e-Khalq Organisation (MKO). Despite its claims to be a democratic party, it has a long history of violence. The MKO has been responsible for many acts of terrorism and is closely associated with Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. The Government have taken action to stop people associated with acts of terrorism by the MKO coming to the UK, notably their President elect, Maryam Rajavi. The MKO continues to be listed by the US State Department as a terrorist organisation.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact(a) he and (b) his officials have had with the National Council of Resistance of Iran. [73295]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Neither this nor the previous Government recognise the National Council for the Resistance of Iran (NCRI). Therefore, FCO Ministers and officials avoid contact with member of the NCRI.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) trade concessions, (b) credits and (c) loans which the British Government have agreed with Iran since May 1997. [73299]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There have been no trade concessions of loans to Iran by HMG in this period. In July 1998 my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the resumption of export credit guarantee cover for capital goods and service contracts concluded on cash payment terms, and for short term reinsurance for private sector insurers of consumer goods exports. As yet, no cover has been used under these facilities.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the numbers of people in Iran put to death since President Khatami came to power. [73298]

  Mr. Fatchett
  It is difficult to put an exact figure on the number of executions in Iran since President Khatami's election in May 1997. The latest report of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights Special Representative, Maurice Copithorne, estimates that between January and December 1998 155 executions took place. In his report for 1997 it was estimated that 220 executions took place. President Khatami was elected on 23 May 1997.

  Kenya
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what discussions he has had with the United Nations on the continuing location of the UNEP in Nairobi; [73681]

  (2) what reports he has received concerning the destruction of the Karura Forest in Kenya. [73766]

  Mr. Fatchett
  My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment is responsible for UNEP issues. He has participated in discussions with UNEP's Executive Director, Klaus Toepfer, on reform of UNEP, including the continuing location of UNEP in Nairobi. In his speech at the UNEP Governing Council on 4 February, he underlined the United Kingdom's continued high level of support for UNEP, including the strengthening of the UN presence in Nairobi.

  We have received regular reports from our High Commission in Nairobi about the destruction of the Karura Forest in Kenya. As the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Central (Mr. Lloyd), said in his written reply of 24 February 1999, Official Report, column 322, we supported, as part of the Democratic Development Group of diplomatic missions in Nairobi, a collective statement expressing our deep concern over the violence last month at the Karura Forest.

  Our High Commissioner regularly raises the need for greater transparency and respect for the law in the allocation of public lands in Kenya, including the Karura Forest, with President Moi and senior Government Ministers.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity; and who or what organisation was acting as their sponsor or host. [73493]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  No Ministers in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office attended the Brit awards.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Air Miles have been earned by him and each of his ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73337]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government's policy on the use and disposal of air miles was set out by my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 141.

  Detailed information on any air miles earned by Ministers as a result of official travel is not recorded centrally.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on atrocities committed by ECOMOG forces in Sierra Leone. [73641]
  604
  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer the right hon. Member to my answer of 23 February 1999,Official Report, column 319.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to President Mugabe about the content of his recent statements to opposition groups. [73296]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I saw President Mugabe on 25 February and told him of our concerns about his recent remarks about the judiciary, the media and non-governmental organisations. I encouraged him to reassure the Zimbabwean people and the international community of this commitment to international human rights standards and the rule of law.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what official visits he, his ministers or officials have paid to Zimbabwe since May 1997; whom they met; and what was discussed. [73464]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I visited Zimbabwe in January 1998 and met the Acting President, the Foreign Minister and the Minister of Transport and Energy. I also met parliamentarians, non-governmental organisations, academics, unions, the media and business people. Topics discussed included regional issues, political and economic developments in Zimbabwe, land redistribution and human rights.

  Most recently, I met President Mugabe when I visited Zimbabwe on 25 February, as part of a regional tour to discuss the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. I also raised our concerns over recent human rights abuses.

  There have been a number of visits by officials, for a variety of reasons. We do not keep a central database of all visits by officials to Zimbabwe.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe concerning its plans to nationalise land. [73388]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]This Government recognise the need for land reform in Zimbabwe. We have told the Zimbabwe Government that we would be prepared to support a programme that is transparent and fair, follows the due process of law, is well-managed and affordable within an overall sound economic framework, has the support and participation of stakeholders and beneficiaries, and is aimed at poverty reduction.

  Media Staff (Embassies)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes his Department has made in the deployment of staff handling media matters in(a) the United Kingdom and (b) embassies and high commissions abroad since 1 May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [73603]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Since 1 May 1997 the FCO News Department had recruited an additional 7 staff, of whom 4 are designated press officers and one spends half his time as a press officer. There have been no significant
  605
  changes in the deployments of staff dealing with media matters overseas: a detailed analysis could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reasons were given by President Milosevic for not travelling to the Rambouillet talks. [73384]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]The Contact Group Ministerial meeting held in London on 29 January agreed to summon representatives of the Federal Yugoslav and Serbian Governments and representatives of the Kosovo Albanians to negotiations for a political settlement on the basis of documents tabled by the Contact Group. The invitation was not issued to President Milosevic in person and it did not stipulate that he should attend.

  Chile (Air Services)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Chilean Government concerning(a) British Airways flights to Santiago and (b) Lan Chile flights to
  Spain. [73386]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 February 1999](a) The most recent formal discussions took place during air services negotiations between the United Kingdom and Chile were held in June 1994. Air services negotiations due to be held in 1998 were postponed. We hope these will be re-instated soon. (b) None.

  Falklands
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussion he has held with the Governor of the Falklands concerning flights to the Falklands from(a) Chile, (b) Uruguay and (c) Brazil. [73385]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]We have told the Governor of the Falkland Islands that we share the Falkland Islands Government's hope that Lan Chile will continue to fly to the Falklands after the expiry of their present contract on 31 March 1999. We have assured him of our readiness to assist the Falkland Islands Government to explore other options for air links in the region.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reasons the Chilean Government have given for recognising Argentina's claim over the Falklands. [73387]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  [holding answer 26 February 1999]We are aware of Chilean statements of support for the Argentine position on the Falklands in recent years. It is for the Government of Chile to explain the reasons for their statements. We have made clear to the Chilean Government that we have no doubt about British sovereignty over the Falklands and have called on them to recognise the right of the Falkland Islanders to determine their own future.

  Yemen
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of human rights abuses in Yemen; and what representations he has made to the Government of Yemen. [73205]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There have been some tangible improvements in human rights in Yemen. There is a democratically elected parliament and universal franchise among men and women. The last elections in 1997 were judged to be largely free and fair. A broadly free press ensures that issues are properly aired. Our Embassy has provided modest financial support for human rights organisations operating in Yemen. Our priority is to help improve Yemen's judicial process. We have provided assistance in training judges and related officials on national and international human rights law and its application in the court-room.

  The recent trial of eight UK citizens in Aden for alleged terrorist related crimes has, however, highlighted a number of weaknesses. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has raised our concerns with Prime Minister Iriyani three times this year.

  Antarctic Secretariat
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he expects agreement to be reached on the establishment and siting of the Antarctic Secretariat; and if he will make a statement. [73162]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Antarctic Treaty Secretariat may be discussed at the next meeting of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Parties to be held in Peru in May 1999. The need for an Antarctic Treaty Secretariat has long been acknowledged by Consultative Parties, including the UK. But consensus on its location has not yet been reached.

  The UK looks forward to a resolution on the matter of the Secretariat's location and will continue constructive dialogue with other Treaty Parties.

  Turkey
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the treatment of Kurdish people in Turkey; and what representations have been made to the Turkish Government. [73163]

  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Turkish Government concerning the violation of the human rights of Kurdish citizens. [72823]

  Ms Quin
  We regularly raise human rights issues in our bilateral discussions with the Turkish government. We have repeatedly stressed to the Turkish authorities that a lasting solution to the conflict in south east Turkey can come about only if the Turkish government address the social and economic problems of the south east and the aspirations of the Kurdish population there.

  British Council (Damascus)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of
  607
  19 January 1999, Official Report, column 436, on the British Council property in Damascus, when he expects the costs of the damage to have been evaluated. [72891]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British Council estimate the cost of damage to their property in Damascus to be between £90,000 and £95,000.

  Ministerial Engagements
  Mr. Galloway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 583–84, on the engagements of the Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), where the dinner with Next Century Foundation was held. [73149]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The dinner was held at the Kuwaiti Ambassador's residence in London.

  Indonesian Elections
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures of support for the Indonesian elections were agreed at the General Affairs Council on 21 and 22 February. [73756]

  Mr. Fatchett
  A UK initiative for increased European Union funding for the Indonesian elections was approved. The European Commission is producing proposals for an assistance package worth 7 million euros.

  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he held with EU ministers at the General Affairs Council on 21 and 22 February on the subject of East Timor. [73757]
  608
  Mr. Fatchett
  Ministers discussed the latest developments in the talks on East Timor being held under United Nations auspices in New York.

  Bay of Gibraltar
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy not to refer to the Bay of Gibraltar as the Bay of Algeciras. [73408]

  Ms Quin
  Yes.

  Vietnam
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Vietnam regarding the treatment of Christians in that country; and if he will make a statement. [73637]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are deeply concerned about reports of religious persecution in Vietnam. We have repeatedly, with our EU partners made representations to the Vietnamese government about human rights. In June last year the British Ambassador in Hanoi handed over a list of prisoners of conscience, urging their release. These included many imprisoned for exercising their religion freedoms. I raised the issue with the Vietnamese Ambassador in January. We shall continue to press the Vietnamese to improve respect for human rights.

  At the forthcoming UN Commission on Human Rights, the UK will give its full support to a resolution highlighting our concern about religious intolerance wherever it occurs.

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

Colombia: Emergency Response
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein Viscount Montgomery of Alamein asked Her Majesty's Government:
What assistance has been given to Colombia following the recent earthquake in Armenia.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the immediate life-saving phase of the emergency response was initially provided by local capacities, including the Colombian Red Cross. The Department for International Development contributes to such preparedness and response measures through its annual support to the International Federation's Disaster Relief Fund which enables national Red Cross societies to respond immediately to crises. The second phase of the emergency was to provide relief to prevent further suffering. The DfID provided support through organisations able to deliver immediate relief on the ground. The Colombian Government have expressed their appreciation of the UK's response.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: My Lords, that is an extremely encouraging reply, but the noble Baroness will be aware that the main export industry of the area is coffee and that the processing infrastructure for the industry has been largely destroyed, together with schools, bridges, hospitals and so on, all of which will take a very long time to repair. Can the noble Baroness say what is being considered in the longer term to restore economic activity in that area of Colombia?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I appreciate the noble Viscount's concern about long-term economic recovery. Assessments of the overall impact of the earthquake are continuing. As the noble Viscount knows, we are always concerned to ensure that there is a co-ordinated response and a co-ordinated effort. Initial estimates indicate that 1.5 billion dollars will be needed for the rehabilitation and reconstruction of the affected areas. A number of people are still living in shelters and public services have not been entirely restored. We have a bilateral aid programme to Colombia which currently amounts to £1.4 million a year. Two of our major projects are based in the region, but they have not been adversely affected and normal activities have resumed. Our support for the reconstruction phase is likely to be through multilateral channels, and the EU and international financial institutions are awaiting the outcome of the needs assessment I have mentioned.
Baroness Hooper: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on all that she and her department
1362
are achieving in response to this terrible tragedy. I understand that some 25,000 homes were destroyed by the initial impact and many thousands more were badly damaged. Initial estimates indicate that the cost of rebuilding will be in excess of £300 million. Can the noble Baroness tell us whether the British Government are making any effort to encourage the private sector —our construction industry—to help by providing expertise and making secondments?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can say to the noble Baroness that, in addition to our immediate response, in which a number of organisations such as Oxfam and UNICEF were involved, we are looking at the longer term. However, as I said in response to the noble Viscount, we need to look carefully at the needs assessments that have been undertaken by the UN. As the noble Baroness will know from our White Paper on international development, we are committed to a partnership approach to development. We shall continue to look at the kind of resources that can be provided through the private sector. I shall write to the noble Baroness when I have further concrete information on that point.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, perhaps I may ask a question out of sheer ignorance. Does Colombia have a national debt? If it does, are not the financial efforts of various countries to help it in its present plight negated by the fact that it is having to repay a national debt?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, Colombia is not one of the heavily indebted poor countries and therefore does not form part of the international initiative. There is one outstanding UK/Colombia loan; the outstanding balance is £170,000. Final repayment is due in November 2005. The Colombians have consistently met the agreed repayment schedule. There is no expectation that they will not continue to do so.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is it possible for people in the region to carry out much of the reconstruction work themselves, given minimal inputs from the international community in terms of building materials? Will the noble Baroness do everything possible to encourage the authorities in the region to use local labour? In that way, not only can people help to rebuild their own homes; they will have an income to feed their families in the meanwhile.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, one matter on which we are very clear is building around local capacity. We shall certainly encourage the NGOs and other organisations taking part in the reconstruction phase to use local capacity wherever possible.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, given that the Red Cross has done a superb job, will the Minister assure the House that government assistance of 1 million dollars which was promised in January is now being properly distributed? The press had reported that the distribution centres were missing.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I can confirm that in the immediate aftermath of the earthquake we provided

1363
nearly £750,000 in assistance. The EC Humanitarian Office also provided assistance to the immediate relief effort mounted by the Red Cross. At that time there were some concerns about lack of co-ordination. That is why we have made it clear that, not only in this instance but in others, international co-ordination of needs assessment should be undertaken before development organisations go in. The concerns about co-ordination have now been dealt with. My understanding is that all the aid funding is being properly distributed.
Lord Morris: My Lords, the Minister spoke of the importance of co-operation in international development. Does she realise that this matter has nothing to do with international development, and everything to do with restoration of the status quo ante and with time? Speed of action is infinitely more poetic than words.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord. It is matter of working in partnership across sectors. The international development effort has been extremely important in the short-term, and will be so in the reconstruction phase in getting the country back on its feet.

New Variant CJD: Beef Bone Controls
2.46 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley Lord Stanley of Alderley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the odds against getting new variant CJD from eating beef on the bone, and what criteria other than risk have a bearing on consumer choice in this matter.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the beef bone controls are needed to protect public health and to help maintain consumer confidence in beef and beef products. There continues to be great uncertainty about the nature of new variant CJD with relation to BSE and about how susceptible people may be to infection. It is therefore not possible to estimate the current statistical risk of dying from the disease as a result of consuming beef or beef products which have been cooked on the bone.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am trying to thank the noble Lord for that remarkable Answer, because my nanny told me I always had to. Unlike my nanny, who allowed me to have a free choice, do the Government intend to apply the same criteria to all foods and alcohol? Like the chicken, shall I be able to cross the road when I want to?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I always listen with respect to what noble Lords opposite say about nannying and the nanny state as they have far more experience than we on this side of the House have. It is not our intention to use a common standard of risk for all
1364
commodities because the situations are not similar; one is not comparing like with like. We attempt to assess degree of risk; however, there is always a very wide statistical range. There is enormous uncertainty about CJD. We know so little about the disease. It is fatal and there is no known treatment. The incubation period is unknown and we have no idea whether or not there is an epidemic ahead. It therefore seems appropriate for governments who have a responsibility to protect public health—and in this case to restore confidence in beef—to apply the proper precautionary principle.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, exactly how many people have died since 1986 from CJD/BSE? I refer to deaths that were definitely due to that cause.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, my noble friend refers to new variant CJD. Up to about 32 people a year die from conventional CJD. The number of deaths from new variant CJD since 1995 has been 38. That is a serious matter.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that, according to the BBC television news at lunch-time today, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales knowingly ate beef on the bone at a dinner in Wales yesterday evening? "Knowingly" means that he knew beforehand that the beef was to be cooked on the bone. If he did so, was he thereby committing an offence? If so, what do the Government intend to do about it?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not know the details of the incident the noble Lord describes and I imagine that he does not either. Enforcement is a matter for the local authority.
Lord Monson: My Lords, can the Minister say why the Government are maintaining the ban on beef on the bone while introducing legislation which will facilitate the subjection of 16 and 17 year-olds to risks which are almost certainly several hundred times greater than those incurred by eating beef on the bone?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I do not know what those risks are. As I explained, these are not comparisons of like with like. The Government judge each case according to the risk. I have observed that many noble Lords opposite will call for a ban on one thing—for example, genetically modified foods—while complaining about nannying with respect to another. The Government have to take a decision in each case. On this issue we were firmly advised by the former Chief Medical Officer in December 1997. The new Chief Medical Officer has looked again at the issue on the basis of the advice provided by the advisory committee, SEAC, and has recommended that the ban should stay in place. We propose to look at the matter

1365
again in six months. If the risk situation with regard to public health makes it possible to lift the ban, we should he as happy as anyone to see it lifted.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords—
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, if noble Lords ask their questions shortly, there may be time for the noble Lord, Lord Davies, and the noble Baroness to ask their questions, but I believe it is the turn of this side first.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, although the risk in question is all important, can the Minister confirm that because the risk was not taken into account during the period of the previous government our beef industry was so damaged in Europe and the rest of the world that this Government will not allow that to happen again?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, my noble friend is exactly right. The situation we are in derives from the fact that inadequate measures were taken previously. Measures were taken by the previous government to ban offals and brains in the food chain and to ban gut and meat and bonemeal. A line of control measures was taken by the previous government on exactly the same principle as that on which we have taken the present measures. The difference is that the party opposite, which totally supported the previous control measures, does not support the present ones.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, having stood in the Minister's shoes in the previous government, perhaps I may say that he talks absolute rubbish when he says that inadequate measures were taken previously. Is there a ban on beef on the bone on the Continent? If there is not, why should we not be able to sell our beef on the bone? Are we selling our beef, whether it is on the bone or not?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness thinks that I was talking nonsense. The view that I expressed is shared by many who have investigated this situation, particularly the inadequate controls on infected feed and meat and bonemeal. We await with interest the result of the Phillips inquiry. There is not a ban on the Continent because there is not there the scale of BSE crisis that we have had. We have now had 173,000 cases, which is why we are suffering in this country. The Government have negotiated hard to get the ban on exports of our beef lifted and we have made considerable progress towards that.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, farmers around the country will be very disappointed by the Minister's response. Other noble Lords have suggested that there is BSE on the Continent; we are not the only country that has problems with it. We are sympathetic with regard to the uncertainty which the noble Lord expresses. However, does it not seem ridiculous that it is possible to go into one shop and buy cigarettes—
1366
which we know kill people—at the age of 16 while one cannot go into a shop and buy beef on the bone, from which there is a very small risk of dying and about which, as the noble Lord said, there is a great deal of uncertainty? Surely that does not make sense.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, there is no comparison between tobacco and cigarettes, about which the risk is known and where the item one is buying is clear, and beef on the bone where often consumers would not know they were eating it. As far as the farmers are concerned, actions are being taken to restore confidence in beef to help farmers.

National Savings Pensioners Bonds
2.55 p.m.
Lord Ellenborough Lord Ellenborough asked Her Majesty's Government:
What effect will be felt by pensioners as a result of the recent falls in the rates of interest paid by National Savings pensioners bonds.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, pensioners bonds pay monthly income at rates fixed for five years. Existing holders will not be affected by new lower rates before their fifth anniversary. For new investors or those holding beyond the fifth anniversary, the guaranteed rate will reflect the general fall in interest rates made possible by the Government's success in bringing inflation under control. Lower inflation benefits everyone, including pensioners.
Lord Ellenborough: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Will he draw to the attention of his right honourable friend the Chancellor the fact that, when these pensioners bonds were issued five years ago for a five-year fixed period, they were launched at a deliberately attractive rate of 7 per cent. when the base rate at the time was 5½ per cent.? Five years later, the base rate is also 5½ per cent. but the new pensioners bonds are to be issued at a derisory rate of only 4¼ per cent. Does that not show a callous indifference to pensioners and those on fixed incomes who often have to pay charges and bills at a rate considerably higher than the rate of inflation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have taken care to examine the record of pensioners bonds' interest rates against the five-year gilt market rate over the entire period since 1994 since the introduction of pensioners bonds. Whether looked at in real terms or nominal terms, there is a close correlation between the five-year gilt market rate and pensioners bonds' rates; in other words, pensioners bonds' rates were not particularly favourable in 1994 and they are not particularly unfavourable now.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, raises the issue of the extent to which the Government wish to encourage savings. If they really wish to do so, the example set by

1367
the new interest rate on pensioners bonds is not likely to do that. Should the Government not be setting an example to the rest of the financial sector that savings are desirable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord that we should be encouraging savings. A falling savings ratio is indeed undesirable. But pensioners bonds are only one very small part of the range of investment possibilities even from National Savings, let alone from the private sector. I do not accept the conclusion which the noble Lord draws, any more than I accept the conclusion that the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, drew. These are not derisory rates, they are comparable to rates in the private sector.
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that in an era of falling investment returns, there is a redistribution of wealth in favour of borrowers at the expense of savers, in this case the elderly and pensioners? Does he not accept that the Government must give high priority to ensuring that there continues to be a safe, simple investment with a real rate of return, as my noble friend Lord Ellenborough indicated, for this potentially vulnerable section of society?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept that pensioners fall into one category rather than another. There are pensioners and non-pensioners who are borrowers and pensioners and non-pensioners who are savers. If the noble Viscount is saying that it is the responsibility of National Savings to provide a wide range of opportunities for different kinds of people, I can assure him that that is exactly what they do.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the Minister made reference to National Savings. Does the noble Lord agree that the impending fall in the average return on Premium Bonds to 3¼ per cent. is proportionately much greater than the fall in base rates over the same period?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, if that is the case, I do not understand why Premium Bonds are doing so well at the moment. If the allegations about pensioners bonds are true, I do not understand why it is that of those bonds that mature in the first quarter of 1999 half are being re-invested in pensioners bonds and nearly all the rest in other National Savings products.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that, although it is undoubtedly the case that National Savings pensioners bonds represent a very small proportion of the difficulty, falling interest rates are a particular problem for people who are approaching retirement, in particular those who are compelled to purchase annuities with their self-employed pension funds at a time when the rate of annuity has dropped dramatically? Are the Government prepared to consider making changes to the regulations to prevent people who are approaching retirement being placed in a very difficult position?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the trends that the noble Lord identified have an effect on the
1368
incomes of those pensioners who have investments and are about to purchase annuities. But the noble Lord must look at it in the context of the provision for all pensioners, including the poorest, who benefit from the reduction in inflation that accompanies the reduction in interest rates. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is a more significant factor.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the problem in relation to annuities is that new pensioners have no choice but to buy annuities which, through nobody's fault, have dropped to a level that in the past people did not think would be likely? Does the noble Lord also agree that that is coupled with the proposed upward revision of actuarial mortality tables which will increase the problems faced by pensioners? I do not blame the Government for these matters but they are facts. Does the Minister agree that they cannot be just swept away and that there should be a review of these specific problems?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no lack of sympathy for those who have chosen to enter pension schemes that involve the purchase of an annuity at the point of retirement and now find them less valuable. To that extent I do not disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. But these are individual choices for which the Government are not responsible. It is a bit hard for those who continue to plead for less government to expect us to intervene in such circumstances.

Olympic Games: Support for Potential Competitors
3.2 p.m.
Lord Montague of Oxford Lord Montague of Oxford: asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they are taking to assist potential British competitors in next year's Olympic Games in Sydney.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, support for potential British competitors in next year's Olympic Games in Sydney is channelled mainly through the Lottery Sports Fund's World Class Performance Programme. In 1997–98 and 1998–99 grants totalling over £52 million have been awarded in the UK and England to support some 1,200 athletes in 19 Olympic and Paralympic sports. Additional assistance will be provided through the UK Sports Council's programmes for Athlete Career and Education, "Success in Sydney" and Elite Coach Education.
Lord Montague of Oxford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that response, which is certainly encouraging. Does he believe that there may be a link between the amount of time that schools devote to sport and our sporting performance? At the moment the average in schools is one-and-a-half hours a week. Four Olympics ago we gained 36 medals and at the last Olympic Games that figure had gone down to 17, of which only one was gold. In France during the same period the time devoted by schools to sport has doubled

1369
and the number of Olympic medals that they have won has more than doubled, and in the previous Olympic Games they won 15. Should we not devote more time to sport in schools?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that we should give more support to younger athletes. That is the responsibility, above all, of my department. Of the £52 million to which I referred in my main Answer, in England a substantial amount is going to younger athletes. That is the relationship to which we should look. As one who tried to avoid sport throughout my school career, perhaps I am not qualified to comment on my noble friend's other suggestion.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the noble Lord inform the House about the status of the Institute of Sport? Is that body operational or still merely an idea?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. The UK Sports Institute was launched this morning with £100 million of lottery funds. At the suggestion of top athletes throughout the UK, it will consist of a network of facilities for athletes around the country, with the hub at Sheffield, where provision will be made for such specialist facilities as high level sports medicine and other matters that can be provided only on a national basis.
The Earl of Stockton: My Lords, can the noble Lord assure the House that some of these resources will be devoted to our most successful discipline at all Olympic and Commonwealth Games; namely, shooting, and in particular pistol shooting, where competitors in this country are no longer able to practise their sport within the United Kingdom?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government play a role in the allocation of funds for sport as a whole. It is the Sports Council that determines the allocation as between different sports. I do not seek to intervene in that matter. I am instinctively opposed to what the noble Earl said.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, the noble Lord appears to take great pleasure in announcing the funds that are channelled into sports. He made reference to £52 million and an extra £100 million. Does he agree that those funds have come from the lottery and are not government funds at all? Further, does he agree that the Government should not have any hand in or direction of those funds under the terms of the National Lottery Etc. Act?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that was why I responded as I did to the noble Earl, Lord Stockton. The noble Lord is right that these are lottery funds, although there is a considerable involvement by government and local authorities. But if he is suggesting that we should not take credit for any of the sporting activities that we encourage the lottery
1370
to provide, he should recall that athletes themselves and sporting organisations have been giving very generous credit to the Government.

Business
Lord Carter: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lady Hayman will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is being made in another place on the Royal Commission report on long-term care and the Government's response.

Health Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 13 [Duty of quality]:
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 11, line 9, after ("care") insert ("and the equity of treatment").
The noble Lord said: I am at somewhat of a disadvantage until my noble friend enters the Chamber. Amendment No. 72 deals with the equity of treatment to be considered by the commission for health improvement. This is cognate with a number of our other amendments to the remainder of the Bill, in particular the amendment about equality of opportunity that the Committee considered on Thursday last in the context of primary care groups. Clearly, we believe that it is necessary for the commission for health improvement to have a duty to consider not just the quality of clinical care but the equity of treatment. We regard this as very much part of the Government's public health agenda. It was also considered last year in the report of Sir Donald Acheson, which we very much welcomed as a way of looking at the kinds of indicators of health improvement and inequalities of health that needed to be remedied.
We believe that this is a valuable and necessary amendment. We commend it to the Committee as part of a package of improvements to the Bill. It would make it a specific duty on the bodies set up by the Bill to consider equity and equality of opportunity. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: I support Amendment No. 105. We believe strongly that age should not be used as a factor in rationing. A recent survey by Age Concern discovered that 20 per cent. of coronary care units operate age-related

1371
admission policies and 40 per cent. attach age restrictions in the giving of clot-busting drug therapy after heart attacks. Yet the Government continue to maintain that older people are not discriminated against in the NHS. As a result, doctors are forced to make rationing decisions on behalf of the Government, sometimes against the best interests of their patients. Those decisions are often made covertly and without the patient being informed that treatment is being denied because of lack of resources. I very much hope that the Minister will accept the argument that the commission should have a legal responsibility to provide healthcare to all patients on the basis of need and not age.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I too wish to speak to Amendment No. 105. Age Concern Scotland is also concerned. It probably will not be necessary to discuss the matter in the context of Part II if we can cover the matter now.
What the mover of the amendment and my noble friend said about the position of old people is critical. Some of the treatments will not give as much benefit to older people as to younger people because they do not have as long to live. Because of that, older people feel threatened and are extremely worried. It is a matter of great concern. It is important that it is plain in the Bill that age is not a factor. I understand that this is the National Year for Older People which makes it a funny time to do anything other than make certain that older people are included.
I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Howe was taken by surprise by the speed at which Question Time ended. The amendment tabled in his name related to resources that are to be taken into account when these matters are considered. That is a major issue. I am sure that the Minister will understand if he were to bring the matter into his comments on this amendment. The noble Baroness is quick on her feet but so is my noble friend. However, on that occasion he lost the race. I support in particular Amendment No. 105.
3.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to speak to the amendment which I had not otherwise intended to do. The point my noble friend makes is extremely pertinent. The issue of resources is ever with us as we consider this part of the Bill. If the Committee will allow, I shall reserve my principal remarks to a later amendment where I believe that I can introduce them with somewhat more force than on this amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am somewhat concerned by Amendment No. 105. The principle is right but I am not sure that it should be on the face of the Bill. There will always be moments when a choice has to be made. For example, if there is one kidney, does one give it to the young woman or young man who may be bringing up a family or to the older person? One has to look at the clinical need. However, life expectancy must always be a slight factor. It must be difficult to choose to give a transplant to someone
1372
whose life would be extended by only one year when another person might live 50 years due to that same transplant.
I accept and support the principle of the amendment. There should be no cause for anxiety on the part of old people. But there will be certain resources—I do not refer only to financial resources although they are important—where difficult decisions may always have to be made by clinicians. Those decisions should be left to the clinician at that time.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: The noble Earl, Lord Howe. was not the only person caught on the hop by the rapid commencement of these proceedings.
High-tech care for elderly patients will always be a difficult issue. But there are other aspects of care of older people where the arguments do not sound so sensible. For example, when one is over 65 one is not automatically recalled for breast screening. Yet one is at greater risk of breast cancer when one is over 65 than at any other period in one's life.
Older people may become arthritic. However, if they go to the doctor's clinic they are quite likely to be told that it is just part of growing older and will not be offered treatment. But, if people can be kept mobile they are more likely to stay at home for longer and are less likely to go into extremely expensive nursing home care. The cost of quite serious interventions such as the special drug for Alzheimer's disease which is supposed to cost £1,000 a year may be compared with putting someone in a nursing home. That now costs a minimum of £350, and is more likely to be £450, a week. One can see the advantages of some treatments which may appear expensive but become more economic when comparing one budget with another. It is hoped that the joined-up writing between the healthcare services and social services will enable such cost comparisons to be made.
Lord Desai: I enter the debate because some important issues have been raised by the noble Baroness. It is interesting to compare the expected extra life years attained by treating a younger person or an older person. But, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said, if you do not treat that older person, what will be the ultimate cost? The older person will not conveniently die; he or she will cost quite a lot more when sick. There are delicate comparisons to be made.
If we are to have an age limit—I hope that we do not—it should be clearly and transparently stated. People should not be given the run-around with excuses that they are not being treated for some other reason. If one wants to make a rule about an age limit, then people will take out insurance, or something else. They should be told. Doctors should not hide behind specialisms or technicalities and administer a Treasury rule on medical grounds. That would be bad.
Lord Winston: Members of the Committee will forgive me for disagreeing with my noble friend Lord Desai—not for the first time! But one cannot make arbitrary age limits, especially in biology. Those have to be variable goal posts. They depend on many

1373
different factors. It would be fundamentally wrong in medicine to say that at a stated age someone was or was not fit for treatment.
Baroness O'Cathain: Does the noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggest that doctors should offer some excuse when not using a treatment because of the age of the person? That puts doctors into an invidious situation. They are sometimes rationing and are put into the position of having to tell fibs. I infer that situation from the noble Lord, Lord Desai. That is the issue.
Lord Winston: The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, made clear that there must be a variation according to clinical circumstances. Doctors are inevitably in the unfortunate position of having sometimes to take such decision. It is to be hoped that they do so with wisdom and with a degree of collective responsibility rather than in isolation and in an authoritarian way.
Lord Clement-Jones: The debate has been extremely interesting. The Government have not been unconscious of the needs of older people. Indeed, they commissioned the national service framework for older people and there is in the offing a charter for the long term care of the elderly. In addition, they commissioned the Royal Commission, about which we will have a Statement later today. The key issue is whether such actions are sufficient to place on clinicians the duty to be conscious of the needs of older people.
The care of older people is a crucial issue. Indeed, my honourable friend in another place considered it to be so crucial that he recently put forward a Ten-Minute Rule Bill concerning discrimination and older people and outlined some extremely telling facts. The noble Lord, Lord Astor, mentioned some of them. For instance, women over 65 are not screened for breast cancer, despite evidence that they would benefit from early detection and treatment. Although the Government are conscious of the issue, their document Our Healthier Nation contained no targets for older people. It is easy to forget their needs, but, as we emphasised earlier in Committee, older people are key consumers in the NHS.
If the duty is not statutory, what is it to be? It must be a powerful duty to keep people on their toes. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, is correct in saying that there must be flexibility in clinical behaviour, but the one thing we cannot have is discrimination.
Since tabling Amendment No. 105, I have been stunned by the number of people who have written to me or approached me telling me that it is a real problem because they have relatives who were not cared for in a proper fashion or who were ignored. We in this House have debated the standard of nursing of older people and some cases have been shocking. The standard may depend on the way in which boards are managed, but it also depends on attitudes towards older people. On the day on which we are to debate a Statement on the long-term care of the elderly, we must be careful before dismissing a statutory duty of this kind.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I wish to take up the point about breast cancer screening. The hospital of
1374
which I was chairman researched cases of breast cancer among elderly women and found the statistics misleading. As there is no universal screening, the women who attend for screening suspect that they have cause to do so. Therefore, the percentage appears to be higher among women above the age of 65, but when compared with the population as a whole it is not higher. We must not be side-tracked on that argument.
The general practice at which I am a patient recently sent all its patients, irrespective of age, for breast cancer screening. In a new project, it decided that that should be done. I understand that some practices are introducing a screening policy in a more general way, but it has always been the case that anyone who has any cause for anxiety can ask for breast screening at any time. That was the policy of the previous government and I am sure that this Government will continue it.
Baroness Hayman: Echoing the words of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we have had a useful short debate on these important amendments dealing with issues of race and age in terms of the quality of care and the annual report of the commission for health improvement. We have also discussed the monitoring arrangement in NHS trusts and PCTs.
The noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred to breast cancer screening and she is correct in saying that we should not give the wrong impressing. Any woman over 65 is entitled to have breast screening if she wishes. There is not at present a national programme of the screening of over 65s because the national screening committee advised that resources should be concentrated, in the first instance, on young women. However, we are considering extending the age limit in pilot schemes. It will not be a matter of taking an arbitrary age limit; the effectiveness of screening will be examined just as one would examine the effectiveness of a vaccination programme for younger people. The policy will in no sense suggest that facilities should be cut off at a certain age; it will in no sense suggest that it is not worth directing attention to the elderly.
Amendment No. 72 would extend the duty of quality to cover monitoring and improving the equity of treatment as well as the quality of care. Amendment No. 75 would introduce a requirement for NHS trusts and PCTs to include in their monitoring arrangements for quality,
"monitoring by ethnic origin of individuals receiving health care".
Amendment No. 90 would require the commission's annual report to include material on its performance in respect of equal opportunities. Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 extend the principle of equal treatment, not on the basis of age, to the commission's exercise of its functions. In general, that follows our discussion earlier in Committee in the context of primary care trusts and the way in which we apply the important principles of equity of access to NHS services. That access should be fair and on the basis of clinical need. We made commitments to those ends in Our Healthier Nation Green Paper and The new NHS White Paper and through a range of other measures to improve fair access to services.

1375
In the foreword to A First Class Service, the Secretary of State for Health stated that fair and prompt access to modern and dependable treatment should be the goal. We have a strategy to improve quality across the board. Earlier in Committee when discussing the national institute for clinical excellence we spoke of reducing geographical variations which result from the disputes of evidence base and which can affect people whatever their age and ethnicity. However, if we are interested in equitable access to service we must tackle those issues as well as the issues of ethnicity and age. National service frameworks are a very important way of taking that forward because they aim to reduce unacceptable variations in care and treatment using the best evidence of clinical and cost effectiveness. They will be a key tool in tackling inequalities.
The purpose of the duty of quality is to ensure that all NHS provider organisations have a clear duty to put and keep in place arrangements to monitor and improve the quality of the healthcare they provide to all patients. The principles of clinical governance, which include care based on best available evidence, are applied to NHS organisations to all their patients. That in itself will have the effect of improving the equity of treatment on offer.
The explicit addition of "equity" to the definition of the duty of quality could create problems of definition. That concept is even more difficult to pin down and to assess than that of quality and could mean a range of different things; for example, equal access to treatment or fair treatment, taking account of both individual and collective need.
As regards Amendment No. 75, I am in full agreement that it is important that NHS trusts, primary care trusts and health authorities make effective use of the information they collect on the ethnic origin of the people receiving healthcare to help ensure that people from ethnic minorities are accessing the healthcare they need. However, I do not accept that an amendment to the duty of quality is the best way of taking that forward.
I hope that earlier in Committee I demonstrated the whole range of measures which we intend to take to reduce inequalities. The guidance we issued on health improvement programmes in October last year clearly sets out our expectations that we should identify and monitor targets and milestones for measurable improvements in health and healthcare and reducing inequalities. The guidance makes specific mention of mapping health inequalities and inequalities in access to services. Mapping of that kind will be informed by the type of information to which reference has already been made. The commission for health improvement will look at the quality of healthcare, and I stress again that that means the quality of healthcare for all people.
We debated earlier the needs of the elderly. I understand the reason for that; their needs have not been particularly well addressed in the past. We are trying to make progress in that area, and when my right honourable friend sent out the HAS 2000 report on dignity on the wards and care for the elderly he made clear his intention that it should be responded to by all parts of the NHS. Equally, the national service framework that we are
1376
setting out for service standards for older people will be an extremely important way of taking forward improvements in care for the elderly.
I referred earlier to screening, and we would certainly reject any crude, age-related cut-off point that did not allow people to have individual care and the care that they needed. But I suggest to the Committee that we run into danger when we look at age specific issues alone or issues related to ethnicity on their own. We discussed the Acheson Report, Inequalities in Health, earlier in Committee. It can be argued that poverty is one of the main inequalities, both in good health and in access to healthcare. These provisions, which deal with ethnicity and age, do not deal with poverty. They do not deal with access to services for people of different gender, and there have been some interesting issues raised, particularly in relation to coronary care, about differential access for men and women.
We run the risk of putting on the face of the Bill certain categories of people who might be disadvantaged but not others. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, is not well today and is therefore not with us, but I am sure that he would be saying that we should not neglect the needs of those with learning difficulties when we are looking at specific needs. I hope I can reassure the Committee that we recognise both the specific needs of older people—the NHS framework will be important in that respect—and the need for monitoring policies in terms of the access given to people of different ethnic origin. Again, we must go wider than that and understand what services are appropriate for specific ethnic groups. We must make sure not only that we have an equal playing field, for example, in terms of services for sickle cell disease but also that we have appropriate sickle cell services where the communities need them.
I urge the Committee to focus on our commitment to ensuring the duty of quality in the work of the commission. It must be devoted to ensuring that all patients have access to the services they need. That will encompass specific groups, without drawing a false distinction between them, and other patient groups that may be disadvantaged in the provision of healthcare.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: We thank the Minister for her comprehensive response to this debate. I wish only to make the point that issues of age, poverty and race are often associated; they seem to hang together. But I do not feel the need to carry the discussion further.
Lord Clement-Jones: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: Perhaps I can interrupt with a short business statement concerning the Committee. It has been agreed between the usual channels that this evening we shall stop after Clause 46. Amendments Nos. 194 and following will be taken as first business on Thursday. The previously agreed dates for Report and Third Reading are not affected.
[Amendment No.73 not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 11, line 9, at end insert ("and for ensuring the publication of this information.").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 74, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 76. The first amendment will ensure that information monitored for the duty of quality is published. The primary objective of the clause is the duty of quality imposed on PCTs and NHS trusts. It appears that health authorities are exempt from that duty, which is odd given that in many cases they are the bodies that are best placed to monitor the standards of healthcare in their area.
A requirement to publish should make comparison easier across different PCTs and NHS trusts. Good and poor practice would be more easily identified, thus driving up standards. It is also the case that the so-called abolition of the internal market will mean that the tracking of costs within the health service will become much more difficult. That is despite the Government's evident retention of the purchaser-provider split. That will result in a situation where it is difficult to determine whether a PCT or NHS trust is making the best use of the funds allocated to them. Such a situation cannot mean that patient care is effectively delivered.
It is the duty of the Government to make any information on the quality of healthcare available to patients. If mechanisms are to be put in place to monitor that information, it would be unfair for it not to be available to the public to enable people to make informed choices in relation to their healthcare. This is a matter of widespread concern to the public, as I am sure the Government will be aware from their focus groups.
Amendment No. 76 aims to ensure that the reports of health bodies on the duty of quality explicitly take into account the views of the NHS, patients and their carers. Quality in the NHS should be firmly rooted in the experiences of patients and carers. To date, the Government's proposals for quality focus almost exclusively on the needs of professionals and managers. For instance, the consultation document, A First Class Service, briefly mentions the importance of taking account of the views of patients and carers in defining quality. In debating a Bill about the structures for the new NHS it is easy to overlook the fact that the most important objective is improved quality and delivery for patients and carers. That aim should be set out on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support Amendments Nos. 74 and 76. We echo the noble Lord's words entirely. It is right, where there is a duty of quality, that there should be some tracking and that publication in this case is appropriate.
Again, it is clear that we on these Benches support the noble Lord, Lord Astor, in relation to these amendments.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I am very supportive of the aim of reflecting the views of users and carers. However, perhaps I may enter a word of caution about the fact that that can be done by publishing reports. Eliciting feedback,
1378
finding out exactly how the service is working from the point of view of the user and carer, and about their actual experience, will be more important than publishing a report on what has been done.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I feel that there can be too many reports, but we need enough for people to be able to find out what is happening and what the situation is. My memory of health service returns, which seem to be made constantly, is of an interminable quantity of paper going into the Department of Health. Such returns took an enormous number of hours to complete and no one quite knew what happened to them after that. I would make a plea for producing really useful statistics which can be used in a practical form.
Lord Winston: I fully support the sentiments with which the noble Lord, Lord Astor, moved this amendment. However, I fear that it is flawed. I am certain that this would be quite the wrong route to take. We already have a paradigm in the health service for such reports and it is deeply flawed. I am thinking of the figures given out by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which, although seemingly a comparison between units, have been shown to be statistically invalid by a publication in the British Medical Journal. And this is a very narrow area of clinical activity.
Such reports could deeply mislead the public. They would be not only potentially misleading but also very expensive for individual authorities and trusts to produce. There is every risk that unless there is extremely careful confirmation of exactly how the reports will he made, this would be an impossible exercise.
Different areas of cities, with different levels of poverty and environmental conditions, will treat different kinds of condition. All those factors could affect the outcome of clinical treatment. Under the circumstances, I do not believe that this would be a useful amendment.
Baroness Hayman: There has been universal agreement on the aim behind these amendments; namely, to ensure transparency and accountability by requiring NHS trusts and primary care trusts to publish information on the arrangements they put in place under this duty of quality. That is a concern that the Government share. However, we do not believe that it is necessary to specify this requirement on the face of the Bill.
The publication of annual reports (beginning in the year 2000) is a key part of the clinical governance arrangements we proposed in The new NHS and A First Class Service. Clinical governance will provide a framework for quality improvements locally, comprising both clear lines of responsibility and accountability and a comprehensive programme of quality improvement activities, as well as clear policies aimed at managing risk, including for the identification and remedy of poor performance.
We shall make it clear in guidance that we expect NHS organisations to publish annual reports on what they are doing to improve and assure quality through clinical governance arrangements. I do not believe that a statutory requirement for publication will be necessary to ensure that the bodies in question comply with this guidance.

1379
Just as I believe it is unnecessary to specify a requirement to publish information on the face of the Bill, I also believe it is unnecessary to specify here what the contents of these reports should be. Other issues aside, there is always a danger that by specifying detailed content on the face of the Bill we will be seen to be excluding other important issues we do not mention and denying ourselves the opportunity to adapt to future changes.
However, I absolutely agree that the areas highlighted by noble Lords should feature in the information which bodies publish. The guidance which we shall publish shortly on the implementation of clinical governance will set out what we expect to be the core content of organisations' clinical governance reports. That will specifically include evidence of user and carer involvement in clinical governance arrangements—the point to which the noble Lord, Lord Astor, referred—and how the organisation has taken account of national service frameworks and NICE guidelines.
I hope that noble Lords will feel, in the very clear understanding of what we shall be putting in the guidance about clinical governance and the clear intention as regards the publication of annual reports, that we will cover these areas but that we shall not exclude any others by putting these, and only these, on the face of the Bill.
Perhaps I may say a word about the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, and my noble friend Lord Winston. We are committed to publishing information on the clinical performance of NHS trusts, not just locally but nationally, as a means of driving up quality in the service. Clinical indicators will be published later this spring as part of the new performance assessment framework for the NHS.
I believe that all three of us have worked in the service and therefore we all understand that it is important, first, to collect only that information which is necessary and useful; and, secondly, that we have to be very certain that the information is valid and robust and not able to be misinterpreted in terms of the quality of care actually being delivered. That is why we are working very hard to get clinical indicators that will command confidence both in the professional and public arenas. With those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will perhaps feel able to withdraw the amendment.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: I thank the Minister for her detailed reply. This has been a useful debate. Of course, I am sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Winston, believes this to be a flawed amendment. I shall read Hansard carefully as regards both amendments. However, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment Nos.75 and 76 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 11, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) In monitoring and improving the quality of health care which it provides to individuals, it shall be the duty of each NHS Trust to ensure that it takes account of the need to meet or exceed any relevant national standards.").
The noble Earl said: If there is one issue addressed in the Bill which engages the average member of the public, it is surely the quality of NHS healthcare.
We are debating the Bill at a time when standards of care and the levels of professional skill are high in the public consciousness, for a variety of reasons—not all of them happy. It is therefore absolutely appropriate that a Bill of this importance should contain provisions which acknowledge the public's justifiably high expectations of the health service.
It is slightly disappointing that only one clause is given over to the issue of monitoring standards and improving the quality of care. I am very sorry about that. Although I understand all the arguments about cluttering up the face of the Bill, the contrast between Clause 13 and the detail with which the commission for health improvement is described, for example, could not be more marked.
The so-called "quality agenda" is substantial. One of the main planks of that agenda is the implementation of clinical governance arrangements. As we know from last year's White Paper, those arrangements are multi-faceted and complex. The way in which they are implemented is of absolutely critical importance to their success. Part of that depends upon adequate resources but part also depends on the actual mechanisms by which PCTs and NHS trusts monitor care. There will have to be, for example, a continuous process of audit by which standards of care are measured, and the results of that audit will need to be published. Alongside that process of monitoring, there should be a means of collating outcome data on a national basis so that individual trusts can compare their work with that of others.
We are all well aware that NICE will produce guidelines on clinical care. However, in particular areas of clinical care, guidelines already exist, prepared by the Royal Colleges, specialist societies and other organisations. Those national standards of clinical treatment are formulated by consensus between the relevant stakeholders. Some of those guidelines are pan-European. There are good examples of national standards in relation to the treatment of hypertension and diabetes and with regard to renal services.
I feel strongly that some provision in the Bill ought to acknowledge the need of the NHS to comply with national standards, from whatever source. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's response. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I rise to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in this amendment. I take on board the points made in the previous debate on Amendments Nos. 74 and 76, that there is a danger of over-monitoring and of having to produce too many reports on one thing or another. However, it is essential

1381
that this clause has some teeth. That is why we believe that the three amendments are worth supporting and that is why we support Amendment No. 77 in particular.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may support the amendment briefly. It seems so much better to talk about,
"the need to meet or exceed any relevant national standards",
than to refer to "equality of treatment". There is no such thing as "equality of treatment" because needs are never absolutely equal. However, treatments should measure up to the national standard. This seems an excellent amendment and the Government should certainly consider including such provisions in the Bill.
Baroness Young: In considering what seems a very important amendment, will the Minister compare these provisions with what has happened in the world of education? When league tables and other standard measurements were introduced, there was considerable criticism and it was said that they were not a good idea. In fact, the Government have now accepted them and it has been recognised that, once there is a nationally accepted standard of measurement, standards are levered up. I am in no sense criticising the National Health Service, hut it must be the intention of everybody to apply the standards of the best to all. One way of doing that is to have national measurements. That is what lies behind my noble friend's amendment and it deserves serious consideration.
Lord Walton of Detchant: When the Minister replies, will she take note of the fact that, in the medical profession in particular, there has been a tremendous move towards the regular audit of clinical procedures during the past few years, guided by the advice of the medical Royal colleges and facilities? Only two weeks ago, the General Medical Council agreed that in the future all doctors would be subject to a revalidation of their performance and of their clinical skills and competence. Although I have every sympathy with the amendment and, indeed, support its underlying objectives, will the Minister accept that there has already been a tremendous move towards fulfilling those underlying objectives?
Baroness Fookes: I warmly welcome the amendment, especially in relation to national standards. In his amendment, I hope that my noble friend is considering also the prevention of ill health. That is a very important matter to which, in the past, we have given insufficient attention. I should like to see the prevention of illness included in the national standards. It may well be, but I seek the Minister's views on that.
Baroness Hayman: Like the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I agree with Members of the Committee who have spoken about the importance of national standards with regard to our overall aim of increasing the quality of treatment given to patients and the quality of the healthcare that is provided. That was why I said, when speaking to an earlier amendment, that the guidance that
1382
we shall publish shortly on the implementation of clinical governance will set out the core content of clinical governance reports from all NHS bodies.
I am sure that it is inadvertent that the amendment applies only to NHS trusts. I am sure that we would all want primary care trusts equally to fall within the spirit of the provisions. As well as evidence of user and carer involvement, those reports will have to state the progress made on implementing the national service frameworks and the guidelines from the national institute for clinical excellence. Trusts must take full account of authoritative national standards and guidelines where they exist, and, in particular, what we hope will be the "gold standard" guidelines from the national institute for clinical excellence.
The noble Earl said that some national guidelines already exist and that we do not have to wait for them to be introduced. He is absolutely correct, but those many national guidelines are not necessarily the authoritative national guidelines. Sometimes, there are conflicting national guidelines on the same subject. Simply seeking to include national guidelines on the face of the Bill could cause problems. We must be certain about them. One of the main reasons for establishing the national institute for clinical excellence is that we want to have appropriate national standards.
Equally, it is important to emphasise that decisions about an individual's healthcare must continue to be taken by clinicians and the patient, based on clinical need. However much standards and guidelines are issued, doctors will still be responsible for clinical decision-making, and doctors and patients together will still make the final decisions on individual cases. Ultimately, guidance from NICE will do exactly what that word implies: it will offer advice. It will not be compulsory.
Perhaps I may remind Members of the Committee of our earlier discussion on the care of the elderly. The elderly are recognised as a patient group among whom there is very seldom one single condition about which a national guideline could be issued as the sole guidance on the care of such patients. We are trying to move to a more holistic approach and to look at the needs of the elderly overall. Indeed, the interaction of an individual's other particular health requirements might militate against the idea of strict and rigid adherence to any particular national standard.
As I have said, we accept the thrust of the amendment. We shall issue guidance to ensure that NHS trusts and primary care trusts report on their progress. Pursuit of a consistent standard of high quality treatment and care across the NHS is our aim. I hope, however, that I have been able to explain to the Committee why I do not think it necessary or appropriate to take the path set out in the amendment.
Earl Howe: This has been a useful short debate. I am grateful to the Minister for her helpful comments. Perhaps I should have tabled another amendment containing a subsection defining the phrase "national standards".

1383
I believe that those Members of the Committee who have spoken have been in general agreement with the thrust of the point that I was trying to make and I am grateful to the Minister for echoing that agreement. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 11, line 17, at end insert ("including, without prejudice to the generality of this section, general clinical care as well as medical treatment and the equity of treatment provided").
The noble Baroness said: I rise to move Amendment No. 78, which stands in the names of my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Sharp. This brief clause is being subjected, if that is the right word, to a good many suggestions for amendment. That shows the interest which the clause has aroused and the feeling that it does not go quite as far as some of us would like.
The point of this amendment is to add to the definition of "health care" in subsection (4), by adding the provision that it should include,
"general clinical care as well as medical treatment and the equity of treatment provided".
We have just had a long discussion about equity, which I shall not repeat. The Minister might find that this is a more acceptable point at which to introduce the concept of flexible equity alongside the concept of quality, and I will leave it at that.
The mention of general clinical care is important because it includes a wide range of care, including that given by nurses and particularly the non-medical aspects of care, for example a concern for cleanliness, privacy, dignity of the patient and proper information and support for patients. Much of that is involved with nursing care, both in hospital and in the community. Such elements of care can significantly affect health outcomes, so they are important not only from the point of view of human relationships but because of their effect on the success of the treatment. This introduces the element of clinical governance, which involves the cultures, systems and processes within which and by means of which care is delivered, as well as medical treatment. The amendment supports the Minister's assertion that clinical governance is the key to the success of the new duty of quality and to the Government's overall policy agenda. Clinical governance is an umbrella term which encompasses the culture, systems and processes that are necessary to maintain and improve standards of patient care. I hope that the Minister will find this to be an acceptable amendment to this very short but, nevertheless, important clause. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The issue of general clinical care was very nicely spelt out by the Royal College of Nursing, and I think that the noble Baroness who moved the amendment was speaking partly of consultations with the Royal College. I was very
1384
impressed by what it said about general clinical care improving the well-being of the patient in addition to medical treatment.
I have stated my views about the term "equity of treatment". I think that it is an unsuitable phrase. We all know what the noble Baroness means, and of course we all want to see fairness in the health service, but everyone's case should be considered on its merits.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: I support Amendment No. 78. There is no doubt that whether or not a patient feels cared for depends very much on the quality of nursing care and not just medical care. It depends upon basic essentials, including hygiene, cleanliness, nutrition, privacy, dignity, incontinence care and the information and support given to patients. It is essential that we support the amendment, which will widen the duty of quality from medical care, including prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness, to include these general aspects of care.
I am sure we were all very impressed by the research produced by Help the Aged on the quality of care that elderly patients have received in hospital wards, and we wish to prevent that kind of situation generally.
Baroness Hayman: I am completely in agreement that the duty of quality should not be narrowly defined as simply the quality of medical intervention.
My only concern about the amendment is whether it is necessary in view of the definitions before us. The duty, we believe, is broad enough to cover not only medical interventions but certainly nursing care. The noble Baroness is absolutely right to remind us of how crucial these matters are in ensuring dignity and privacy for patients and respect for them. The report on the care of the elderly drew that aspect to our attention and the Secretary of State has made it very clear that he expects it to be implemented in terms of NHS care in hospitals.
We also need to look at support functions, for example, pathology services, which are crucial to the quality of screening and diagnosis. It is our belief that the Bill already takes those into account. The definition of healthcare in the duty is drawn widely as,
"services for or in connection with the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness",
within the ambit of healthcare and the duty of quality.
The 1977 Act defines illness as including mental disorder within the meaning of the Mental Health Act 1983 and any injury or disability requiring medical or dental treatment or nursing. It is therefore already implicit in the Bill—although some noble Lords think it is by a circuitous route by reference to other legislation—that the definition of health care is not confined to medical treatment. It is broad enough to address the concerns raised by noble Lords. There is absolute agreement that we should not exclude general clinical care from the duty of quality. I quarrel with the amendment in that I believe that the Bill already includes those issues which noble Lords have addressed.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I hear what the Minister says and I will read the report carefully tomorrow. I was not entirely convinced, but for the present I withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Clause 14 [The Commission for Health Improvement]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 11, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The bodies to whom directions are given under section 17(1) of the 1977 Act shall act upon the recommendations of the Commission for Health Improvement.
( ) The Commission for Health Improvement shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be guided by the standards set by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence as regards best practice in clinical care and treatment.").
The noble Lord said: This amendment should have been grouped with Amendment No. 77, but I shall have a second bite of the cherry on the issue of enforceability of the guidance.
The noble Baroness was very clear in what she said, which was consistent with the consultation paper A First Class Service which was issued last July. That document stated that the commission for health improvement would monitor compliance by NHS trusts and purchasers of NICE guidance. However, there was no commitment in the White Paper, nor is there in the Bill, to enforcing compliance with the guidance.
In the view of many voluntary organisations connected with sufferers of MS, Alzheimer's, haemophilia, AIDS and HIV, that leads to great danger in terms of the continuation of what has increasingly come to be known as post-code prescribing. It means that bodies within the NHS will still be able to disregard even strong guidance from NICE, and the commission for health improvement will not necessarily be able to enforce that guidance.
The original A First Class Service paper stated:
"The introduction of clinical governance will mean that variations from expected good practice, as recommended by NICE, will increasingly be challenged locally. We will expect guidance produced by NICE to be implemented consistently across the NHS. How well this happens in practice, to ensure that unacceptable variations in care for patients are not allowed to persist, will determine whether and how NICE's and the Commission for Health Improvement's powers will be strengthened in future".
That gives us an indication that, if the Government notice that post-code prescribing is still continuing, it is possible that the Bill will need to be amended at some time in the future. However, the Government already have the experience of post code prescribing. They will already know that national guidance on treatments is disregarded by NHS trusts.
In 1995, the NHS Executive issued a circular to all health authorities urging them to fund beta interferon. But a number of health authorities refused to comply with that guidance in 1996 and 1997. Indeed, in 1997 the North Derbyshire health authority lost a judicial review case because it refused to fund the drug. In addition, the health authority even rejected the assumptions which had underpinned the Government's guidance by its insistence that the drug was not clinically effective. In fact, only 16 per cent. of English health authorities are funding beta interferon for fewer
1386
than five MS patients. An MS Society survey found that only 3 per cent. of MS patients were being prescribed beta interferon. So there are major variations involved.
We have a large number of amendments to deal with today, so I shall not recite in detail every instance of clear post-code prescribing, but it clearly affects such drugs as aricept in connection with conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, haemophilia and AIDS/HIV. It is a continuing issue and one which needs to be addressed. The leaders of nine medical charities wrote to the Health Secretary, Mr. Dobson, in the aftermath of the publication of the White Paper. Those charities include the ones that I have mentioned and also the Motor Neurone Disease Association, the National Asthma Campaign, the National Kidney Research Foundation, the Terence Higgins Trust and the Multiple Sclerosis Society. They made it quite clear that, unless CHIMP has to enforce those NICE standards, there will continue to be major variations.
There has obviously been discussion under Amendment No. 77 of the whole system of NHS frameworks. Clearly there needs to be flexibility. It is not as if NICE in its own standard-setting will be utterly prescriptive down to the last catheter inserted; indeed, it will be broad and there will be standards across the board. We have seen some of the NHS frameworks in draft, such as the mental health NHS framework, which are perfectly acceptable. Nevertheless, they should be enforced by CHIMP and that should be part of its remit under the Bill. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has had a second bite of the cherry. This amendment seems to me to get to the heart of what is meant by the term "clinical governance". The latter appears to be a two-sided coin. On the one hand, it provides the key to improving the quality of patient care. I do not dissent from that and I take on board and agree with everything that the noble Lord said about post-code prescribing. However, on the other hand, it carries a potential threat to patient care. I say that because, if there is an easy answer to those who search for a definition of "clinical governance", it is the opposite of clinical freedom. That is the fundamental difficulty inherent in NICE and the commission for health improvement.
If those two bodies exercise their functions with a light touch, if they recognise the importance of a doctor's judgment and if their pronouncements are to have the status of guidance, and no more than guidance, that is one thing. But if the whole flavour of NICE and CHIMP is of a prescriptive, rule-bound approach to clinical decision-making, the consequences will not only be damaging to the way in which doctors exercise their clinical judgment but, I suggest, the system will also be unworkable. Unfortunately, the tenor of the Bill, despite the Minister's reassuring comments a few minutes ago, suggests strongly that prescriptiveness and not flexibility will characterise the implementation of clinical governance.

1387
However, this is not just an issue of principle; it is also an issue of practicalities. To judge the performance of a surgeon or a specialist, you need bench-marks. To create bench-marks, you must have data on outcomes. Except in a few disciplines, such as cardio thoracic surgery, information on outcomes simply does not exist. Therefore, for most specialist treatments no standards of comparison are available; nor is there any incentive at all for hospitals or consultants to collect such data because, quite simply, people do not want to publicise their mistakes.
Even if one could get over the latter difficulty, many surgeons do not know the eventual outcome of a case because the patient goes away and does not come back. There is a massive job to be done in terms of data collection before the commission can even begin to do its work. How is that to be achieved and over what timescale? Further, can the Minister tell the Committee how it will be possible to compile bench-marks for disciplines such as psychiatry or physiotherapy? These are extremely difficult issues and a proper database cannot be compiled on the cheap. It needs meaningful results, based on data that is not just obtained from centres of excellence but also from centres of mediocrity. If you try to do all this on the cheap, no one will have any confidence in the results. Indeed, you would do much better not to have begun.
At the end of the day there will always remain some conditions for which guidance from NICE is non-existent. What is a GP supposed to do? He can hardly say to a patient, "There is no protocol, so there's nothing I can do for you". The fact of the matter is that for at least one quarter of the time a GP flies by the seat of his pants: he trusts his experience and his judgment. That is what he is there for. However, none of that will feature on the radar screens of those in the commission who will treat the NICE rule book as their bible.
The Minister will doubtless tell me that I have taken the whole thing too literally and that there is no question of a rule-bound approach to clinical governance. I hope that that is true, but that does not get over the sheer difficulty of enabling CHIMP to function in the first instance. I do not know how, realistically, it will reach that point. In the final analysis the question to be asked is: will CHIMP prevent another Bristol Royal Infirmary? If the answer is no, as I fear it is, then much of the work of the commission will have been a waste of time.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: I am a great believer in plain English. On those grounds, I have an objection to the name which has been given to the commission—namely, the commission for health improvement. Ought it not to be the commission for health treatment improvement, or the commission for healthcare improvement? Surely we are all in favour of health improvement, but I beg leave to doubt whether that will be achieved by setting up this commission. We are not very clear in what we are saying here.
When one reads the functions referred to in the amendment, it is very difficult to understand precisely what this commission will do and move it, so to speak,
1388
from the general to the particular. I have one brief question for the Minister. Does she envisage that what I believe to be the "great evil" of mixed wards in hospitals will be ended when this commission gets going? I ask that question because in some places they have been stopped, while in others they have not. It is impossible to overestimate the distress caused to some elderly patients—and, indeed, to others who are younger—by being placed in a bed next to one occupied by a man, if it is a lady, or in a bed next to one occupied by a lady, if it is a man. It is an issue which hospitals have not always understood. I believe that it is very wrong to impose on sick people something which could be avoided. Indeed, it ought to be recognised as a wrong way to treat people. Let us be clear in this respect. As regards this amendment and this part of the Bill, we are surely talking about healthcare and not just the rather vague concept of "health".
Lord Haskel: I did not recognise what the noble Earl referred to when he spoke about governance. I do not see governance as being laying down a rule book. It certainly lays down some basic rules, but the whole purpose of governance is to try to inform people what is best practice and try to persuade people to adopt it. It seeks to improve the mediocre, not simply tell people what to do by virtue of a rule book.
Baroness Hayman: I welcome the wide debate we have had on a specific amendment. I say to the noble Baroness who spoke about the name of the commission that if we refer back to the discussion we had earlier about the ambit of healthcare including prevention—which does, of course, concern health—we can see one of the problems of being specific and looking only at healthcare or services being provided. The whole intention of the Government's policy is not to adopt an artificial distinction between those things which encourage good health and those things which treat failing health, but to take a more holistic approach to both of them. Therefore I defend the name of the commission, but that is by the by.
In the debate on Amendment No. 81 the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that we needed—if I can characterise it as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, described it—more of a rule book approach and an insistence that bodies act upon recommendations guided by the national institute for clinical excellence, whereas the noble Earl was worried about that. Clinical governance is certainly not the opposite of clinical freedom. I think I made clear earlier that one of the reasons one cannot be too prescriptive is because the individual treatment of an individual patient who may have complex needs must be individually decided as between the clinician and the patient. If he had said that the issue was the opposite of clinical licence and the licence to ignore authoritative evidence about proper treatment, we might be nearer to a working definition, but that again is by the by.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said—I think a little unfairly—that we had experience already of the problems and therefore we ought to move immediately to being prescriptive about enforcing the guidance set

1389
out by NICE, for example, and not allow it simply to be guidance. We have experience of the problems but we do not have experience of a rounded set of provisions aimed at improving quality, and of a kite-marked, gold standard, basic framework either provided by a national service framework or by national institute for clinical excellence guidelines. Then we have the duty of quality and of clinical governance and monitoring by the commission for health improvement, feeding back in turn, if necessary, to NICE and the guidelines. Therefore we do not have experience of how the whole system would work. However, I think that we have the balance right here.
Following a review or investigation what the commission recommends will be reported back to the organisation concerned, highlighting where there is need for change. The organisation itself will then be responsible for drawing up an effective action plan which will be shared with the commission, the regional office or the health authority, depending on whether it is an NHS trust or a PCT. Then the regional office or the health authority will supervise implementation of the action plan. Certainly the commission's recommendations will give added direction and impetus to that organisation in meeting its performance objectives checked annually through the NHS executive performance assessment mechanisms. Therefore I believe that the implementation of the commission's recommendations will need to be looked at in the light of wider objectives set, not just for the particular NHS body but, importantly, in the context of national priorities set for the NHS as well as wider local circumstances; for example, in working with other organisations to implement the local health improvement programme. Therefore despite the intention which lies behind these amendments—which I recognise—they may serve to be too restrictive.
We recognise the intention that organisations should move forward with recommendations made to improve the quality of services. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will be reassured to know that where there is unacceptable delay in making progress, the Secretary of State has a power under the Bill to give directions to the body under Section 17 of the 1977 Act, as amended by Clause 7 of this Bill, requiring it to take action to implement the commission's recommendations. Therefore there is no question of it being completely toothless. As I say, I think it important that the commission is guided not only by NICE but that it considers best practice in clinical care and treatment, and particularly national service frameworks. I do not wish to specify only NICE guidance as that which the commission should take on board and which it should ensure is being implemented. There will be a range of issues that the commission will wish to monitor and report back on and there will be a range of ways in which we ensure that institutions seek to implement improvements.
The commission will, of course, examine the take-up of NICE guidance as part of its work to assess the implementation of good practice across the NHS. However, I refer to the issue that the noble Earl raised. I say again that NICE guidance is not mandatory. It will
1390
provide guidance on which treatments are clinically and cost effective. It will offer doctors, nurses and other healthcare professionals advice and support in making complex decisions about individual patient care. However, final decisions on treatment will continue to be made locally in the light of individual circumstances.
The commission will have regard to a wide range of guidance in exercising its functions, including that made available through the national service frameworks and NICE. We expect the NHS to take account of this guidance in improving the clinical and cost effectiveness of its services to patients. Progress will be monitored by the commission. In those circumstances I believe it is unnecessary and indeed inappropriate to put specific provision as to NICE guidance on the face of the Bill.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I apologise to the Minister and to the Committee for joining this discussion a little late as I was momentarily distracted by some questions from another noble Lord. I assume that NICE will examine different areas of medicine and will then make recommendations upon their management. It is a matter of great concern, for example, that 3 per cent. of patients with multiple sclerosis in this country are receiving beta-interferon compared to 11 per cent. in Germany and 18 per cent. in Australia. CHIMP has been welcomed in principle by the major medical organisations in this country as being likely to make a major contribution to the improvement of health and the better management of disease. If it recommends certain measures based upon what NICE has proposed, am I right in understanding from what the noble Baroness said that should a particular body, a health authority or trust, fail to take account of that recommendation, the Secretary of State would have authority as a last resort to impose those conditions upon that body?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, the noble Lord is correct. When there is unacceptable delay in making progress on a recommendation by the commission which could well be based on the implementation of guidance, although it could be a specific local issue and not related to national guidance, the Secretary of State has a general power of direction which he could and, I believe, would use to take action to ensure that the commission's recommendations were implemented.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: Before the Minister sits down, and before I respond, perhaps I may ask a question. Other health Ministers have indicated that if the experience of health authorities and NHS trusts in complying with CHIMP's recommendations in terms of the NICE standards was not a happy one, consideration would be given to tightening up on the enforceability of the NICE standards. Is that the Minister's understanding?
Baroness Hayman: I said in my earlier remarks about the circle of quality improvement that it is important that we have feedback from the commission to NICE or to the national service frameworks about the

1391
difficulties of implementing a particular piece of guidance—because it is conceivable that NICE might not get it absolutely right and might need to understand and learn from the experience of people trying to implement the guidance—and therefore it might be sensible that it gets feedback so that it can adjust the guidance. But, in the same way, if the guidance were being ignored across the board, that too would need to be fed back into the process. Of course, Ministers would have to consider that—that was the allusion to the reference in the White Paper. I am trying to say that we are a long way from any of that at present.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My concern is that NICE will be levelling down rather than levelling up. Throughout the document on NICE we are told that cost effectiveness will be considered. Surely that means that, for example, the multiple sclerosis cases will not be encouraged by that and that treatment will not be universally available. Can the Minister reassure me on that point?
Lord Walton of Detchant: Before the Minister answers that question, is she aware that the chairman of NICE has made a public statement to the effect that the recommendations of that body will be based upon what is best for the patients and what is most cost effective but will otherwise not be ruled by issues of finance and cost?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, I can perhaps reassure the noble Baroness. Cost effectiveness is not the same as something being expensive. It may he that something is expensive but very cost effective and clinically effective, and therefore ought to be introduced. We have tried to stress in the work of the national institute that it should be a mechanism not for levelling down but for ensuring that when there are new developments—when new technology and new drugs become available—which are clinically effective and cost effective, they should be available to the broadest range of patients as soon as possible. We have to recognise too that we must look into areas—and NICE may well want to look into areas—where practice is steeped in the mists of time but may not necessarily be particularly effective. We have to look at both sides. I certainly would not want to think that it was a levelling down. In some of the instances that have been referred to, we would hope that the existence of NICE ensures that more people have access to new and effective treatments more quickly.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that full reply and for her replies to the supplementaries, which have clarified matters considerably. There is a slight philosophical issue here of whether one thinks that the glass if half full or half empty. I suspect the Minister thinks that the glass is half full; I think it is half empty. I have some concerns about the future.
I have seen how national service frameworks in embryonic form, in terms of the Calman Hine framework, have operated. That has operated very flexibly but, on the other hand, some authorities and trusts have not put it into effect in anything like the most effective form. It is possible to retain that kind of flexibility.
1392
I accept the Minister's point that we do not yet have experience of what she called a rounded set of provisions. The bodies that I have spoken to and about have had experience of a rather narrower set of circumstances where a specific circular requiring trusts to act in regard to beta interferon has not been obeyed. That is why they are full of foreboding. We all know that NICE is a terrific acronym to try and gain the good will of the medical profession—what "nicer" name could one have, so to speak—and I appreciate the requirement to have effective action plans and the fall-back powers of the Secretary of State. I cannot say at this point that we are convinced. I do not believe that the philosophy behind the amendment is over-prescriptive in the way that it operates; it is simply designed to get action and to make sure that trusts and health authorities put into operation those best practice standards that NICE will bring forward. It may be a slow process—there may not always be a best practice standard in existence—but, nevertheless, those which are in existence should be complied with. We shall consider what the noble Baroness has said and we shall probably come back to this point--perhaps in a form which looks at the Secretary of State's power to give directions—at Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 82 not moved.]
Clause 14 agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Business
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we move to the Statement on long-term care, I should like to take the opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

Long-term Care: Royal Commission Report
4.36 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: With the permission of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement is as follows:
"At the general election in May 1997 we promised to set up a Royal Commission on the long-term care of the elderly. In December 1997 I announced to the

1393
House the establishment of that Royal Commission to be chaired by Professor Sir Stewart Sutherland, Principal and Vice-Chancellor of Edinburgh University.
"Since then the commission has met formally on 15 occasions, taken oral evidence from 67 individuals, conducted seven public hearings in different parts of the country, received evidence from 400 organisations and received a total of 2,040 written submissions. Between them, the commissioners met over 1,000 individuals, made 100 visits and held 140 meetings of one kind or another. They were assisted by a reference group representing the leading organisations concerned with the care of the elderly. The commission presented its report to me on Friday, 26th February, after it had been submitted to Her Majesty the Queen. It is being published today.
"I am grateful to Sir Stewart Sutherland and all the members of the commission for their diligence and the swift delivery of their report. All 12 commissioners signed the report. Two commissioners have submitted a note of dissent on three particular aspects—and even they were not entirely unanimous.
"The task of the commission was to look into how best to provide sustainable long-term funding for good quality care of the elderly and how the costs should be shared between taxpayers and the individual. Its report rightly makes clear that this is something on which 'there is no obvious answer' and calls for an 'informed debate' on what it has recommended.
"I support that call. The Government's response must await the outcome of that debate which I hope and expect will commence with today's publication of the Royal Commission report. I hope that it will be useful to the House for me to highlight a number of the Royal Commission's major conclusions and recommendations. First, it concludes that there is not a demographic time bomb with which our economy and society cannot cope. Secondly, it concludes that the possible need for long-term care is a risk that cannot be met adequately from individual income or savings so some pooling of risk is necessary. Thirdly, it concludes that private insurance will not deliver the necessary cover at an acceptable cost. Fourthly, it concludes that the costs will have to be met by contributions from the taxpayer and individuals. Fifthly, it concludes that the costs of long-term care can and should be separated into living costs, housing costs and personal care costs. Sixthly, it recommends that people receiving care should be expected to contribute to their living costs and to their housing costs but the costs of their personal care should be met by the taxpayer. The note of dissent rejects this separation and the proposal that individuals should not contribute to the cost of the care element. It gives greater priority to the quality of care.
"The commission estimates that to adopt its proposals would cost the taxpayer between £800 million a year and £1,200 million a year at 1995 prices. It estimates additional costs to the taxpayer of lesser options such as a short-term disregard of house
1394
value at £90 million a year, changing the limits of the present means test at between £150 million and £200 million a year and making nursing care in nursing homes free at £220 million a year.
"As the report states, 'This is a complex issue and there are no easy solutions'. We have to get this right. In considering the commission's proposals we will all need to bear in mind, firstly, the taxpayers' money used to relieve the costs to individuals cannot also be used to improve the quality of care or extend it, though this might be a higher priority with some older people. Secondly, these proposals, like all aspects of taxation and benefits, would shift money from one income group to another—in this case to some better-off people from some who were worse off.
"The report recommends that the best way to help carers is to improve the services provided for the people they care for. The note of dissent argues that priority should be given instead to respite care.
"The report emphasises the need to improve cultural awareness in services offered to ethnic minority elders. It also recommends that the Government should consider applying to the personal care needs of younger disabled people the same principles they recommend for care of the elderly.
"While the commission has been sitting the Government have been getting on with making improvements to the treatment and care available to elderly people. So we have already made a start on a number of aspects covered by the report. These include: extending direct payments to over 65s; breaking down barriers between the health service and social services; improving local standards through the long-term care charter—a clear manifesto commitment; changing the law to allow local NHS and local councils to pool budgets; £750 million over three years for initiatives to promote rehabilitation and prevention; providing for more consistent standards of care in health and social services; preparing for independent inspection of nursing homes, old people's homes and social care through regional care commissions; starting work on a national service framework for older people to lay down how the NHS and local councils should provide them with high-quality services in every part of the country; encouraging care providers to promote independence rather than dependency; and launching a new strategy for carers with £140 million over three years.
"We also accept—as does the Royal Commission—that there is a strong case in principle for phasing out the payment of residential allowances and transferring these resources via a special grant to local authorities. But we will need carefully to work through the implications of this change on both the benefit system and on the independent care sector before we take any final decisions.
"The Royal Commission's major recommendation that a national care commission should be established to monitor trends, set standards and represent consumers will need to be considered in the light of these changes already in place or in the pipeline.

1395
"The Government have also been taking other action to help elderly people. These measures include: restoring free eye tests for pensioners; commissioning a report from the Health Advisory Service on the treatment of elderly people in acute hospitals; instructing all hospitals to take immediate action to improve the supply of bed linen, food and drink to elderly people; making a start on providing greater financial security by reform of the pension system; improving the Government's overall approach through the Better Government for Older People initiative and establishing an inter-ministerial group to take this forward across government.
"Along with the rest of the country the Government will study the report of the Royal Commission with great care. In the course of our consideration we will apply the principles set out in our welfare reform Green Paper, in particular expecting people to insure against foreseeable risks and make provision for their retirement; making sure that those most in need can enjoy a dignified and fulfilling life; providing public services of high quality to the whole community; and making sure the system is flexible, efficient and easy to use.
"At the general election we committed ourselves to setting up this Royal Commission. That was because we recognised that, although only one in five old people need long-term personal care, as people approach old age many become anxious about how well they will he looked after, who will look after them, how much it will cost and who will pay.
"I hope that the Royal Commission's report and the debate it will stimulate will help us find a way of ensuring that people have access to high-quality long-term care that is fair to both individuals and the taxpayer. I hope that it will be founded on a consensus that will stand the test of time—a dependable contract across the generations. That is of great importance because what elderly people seek, second only to good health, is financial certainty and security. And that is what this Government are determined to deliver".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the House will be more than usually grateful to the Minister for repeating this important Statement. I am sure that it will be welcomed on all sides of the House, not least because it marks the fulfilment of the remit given to the Royal Commission in December 1997 which it was asked to complete within 12 months. The commission has not quite succeeded in keeping to that timescale but has very nearly done so, following a very substantial workload. For that, members of the commission are to be thanked and congratulated.
When the Royal Commission was announced, we on these Benches emphasised the need for the Government to pursue their agenda for long-term care with decisiveness and speed. If I have one message for the Government today, it is that they should try to do just
1396
that. The Statement is perfectly right. These are highly complex issues. However, the commission has taken extensive evidence; it has reported; and now Ministers must decide.
The central problem in relation to the provision of long-term care, is, as the Minister indicated, its unfairness. Despite substantial increases in the means test threshold introduced by the previous government, many old people have had to sell their homes in order to pay for residential care. Such people often feel cheated. Having paid tax for many years when rates were high, they are now in receipt of sometimes poor levels of care, having sold their assets to pay for it. Others who have not saved for their retirement at all have all their costs paid for them.
The unfairness goes wider than that. The availability of local authority-funded care varies widely depending on where people live. Nor is there any consistency in the cost of such care. People are unable properly to plan ahead in the face of such uncertainty.
The other perceived unfairness of the present system relates to nursing care. Whereas nursing care is provided free in hospitals, at home and in residential homes, it is means tested in nursing homes. Particularly since the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, indeed over the past 10 years, the private and voluntary nursing home sector has expanded considerably. The result is that fewer old people receive free NHS nursing care than was previously the case.
The Royal Commission has come forward with the recommendation that nursing care should be funded by the NHS wherever it is provided. As the Statement makes clear, that carries with it a considerable price tag—although I am not at all clear why the figures have been presented at 1995 prices. Perhaps the Minister will comment on that.
Even if that proposal is accepted by the Government, the cost of nursing is not the only issue. The so-called hotel costs will still require a very large outlay on the part of older people in care. It is perfectly possible to imagine that pensioners will have to sell their homes, as they do now.
In 1996 the previous government published a White Paper, A New Partnership for Care in Old Age. Had it been brought in, the partnership scheme would have encouraged old age pensioners to take out insurance enabling them to protect £1.50 of assets for every £1 of insurance. That would have meant that a pensioner paying £20,000 in insurance would have had £20,000 of care paid for by the insurance company and they would then have had £46,000 of assets protected instead of £16,000. People not yet in long-term care but who might foresee a need to be in later life were also planned for. Under the scheme they would be encouraged to take out indemnity insurance to protect their assets and pay for the cost of their care. Those plans were seen by the then

1397
government as an addition to the existing community care arrangements and would not have affected people unable to pay for insurance.
There were criticisms of those proposals. One was that insurance schemes would not help everyone but only those who could afford the payments. Large numbers of pensioners on low incomes are not eligible for means-tested benefits and the scheme would not have included them. There was also a fear that when insurance money ran out pensioners would be ineligible for local authority assistance.
While that scheme was not a complete or perfect solution, it was a good start, and draft legislation was ready to be brought forward to Parliament. Will the Government reconsider the merits of that scheme, which appears in no way to cut across the Royal Commission's recommendations? Indeed, it seems absolutely consistent with what the commission says about the need to pool risk.
Will the Minister confirm that one of the key words contained in the Royal Commission's remit, apart from "fairness of outcome", which we all want to see, was that any system of funding the long-term care of the elderly had to be "sustainable"? Will she also say what the implications of the report are for younger people with long-term care needs? I think particularly of young adults with severe learning difficulties who are looked after at home, often by elderly parents. It would be hard not to describe the kind of care provided for those individuals as nursing care. The commitment and stamina required of those elderly people are often very considerable, with little in the way of respite relief. What does the report do for those people?
Can the Minister say how the High Court ruling last December in the case of North and East Devon Health Authority ex parte Coughlan affects the Government's policy on the funding of nursing costs?
I believe that the Statement leaves matters unsatisfactorily in the air. I agree that we should have consensus, if we possibly can. But if the Government are not minded to accept the Royal Commission's recommendations, when will they put forward their own proposals? In opposition the Labour Party promised that it would act swiftly and radically to address the problem. What is the time-scale for some definite proposals? The Government need to address the issue in the round, not only as it affects today's pensioners or those soon to retire but also as it affects future generations of pensioners. How are the middle-aged now meant to plan for their retirement in the absence of a clear policy?
4.53 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Earl in thanking the Minister for giving us an interlude in the Committee stage of the Bill, which has presented some problems in reading the paper—or not reading it. We very much welcome this eagerly awaited report from Sir Stewart Sutherland. Although noble Lords present have not been able to study all the recommendations, there is the chance to consider some of the points arising from the report and to ask the Minister about a number of areas relating to it.
1398
Long-term care is an issue for the elderly and for society as a whole. We on these Benches welcome statements about hoping that action will be founded on consensus. But that very much depends on the Government's approach and, with respect, on whether we can agree on proposals in this area.
The costs involved are very large indeed. In 1997 the cost of long-term care for the elderly and disabled totalled some £12½ billion. That figure excludes the notional cost of carers, which many people expect to rise as carers might prefer to pay for care themselves or leave it to the state or some other agency. That is in itself a worrying matter. In this context the conclusion of the Royal Commission that there is no time bomb with regard to costs seems somewhat strange. It appears that the costs of care will rise from some £12 billion to something over £35 billion in 2040. That seems to these Benches a significant rise in expenditure.
We welcome the proposals from the Royal Commission majority group about the separation of nursing costs from accommodation and other non-health costs. We believe that it is important to make no distinction between nursing homes and residential homes, hospitals and nursing care at home. Following on the noble Earl's question on the Coughlan case in December 1998, does that case not decide this matter, anyway? Is it not now settled law that those costs should be borne by the state? It is important that the Government give an indication about that since not only is that proposal the underlying basis of the majority report of the Royal Commission but the Government's view on the matter is long delayed. We have not had a government response on the Coughlan case; it is important that we have one in order to make sense of the Royal Commission's report.
Do the Government agree with the estimate of costs put forward by the Royal Commission of something like £200 million for the separation of costs and the bearing of nursing costs by the state? Do they recognise that there are savings to be made against that figure? Older people would not have to go to acute hospitals and occupy beds, for instance, in the case of major flu epidemics such as the one we have just experienced. In many respects that £200 million may be an over-inflated figure.
Do the Government accept that we need a comprehensive NHS community nursing service to cater for all the different institutions if the Royal Commission's proposals are taken forward? Will the Minister urge the Chancellor to take action in next week's Budget? The Government have had the report since mid-January. We know that the Prime Minister met the chairman of the Royal Commission at that time. Surely the question of how the disregard on assets is to be treated, for example, is already part of the Government's thinking. An opportunity is available next week to show the Government's earnest on this whole matter.
A major theme of the report is the need to integrate health and social services. In the light of the report, does the department believe that the Bill should go further? We have had debates in Committee on the integration

1399
of health and social care. Do the Government believe that the Royal Commission is urging them to go further in that respect? How will the national care commission interface with CHIMP? The Government have yet to consider whether they wish to adopt the idea of a national care commission, but some thoughts from the Minister on that subject would be helpful.
There is then a question of timescale. It is obviously of great importance that the Royal Commission's report should not fester on a shelf. It must be dealt with quickly. A ministerial group on old people exists, the setting up of which we greatly welcomed. Will that group of high-powered Ministers consider the report at the earliest moment? What is the time-scale within which the Government believe that it will be dealt with?
I was interested to note the discussion initiated by the previous government, to which the noble Earl referred on the question of private insurance. It is difficult to comment on that area. We know that the Royal Commission took a great deal of evidence—particularly abroad—on the question. But in the overall summary of the proposals this appears to have been dismissed with too much ease when it is considered that people aged about 60 have one chance in three of having to pay long-term care costs of the order of £30,000 and that a private insurance premium of about £10.000 is one way in which people with reasonable incomes can cope with such an eventuality. It means that potentially one removes a swathe of people from the problem of catering for accommodation costs, if it is assumed that one takes away nursing costs. There appear to be some interesting ideas that have not necessarily been fully addressed in the summary of the report of the Royal Commission. Clearly, we wait for further clarification.
Will the recommendations on carers in the report be built into the Government's strategy on carers? That is an important area.
Finally, it is important that in this debate we do not focus simply on costs. It is very easy to treat this as some kind of supplication to the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Social Security. One must focus on how best throughout older people can remain healthy, independent and active for as long as possible. This is a valuable report which must be taken forward in that spirit.
5.1 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their welcome of the Statement. I feel some sympathy for them. When I was preparing yesterday it crossed my mind that it would be even more difficult for them today. In this context I should point out when the report was available. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, suggested that we had had it since mid-January. I must make clear that the Royal Commission presented its report to the Secretary of State on 26th February having submitted it to Her Majesty the Queen, as it had to be. We are publishing it today and trying to get it into the open for public discussion as soon as possible.
1400
We very much accept the point made by both noble Lords that it is important to make progress in this area, although—as I believe emerged from their observations—just because there is a Royal Commission recommendation does not mean that there will be unanimity of response to it. Major issues face society to which there are not simple and indisputable answers. It is important that there is a general debate about them in order to provide a way forward that commands support throughout the community. The analysis carried out by the Royal Commission has been enormously helpful in that regard and is the foundation on which that debate should take place to enable some of the longer-term decisions to be taken. I do not believe that in terms of the basic issues, we can short-circuit that process, although we are already addressing some matters that concerned the Royal Commission. We shall be doing that at the appropriate time. For example, we have said that we want to establish a more consistent and fairer way of charging for non-residential social services. This matter was touched upon by the noble Earl. Now that we have received the report of the Royal Commission we can look at how to take forward the work on the review of charges for domiciliary and day care services. We also need to take forward the work with the voluntary sector and other interested parties to ensure that users of services and carers are involved in that process and their views are taken into account. The Statement outlines a number of other areas such as joint working and pooled budgets. These are matters to which we shall return later today in the context of the Health Bill that is now before your Lordships' House.
I was asked a specific question about the implications for younger disabled people. I believe that the Royal Commission makes clear that because it has reported in a fairly limited timescale it has been unable to go into the needs of younger disabled people with as much care and detail as it has for care of the elderly. But its general view is that the recommendations can apply equally to that group. We shall need to look very carefully at the implications of that recommendation for younger people with long-term care needs. As a government we have given high priority to the needs of disabled people in the form of the Disability Rights Task Force, the Disability Rights Commission Bill, the social services White Paper, the welfare reform agenda and the new deal for disabled people. Now we must look at the recommendations of the Royal Commission in the light of the existing work and the principles that have been established.
The noble Earl asked why the figures were based on 1995 prices. The answer is that it was the latest year for which the Royal Commission could find comparable figures for all the diverse sectors that it considered, including health, the DSS and social services. Therefore, in the interests of achieving a level playing field for purposes of comparison the Royal Commission had to go back to 1995.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked whether the Government accepted the commission's estimate for nursing costs in nursing homes. Obviously, we need to check the analysis. There are many analyses of the different component costs of different

1401
recommendations, but the estimate is certainly not outwith what we expect to be the kind of costs in nursing homes that are considerable and where there is an anomaly to which reference has been made. This is one of the areas in which the Royal Commission looks at both short and medium-term measures that can be taken within the ambit of its broader recommendations.
Referring to the effects of ex parte Coughlan, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, it is not a matter of knowing what the law is simply by looking at the decision in that case. There was a recent decision in R. v. North and East Devon Health Authority that nursing care should be provided by the NHS. The health authority then made an application for leave to appeal against the High Court's decision. In the light of the impact on policy of the view of the High Court about the funding of nursing care and given the importance of clarifying the judgment and making clear the current legal position, we decided to support the health authority's application for leave to appeal. Leave to appeal and for the Department of Health to intervene was granted on 4th February 1999. We shall need to consider guidance to health and local authorities once the result of that appeal is known. We do not have a definitive understanding of the legal position at the moment.
In response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, the Royal Commission concluded that private insurance would not deliver the necessary cover at an acceptable cost. It looked at the partnership proposals of the previous government, to which the noble Earl referred, and its response was that it was rather complex and difficult to see where the benefits lay and to whom. Therefore, it did not give a great deal of support to that particular way forward.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Laming: My Lords, we are grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement. Does the Minister agree that the analysis undertaken by the commission encourages all of us to adopt a much more positive approach to ageing? We should celebrate the fact that more people are living to an advanced age and have a certain quality of life as they approach their older years. Does the Minister agree it is rather ominous that the Statement makes reference to such matters as the complexity of the issue and suggests that there are no easy solutions? Further, a good deal of the Statement repeats what is in the Government's programme, with which I entirely agree. Is it ominous that the commission has, despite its hard and speedy work, contributed to the debate rather than set out the way forward on how those who become dependent should have their care funded in the future? Does the Minister agree that questions about the financing of long-term care for a large number of people, as raised by the noble Earl, remain?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in his analysis of that Royal Commission report is a clear statement that we should not regard the fact that people are living longer as an enormous problem but should ensure that they do so in security and in good health. It is a matter in which each of us has a personal
1402
interest. In that context, the idea of a demographic time bomb is a rather gloomy metaphor. We are almost getting back to the half empty or half full glass which appealed to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
I am sorry that there was a degree of disappointment inherent in the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that it is a complex area and that there are no simple solutions. The Government do not distance themselves from the analysis that it is a complex area, and they do not suggest that there are simple solutions. That is very much inherent in what was said by the Royal Commission. It is evidenced by the fact that there was a note of dissent; not all the commissioners agreed. That does not mean that we cannot make progress. It does not mean that we cannot, or would not wish to, go forward with greater clarity about the government position. But it suggests that we would be well advised to have a wider public debate on which to bring forward a consensus as to the best way forward.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I wish to thank the Royal Commission, in particular for the open way in which it was able to engage with those organisations which represent elderly people and their carers. That was extremely valuable.
The Statement says that only one in five people will need any form of residential care. Does the Minister agree that nonetheless it is an issue that concerns every family in this country? Therefore the importance of the debate cannot be over-emphasised. Nor should we be too gloomy about the opportunity to reach consensus because it is a concern of so many people.
Does the Minister also agree with me that although some of the issues are complex we must bear in mind the need for openness and clarity in transmitting the decisions which the Government finally make? The real issue which has caused distress over the years is confusion about what is and what is not available. Will the Government consider phasing in the proposals if they are not able to accept them all in one fell swoop?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the Government would have to consider carefully the acceptability or otherwise of individual conclusions and the timing of implementation. The commission looks at possibilities of phasing in, recognising the very substantial costs involved.
I accept my noble friend's analysis. Although the figure is only one in five people, no-one knows which one out of the five it will be. It could be any of us or any family. That means that it is a matter of concern to everyone. That is why the Royal Commission recognised it as a community responsibility and in its analysis considered the need to share that risk more widely among the community as a whole.
I agree with my noble friend that more transparency is needed. Uncertainty has added to people's difficulty. There have been obvious inequities between people in different circumstances which have little to do with their

1403
underlying need for assistance. In any response we would aim to provide a more equitable system to those who need it.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, first, what is the Government's reaction to the proposal by the Royal Commission to set up a national care commission? If they agree to it, will it replace the Government's own proposal to set up regional care commissions? Will all the commissions proposed help those who are currently under great stress attempting to fund the high costs of residential care?
Secondly, I wish to bring to the attention of the Minister the fact that it is not necessarily the people in long-term care who have to fund it, but their relatives. Is there any chance that tax relief can be given to those relatives bearing in mind that other European Union countries have that relief? Good long-term care can cost something like £45,000 upwards in pre-tax income. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked the Minister to approach the Chancellor to take action in next week's Budget. Realistically that is not possible. But if the noble Baroness were to do so, perhaps she would consider adding my humble suggestion to the noble Lord's good suggestion.
Thirdly, and finally, will the Government allocate time for a debate on the report of the Royal Commission in this House? That could be part of a wide consultation process.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the noble Baroness knows, allocation of time is a matter for the usual channels in your Lordships' House. But I am sure they will pay attention to her comments. As regards suggestions made on taxation policy, I am sure that my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer reads Lords Hansard daily. I shall ensure that the suggestions made are drawn to his attention.
The noble Baroness will understand from what I said that we do not have an instant response to the commission's proposal for a national care commission. As suggested, it would be wide ranging, dealing with complaints, trends and projections, advising on standards of care and training and professional issues. For example, it would require primary legislation. We need to look at it, as I think she suggested, against our commitment to the new national training organisation, the general social care council and the regional care commissions. We would have to assess it against those proposals which were already in the pipeline.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend for presenting the Statement. It is interesting, and I hope that we shall have an opportunity for further debate. Is my noble friend aware—I am sure she is—that the provision of long-term residential care in the past few years has become a highly profitable business? In the London area it will often cost between £400 and £500 a week to provide long-term residential care. If the taxpayer is to pick up a portion of those costs, steps will have to be taken to ensure that we are receiving value for money for that expenditure. Is there
1404
to be any arrangement, and which organisation would be responsible, for monitoring such care to ensure that value is obtained for the money expended?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend has a long-standing interest in these areas. She is right to point out that we are talking about large sums of money. It is important that we consider value for money and the effectiveness of care provided. Various suggestions are made about that. The commissions for care standards will be studying the issue across the board. The Royal Commission suggests detailed provision, in particular in terms of the national care commission, for considering those areas. Perhaps I may write to my noble friend on the details.
Baroness of Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, as one whose family has had to cope with the matter for a number of years, I agree on the importance of the issue. I recognise, as do many, the importance of the issue for every family in the country.
I was concerned by an opinion which the Minister in the Statement attributed to the commission's report. It suggested that increased expenditure on nursing care for the elderly would not necessarily bring with it a better quality of care. I contest that opinion. One of the difficulties which is faced by relatives whose elderly parent is in care is not knowing who to turn to for correct advice. If a qualified nurse monitored, for example, the level of medicaments prescribed to a patient over a period of time, which is not easy for untrained staff, the results might be not only a better quality of prescription but also a lowering of cost. If the National Health Service had a requirement to consider the need for long-term expenditure on healthcare for the elderly it might be better motivated to intervene at an earlier stage. How does the noble Baroness respond to those comments?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with the main points which the noble Baroness makes. Issues such as prescribing policies within nursing homes are of great concern. Some of the commission's suggestions—for example, a national care commission looking at just such issues—would improve quality and might cut costs.
The noble Baroness may have taken from the Statement a comment which was made not in relation to supporting nursing costs and improving nursing quality, but the commission's opinion that if taxpayers' money is used to alleviate the present means test and to relieve the cost to individuals, that money cannot be used to improve the quality of care across the board. That may be an issue of higher priority to elderly people or to the community as a whole. That contrary distinction was being made and not the issue of whether money should be put into improving nursing care.
Lord Peston: My Lords, it is difficult for us to comment on the details of what may be an important Royal Commission report because we do not have copies. However, there are comments in the Statement which are puzzling, to put it mildly. For instance,

1405
I cannot remotely work out how the figure of one in five can be calculated. Essentially, if people live long enough it is 100 per cent. I cannot see how it can be anything other than that if people live long enough.
I have a problem in that when we were in opposition our attitude seemed to be slightly different. It was that for the first time a whole generation who had won the Second World War for us experienced full employment and overwhelmingly acquired some assets—notably, their houses—but were suddenly told by the government of noble Lords opposite that because they lived so long, partly due to the NHS, they must use those assets to finance their long-term care. When I was looking at the various nails going into the coffin of the previous government I thought that that would be the one which would ensure that they went and would not be re-elected for some time.
I am concerned because I had hoped to hear from my noble friend—I do not wish to rush her because I know that these things take time—that that is not a path we wish to go down with that generation as opposed to younger people who can prepare for the future on a different basis. I did not hear anything in the Statement to indicate that that is so. I must ask my noble friend to accept that some of us on this side of the House find that disturbing. The costs of care are enormous. I had to meet them precisely on the ground that I did not want elderly parents to believe that their few assets would have to be sold. Other people have had the same experience.
I hope that our new Government will not take the course that appears to be indicated—I know that my noble friend would never be a party to that—and will not follow the policies of the previous government. I hope that they will say to the elderly who are approaching the need for care that they will not have to use the assets, which they have acquired because they have been prudent, in order to finance their care.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I listen carefully to what my noble friend says and take his strictures seriously. The commitment in the manifesto to set up the Royal Commission was clear. That has been fulfilled. The task of the Royal Commission was to look at how best to provide sustainable long-term funding for good quality care of the elderly and how those costs should be shared between taxpayers and individuals. That was the remit of the Royal Commission and it has reported with great care. I have not made an instant response to it for the reasons set out in the Statement. I hope that my noble friend will understand that we are not ruling anything in or out until we have carefully considered the report in detail.
My noble friend is being overly gloomy in believing that everyone will need long-term personal care. I suggest that there might be some members of your Lordships' House who can prove that that is not true. It is only one person in five who is in need of long-term personal care and at whom we are looking in the report.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I note that a group within the commission dissented and wished to put forward the idea that taxpayers should pay for respite care in priority
1406
to nursing care. I hope that both will be paid for in the long run because respite care will prevent the ultimate nursing of the carers after the breakdown in their health. Respite care is not an alternative; it produces a long-term saving and should be provided at the same time as proper nursing care.
Will the Minister tell the House whether nursing care includes that in private residential homes as well as that supplied in one way or another by the state? Is she sure that we will produce sufficient nurses in this country? I understand that under the new scheme of training nurses, Nursing 2000, students receive salaries and that many undertake the course in order to receive the salary and having qualified do not enter the nursing profession. Would it not be better to return to the old system of training on the job in hospitals where they gain experience as well as knowledge?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord tempts me to initiate a debate on nursing education which could take some time. The drop-out rate from nursing courses before the introduction of the new system was also high; perhaps even higher. The issue is not about producing enough nurses—we are increasing the number of training places and conversion courses for nurses who were previously state enrolled—but about how we retain nurses and encourage a return to the profession by many who leave after some years in service. That is a wider issue about nurse education. I can take common cause with the noble Lord. We have broken some of the links between the NHS and nurse education which were previously beneficial, but we are looking at ways to recreate them.
I certainly agree with the noble Lord that there is a vital role for respite care. That was recognised in the Statement made on a national strategy for carers. It is not an either/or situation. We need to support carers in their caring role. However, as I understand it, there were dissenting voices which said that it was counter-productive to try to provide alternatives to informal care by relatives and to follow that route. It was accepted that that caring was done but it was felt better to provide more respite care. The view of the commission is that we need support across the board for carers.

Health Bill [H.L.]
5.30 p.m.
House again in Committee.
Schedule 2 [The Commission for Health Improvement]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 48, line 9, at end insert ("at least three of whom shall be lay members representing all sections of the community including older people").
The noble Baroness said: We now move from the commission for long-term care to the commission for health improvement. Indeed, we are looking at the question of appointments to the commission for health

1407
improvement. Those provisions are set out in Schedule 2 to the Bill. As it stands, other than the appointment of a chairman and a representative for Wales, the schedule does not specify how many members there shall be or from which professions they may be appointed.
Once again, the question posed in these amendments is about how far we want the commission to be dominated by healthcare professionals or how far we wish to see wider representation from the community on the commission for health improvement.
The amendments which we have tabled propose to widen the membership to include lay members, including older people; to have representatives from the professions allied to medicine and from the universities; and to include NHS managers and representatives of users in the form of patients and carers.
A key issue covered by the amendments—and in particular Amendment No. 84, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, and Amendment No. 86—is whether there should be a majority of lay members on the commission for health improvement. In other words, is it to be an organisation established to provide an independent check on local systems of monitoring and improving healthcare which is to have a majority of health professionals judging themselves or is it to have a majority of people from outside the health professions? On these Benches, we should prefer to have a majority of lay members on the commission.
In addition, we recognise the contribution which other organisations can bring to the commission. We believe that it is extremely important that there should be representation from users, patients and especially older patients, carers and the voluntary organisations which represent them. It is important that a variety of skills which make up the NHS are represented on the commission. In that regard, I mention in particular the professions allied to medicine—physiotherapists, radiologists and also NHS managers and their representatives.
Finally, I make a special plea on behalf of the academics who are among the key partners. Academics who are part of medical faculties spend half their time providing patient care. The role of academics as leaders in their disciplines of evidence-based developments of clinical care will be vital to the commission's work. Amendment No. 88 is essentially a probing amendment to discover whether the Government have in mind that there will be significant academic representation on the commission. I commend the amendment to the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: I rise to support Amendment No. 83. The demographic explosion which is currently taking place as a result of an ageing population poses enormous ethical and economic problems. That is particularly true with regard to healthcare provision.
Charities which work with older people are worried that age will be used increasingly as a factor in determining whether or not someone receives treatment and what priority the patient is given. I trust that the
1408
Minister will be sympathetic to an amendment which seeks to ensure that older people are represented on the commission. As such, they would be well placed to ensure that the issue of age discrimination is brought to the fore in any discussions regarding treatment. I cannot believe that the Government would support discrimination against such a vulnerable section of society.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I support these amendments. As the Committee will know from our previous deliberations on the Bill, I am not in favour of having a great professional majority. Likewise, I should not wish to see a great lay majority. There should be just a majority of lay members. That means that people must attend the meetings and there is no guaranteed in-built majority for any group. If there is, people become lazy and do not turn up at the meetings. That throws out the whole balance.
When the Minister replies, I ask her to define the word "older". We have discussed already the definition of "older" and the Minister suggested that perhaps 60 was an appropriate definition. Many Members of this House would not consider 60 to be "older". Therefore, perhaps the Minister will be rather more specific than are the provisions of the amendment.
Lord Renton: I suppose that I should confess that I do not feel much different now from how I felt when I was 50. I am sorry to be so personal but I just wished to mention that because I do not want to talk about old age.
I seek some clarification of the word "lay" in the amendments. That word necessarily varies according to the context. If one is setting up a supervisory body over lawyers, "lay" means anyone who is not a lawyer. But here we are setting up a supervisory body over doctors, nurses and administrators within the health service who may be of a very large number. I ask the noble Baroness who moved the amendment whether she will tell me, perhaps even before the Minister replies, what is her opinion of the meaning of the word "lay" in that context.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I wish to ask a question about that particular point. In the health service there are many healthcare professionals and many different categories. There are administrators and a great many other people who, in certain respects, may be regarded as lay individuals. Hence, the definition is important.
It seems to me that Amendments Nos. 83 to 88 have a great deal to commend them because they specify rather precisely the kind of individuals who should be appointed to the commission for health improvement.
Having said that, I believe that there is one problem of which the Committee should be aware to which we have referred on earlier clauses in the Bill. It would be dangerous to be over-specific in relation to the membership of such a body. On Thursday afternoon, as we now know, we shall examine the role of the regulatory authorities in the health field. For example, the General Dental Council has been anxious for many years to increase its lay membership but is unable to do so without primary legislation. We must ask ourselves

1409
how specific we should be on the face of the Bill. May it not be more appropriate for the actual membership of the commission to be defined more precisely in secondary legislation rather than on the face of the Bill? That is merely a question that I wish to pose to those who have tabled the amendments.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My starting point in tabling Amendment No. 84 was that I agree with Bernard Shaw that,
"All professions are conspiracies against the laity".
I was delighted to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, support the amendment, because I have not called for a greater majority of lay representatives, but I believe that there should be a majority of lay representatives. And the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raises an important point in relation to definitions of "lay"; it sometimes seems to be an extremely flexible term. I am conscious from my background in community health councils that those councils, which I had always understood were lay organisations, sometimes had quite prominent members. To take but two examples, there was a retired consultant geriatrician and a practising dentist on one council, neither of whom seemed to me to be that "lay" a person.
Given that there is widespread concern about the system of professional self-regulation and that the new commission will play an important part in reassuring the public about health service standards and quality, it is important that the intelligent lay person is clearly represented on that body. I noted that in the Government's White Paper—A First Class Service—there was a reference to,
"The Commission will need to provide a balance of expertise and experience and this will be reflected in its membership which will be drawn from patients, the professions, the NHS and academia".
I hope that a significant part of that—a majority but not a great majority—will consist of lay people who are not themselves practising or retired clinicians, but people who are able to bring a perspective of ordinary common sense of what it feels like to use the services in question. That seems to me to be the core definition.
Lord Rea: If the actual composition of the commission is not to be on the face of the Bill, can my noble friend give an indication of the underlying principles on which the members of the commission are to be selected? In particular, will it be part of those principles that the commission will have expert public health advice, particularly people who understand health statistics and epidemiology on which the whole measurement of health is based?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I endorse the definition given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, of the concept of a "lay" member. From these Benches we believe that the definition is someone who is not actively engaged in the provision of services within the National Health Service.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: Perhaps I can pursue that issue. I am not sure that that will fit the bill in all
1410
circumstances. I, too, was once asked to be a "lay" member of a Royal College ethics committee. I was told that I would be one of three lay members and felt enormously reassured by that because I would not be alone. I then found that, of the other two, one was an emeritus professor of moral theology and the other was the senior partner of the leading firm of medical litigation lawyers in the country. As I understood it, I was there to speak for the women of Britain. So we can all find ourselves in situations where the definition of "lay" is not as it would appear to the uninformed observer, and I accept the spirit of the argument.
Also, I recognise that in your Lordships' Chamber the definition of over 60 as "older" may not necessarily gain approval; outside your Lordships' Chamber it might be considered more acceptable given current retirement patterns. However, questions of definition should go back to the proposers of amendments rather than to the Government, who felt it better not to include them in the first place. I am much reassured by the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I was feeling considerably older as I approached my 50th birthday, but if I continue to feel the same way for decades to come then I think I shall be all right.
Returning to the amendment before us, the Government share the concerns expressed by the Committee today that the commission should have the right balance of membership to ensure that it undertakes its work effectively. It is important that the commission has the respect and confidence of the public and the NHS, of those who make use of the NHS as patients and carers, and of the staff who deliver the services. In that context, the points made in relation to the role, for example, of appropriate public health advice, the role of academic medicine and the role which has been focused on most, that of a lay membership with personal experience of using NHS services, are extremely important.
In A First Class Service we highlighted the need for the commission to have access to a wide range of experience and expertise drawn from those with clinical and other professional backgrounds, academia, management and a lay membership. We also made it clear that appointment would be on merit rather than representative of any specific interest or group. That is important. If we look at concern for the elderly, that should not be compartmentalised and be the responsibility of only one member of any board or commission.
The proposals we put forward met with broad support and the Explanatory Notes, at paragraph 138, stated that the commission's membership will include those with a lay background. Recognising also that the commission will cover England and Wales, in this one instance the Bill makes explicit provision for its membership to include a member appointed by the National Assembly for Wales who will make the special interests of Wales his or her personal care.
Members of the Committee can be assured that careful consideration will be given to appointments to the commission. The process will be open and in line with guidance issued by the Commissioner for Public

1411
Appointments. We intend that the commission's lay members should provide broader views and experience. They will provide an essential and major contribution to the commission's approach. We also made it clear that we felt that the commission should have a lay chair.
It was useful to hear the comments today of Members of the Committee. They will help us as we give further thought to the commission's membership and take recruitment further. For the reasons discussed in earlier debates in Committee relating to the possible exclusivity of lists, it is not essential to specify those on the face of the Bill. However, I hope that Members of the Committee will feel that we have given and will continue to give due weight to the need particularly to ensure that the commission has effective lay members and that it includes a broad range of expertise and experience.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that forthcoming reply to the series of amendments we have been debating. It has been an extremely good debate and I take on board her assurances that the Government will be looking at a broad membership in considering appointments to the commission for health improvement. I noted in particular the mention that the chair would be a lay representative. We are encouraged by that reply and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 84 to 88 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 89:
Page 50, line 16, after ("State") insert ("and to the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons").
The noble Lord said: The spirit of this amendment is very much on the lines of the theme that we have tried to introduce; that is, improved transparency throughout the Bill. We talked earlier about reports from primary care trusts. Now we are in the area of reports, and the publication of reports, from the commission for health improvement. Amendment No. 89 deals with an obligation to publish reports or to submit reports to the Public Accounts Committee. The other amendments relate to the Secretary of State's obligation to provide wider publication.
The functions of the commission for health improvement are set out in Clause 15. They include: making reports on the arrangements that PCTs and NHS trusts have for monitoring and improving the quality of healthcare; making reports on the management and provision or quality of healthcare for which health authorities, PCTs or NHS trusts have responsibility, and making reports on the management, provision or quality of, or access to or availability of, particular types of healthcare for which NHS bodies or service providers have responsibility.
Clause 15 currently states that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, make provision as to the publication of reports and summaries of reports of the commission for health improvement. Schedule 2 states that the commission must report to the Secretary of State
1412
after each financial year on the exercise of its duties during the year and must provide the Secretary of State with such reports and information relating to the exercise of its functions as he may require.
In the interests of freedom of information, we believe that all of the commission's reports should be published and made available to the public, who have a right to know about the standards and quality of care being provided to them. In the event of a failure of standards, it will be even more important that information is made available to the public in order to avoid any fears of a cover-up and so that accountability can be properly exercised.
In cases where mistakes or accidents occur in the delivery of health services, it can be particularly upsetting for patients and their relatives to be left without a clear idea of what went wrong. It is probable that, at some time in the future, the commission may find itself investigating such sensitive and difficult cases.
The amendments in this group, from Amendment No. 91 onwards, would ensure that the Secretary of State does not have power to withhold any of the commission's reports from the public domain. Instead, the amendments would ensure that all the commission's reports were published and that the commission could also initiate publication of any other reports and information that it saw fit, without having to be requested to do so by the Secretary of State.
As regards the obligation to report to the Public Accounts Committee, I have no doubt that Members of the Committee have read a number of excellent reports from that committee. I can commend one in particular—by way of a plug for a debate on Wednesday—that it published on cervical cancer screening. That report shows that the committee has a good grasp of health issues. Such provision would be a good way of bringing into the public domain the reports of the commission for health improvement so that it is not simply at the discretion of the Secretary of State for Health to decide whether or not to publish. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: I hope that my recollection is not wrong. The Minister will, I am sure, from her experience—which was also in another place—correct me if I am wrong, but I hope that she will confirm that the Public Accounts Committee had, as of right, the opportunity to look at the public accounts of any body appointed by statute. If we start to say that, by statute, a particular body may have its accounts so scrutinised, we may get into an unfortunate situation. If that were done too often, and then there is no mention of public accounts being available for scrutiny by the Public Accounts Committee, they could not be so. Therefore, I think that we have to be very careful about Amendment No. 89. I really do not see the need for it.
As regards the other amendments in this group, I do not think that the noble Lord has developed those to any great extent. At the moment, I have no comment to make on them.
Baroness Hayman: Perhaps I may look at the general intention behind this series of amendments and say to

1413
the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I recognise that intention. Indeed, I share it, if it is to ensure that the commission, as an executive non-departmental body, operates in a fully open and accountable way. We are determined that that shall be so.
However, I believe that we have already made adequate provision for that within the Bill. Clause 15 makes clear that the commission will make reports on the exercise of its functions. The Explanatory Notes also clearly state the intention to make those available to the organisations involved and to the Secretary of State, and to make provision for their publication.
The commission will be able to report on its findings. Importantly, it must be recognised that, in doing so, the commission will provide an external and independent assessment of NHS arrangements to improve quality. Thus, Clause 15(2)(d) allows for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to when and how the commission publishes its reports.
A key aim will be to ensure that the Secretary of State may make provision for the commission's recommendations to be published quickly after a review or investigation so that the organisations involved may act on the report as soon as possible and that others may learn from it.
Where the Secretary of State asks the commission to report to him on the exercise of its functions, the Secretary of State will decide on the arrangements for publication. In doing so, he will have due regard to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. I have to say that it would be our intention that such reports should be made public. They are obviously of general interest. However, equally I have to say to the noble Lord that the Secretary of State might ask for something much more run-of-the-mill in terms of a publication and that to have a general duty to publish everything might not be sensible.
Amendment No. 89 seeks to ensure that the commission's annual report be sent to the Public Accounts Committee. I believe that on this point the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is absolutely right in terms of the role of the Public Accounts Committee. We do not need to list it on the face of the Bill to ensure that it would have a role over a non-departmental public body. However, it is certainly the intention, as far as the annual report is concerned, that it would be sent to that committee as well as being made generally available as a public document.
Schedule 2 also makes clear that the annual report will not be the only means by which the commission is to be held to account to the public and to Parliament. It will be subject to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, and members of the commission may be called before the Select Committee on Health and, indeed, the Public Accounts Committee of another place.
These provisions in the Bill demonstrate a commitment to openness, greater transparency and accountability both to the public and to Parliament. It would not be sensible to put on the face of the Bill provisions to ensure that everything on which the commission reports is automatically made public. It is
1414
sensible for the Secretary of State to have some discretion in this matter, particularly having regard to the delicacy and confidentiality of some of the subject matter that might possibly be involved.
However, I hope that I can reassure the noble Lord that, as far as the generality of reporting arrangements is concerned, we would wish the commission to operate in a transparent way.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that helpful explanation of how the Government see the reports being published in what she describes as a fully open and accountable way. We shall certainly look at what she says with great care. However I believe that much of what she said was reassuring.
Before I seek leave to withdraw the amendment, perhaps the Minister could clarify one matter. I believe that she mentioned that the commission for health improvement was to be treated as a non-departmental public body in terms of its relationship with the Public Accounts Committee. Can she direct me to where that appears? Is it in the Explanatory Notes? I cannot see, on the face of the Bill, as regards CHI, or CHIMP, as others like to call it, that that is so. However, if that is the case, I am more than happy with the relationship that it will have with the Public Accounts Committee. If the Minister wishes to write to me on that point, I would be more than happy.
Baroness Hayman: I shall certainly write to the noble Lord, giving chapter and verse. Implicit in the need for the body to be set up statutorily is the fact that CHIMP is to be independent. The national institute for clinical excellence is being set up as a special health authority. That shows the distinction between the two. However, perhaps I may write to the noble Lord with the details.
6 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. It is precisely because of the issue of the status of the commission for health improvement that we have asked about publication and the relationship with the Public Accounts Committee. We want the body to be independent. At Second Reading I referred to the way in which Her Majesty's Inspector of Prisons has a particular status relative to the Home Office so that he can go about his business entirely independently. The commission must operate in that way. I shall be most interested to see the Minister's reply but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 90 to 93 not moved.]
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Functions of the Commission]:
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Lord Harris of Haringey Lord Harris of Haringey moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 11, line 29, at beginning insert ("giving due consideration to any concerns of the relevant community health council,").
The noble Lord said: This clause sets out the functions of the commission for health improvement. Within those functions, it is clear that the commission is intended to provide an independent scrutiny of local efforts to improve quality. It will seek to ensure that serious problems are addressed and will be able to spot check quality standards.
Amendment No. 96 seeks to give community health councils a role which would effectively enable them to act as trigger mechanisms for the commission. Given that community health councils have extensive local knowledge of health provision and are often aware of where problems lie, that seems a helpful mechanism to ensure that the commission pursues issues relevant to local communities.
Community health councils assist complainants with some 30,000 NHS complaints each year. That work provides them with an unrivalled source of information about where the problems in service delivery may lie. Again, that seems an excellent qualification for enabling them to assist the commission.
I recall that in 1992 the Association of Community Health Councils and Action for Victims of Medical Accidents (AVMA) drew up proposals for a health standards inspectorate. In many ways, CHIMP bears some resemblance to those proposals. I should have thought that the commission would want to use the expertise of local community health councils and bodies such as AVMA to identify patients' complaints in order to guide its investigations.
Amendment No. 101, which is grouped with Amendment No. 96, refers to the commission's report and suggests that such reports should automatically be made available to community health councils to assist them in monitoring the commission's progress. It may seem self-evident that reports should be provided in that way—one would certainly expect the commission's reports to be made public—but it is perhaps worth stating that, in the interests of freedom of information, it is important that the commission's reports are published and made available to the public who have a right to know about the standards and quality of care being provided to them. In the event of a failure of standards, it would be even more important that such information should be made available to the public to avoid any fears of a cover-up and so that the accountability can be seen properly to be exercised. Where mistakes or accidents have occurred in service delivery, it is particularly upsetting for the patients and their relatives to be left without any clear idea of what went wrong. It is probable that at some time in the future the commission will have to investigate such sensitive and difficult cases.
I should have thought that requiring the commission to make its reports available to CHCs would increase public confidence in the work of the commission and enable the CHCs to monitor the progress made with regard to any of the commission's recommendations. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: Both of these amendments seek to place on the face of the Bill arrangements to ensure
1416
that community health councils are involved with, and informed about, the commission's work. My noble friend has made clear why he thinks that that is appropriate. I recognise and welcome the interest that CHCs and other groups representative of users, carers and local communities will have in the work of the commission and their potential to contribute. However, I must advise my noble friend—this is something of a current refrain—that I do not think that this is a matter for the face of the Bill or that individual organisations should be singled out in this way.
The regulations under Clause 15(2)(a) will provide for the manner in which, and the persons in relation to whom, the commission will perform its functions. We do not want unduly to restrict the commission's independence with regard to how it carries out its function to review clinical governance arrangements. In assessing how clinical governance is supporting the drive for high quality services, it will no doubt want to have regard to the knowledge and experience of CHCs. As my noble friend said, that is particularly relevant. Community health councils will be able to contribute to that assessment, as will a number of other community groups and patient and carer representatives.
Equally, it does not seem necessary to require on the face of the Bill that the commission, when conducting a national service review, should make its reports available to the relevant community health council. As was discussed earlier, we intend to provide for the publication of the commission's findings. Therefore, they will be available as public documents to CHCs and other interested organisations. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will accept that I understand and sympathise with his intentions, but believe that the Bill already covers his concerns. I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Baroness Fookes: I have considerable sympathy with the amendment. It seems to me that responsibility for making available, and publication of, such reports rests very much with the Secretary of State. As the Minister indicated earlier, on the face of the Bill, the Secretary of State has total discretion about what is published, not just some discretion. It is important that we are clear that publication should generally take place. It may be that the present Government are much committed to open government, but we are making provisions for the future—and a future Secretary of State might be of a more secretive nature. That is why we are relying on what the Bill states.
Baroness Hayman: We covered this issue earlier. It is our intention to act publicly and openly in such areas. The provisions on how the recommendations should be made public, quickly if necessary, relate to simply functional arrangements. We have a code of practice on access to government information and we may well have more far-reaching freedom of information legislation to deal with such areas. Therefore, in the long term, I believe that these points will be covered. However, again, I do not think that we can deal with the general

1417
issue to which the noble Baroness refers by amendments such as these, which deal only with community health councils.
Lord Harris of Haringey: I am grateful to the Minister for that response, I take her point that it may not be appropriate specifically to single out community health councils on the face of the Bill. However, I hope that it may be possible either in regulations or in guidance to the commission to suggest that it should be a priority for the commission to listen to, and to seek representations from, local community health councils when considering what work to carry out, and to direct the attention of local CHCs, where appropriate, to the reports published. I appreciate that the reports will be in the public domain, but there is a difference between that and reports specifically being drawn to the attention of local bodies which can keep track of what has happened as a result of them. I hope that the Minister will revisit some of these questions in terms of regulations or guidance. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 97 to 107 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount St. Davids): Before calling Amendment No. 108, I should point out to the Committee that, if Amendment No. 108 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 109.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 12, line 10, leave out from beginning to (", and") in line 12.
The noble Lord said: This is, unashamedly, a probing amendment. It would clearly remove the power of the Secretary of State to issue regulations enabling the commission for health improvement to recover money in respect of expenditure it incurred in the exercise of its functions. The effect would be that the commission could not charge fees or be self-financing, but would have to be government funded.
Our interest was drawn to this provision allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations in this way as it is not clear who will be charged or what institutions will be charged by the commission. Clarification is required about the degree of funding that the commission will receive, on the one hand from central government and, on the other, from the charges that it makes. If it is expected to become self-financing over a period of time, what is that time period? What charging structure does the department believe is appropriate? Can the Minister clarify whether Ofsted or HM Chief Inspector of Prisons are charged for inspections? What is the practice across government? Is it a common practice? Is the commission being singled out for this kind of purpose and what is the broad time scale?
Major sums could be involved. If, in looking at the GMC Bristol-type case, the commission also looks at the non-competency related aspects, the sums incurred could run into millions. Are we saying that that particular hospital would be responsible for the charges of the commission? We want to elicit the basis upon
1418
which the commission will be operating. We hope that the Minister can give further information in that regard. I beg to move.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I should like to speak to Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 which do not go nearly as far as Amendment No. 108. The Bill allows CHIMP to recover from any individual costs incurred in the course of its duties. In theory this would permit individual GPs to be billed for the work of CHIMP. In exceptional circumstances, this could exhaust the entire budget of a PCT, if a particularly lengthy report or investigation were undertaken.
By changing the word "persons" to "bodies", the amendment does not give total protection against such circumstances, particularly for PCTs. However, it allows a greater degree of protection to individuals who could otherwise face very large bills for investigation by CHIMP which they did not request and over which they had no control.
There is an additional worry that the powers of CHIMP to recover costs could be used to recover the costs of NICE in situations where CHIMP has followed up the work of NICE in a particular area. That would represent an additional cost and would take away money from frontline services in order to finance bureaucratic activities. As NICE is not included in the Health Bill and is not a statutory body, it would be quite wrong to use CHIMP as a means of clawing back the costs of NICE.
If the Secretary of State had intended NICE to be part of the statutory body with powers to cover its own costs, that should have been included in the Health Bill. As the Government have decided that NICE does not need to be included in the Health Bill and can be dealt with by order, one has certain suspicions as to the actual powers and scope for action and cost recovery that NICE will have.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I hope to be of assistance to the Committee on the general probing issues and the specific points about recovery of funds from other bodies, and the possibility of charging individuals, which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord McColl.
Initially, while the commission is developing its role we do not envisage that it would charge any individual organisations for the bulk of its local review work. But in the longer term, once the commission has demonstrated its effectiveness as a body to help the NHS improve quality and tackle service problems, we see merit in moving towards a system where more of the commission's work is directly funded locally.
It is not an unusual arrangement. For example, it applies in the case of work carried out by the Audit Commission for NHS bodies, and that would include the

1419
value-for-money studies which are very much in line with some of the work that the commission would be doing.
Lord Clement-Jones: NHS trusts are charged on an individual basis by the Audit Commission for value-for-money work, are they not?
Baroness Hayman: They certainly are, and the rates, the number of days and all sorts of things are determined for you. The trusts pay individually to the Audit Commission.
Lord Clement-Jones: This is work that they commission of their own volition; it is not imposed on them that they should invite the Audit Commission in; they invited the Audit Commission in, and it is only fair in those circumstances that they should pay.
Baroness Hayman: No, it is an analogous situation to the commission. If the Audit Commission was doing a national value-for-money study and was looking at an individual trust, that trust would pay towards that study in the same way as the commission might look at implementation of a national service framework and therefore charge the individual institution for that work.
This is a developmental agenda and an enabling provision, but it is very much in line with work that has been carried out already and is analogous work to that of the Audit Commission.
The costs of the commission will not be met at the expense of direct patient care. Any charges will need to be offset by reductions in non-care expenditure elsewhere; for example, by ensuring more effective use of other external audits in order to avoid duplication and an unnecessary administrative burden, and by reducing the amount of resources currently spent on litigation and the other effects of poor quality care.
The Secretary of State will determine the level of the commission's charges and how and when they will be made. The costs of an investigation or review would have to take into account various factors, including the number of review days involved and the nature of the review. It is worth noting that the commission will be under a duty, set out in paragraph 3 of the schedule, to carry out its functions effectively, efficiently and economically, so it is not as though a blank cheque is being written.
I should like to move on to Amendment No. 109. The Bill allows the commission to recover costs from persons or bodies, and those will be set out in regulations. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that it is not the intention that the commission will charge individuals for its services. It will review the systems which NHS organisations have in place to monitor and improve quality and will investigate service problems experienced by an organisation. That is the approach which will inform regulations in due course. Nonetheless, we would not want unnecessarily to restrict the bodies with which the commission can work and recover costs. While it is not our intention to charge
1420
individuals or individual GPs as instanced by the noble Lord, the commission will, as we discussed the other evening, be looking at the healthcare provided to NHS patients by the independent sector. NHS bodies enter into agreements or arrangements with a wide variety of private individuals, organisations or bodies.
As I understand it, if we restricted the terminology of the Bill to the word "bodies", the legislation would not necessarily cover all the situations which might arise and for which the commission might need to recover charges. For example, services provided even by a private partnership might not be covered by the word "bodies".
I turn now to the issue of the recovery of funds from other bodies, which relates to Amendment No. 110. I suggest that this could lead to the undesirable result of the commission being prevented from working beneficially with other bodies. It will only recover expenditure which has been properly incurred and the costs of carrying out its own functions. For the avoidance of doubt, perhaps I may make it absolutely clear for the benefit of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. NICE will be centrally funded and that cannot be changed.
The commission will only recover expenditure under Clause 15(2) where it has been directly incurred by the commission. If the expenditure is not incurred by the commission, there is no power of recovery. However, we need that power because in the course of its work the commission for health improvement may wish to draw on the particular expertise of other bodies, such as the Audit Commission. In assisting the commission those bodies would incur costs which they might wish to recover. The commission may meet those costs by making payments to those bodies in respect of the work carried out. This will be expenditure which the commission could recover under Clause 15(2)(e).
As it stands, the amendment would confuse the matter and might suggest that the commission could not recover costs in so far as they may be related to the making of such payments. Therefore, it would cast doubt on the extent to which the commission could be assisted by other bodies. We believe that that would be undesirable. The commission needs to be able to recover costs incurred in engaging other bodies to assist in its work. That is why we need the provision and not, indirectly, to fund inappropriate bodies—and certainly not indirectly to fund NICE. We must recognise the fact that there may be an area of joint working using someone else's expertise for which the commission needs to have some flexibility. Therefore, it is appropriate for the commission to be able to make charges under the provision.
Baroness Fookes: It seems to me that the Minister's reply actually causes one to ask more questions. First, will the bodies that might be charged at some stage be expected to include an element of that in their budget for the year? How can that not affect patient care in the

1421
sense that it is a charge upon them? Secondly, is there some kind of appeal system if it is thought that the charges made are exorbitant or unreasonable?
Baroness Hayman: I tried to cover such issues in my response. There are management costs which are part of running any organisation. I have in mind costs like publishing an annual report—some Members of the Committee are anxious about that—which are met. Of course, if you are incurring such costs, you are not spending that money on patient care. Nevertheless, they are considered to be part of, and a contribution to, providing high quality, accessible and publicly-transparent care. I am sure that Members of the Committee who have worked in the health service are aware of these circumstances. I do not believe that there is any appeals mechanism against the scales of payment of the Audit Commission or, indeed, its allocation of numbers of days to carry out the work.
We believe that the work that the commission will do for organisations will not just be some added bureaucratic cost; it will actually be an important input into improving quality. As we have discussed at other points in our debates on the Bill, improving quality is not necessarily something which always costs more. Indeed, in the long term, it can actually save money.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I may be wrong, but I believe I heard the Minister say that she was a little concerned about private partnerships and that that is why we get into difficulties when using the word "bodies". However, I thought that there was no intention of applying CHIMP to the private sector.
Baroness Hayman: There is no intention of applying the commission to the private sector as regards providing care for private patients. However, we recognise that it might well have a role in relation to the provision of service to NHS patients in private establishments. It is in those circumstances that the need for some flexibility of terminology may arise.
We discussed the provisions about quality and the commission in regard to the private sector very late at night. I made it clear then that the commission would have a role to play both in the provision of care to NHS patients in private institutions and indeed in the provision of private care to private patients within NHS institutions.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, that the response raises more issues than even I had thought of when I tabled this probing amendment. The problem with these inspections is that they will be undertaken without the trust really having much say in the matter. The commission will review or investigate and, despite the fact that the charges will be set by the Secretary of State, the trust will really have no say in it. It will not be a contractual bargain; indeed it is not like a piece of management consultancy being undertaken by the commission.
1422
I accept the fact that the Audit Commission may well have been able to do exactly the same in the past, but I am afraid that I do not believe that that is necessarily the best course for the commission to follow. The point was rightly made by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes. I say that because if we look at it closely, we have to ask: where does the money come from? For example, an NHS trust may be charged by the commission for undertaking a review. It may have been a particularly bad assignment which cost a great deal of money. Where does that money come from? Well, it comes out of management fees, IT costs or something of that nature. What we are saying is that a failing hospital actually has to pay more to CHIMP than perhaps the more successful hospitals. That kind of spiral cannot be correct. However, if the Minister then says that the Secretary of State will ensure that such a hospital has enough in its budget to pay the commission in those circumstances we are just talking about exchanging wooden dollars between the NHS trust and the Department of Health. That does not seem a very sensible way forward.
I shall seek to withdraw the amendment, but clearly we shall need to look again at the matter on Report. It seems to me that there are potential problems for budgeting at NHS trust level if the Secretary of State simply allows CHIMP in due course—I accept the fact that it may well take place over a period of time—to levy charges on trusts where it has not been part of their request for CHIMP to come in.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the noble Lord for those comments. I tried to make it clear that we were talking about moving towards a system where more of the commission's work was directly funded locally. The noble Lord may have highlighted a situation involving great difficulties where a major investigation is carried out where this provision is not necessarily appropriate. As a general rule we believe that this provision will encourage greater involvement in reviewing an investigation and will lead to wider ownership of the results, particularly when an organisation has invited the commission to investigate.
However, I must put the other side of the argument. If this can be done only at the invitation of an organisation, that could enable people to opt out of monitoring their arrangements for clinical governance. That would not be appropriate. I am happy to consider the issue in the light of the comments that the noble Lord has made but I believe that some of the problems that have been highlighted are perhaps not as great as the Committee may think.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply and particularly for her undertaking to consider my comments. I understand the comments she has made. I also understand that a trust will become more involved in this matter if it is picking up part of the bill. But if at the end of the day budgets are effectively reduced, albeit not as regards patient care, that will constitute a considerable injustice when these organisations are trying to improve standards by inviting CHIMP to

1423
monitor them. In many respects standards are improved as much through the money that is spent on patient care, as perhaps through the number of managers in a hospital, through IT or through other aspects.
Baroness Hayman: But the money does not grow on trees. If the commission were centrally funded by the Department of Health, the money would be top-sliced from the money that would go into patient care nationally. It is not that we suddenly have extra resources for patient care; it is a matter of whether the money is taken off through top-slicing or at the individual institution level. We should not think that there is a pot of gold to meet the cost if it is not met within the health service.
Lord Clement-Jones: I fully accept that and I shall not extend this debate any further. However, one faces a situation where one simply exchanges "wooden" money between trusts and the Secretary of State, unless the trusts which are under the greatest degree of investigation by CHIMP effectively pay CHIMP's costs in the future and therefore cut their budgets in some cases in the very areas where they need to make improvements. Therefore they are working with one hand behind their backs. I shall withdraw this amendment but I may return to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 12, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) Notwithstanding subsection (2) the Commission shall be entitled to exercise any of the functions set out in subsection (1) as a result of its own decision or on a complaint being made by a member of the public or of NHS staff.").
The noble Lord said: One of the key issues surrounding the powers of the commission for health improvement concerns whether it will be able to exercise its functions of its own motion, or whether in every case it will effectively work only at the behest of the Secretary of State. It is important that we should clarify for the purposes of this debate whether that is the case.
This amendment would mean that the commission could exercise any of its functions in response to a complaint from a member of the public or NHS staff. This could include complaints or concerns raised by CHCs or other groups representing patients or users. It is important that the commission for health improvement should be able to respond to concerns raised by members of the public, community health councils, NHS staff and the professional organisations that represent them. In the past staff have sometimes felt powerless to raise concerns about poor practices or low standards because of the fear that they would be victimised for whistle blowing and that no positive changes would result. Certainly such representations have been made to me. I welcome the steps the GMC has taken in this direction. A culture where genuine whistle blowers are shunned or bullied out of their jobs
1424
must be consigned to the past and a more open culture of effective clinical governance must prevail. For the Government's agenda of improving quality in the NHS to succeed it will be vital that effective systems of clinical governance are created, but these need to be broadly based involving all professional groups with no single group having dominance. Clinical governance will need to incorporate clear procedures for staff to follow if they are concerned about failing standards.
For all of this to work it is vital that NHS staff and the professional organisations representing them are able to raise concerns directly with the commission. Although this provision may be rarely used, it is important that staff feel able to make changes from within the workplace and speak openly to their managers about standards and quality of care.
Therefore we believe that for the commission to carry public confidence it must have the power to respond to concerns raised directly by the public. A full investigation may not always be necessary in every case, but the commission must be set up in a way which allows it to be responsive to public concerns. This could lead in some cases to problems being nipped in the bud as public concerns could trigger early intervention from the commission rather than having to wait until the problems are so grave that they reach the attention of the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Baroness Cumberlege: I understand the Government's wish to establish national bodies such as NICE and the commission for health improvement and to establish service frameworks. However, I think there is a penalty to be paid for all of this. I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said about whistle blowing and staff having an opportunity to express their concerns when they feel there is a low quality, low standard of service being provided. But the penalty of that is that all the time one is bypassing local management, and indeed management higher in the chain. Staff who wish to make a complaint have opportunities to do so. They can make a complaint to their immediate managers, the chairman of the board and the non-executive directors. They can also approach their professional bodies and trades unions. They can approach the ombudsman and local MPs. As regards employment issues, there is a whole legal framework in terms of tribunals and other such provisions. In certain circumstances they can approach organisations such as the Commission for Racial Equality.
I am concerned that if we give more and more power to these bodies that are being established, they may not adopt a light touch. If they are given more and more power I believe that to some extent they will undermine local management. We know that the NHS succeeds where it has managers who are imaginitive, who are prepared to take risks, who know their staff, who walk the wards, who are involved in the community and work with voluntary organisations. These are the people who inspire others and obtain a much better quality of service from their staff. We should support those people. I am concerned that if we build up these mega bureaucratic,

1425
centralised organisations, we shall undermine the very people we should support. I am afraid that on this occasion I cannot support the amendment.
Baroness Hayman: This has been an interesting if short debate. I hope I can help by clarifying what I believe is the middle course that the Government envisage the commission taking between removing completely any idea of local responsibility for these issues and retaining the flexibility to respond when a matter that is raised by an individual, or a member of staff or anyone else is one that is appropriate for the commission to take forward.
The commission is being established as an independent body at arm's length from government. It is our intention that regulations made under Clause 15(2) will not prevent the commission exercising a discretion as to when it may carry out its reviews. This amendment raises the issue of NHS staff and members of the public being able to raise concerns directly with the commission. They will, of course, be free to do so. The commission will consider these and may decide to take action in a number of ways.
The commission's primary focus will be on organisational systems rather than the care provided to individual patients. But where an individual complaint indicates a wider significant clinical problem in an NHS organisation, the commission may wish to follow this up. It might, of course, wish to draw some complaints to the attention of the appropriate body; for example, the health service commissioner in cases of complaints about the care and treatment of individual patients, or the appropriate regulatory body where the concern is raised about the performance of individual clinical staff. The commission would, if it wished, be able to advance the place of an NHS trust or primary care trust within its rolling programme of local reviews as a result of concerns raised by the public or members of NHS staff about service problems that require continuing local action.
The commission may also wish to raise concerns about the public or a member of staff directly with the appropriate regional office, the NHS Executive or the health authority to check on progress made by the organisation concerned and to provide supporting evidence for the concerns. As a result, it might be agreed that the commission investigates further. The commission may also raise concerns brought to its attention by the public and NHS staff with the Secretary of State who will be able to direct the commission to investigate where necessary.
In all this, it will be important to ensure that the commission's help is targeted where help is needed most; that its approach is consistent with the objectives and priorities set for the NHS; and that the commission operates with regard to existing NHS mechanisms for assuring quality and tackling local service problems. I think that that is the issue to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, referred. For example, there are already well-established arrangements for patient complaints, both locally and, ultimately, to the health service commissioner. The commission for health improvement is intended to complement these and not
1426
to be a substitute for them. I agree with the noble Baroness that, where they are working properly, that is the proper route through which individual concerns should be addressed in the first instance.
The new clinical governance arrangements which we are introducing to strengthen arrangements to assure and improve quality will provide clear channels for staff to voice concerns and to take account of patients' views, including concerns raised through the NHS complaints procedure. The commission will of course look at these aspects of clinical governance as part of its general programme of reviews.
I hope that the noble Lord will feel that there is already ample scope for patients and staff to raise concerns and for these to be properly and appropriately followed through. I hope therefore that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply, which I thought entirely satisfactory in terms of what will be regulated for under subsection (2) of Clause 15. If it comes about in the way she suggests, access to the commission will be entirely as we would have hoped. I do not think that anything she said or I said goes counter to the wish to keep the procedures, particularly since clinical governance will be a quite complicated area, as simple as possible. It is obviously the case that staff will try to gain remedies at local level under local clinical governance procedures. But as a safety valve, when other things fail, the commission may well be a useful port of call. The noble Baroness made clear that that will be available to members of the public, CHCs and staff in an entirely desirable manner. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.45 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 112:
Page 12, line 17, leave out ("be absolutely privileged") and insert ("have qualified privilege").
The noble Earl said: In an earlier debate I made so bold as to introduce a metaphor involving jungle animals—perhaps it was a little too colourful for the time of night—but, as beasts of the jungle go, "CHIMP" will, without doubt, be a creature wielding considerable power and influence if it so chooses—a power of entry to premises; a power to seize documents and information; a power to breach patient confidentiality in a surprisingly wide set of circumstances, which we will be discussing later; and, as we see from Clause 15(2) and (3), a power to say what it likes about someone and then to charge him for it.
I am sure we all understand that if a body like a commission is set up matters have to be arranged in such a way that it can do its job properly. But, equally, if it is to command universal respect from clinicians as well as patients and the public its powers have to be used responsibly. Many of CHIMP's functions will be advisory, but where it engages in the business of what is sometimes referred to as "naming and shaming"—something that no doubt it will need to do on rare occasions—it is important that it sets about its task in a

1427
sober, dispassionate, conscientious and expert fashion. It will not rush to conclusions; it will listen to both sides of the case; it will look at clinical treatments and clinical judgments in their full context; and it will take expert advice. The result of that measured deliberation will, I trust, be a published report which commands universal respect and confidence. That is the aim.
The point I want to stress is that it is not simply the result of the commission's work that needs to be right but also the way in which it reaches that result. Clause 15(3) provides for the publication of anything by the commission to have the status of absolute privilege in law. Very few bodies enjoy that privilege in statute. Absolute privilege is conferred by statute on the ombudsman, the MMC, the Director General of Fair Trading and certain statutory tribunals. It means that if something is uttered or written that enjoys the status of absolute privilege, it automatically falls outwith the scope of the law of defamation.
The question posed by my amendment is this: is it appropriate that the commission for health improvement, for all its important functions, should be able to say and write with impunity exactly what it likes about anyone? Qualified privilege, as proposed in the amendment, is a status which confers similar protection to absolute privilege, the difference being that it affords no protection against a suit for defamation if the publication concerned is shown to have been made with malice. To utter something with malice, as I understand the term in law—although I stand to be corrected by those more learned than myself—is to utter it knowing or believing it to be false or with a reckless disregard for the facts. The consequence is that if you say or write something in good faith and advisedly, a court will protect you in any suit brought against you for defamation.
The Government are saying in the Bill that the commission may not even be taken to court. It can say or write whatever it likes, even with a reckless disregard for the truth. But, as I pointed out, a reckless disregard for the truth is the very antithesis of the way that CHIMP will set about its work, or so we hope—and hope is all that we can really lay claim to at the moment. For a body with the extensive powers that it will possess, I believe it is right that the Bill should encourage it to use those powers responsibly.
I am the first to admit that we do not want to provide encouragement to anyone who might wish to try his luck in court by serving a libel writ on the commission, but I put it to the Committee that if the commission is as professional as we would all wish it to be, that is not a realistic anxiety. If the commission is not as professional as it ought to be, then a citizen who believes himself to have been defamed should enjoy the right of recourse through the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: In my opinion my noble friend Lord Howe has moved a very important amendment. I hope that the noble Baroness, even if she cannot give a complete answer today, will consider the matter very carefully. I agree with my noble friend's statement of law. However, as the wording of subsection (3) stands,
1428
it is not merely a matter of the publication of formal reports, or annual reports, by the commission; the subsection provides that,
"the publication of any matter by the Commission shall be absolutely privileged".
That must be wrong. It could mean that if a letter is written by the commission or on its behalf which seriously damages the reputation of any nurse, doctor, dentist, health worker, or anyone else involved in the work of the National Health Service, whoever has written that letter can get away with it scot-free. That would be utterly wrong. I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention. If the noble Baroness is going to give a serious answer, perhaps she will say whether an exact precedent can be quoted in support of this provision. I doubt whether she can.
Absolute privilege is very limited indeed. I shall not enumerate the various circumstances in which it may arise. Some examples are reports of parliamentary debates; reports of judicial decisions; documents arising in the course of the law such as in indictment, and so on. To include in the Bill this huge opportunity for serious defamation entering a person's whole life is utterly wrong.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In following the noble Lord, Lord Renton, on such a matter, metaphorically speaking I take my life in my hands. I certainly shall not challenge anything that the noble Lord has said.
I can understand that the Government might wish the commission, in publishing material, making reports and so on, not to be the subject of the kind of challenge that people and organisations might make even if they have been justifiably criticised because that criticism might make them less able, as it were, to attract custom. I can see why the Government might wish to provide that particular privilege. However, at the very least, it lays a considerable burden on the commission. The "naming and shaming" approach that we have seen in other inspectorates in different parts of the jungle (if I may use that expression) has been very damaging to the institutions so named and shamed. Indeed, it has often been entirely irrelevant to the good conduct of those institutions.
At the very least we need some reassurances as to what might result from subsection (4), which provides that,
"The Secretary of State may give directions with respect to the exercise of any functions of the commission".
What directions, if any, have the Government planned in order to circumscribe in any way the considerable powers that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton, drew to our attention in introducing the amendment?
Baroness Fookes: I am not a lawyer. However, this was one of the phrases that struck me forcefully when I first read the Bill. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Howe has presented this amendment as an

1429
alternative to qualified privilege. The noble Baroness will have a hard job to prove to me that this is not a right and proper amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: This is a matter of fundamental importance. I wholly agree with the remarks made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Renton. A number of situations have arisen recently whereby the publication on the Internet of documents placed before various public inquiries has given considerable concern as they have been exceptionally critical of various bodies and individuals. I believe that publication on the Internet would be covered by this provision. Qualified privilege is right, but absolute privilege would be totally wrong.
Baroness Hayman: This has been a brief, but deeply felt debate. I have listened very carefully to the opinions that have been expressed. I should say at the start that I concur with the analysis made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, of the way in which the commission should approach its task. It should adopt a considered approach. There are responsibilities here of a broad and deep order, as well as important areas in which the commission will be able to contribute to public protection.
In the phrasing of the Bill as presently drafted there is absolutely no intention that the provision of absolute privilege should be used as some sort of smokescreen for behaving in a way that is less than proper in these areas. As I am sure noble Lords agree, it is important that the commission is able to be frank and open in identifying areas for improvement. It will be in the best interests of the public for the commission to have the ability to make clear where NHS organisations are failing to meet their statutory duty. It would also be in the public interest that the commission's resources are not unnecessarily diverted into supporting litigation and that the publication of reports is not improperly delayed because litigation is entered into for that purpose rather than any other.
I wish to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that this provision is not unprecedented. Bodies similar to the commission have statutory provisions of absolute privilege for their reports for the purposes of defamation. That includes the Health Service Commissioner, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority, the Director-General of Fair Trading and the local government ombudsman. So this provision is not outwith the line for other bodies operating in similar fields.
Absolute privilege will not be a licence for the commission to act recklessly. It will be bound by the rules of natural justice and will have to act fairly. It will therefore be the general practice of the commission to give an organisation that it proposes to criticise in its report a fair opportunity to comment before publication. It is not the task or aim of the commission to assess or make public a clinician's individual performance. The commission will look at organisations' abilities to provide high-quality care and the systems that are in place. If it finds evidence of poor individual
1430
performance, it will draw that to the attention of the employing organisation to take action, and may, if appropriate, bring it to the attention of the professional regulatory body concerned.
If a report were to contain defamatory material, an aggrieved individual could seek to prevent publication by seeking an injunction; but by conferring absolute privilege the person would not be able to institute such proceedings. However, in public law the person would be entitled to take judicial review proceedings if the procedure adopted by the commission had been unfair. That would provide some safeguards to the healthcare provision professionals who are the subject of the commission's investigations.
So the provisions as they stand on the face of the Bill are not completely outwith areas of—
Lord Renton: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. Will she bear this in mind? As I recollect, the cases that she mentioned, and was justified in mentioning, are much more restricted in the grant of absolute privilege. On the other hand, this provision refers to:
"the publication of any matter by the Commission".
I am sure that the other cases mentioned by the noble Baroness do not go so far as that, although I should need to refresh my mind and go into the detail of them. I hope that she will bear that in mind.
Baroness Hayman: I shall bear it in mind and I shall investigate all the bodies that I have mentioned. As far as the pensions regulatory body is concerned, for the purposes of the law of defamation, the publication of any matter by that authority is absolutely privileged, so that is an analogous situation. However, I do not want to rest simply on precedent. Grave concern has been expressed by Members of the Committee. If the Committee will permit me, I shall give further consideration to the matter and perhaps we can return to it at a later stage.
7 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have not intervened previously because I have agreed with everything that has been said. However, during the debate on the National Health Service some weeks ago I raised the issue of privilege in relation to internal inquiries in hospitals and referred to the fact that no privilege attached to those cases, as a result of which there was a disincentive for findings to be made completely open and clear. Will the Minister consider an extension of privilege in respect of such cases? Perhaps it would be appropriate to bring forward an amendment at a later stage of the Bill.
Baroness Hayman: I cannot give a commitment to bring an amendment forward, but that issue is the counter-balance to the one we have been considering today. I undertake that when I look at the question of whether absolute privilege is appropriate here I shall

1431
also investigate the matter which the noble Baroness raised as to whether some qualified privilege might be appropriate in other cases.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: There has been a very slight shift of view from the Minister during the course of the debate but it has been so slight as to leave me without any feeling of confidence that the matters raised by my noble friends will be properly addressed. I cannot see why the slight change in wording from "be absolutely privileged" to "have qualified privilege" should be so hard to accept bearing in mind the clear feeling of Members of the Committee who have great experience in these matters. The Minister said at the beginning that she must listen but not that she must act. She later moved to say that she would consider the matter further. I hope that there will be a clear attempt to meet the concerns of Members in all parts of the Chamber.
Baroness O'Cathain: For once I disagree with my noble friend. I think that the Minister has moved considerably. Perhaps the problem is the shorthand way in which we talk about these matters. I congratulate the Minister because she has listened and has heard. We hope that she will come back with what we consider to be the right statement.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Obviously I did not express myself clearly. I was trying to suggest to the Committee that the Government's original proposals were not without precedent and that we did not think that they were without merit but that I had listened carefully to the considerable concerns expressed in the Committee and that I should like a little time to consider the issue in the hope that we might be able to bring forward something at a later stage that would be satisfactory to the Committee.
Earl Howe: I am extremely grateful to the Minister. She is, as we all know, a listening Minister. What she has said is all that I could reasonably expect of her at this stage, after what has been a very useful debate. I am extremely grateful to all Members who have spoken.
Frankness and openness is all very well, but it cuts two ways sometimes. It is all too easy to imagine a situation in which it can lead to grave unfairness. The point of my amendment was to suggest that qualified privilege was a more than adequate substitute for absolute privilege. It would allow CHIMP to be totally frank and open because it would be possible to challenge it effectively only if it were shown to be malicious or if the information was known to be false.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Renton. I am not sure that the other examples of absolute privilege are entirely relevant in this context. We are relying on an assurance from the Minister that CHIMP will be entirely responsible. We all hope that it will be. She believes that it will be and I am sure that most Members of the Committee believe it will be, but that is all we can say at the moment.
1432
The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, is extremely pertinent. The accidental release of otherwise confidential documents or comments on the Internet or indeed in any other way makes one all too conscious of the issues here.
My final comment relates to what the Minister said about judicial review. I do not believe that judicial review would provide a proper safeguard. It would allow for challenges against the commission's work only where it was seen to be ultra vires or in matters where the commission had judged in its own cause. I am not clear that judicial review is an adequate substitute. However, I am grateful to the Minister for what she said and for the time being I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Obtaining information etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 115 to 117 not moved.]
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 13, line 22, after ("individual") insert ("or a deceased person").
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 118, I should like to speak also to Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 and 124 to 128. These amendments concern patient confidentiality.
Amendments Nos. 118 and 124 are designed to ensure that deceased persons and patients no longer in contact with their doctor have the same rights to confidentiality over their medical records as do individuals who are still alive.
Amendment No. 120 is designed to ensure that even if an individual cannot be traced their confidentiality should be protected. We believe that CHIMP should not be able to name individuals in its reports or disclose their details until 30 years after the recorded death of an individual. It is odd that the commission is able to make public details of patients without any hindrance immediately after their death. Publication of details, especially relating to the recently deceased, can cause distress to relatives and friends. Moreover, they would have no say as to whether such details can be made public because CHIMP has, or may have, absolute privilege in respect of what it says. They would have no recourse to law if damaging or otherwise incorrect details were made available about relatives who had recently died. We feel that a reasonable period of time should elapse before disclosure.
I am sure the Committee will agree that personal health information is collected for the provision of care to individual patients and generally should not be used for other purposes without the patient's permission. Only where there are exceptional circumstances may information be used without consent—for example, where disclosure is essential to avoid a risk of death or serious harm to people and it is not possible to obtain consent.
The grounds for disclosure must be of sufficient severity to justify a breach of the duty of confidentiality. That duty of confidentiality extends to all patients and endures beyond their death. The law relating to statutory rights of access prohibits doctors from disclosing information which patients gave on the understanding that it would remain confidential. As with living patients, this confidentiality may be breached only where it is essential to protect the vital interests of others.
Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 seek to provide a better safeguard against the identification of patients from documentation or information that is available to the commission. If the standard is simply that an individual cannot be identified from the documentation or information alone, that is a major cause of concern. The amendments seek to raise the level of protection of the patient's identity akin to that set out in the Data Protection Act 1998. Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 seek to raise the standard of reasons for disclosure to the same splendid standards as those issued by the General Medical Council. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I very warmly support these amendments, although I have minor reservations about whether it is necessary to place on the face of the Bill a specific time limit upon the disclosure of such information. During my presidency of the General Medical Council many years ago a spirited debate took place on the whole question of whether it was ever proper for a medical historian in writing a book or paper to disclose information about an individual who had died some time ago. That issue was highlighted by a book review published in a prestigious medical journal. Information in an anonymous review had made it clear that the author of the review had known the public figure who was the subject of the book being reviewed and had in consequence disclosed some quite disturbing confidential medical information. That had raised a great deal of anxiety. The GMC stated very clearly that in the doctor's duty of confidentiality to his or her patient the death of the patient did not absolve the practitioner from that responsibility. Hence, I believe it to be very important that this issue should be clarified. For that reason I warmly support the amendments.
I am disappointed to learn that the Government have decided that CHIMP should not apply to the independent private health sector. The Registered Homes Act 1984 covers a number of independent hospitals but not a very large number of private hospitals that now provide a wide range of acute care. At Second Reading I expressed concern about the fact that there was no legal protection at the moment, at least not in statute, against an individual working as a non-clinical member of staff in a private healthcare organisation disclosing confidential information about a patient. The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me in detail about this issue. She indicated that not only were such staff subject to a statutory duty, as under the Data Protection Act 1998, to respect the confidentiality of information, but that they would also have a personal common law duty of confidence to both patients and their employers.
1434
However, the BMA remained concerned in that it believed that common law protection was not enough. The commission and its staff must comply with these duties. On the rare occasions on which CHIMP required access to confidential patient information this would occur only in limited circumstances. CHIMP would be able to access such information only with consent and that would be looked at by a clinical member of the CHIMP review or investigative team. I was reassured to learn from the noble Baroness that the Government proposed to introduce a new criminal offence relating to the unauthorised disclosure of confidential information by the commission, its staff or those working with the commission in the exercise of its functions. But I pose the following question: does that proposal cover individuals who may in the past have worked for the commission or, for example, a private healthcare organisation? Does the duty of confidentiality persist even after that individual is no longer employed by the commission or that other health body?
7.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 126, which is part of this grouping. However, I have considerable sympathy with the other amendments in the group. In particular, I believe that we must listen with care to the observations of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, about this matter not being four square with the way in which clinicians currently believe their duties of confidentiality must he exercised. Can the Minister say what consultations have taken place with the medical profession on the provisions of this clause? Clearly, this is a matter of considerable importance. Amendment No. 126 itself arises out of concerns on the part of the medical profession. Although previously, under the Police Act, the medical profession was entitled to disclose information only when a serious criminal offence had been committed, we now find that under the provisions of this Bill the word "serious" has been deleted. The secondary legislation under the Police Act drew attention to the special sensitivities of medical confidentiality. Certainly, those representatives of the medical profession who have made representations to me do not wish to see the confidentiality of information exchanged between a patient and doctor compromised. How is this provision to be exercised? More generally, is there any way in which we can beat out a common set of provisions on confidentiality with which clinicians can be perfectly happy and which the Government find acceptable?
Baroness Hayman: This set of amendments and the debate upon it rightly highlights a very important issue regarding the confidentiality of information relating to individuals and the intention to protect that wherever possible. We intend and expect that information that is produced by the commission should, wherever possible, be in a form that protects the identity of the individual. The intention is that the circumstances in which information that identifies an individual is obtained without consent are kept to the absolute minimum necessary to ensure that the commission is able to fulfil

1435
its functions with access to essential information subject to necessary safeguards. It is a difficult balance to strike and it is important that we get it right.
I turn to the specific areas of concern that have been raised in the debate. As to Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 relating to the anonymising of data, the Government expect confidential information to be produced in the form in which the identity of the individual cannot be ascertained wherever possible. Where the relevant document or information is produced in such a form the existing provisions under Clauses 16(2)(a) and 17(3)(a) allow for the obtaining or disclosure of such information. Where information is obtained or disclosed under these provisions the intention is that the documents or information should be anonymised or produced in a statistical or summary format so as to protect the identity of the individual concerned. We do not intend that the information should be in a form that enables the commission to identify the individual using other information already in its possession. That is the concern to which Amendments Nos. 119 and 121 are addressed.
If access to such information, put together with other information held by the commission, could enable the commission to identify an individual clearly it would not be in a form in which the identity of the individual could not be ascertained. The disclosure would therefore not fall within those permitted by Clause 16(2)(a).
We believe that the existing provision largely achieves the result intended by this amendment and recognises the issue to which the noble Lord, Lord McColl, drew attention. The effect of the amendment would be to insert an explicit test on the face of the Bill. It will be the person or body who holds the relevant information who must anonymise or otherwise ensure that the information is in a form that protects the identity of the individual. The holders of the information may not be aware of exactly what information is in the hands of the commission. It would be even more difficult for them to assess with certainty what information the commission is likely to obtain in the future. We are concerned therefore that the amendment as phrased will impose too heavy a burden on the holders of confidential documents as it will require them to make a difficult judgment about what might be ascertained from their information when placed together with material outside their control.
The Bill includes scope to make regulations imposing any further safeguards that may be necessary. The safeguards on the face of the Bill are not necessarily the only safeguards. I should be happy to consider further the case for regulations on that point within the appropriate framework that I think the Bill sets.
Important points have been raised. I should like to take away for greater consideration the question of how we ensure that the identity of individuals is protected further. Clauses 16 and 17 set out limited circumstances where the commission will be able to obtain or disclose information which has not been put in the form in which the identity of an individual cannot be ascertained. In particular, we have had a debate about information
1436
relating to a deceased person which is covered in Amendments Nos. 118, 124 and 125, or untraceable people, in Amendment No. 120.
If the safeguards in Clauses 16 and 17 on disclosure of information on living individuals were extended to deceased people as proposed in the amendments, the commission would be able to obtain such confidential unanonymised information only in the limited cases where consent to release of the information was not required. Similarly, if Clause 16(2)(c) were removed, the commission could not obtain information about an untraceable individual other than in these circumstances.
It may be helpful if I refer in more detail to the protection of information about deceased people since the legal position here is complex. We believe that the amendment would seem to go beyond existing law in this area. The application of the common law of confidentiality to deceased individuals is not altogether clear. But what seems clear is that no one has a legal right to give consent on behalf of a deceased individual to the release of information about him although the individual's personal representatives may have certain other rights. For example, they are able to sue in respect of rights that have passed into the estate of the deceased individual—for example, rights in relation to land and other property.
In the absence of anyone legally able to consent, the statutory restriction proposed by the amendment would unnecessarily restrict the commission's ability to disclose information where it thought it necessary or appropriate to do so. Perhaps I can give some examples of the kind of circumstances in which that would be a worrying constraint. If the commission, when conducting an investigation, considered it a threat to the health and safety of patients, it would be able to obtain the information under provisions in Clause 16(2)(d). However, it might not always be immediately apparent without further investigation that the quality of services provided by a particular organisation constituted a threat to the health and safety of patients. In those cases, where confidential information might provide clear evidence to support various concerns about the quality of care provided by a service, the commission might wish to obtain that information. The health and safety of others could be at risk if that information was not obtained. The commission might also feel that it needed to disclose the information to an appropriate person such as the relevant regulatory body. The proposed amendments would stand in the way. While it would be wrong, I believe, to prohibit the commission accessing the information in those special circumstances, I recognise the sensitivities and importance of proceeding with due care, paying particular regard to the concerns of the relatives of the individual concerned. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, made clear why we should take these issues seriously.
On safeguards regarding untraceable people, where it appears that an individual cannot be traced the commission would need to ensure that all reasonable efforts had been made to trace them. The commission would work closely with the organisation concerned in the attempt to ascertain the patient's whereabouts in order to obtain consent. As regards deceased people it

1437
is a difficult and sensitive area, as we have said, and it is appropriate for safeguards to be put in place. I should like to consider what further safeguards might be imposed by regulations under Clause 16(1) concerning the commission's access to the information or directions given under Clause 15(4). In addition, we expect that the commission will draw up appropriate guidelines for the obtaining of disclosure of confidential information about deceased patients, including any arrangements for obtaining the consent of relatives.
Perhaps I may reply to the specific question from the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, as to the persistence and duty of confidence even when an employee is no longer in the employment of the institution, the commission, involved. Yes, indeed, Clause 17(2) applies to any person who knowingly or recklessly contravenes that subsection. It would include past as well as present employees of the commission.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 126, 127 and 128 which cover circumstances in which confidential information relating to an individual could be obtained or disclosed. First, I give the overall reassurance that such information would be released only when it was in the public interest so to do. In connection with a criminal offence—Amendment No. 126 deals with that—under Clause 17(5)(e) the commission will be able to disclose information,
"in connection with the investigation of any criminal offence triable in the United Kingdom".
We would want the commission to be able to disclose such information if it could facilitate a criminal investigation and if it were considered that this would be in the best public interest.
The proposed amendment would allow such information to be disclosed only in connection with investigation of a serious triable offence. The difficulty is to categorise exactly what would be serious in this context. I suggest that perhaps it is wise not to be drawn into the attempt. Such cases would be extremely rare and we would not want to put restrictions on the face of the Bill. Judgment on whether the public interest in maintaining the confidentiality of personal information is outweighed by the public interest in detecting and prosecuting crime is, I suggest, best made in the individual case. However, I should be happy to consider what further guidance or secondary legislation we might frame to cover those rare eventualities which might give some comfort to noble Lords who have been supporting the amendments.
I move to the situation where an individual is considered to be a threat to health and safety under Amendments Nos. 127 and 128. Clause 17(5)(h) allows the disclosure of information about an individual without consent where that same individual is likely to constitute a threat to the health and safety of individuals. Again, the information would be disclosed only to those to whom it was in the best public interest that it should be disclosed. For example, if in the course of an investigation the commission discovered that an individual health professional was threatening the health and safety of individuals, it would want to pass that information on to the employing organisation, or, if
1438
appropriate, the relevant regulatory body, for it to take appropriate action to prevent any further threat to individuals.
The amendments state that disclosure should be made only where there is a serious risk to individuals. Again we face the problems of definition. But I cannot accept that where the commission has clear evidence of a threat to health, falling short of death or serious harm, it should overlook it. The commission will have experienced clinicians on its team who will he able to decide whether there is such a risk to health and safety that information about an individual should be disclosed. I can tell the Committee that similar provisions also apply to the health service commissioner who is not limited to disclosure in cases where there is a risk of death or serious harm.
It may help the Committee if I add that we are satisfied that these provisions are consistent with the European Convention on Human Rights which concerns the right to respect for private life. The article provides that a public authority may not interfere with the right unless such interference is in accordance with the law and necessary in a democratic society in the interests of, among other things, public safety or for the protection of health. We consider the provisions in the Bill fall within that exception. I should like to make it clear that it is not the intention that the commission will name and shame individuals, but it must be able to pass information to the appropriate people or bodies when that is in the best public interest.
In discussion we have been carefully through the clauses. In phrasing them we have sought to strike the right balance between safeguarding patient confidentiality and allowing the commission to act in the best interests of patients and the public.
Some points were raised in respect of which we would wish to consider further safeguards either through regulations or guidance. I hope that the Committee will consider that that will correct any imbalance it feels exists on the face of the Bill and I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In respect of one provision which the Minister said she would reconsider, it might be helpful to consider the exact wording of the advice given to the medical profession in 1984 following the passage of the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill. It was that it was proper for a doctor to breach confidentiality in order to assist the police in the investigation of a grave or very serious crime.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The Minister made one point which I cannot accept, but I am grateful that she will reconsider the matter. As regards Amendment No. 118, which refers to deceased people, she said that no-one has the right to give consent on behalf of a deceased person. All right, but we did not previously have the commission with its draconian powers and she must consider how that will affect the position of the relatives of deceased people.

1439
I believe that 30 years, which my noble friend thought would be a suitable period after which someone might be named, is very short. I think of one of my parents who died 30 years ago and know that I would intensely dislike her name to be produced in such circumstances. This is not a matter of balance; it is a moral judgment. I suggest that the Government should be very careful about it.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that extremely careful reply. We on these Benches will wish to consider it and digest it further. However, it confirms the need for consultation with the medical profession. We cannot have a situation in which doctors and others involved in healthcare are obliged to disclose information which is against their code of professional ethics. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, said that previous definitions have been found. I am sure that with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor present in the Committee we could easily find a definition of a serious crime in a matter of minutes and amend the Bill forthwith. The fact is that there has been a previous definition with which the medical profession were happy. I urge the Minister to meet representatives of the profession between now and the Report stage not only in respect of Amendment No. 126 but the other serious points made during the debate. The length of her reply showed the seriousness with which she took those points and I thank her.
She mentioned certain safeguards; for example, that disclosure would take place only when it was in the public interest. That is a wide interpretation and could butt up against professional ethics. I believe that consultation with the medical profession could bear fruit on this most important issue in the Bill.
Lord Lucas: In my experience, the seriousness of a crime is defined by the length of the sentence which can be given for it. I see crimes separated into serious and less serious in other legislation and I am surprised that the department does not. Perhaps if it looked at the legislation of other departments it might find it such a definition.
I am concerned with Amendments Nos. 127 and 128. The Minister appeared to be saying that any individual with a venereal disease, however insignificant in terms of the risk to life or longevity of the person to whom it is passed on, would have no protection under the Bill as drafted; because of necessity they posed a risk to the health of other people that information could be divulged. I believe that that would be an undesirable change in the law.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: I, too, thank the Minister for her thorough and careful reply. I was encouraged because she gave the impression that there would be a lot of discussion about the provision and perhaps some rephrasing. It is looser than the regulations of the General Medical Council, in particular with reference to Amendments Nos. 127 and 128, and it would be much
1440
better if it were tightened up. I thank her again for her thorough reply and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In moving the Motion, I suggest that the Committee stage begins again not before 8.35 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Judicial Appointments
Lord Patten Lord Patten rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they intend to take to ensure greater openness in the appointment of the judiciary, particularly in the light of recent legislation increasing the constitutional role of the judiciary.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper because I believe that the way in which the judiciary are selected is in urgent need of modernisation. I do not ask the Question from the point of view of someone who perhaps is known as a raving radical. Nor do I have any interests to declare, as I have no legal qualification or occupation. Therefore, I hope that no one in your Lordships' House will think it impertinent for someone not learned in the law to introduce a debate about the way in which the judiciary are selected—though I suspect that I have caught some whiff of that feeling in the corridors of this place. However, I would maintain to your Lordships who may be sceptical about my locus, let alone my ability, to raise such issues that such are the revolutionary changes sweeping through the judiciary in the United Kingdom as a whole that it is of vital importance that they are urgently considered outside the judicial magic circle.
I have four reasons to put to your Lordships to explain why I am so uneasy about the way in which our judiciary are appointed in relation to their ever-growing powers. I then have four entirely I hope helpful and constructive suggestions to make as to how improvements might be made.
First, because of their ever-growing powers, we need greater openness about the way in which our judges, and in particular Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, are selected. Let us take the way in which judicial review has developed in this country. When I joined the then Administration for the first time as the most junior of junior Northern Ireland Office Ministers in 1981, judicial review was barely heard of so far as government decisions were concerned. As a government old lag hardened in the corridors of Whitehall and case hardened in the Committee rooms of another place, I do not happen to think that judicial review is bad. But its increasing use is altering the balance of powers in our constitutional arrangements.
Secondly, when the substantive provisions of the Human Rights Act come into force, we shall, in developing the common law compatibly with the rights contained in the European Convention on Human Rights, be facing a legal revolution in this country. This is because for the first time in our history our rights as subjects or citizens will be spelt out in law, leading to an ever greater burst of judicial activity and a further extension of judicial power.
The third reason for my concern is the magical mystery tour approach to constitutional change thus far adopted by Her Majesty's Government. Because of that approach, not knowing where we are going, we are left with a vacuum which will draw the judges inevitably more and more into arbitrating between the United Kingdom Parliament here in Westminster and perhaps the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. That may not be the Government's intention, but arbitrating over a whole range of issues between the countries will increasingly become the role of the highest court in the land for the simple reason that there is no one else to do the job. Thus the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House is at risk of becoming a de facto constitutional court.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor told me on 3rd February of this year that he has no proposals at all to develop such a constitutional court. But it is about to develop in front of our eyes. Equally, the Lord Privy Seal told me on 1st February that the Government will not set up any mechanism to monitor the effects of constitutional change in this country. She said that they will not set up a permanent Royal Commission or any similar body to monitor and report on the effects of constitutional change upon the United Kingdom. Effectively, the members of the higher judiciary will have to arrogate more and more constitutional powers to themselves as we go further on the magical mystery tour of constitutional change that the Government are introducing.
Fourthly, greater openness is necessary because of the greater judicial activism that we see now. More and more judges arrogate to themselves jurisdiction over moral matters in line with how they, not Parliament, see international law developing. That may or may not be a good thing. Certainly, in the past, under common law, judges have always had the ability to avoid parliamentary influence. But that has rarely been a matter of public concern as regards constitutional matters because of the usually conservative—and I do not use that word in a political or pejorative sense—way in which powers are exercised and the personally cautious approach of the Law Lords and others which has ensured that the tide of change has flowed slowly and in an evolutionary way.
But I believe that we are in grave danger of having a group of people in this country who will become over-mighty citizens. We need more checks and balances to ensure that our ever more powerful judges are scrutinised more closely as their role grows.
We should start with how they are appointed. That is the best way to start. I do not approve of root and branch reform in that area but we should begin by
1442
understanding more about how our higher judiciary are appointed. I have four proposals to put before your Lordships in order to suggest how the modernisation of the process of selection of the judiciary might begin.
The first of these suggestions is that all posts at the highest levels need to be advertised in order to show openness to appointment to women as well as to men. Secondly, there should be an annually updated and mandatory register of interests that is publicly available for all Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, Heads of Divisions and Lords Justices of Appeal. It is now in the public interest to know more about our judicial masters. If that is not in the public interest, perhaps the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be good enough to explain why not when he addresses us later on.
Thirdly, there should be a powerful lay element involving those drawn from outside the law helping with the selection of judges. At the moment, the way in which this Lord Chancellor and earlier Lord Chancellors have conducted the appointments procedure through the consultation process with senior members of the judiciary is no longer fit for the purpose. Indeed, it may well remind some of your Lordships of the way in which the leaders of my own political Conservative Party were selected until 1964; that is, by what was known as the magic circle approach to appointments.
I recognise of course that lay people are already involved in the shortlisting and interviewing of applicants for judicial office below High Court level, which was a welcome introduction by my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern. I believe that that should be extended urgently.
Fourthly and lastly, so important is the role of our higher judiciary becoming and so powerful are its members growing that there should be public hearings before a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament before any man or woman is appointed to become a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary. I have friends in the law. Indeed, one or two members of the higher judiciary have even visited my house, though I shall not ruin their careers by naming them. But many in the judiciary seem to be in an absolute state of denial as regards the fact that, of necessity—it is not their fault—the members of the higher judiciary have become more political. Yet, as things stand, their role in both promoting and monitoring constitutional change will be absolutely unfettered.
I make no comment on the lack of separation of powers which exists, uniquely in this place, other than to remind your Lordships that, when our Government published their White Paper on the future of the House of Lords on 21st January, they admitted that the Law Lords' membership of this House was an anomaly. In the long term, I expect that we shall no longer have the Lords of Appeal in Ordinary sitting in this Chamber: sitting both as members of our highest court and as legislators; not only administering the law but making it; deciding cases and voting on legislation. That lack of impartiality is automatically built into their role through no fault of their own but I believe that it flies in the face of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which states that people are entitled to an

1443
independent and totally impartial hearing. Their very judicial activism has brought into focus their position as Members of this House and has hastened their ultimate demise.
I say in conclusion that I do not for one moment criticise the hard work, legal expertise or personal integrity of any Lord of Appeal in Ordinary, past or present. I merely say that the world has changed and that, without urgent attention, their constitutional role will become uniquely strong, unfettered and unscrutinised anywhere in the world. We should not allow that to happen and we should not allow the checks and balances in our arrangements to become so distorted.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Patten, has done the House a service by raising this Question for us this evening. I am well aware, as is the noble Lord, that some light has been shed upon the system of judicial appointments in recent years. I exemplify that by the Lord Chancellor's Department's evidence to the Home Affairs Select Committee of the House of Commons in 1995. Dr. Robert Stevens, a Master of Pembroke College, Oxford, wrote a book five years ago entitled The Independence of the Judiciary which included the fruits of research into the files of the Lord Chancellor's Department, which disclosed the fascinating and blunt comments of successive Permanent Secretaries and Lord Chancellors on the merits and demerits of various candidates for high judicial office. Sadly, the 30-year rule prevented Dr. Stevens from dealing with matters more recently than 1971.
The only Members of this House who really know how the system works are the present Lord Chancellor and any former Lord Chancellors. Nevertheless, despite having some concerns about the lack of transparency in the present system, I also have doubts about changing to a system which is sometimes referred to as a system whereby there would he an independent judicial commission either making the appointments or being the key significant advisory body for the Lord Chancellor. I should be concerned in relation to such a change about the inevitable diffusion of responsibility for appointments.
Then there is the question of how such a body would itself be appointed and what sort of people should be on it. To my mind, the key question for us all is whether a change would be likely to bring about better appointments. A committee or commission of diverse interests may well tend to go in most cases for the compromise candidate—the person who has the least opposition, the "safe pair of hands".
In debate in this House on 17th February, the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, suggested that a candidate for judicial appointment selected by the Lord Chancellor should be interviewed by a parliamentary committee. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, seems to have a similar idea. I do not know whether that is becoming agreed Tory party policy or whether it is a piece of policy being
1444
developed, as it were, on the hoof by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland. Perhaps we shall hear more about that this evening.
I suggest that informal, confidential conversations and contacts with a lay element, perhaps, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten. suggests, may reveal much more information about judicial abilities and qualities than some more formal process or indeed, a process which involves political point-scoring in which Members of the House of Commons—as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, may recall from his days there—may indulge. The most important questions about judicial appointments concern the qualities we need in our judges and whether we should broaden the still narrow base from which they are drawn. The great American judge, Felix Frankfurter, said that a good judge needs to have three qualities, each of which is disinterestedness.
If I can be slightly less laconic than the late judge, perhaps I may elaborate and say that some qualities are universally required of all judges and some are particularly desirable for judges sitting in specific kinds of courts or tribunals. Those universal qualities, I suggest, include integrity, independence, compassion, patience, humility and a strength of personality that makes him or her capable of withstanding pressures of any sort, from anywhere, including government.
It has never been obvious to me or apparently to such observers as David Pannick, QC, who writes regularly in The Times or Sir Louis Blom-Cooper, QC, as to why a practising barrister who will have spent half a lifetime in fierce partisanship in the courts is deemed to have the best qualifications for being an impartial judge. As we know, the choice has been widened somewhat recently to include solicitors, but so far the Lord Chancellor's office has been extremely cautious, no doubt because it is considered that practice in the courts is virtually demanded and not many solicitors fulfil that requirement.
Can we broaden the base from which judges of various levels are chosen to include chairmen of administrative tribunals, academic lawyers and lawyers from industry and commerce so that a wider choice is available? Let such lawyers be given part-time judicial appointments so that they can experience judicial work and have their performance monitored. After all, that is the typical route of judicial work for practising barristers. I believe that it could be made more widely available to others.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Neill of Bladen: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for raising this issue. But I am a sceptic, both as to the perceived mischief and as to the suggested remedy. We take too narrow a historical view. If we look back across the centuries we will see that the law and judges have been frequently involved in cases of the highest constitutional importance. I have only six minutes at my disposal and therefore will not go into the legal history, but let me mention some salient cases with which we will all be familiar.
The first is the case of the five knights in the time of King Charles. They were imprisoned for not paying an illegal demand for a forced loan. The response to habeas

1445
corpus was, "The King has imprisoned them". A craven court had that highly political decision to make and decided to leave the knights languishing in gaol. A little later, at the beginning of the 18th century, we come to Ashby v. White, a tremendously important constitutional case where it was held that a person who was denied the right to vote in a parliamentary election had a right of action in damages. That led to rioting in the streets of London. Queen Anne suspended both Houses and, perhaps more worrying for the legal profession, officers were sent from the other place to arrest a barrister in the Temple for having appeared on the wrong side. He was well prepared with sheets and ropes and, while they were knocking down the front door, he climbed out of the window at the back. That case led to days of rioting.
Later in the century we had Somerset's case about the slave—a tremendously important constitutional case. In the 19th century, take your pick: Stockdale v. Hansard and the Taff Vale trade union cases. In the 20th century there are too many cases to choose. Constitutional issues have arisen frequently. We should not lose sight of the Privy Council. It has been deciding cases of high constitutional importance down the years. For example, in 1930 Lord Atkin was responsible for giving the leading advice in a series of important Canadian appeals on its constitution; similarly Australia. Since the war we have moulded constitutions for Commonwealth countries and those have given rise to many important cases which have come to the Privy Council. So the highest judges have been regularly dealing with cases of high constitutional importance.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, is correct in referring to judicial review. Of course there have been a torrent of cases of the highest importance. But the judges have become used to dealing with this jurisdiction and, whereas in the old days, it used to be said theoretically that one might set aside a decision of a Minister on the ground that no reasonable Minister could reach such a decision, today—not every day, but frequently—judges set aside Ministers' decisions on precisely those grounds, and the decisions of lesser tribunals and other bodies.
So there is a great experience among the judges in handling difficult cases involving conflict between the Executive and the rights of the citizen. Indeed, I would claim that the judges had stood between the Executive and the rights of the citizen and held the hand of the Executive when these were applied in an oppressive manner in many instances. A famous example crossing the centuries is the attitude of the courts to the so-called "ouster" clause. That is a provision in a Bill which says that no issue arising on such-and-such a question can ever be raised in any court of law. Judges with infinite skill have found methods of interpretation to completely disarm the exercise of such ouster clauses, again, upholding the liberty of the subject.
I believe that there is an exaggeration in saying that we are dealing with a novel problem. We do not meet people going round saying that judges have been mishandling cases of judicial review; on the contrary, we hear praise for the independence and courage of the judiciary in performing their traditional role.
1446
As to the supposed remedy, the noble Lord suggested four. One, for example, was to advertise all the appointments. There would not be much harm in that if we said that such-and-such a Law Lord is due to retire in two years' time. We could certainly do that. But the register of interests is an entirely separate point and has nothing to do with the appointment of the judiciary. I have views on that and believe that there is an anomaly about the register of interests. I do not understand, if one is taking that point, why it is confined simply to the judicial Members of the House of Lords and not to other courts. I see no reason why we should not know the interests of a much lesser judge than somebody sitting in the House of Lords. How that would be dealt with would involve difficulty in maintaining a register.
I suggest that we would not gain by what is essentially the noble Lord's key proposal; that is, that we have a judicial appointments board manned by the great and the good with a strong lay element. Worst of all, in my view, is the public hearing element to that proposal. What are the unfortunate candidates going to be asked? If they had any sense they would never have written a word in any legal article so that they would have no recorded opinion of any sort. Will they be asked questions of law? How will it be decided? For instance, before the decision relating to life support machines had been decided, they may have been asked, "Would you be in favour of turning off a life support machine in certain circumstances?". The questions could involve issues of abortion or any other controversial issue of the day. Will a potential judge be asked to give an opinion?
If the candidate had any sense he would say, "If this came before me judicially, I would want to consider the arguments on both sides. Sitting here, I have no opinion". But of course that would not do, so presumably he would have to give an opinion. I suppose a candidate could be failed for expressing the wrong opinion. That is a disastrous way of appointing the judiciary. We can carry openness to its full length—I believe that openness is one of the great seven principles of public life; I proclaim that—but there must be limits to it. The limit comes when we try to interrogate potential judges, possibly throw open their record, their CV and the references that have been submitted about them. I am therefore a sceptic on both counts.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Patten is to be congratulated on asking the Question which gives rise to this short debate at a time when the judiciary of the United Kingdom is preparing to take up its new responsibilities under the devolution legislation. I know that members of the judiciary are looking forward to those new responsibilities and are preparing thoroughly for them. They are responsibilities which will involve ensuring that the devolved institutions respect convention rights as those rights have been defined under the Human Rights Act 1998.
The speech of my noble friend Lord Patten was primarily directed to the appointment of members of the judiciary in England and Wales and of Lords of Appeal

1447
in Ordinary. That is entirely understandable in view of the fact that it falls to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to reply to this short debate.
Perhaps I may say, at the outset, that I agree with a great deal of what my noble friend had to say. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, I share some reservations about the role of public hearings in the appointment of judges. Although I had the benefit of hearing the speech made by my noble friend Lord Kingsland, like a number of other Members of your Lordships' House I remain to be persuaded.
Notwithstanding the coming into force of the Government of Wales Act and the Northern Ireland legislation, the appointment of judges who will sit in those parts of the United Kingdom will remain the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government. By contrast, after devolution, the appointment of members of the Scottish judiciary—with two important exceptions, the Lord President and the Lord Justice Clerk—will be matters for the First Minister who will, of course, be answerable to the Scottish Parliament.
The provisions of the Scotland Act, as enacted, will ensure that to some extent different procedures are followed than have been applied up until now. Notwithstanding the imminence of devolution, it would be wrong to comment in detail during the course of this debate on what form procedures in Scotland might follow. Those are clearly matters for the Scottish Parliament, which I have no doubt will follow the principle of openness which lies behind my noble friend's Unstarred Question.
Occasionally in debates on legal matters in your Lordships' House, I have been guilty of suggesting that the English legal system would do well to follow the Scottish example. In my own defence, I might say that I suspect I am not the only Member of your Lordships' House, qualified in the law of Scotland, who has sinned in that way. I seek forgiveness for past failings. However, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be happy to learn that I make no such suggestion tonight as regards the appointment of judges.
The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, mentioned the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs of another place which was published back in 1995. As he correctly stated, the Lord Chancellor's Department submitted very detailed evidence to that committee which was published when it came to report to another place. From a reading of that report, and also from a briefing which I received from officials in the Lord Chancellor's Department when I was Lord Advocate, it is quite clear to me that a considerable amount of care and effort is taken by such officials in the gathering together, vouching and assessing of information upon which the Lord Chancellor, in due course, makes appointments at various levels to the judiciary.
I have seen some of the forms used in that exercise. Quite frankly, I have been most impressed by the rigour with which detailed information is sought from a variety of sources, cross-checked and analysed. I am aware also that the Lord Chancellor's Department publishes leaflets that explain the qualities looked for when appointments
1448
are made at different levels of the judiciary and how those appointments are made. In publishing such leaflets, it seems to me that the Lord Chancellor's Department has set a good example. I, for my part, rather regret that in the time when I held office as Lord Advocate, I was unable to persuade colleagues and officials to do likewise.
There is, however, one suggestion I would make which might address one aspect of the public concern which lies behind my noble friend's Unstarred Question. What interested members of the public may currently lack is ready access to factual knowledge as to who the members of the judiciary are; what qualifications they hold; details of the career they followed prior to appointment; details of their areas of particular expertise; and details of their involvement in other aspects of public life.
If they had such information, I believe it would not only serve to inform members of the public who the judges are, but also reassure them that the judiciary is constituted of individuals of the necessary education, ability and experience, drawn from a wide variety of backgrounds and able to discharge the increasingly important role that the judiciary has as the Government's constitutional legislation is brought into force.
As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may well be aware, last week the Scottish courts service launched its own website on the Internet. The objectives of doing so include providing members of the public with information about the role of the courts and the decisions of various judges. In particular, it carries details of who all the High Court judges are, together with some detail of their qualifications and experience. I know that in this instance the Scottish legal system is following the example of England. As I understand it, the court service in England and Wales has had a website for some time. I endeavoured to search the website; I can find no information about the judiciary. Perhaps I may put forward a suggestion. If the website contained details of procedures currently followed, the qualities sought, and the rigorous steps taken to collect information and, more importantly, details of who the judiciary are, that might in some way, albeit indirectly, seek to meet the desire on the part of many Members of Parliament, lawyers and members of the public for greater openness in the appointment of the judiciary.
8.5 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I have an interest to declare at once. In 1984 I was appointed an assistant recorder. However, as I went to Brussels as a commissioner instead, I never sat as an assistant recorder. That, I am sure, was to the benefit of everybody concerned.
There is one common theme here: we all praise the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for introducing the Unstarred Question. However, that is as far as the praise seems to go. I found that the criticism, or the indictment, he levelled was not made out. It was short of factual information and evidence. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, pointed out, most of the remedies were, I believe, seriously deficient.

1449
However, most of all the noble Lord seems not to have noticed the changes introduced by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and the further indications of change that he has already intimated. They seem to have passed him by. That is regrettable. However, I believe it is as well to say that my noble and learned friend has made it clear that the major criterion affecting his judgment about this issue is that appointments should be made on merit. Yes, there needs to be transparency, flexibility and efficiency in relation to the whole operation.
Under his tutelage, applications for appointment to the High Court Bench are being encouraged, wheras in the previous system invitation alone seemed to be the way in which this was done. Those who have undertaken career breaks for family reasons will be enabled to undertake part-time sittings. That is a radical and important change. Senior judges mentoring junior colleagues is something which he has also proposed. That will all be part and parcel of the new arrangements. He is proposing that there should be an annual report to Parliament about how the whole system of judicial appointments is operating.
There is, of course, the question of an ombudsman to investigate complaints of discrimination in terms of appointments of judges. My own hope is that that will happen. I shall listen with interest to what my noble and learned friend has to say about that. Perhaps he will also inform the House about his present thinking on a judicial appointments committee.
I believe that this Government have made an excellent start, which mirrors the thoughts of my noble and learned friend, who, along with my noble and learned friend Lord Archer and myself, is joint President of the Society of Labour Lawyers. He has been saying many of these things for years and writing about them. Now he has the opportunity to put them in place. Above all, he has set his face against discrimination. It is appropriate to talk about that in the context of the events of last week. Discrimination in the whole process of judicial appointments would be wholly intolerable.
My noble and learned friend has also acted against ageism. Assistant recorders can now be appointed up to the age of 53. The maximum age of appointment is no longer 50. Magistrates may be appointed up to the age of 65 to serve for a term. Reasons for non-selection are to be disclosed to the person affected, where requested.
My noble and learned friend cannot do everything himself. There is also a duty on those who encourage people to enter the profession to ensure that there is an absence of discrimination. The professions bear a big responsibility. One has to ask—indeed, my noble and learned friend has himself raised this—why there are no Asian or black High Court judges at present. I am confident that my noble and learned friend will investigate this issue. Indeed, my right honourable friend had something to say about that recently.
It is important that the youngsters who enter the legal profession should feel that they are not in any sense discriminated against, particularly if they come from the ethnic community or are women. It is important that they should have confidence in the profession because
1450
it is from them that the future judges will be selected. I believe that we have made considerable strides in relation to this. I am sure that there are some warts, but in the main the professions have acted responsibly.
Perhaps I may say a few words about the "magic circle" or "secret soundings". I really do not think that it is as malign a process as the noble Lord suggested. In fact, it is quite a sophisticated way of helping to measure suitability for judicial appointment. Of course, there is always the risk that the assessors could be biased, but, equally, my noble and learned friend is demanding a balanced assessment and is putting in place mechanisms to suppress any signs of discrimination in that regard. Consultation is not to be the sole consideration and every encouragement is to be given to people to apply to be considered as judges.
In conclusion, I think that my noble and learned friend has demonstrated his commitment on this issue. I say that although I have not always admired everything that he has done and have been somewhat critical of a certain Bill now progressing through your Lordships' House. However, when one considers the situation that he inherited and that which he is seeking to develop, one sees that my noble and learned friend has every reason to be supported by this House, the legal profession and the public at large.
8.12 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten, for raising this issue. He is right to call for greater openness in the appointment of the judiciary. I too declare an interest as a recorder and a deputy High Court judge.
I believe that the power of appointment should be taken from the Lord Chancellor while he retains his political role and should be vested in a commission comprising judicial figures, members of the Bar and of the solicitors' profession, and members of the public. That is what we left behind us in Hong Kong. That was the system that applied there under colonial rule and it has continued. I am reliably informed that the judicial appointments now made in Hong Kong are completely free of political influence in a highly sensitive situation. I am convinced that that is the way in which we should move forward in this country also.
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to "judicial activism". In using that phrase, he echoed the views expressed fulsomely by Judge Robert Bork, the former Solicitor General of the United States, whose nomination by President Reagan for the Supreme Court was blocked by the Senate because of his conservative views. In the "First Things" symposium in November 1996, entitled "The End of Democracy? The Judicial Usurpation of Politics", Judge Bork suggested that,
"the most important moral, political, and cultural decisions affecting our lives are steadily being removed from democratic control".
His colleague, Charles Colson, said that the blame should be squarely placed on the,
"systematic usurpation of ultimate political power by the American judiciary".
The fear of judicial activism has American, right-wing conservative roots.

1451
The noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to moral matters. The matters which particularly exercise right-wing conservative judges in the United States are decisions made by the federal courts and by the Supreme Court on subjects such as abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality and assisted suicide. Indeed, Ed Meese, the Attorney General under President Reagan. wrote recently:
"Judicial activism has harmed virtually every aspect of public policy in America".
It was his view that,
"Leftist politicians have accomplished much of their agenda in the past thirty years not through use of such democratic means as the electoral process or legislation, but instead through the use of the federal courts".
His recommendation—again, this was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Patten—was,
"The Senate should use its confirmation authority to block the appointment of activist judges. This confirmation process in recent years has been relatively perfunctory. The Senate Judicial Committee should closely question each nominee for the federal bench to ascertain the candidate's understanding of the proper role of the judiciary".
Similarly, the House Majority Whip, Mr. DeLay, who is, of course, a Republican representative from Texas, told the Washington Times in November 1997:
"as part of our conservative efforts against judicial activism, we are going after judges".
That claim was responded to by Mr. Lee Cooper, the president of the American Bar Association, who said that,
"any federal judge threatened with this sort of partisan bashing might be tempted to act on matters not based on the applicable law; rather the standard might become the prevailing winds of political popularity. This is not the justice system the American people want or deserve. That is a partisan political circus".
Cries about judicial activism derive from right-wing judges in America and from academic writers who see a clash between what they believe to be the purposes of the founding fathers of the written constitution at the end of the 18th century and the way in which in modern conditions the judges of the federal courts interpret those provisions.
This country has a completely different judicial system. The noble Lord, Lord Patten, referred to judicial review. There is a misconception here: in judicial review proceedings, it is not the job of the judge to second-guess the Minister nor to take the decision which has been entrusted by Parliament to the Minister. In our system, judicial review curbs abuses by the Government and by public officials by using the power to declare the acts of public officials contrary to natural justice, ultra vires or completely unreasonable. The court's function is also to protect the politically powerless and to stand up for minority rights. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, emphasised that point and I agree entirely with him. The function of judicial review is not to supplant government decisions, but to control them in the interests of minorities. That point has to be understood.
I turn now to the implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights. Under the Human Rights Act, which has now come into force, we have not given
1452
the courts the power to strike down legislation that is incompatible with the covenant; we have given the courts the power to make findings which can bring the matter quickly back before Parliament for further consideration.
In relation to human rights, one should bear in mind that the whole purpose of a covenant of this kind and of the ICCPR (International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is to depoliticise fundamental rights. I quote the words of Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson in 1943 in the case of West Virginia Board of Education v. Barnette, when he said:
"The very purpose of a Bill of Rights was to withdraw certain subjects from the vicissitudes of political controversy, to place them beyond the reach of majorities and officials and to establish them as legal principles to be applied by the courts. One's right to life, liberty and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections".
So the whole purpose of the covenant is to take it out of the political arena.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I remind the noble Lord, with respect, that he is now two minutes over time.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: I am obliged. Finally, I should like to refer to the proposed role of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in interpreting the constitutions of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly. I do not see political considerations coming into the matter; it is well within the compass of that judicial committee.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Kingsland: My Lords, with the noble Baroness in mind and being aware that I made a speech on a similar topic 10 days ago, I shall be very brief.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on introducing this debate. I do not think that he intended in any way to criticise the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor; I think rather that he was probing and asking the noble and learned Lord for his reaction to the quite dramatic constitutional changes that the Government have introduced over the past 18 months and whether he felt some changes were necessary to maintain the legitimacy and reputation of the judiciary.
I listened with great care to the excellent speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill, and I entirely agree with what he said about the decisions made by our judges down the centuries. Even in recent years, with the increase in the number of judicial review decisions, our judges have still retained their legitimacy by making sure that those decisions are couched in the language of interpreting the will of Parliament.
Now, things may change—because of two measures that the Government have introduced. The first is the incorporation of the European Convention on Human Rights and the second is the devolution of power to the Scottish Parliament. In the case of the European convention, the balance of power between the judiciary and the legislature has changed dramatically. The judges can now range over all our statute law, analyse it in the

1453
light of the convention and, if they find an incompatibility, declare it. Once that incompatibility is declared, Parliament is obliged to legislate. Hence the change in balance of power between these two crucial arms of our constitution. Judges can no longer disguise what they say in the language of the intention of Parliament; it will now be their decision.
Is there not at least a danger that the judges might be seen by the public as overturning the decisions of elected politicians and therefore be perceived in the same way as elected politicians? I hope that that will not happen and that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is right in what he said 10 days ago. He felt that no change whatsoever was necessary in his approach to the appointment of the judiciary. So be it. I hope that he is right. I do not share his confidence. I trust that he will at least reflect on the implications of the incorporation of the convention in the way that I have explained.
In the same way, the judicial branch, through the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, will have to make decisions about the validity of Acts of Parliament passed by the Scottish legislature. What will be the political implications of those Acts being struck down? Perhaps it will be treated by the electorate of Scotland in exactly the same way as our own electorate reacts to a judicial review decision of a United Kingdom court; but, then again, perhaps not.
Having regard to the dramatic constitutional changes that the Government have introduced over the last 18 months, ought we not at least to reflect on the implications for the judges who now bear such a heavy constitutional burden for our country, a burden they have never been asked to bear before?
I do not entirely agree with every suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Patten. For example, I take the view that the selection of judges should remain in the hands of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. In response to what the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said 10 days ago, I suggested that some public hearing might form part of the selection of the members of the highest court in our land—not that I think Parliament ought to be able to decide the judges' appointment, but there should be some public airing. After all, the noble and learned Lords who sit on the Judicial Committee of your Lordships' House are allowed to speak in it freely; so why should there be such a strong objection to their answering questions posed by your Lordships' House in the course of the appointment procedure? However, I have noted that many noble Lords have been sceptical about that matter and I readily accept that there may be some other method which would be preferable.
The essential question for the noble and learned Lord to consider is whether or not the dramatic change in the powers of the judiciary ought to make him ask pertinent questions about whether the present system is sufficient to ensure their legitimacy into the future.
8.26 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Patten,
1454
for initiating this evening's debate, but I did note the point, well made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, as to whether this new policy was being made on the hoof. There is a close link between the operation—and the integrity—of the judicial appointments system and the independence of the judiciary. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Bingham, in his 1996 inaugural Judicial Studies Board lecture on the independence of the judiciary, said:
"The key to the successful making of appointments must, I would suggest, lie in an assumption shared by appointer, appointee and the public at large that those appointed should be capable of discharging their judicial duties, so far as humanly possible, with impartiality. Impartiality and independence may not, even in this context, be synonyms, but there is a very close blood-tie between them".
I agree that judicial impartiality is linked to, though slightly different from, the concept of judicial independence. One of the major duties of my office is to ensure the maintenance of judicial independence. The two pillars of our system are judicial independence from any executive or other interference and the assurance that the judges are impartial in their own independent sphere.
Judicial impartiality requires the judges themselves to put their obligation of fidelity to law and compliance with their judicial oath above personal preference. Some claimed in the late 1970s that the Court of Appeal had been partial in a long line of trade union cases. The most authoritative insistence on judicial impartiality came from Lord Diplock in Duport v. Sirs in 1980. He insisted that it was the judges' duty to apply the statutes, however unpalatable and whatever their own perception of where the public interest lay. Just as they are entitled to independence in their own sphere, so the public must be able to take their impartiality for granted. I believe the standing of the judiciary today is such that the public does have complete confidence in its impartiality.
In this debate it is important to distinguish between two quite different propositions. The first, which has not been articulated during the debate, is that we should never have had a Human Rights Act because it will politicise our judiciary. The second is that now that we have a Human Rights Act we must have a different method of appointing the judiciary. The first proposition is, I believe, the position of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington—he is not in his place this evening—who has tabled a starred Question for Wednesday on the subject. The second, I rather think, is the position of the noble Lord, Lord Patten. I am persuaded by neither.
The first proposition is simply an attempt to renew a battle that is over. Parliament has legislated for the Human Rights Act. Nor is the second proposition sound. I see no reason why adjudicating on legislation that might be called "constitutional"—I have to say that I find the expression very imprecise—should require any change to the way that judges are appointed. The decisions that judges have made in their own independent sphere across the century have frequently been the judicial component in much wider political controversies. I do not see the development of judicial review, of the Human Rights Act or of the devolution settlement as marking any sea change in the nature of judicial decision-making.

1455
Under the Human Rights Act, the principle of parliamentary sovereignty is emphatically retained. The courts cannot strike down an Act of Parliament as incompatible with the convention. There will be very rare cases where they will declare an Act to be incompatible, but then it is for Parliament to determine what change to the statute is to be made. Under the devolution legislation the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council—not your Lordships' House in its judicial capacity—will have to determine vires issues affecting, for example, the Scottish Parliament, but that is nothing new in principle. The Judicial Committee has a long history as a constitutional Court of Appeal from the Commonwealth, to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, referred, and vires issues of this kind are food and drink to the committee. So it is important not to get all of this out of proportion.
I repeat what I said in your Lordships' House on 17th February in the debate on the separation of powers, mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Kingsland, and initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill:
"Some who are critics of the Human Rights Act argue that it will have a tendency to politicise our higher judiciary. It is true that the Human Rights Act, when implemented, will throw up cases which could be described as politically controversial. But the law is no stranger to that over the centuries. Think of the landmark cases in civil liberties",
to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, referred. I continued:
"Think of the development of the law in relation to trade unions and the development by Parliament of immunities for industrial action which were then interpreted by the judges in controversial ways. Think of Liversidge and Anderson in 1942, the Regulation I8B case, and Lord Atkin's historic dissent."—
indeed, there was an unholy row about that at the time. I went on to say:
"Think of the development of judicial review and of natural justice. Think of Brind, which excluded certain politicians from media appearances but allowed actors to stand in. Think of the cases about homosexuality in the Armed Forces. Think about whether the life support machine should he turned off. Think of every controversial decision in the criminal law".—[Official Report, 17/2/99; col. 735.]
The courts have never been far away from controversy. I firmly believe that the Human Rights Act may see a change in degree, but not in kind.
I turn now to judicial appointments. I appoint to judicial office—or, in the case of more senior appointments, recommend for appointment—only those who meet the statutory qualifications for the office concerned. Subject to those statutory requirements, I make appointments strictly on merit, as did my predecessors. My policy is to appoint, or recommend for appointment, those candidates who satisfy the statutory qualifications and who, in my opinion, best meet the criteria for appointment. This is without regard to factors such as gender, ethnic origin, marital status or disability. The politics of any individual is absolutely irrelevant. I do not know, and would not contemplate inquiring, about the politics of any applicant for judicial office. I am sure that my noble and learned predecessors would say the same.
1456
I believe strongly in equal opportunities. Everyone should be given an equal opportunity to fulfil his or her personal potential. Negative discrimination on the grounds of gender, race, religion, sexual orientation, class or any other discriminatory factor should never be tolerated. But, as I have said before, I am resolutely opposed to any proposition—and we have heard it tonight—that our senior judiciary, prior to appointment, should be subject to public hearings, to subject their judicial track records or attitudes to appraisal in terms of changing fashions for political correctness. I do not think that our higher courts should be sculpted to conform to some notion of social, political, gender, or any other balance. So I fundamentally disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Patten, that there should be public hearings before a Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament to approve the appointment or to investigate the attitudes of independent and impartial lawyers who might be appointed Law Lords. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Neill of Bladen, on that issue.
Next, I normally appoint candidates to full-time office only after they have served part time for long enough to prove their competence and suitability. When considering the merits of candidates for appointment, I consider the independent assessments of as many members of the serving judiciary and the legal profession as possible. The consultation community is very wide. This is one of the areas of my department's work which is most thoroughly researched. I welcome the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, in that respect. It would be difficult to conceive of a fuller system of peer appraisal. At present, I am considering this year's Silk applications. I have no less than 4,600 comments on the merits of individual applicants to consider. Last year 511 applied and 60 succeeded. This year 553 have applied. It is a highly competitive process in a merit-based system.
I cannot change the world overnight, but there are encouraging signs that women and ethnic minority practitioners are now coming forward in greater numbers. Without prejudice to the overriding principle of appointment strictly on merit, I hope to be able to appoint many more women and ethnic minority practitioners to judicial office in the coming years. Last year I was able to recommend for Silk 10 women and four applicants from an ethnic minority background. These figures of successful applicants represent over 20 per cent. of the applicants in each category. In December 1994, 7.6 per cent. of the main tiers of the judiciary were women. The figure is now over 9 per cent; and the picture is changing.
We have had a short but good debate on the initiative of the noble Lord, Lord Patten, on a subject which has become somewhat topical. I am sure that the debate will prove to be a source for opinion which we will consult in the future because of the quality of your Lordships' contributions this evening.

Health Bill [H.L.]
8.39 p.m.
House again in Committee on Clause 16.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 119:
Page 13, line 25, at end insert ("from that document or information alone, or in combination with other information which is in the possession of, or is likely to come into the possession of the Commission,").
The noble Baroness said: I believe that my noble friend Lord Howe would want me to move this amendment in his absence; indeed, as I understand the procedures involved, I believe that anyone may do so. Unfortunately, my noble friend did not reach the Chamber this afternoon in time to move an earlier amendment. I do not want that to happen again. I believe that the amendment is self-explanatory. I certainly hope that it is. I am pleased to see that my noble friend Lord Howe has returned to the Chamber. I shall not move Amendment No. 119.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 120 to 123 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:
[Amendments Nos. 124 to 128 not moved.]
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 129:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND INDICATORS
(".—(1) The bodies mentioned in subsection (2) below must make arrangements to secure continuous improvement in the way in which their functions are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness.
(2) The bodies are—

(a) Health Authorities;

(b) Special Health Authorities;

(c) Primary Care Trusts; and

(d) NHS Trusts.

(3) For the purpose of deciding how to fulfil the duty arising under subsection (1), a body must consult—

(a) representatives of persons who use or are likely to use services provided by the body; and

(b) representatives of persons appearing to the body to have an interest in any area within which the body carries out functions.

(4) The Secretary of State may by order specify—

(a) factors ("performance indicators") by reference to which a body's performance in exercising functions can be measured; and

(b) standards ("performance standards") to be met by bodies in relation to performance indicators specified under paragraph (a).

(5) In specifying performance indicators and standards, and in deciding whether to do so, the Secretary of State shall—
1458

(a) aim to promote improvement of the way in which the functions of a body are exercised, having regard to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness; and

(b) have regard to any recommendations made to him by the Audit Commission and the Commission for Health Improvement.

(6) In exercising a function a body must meet any applicable performance standard specified under subsection (4)(b).").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment forms a link between Clauses 13 to 18 which are about quality and Clauses 19 to 25 which are concerned with partnerships among NHS organisations and particularly between National Health Service organisations and local authorities. In brief, it introduces the concept of best value into NHS practice. The definition of that in the first part of the amendment concerns having regard in the actions that one takes,
"to a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness".
As I said, this Health Bill creates a duty of partnership between National Health Service bodies and local authorities. When the Local Government Bill is passed, local authorities will have to conform to best value procedures. Best value principles include the need for meaningful consultation and the involvement of local communities in planning and providing services; the promotion of clarity about how service standards are developed in co-operation with the people using the services; and requirements for reporting on all the processes involved.
However, there is no similar best value requirement on health authorities and trusts at present. It is difficult to see how the new duty of partnership can work unless all the parties to it conform to the same obligations for best value. This difference of approach is part of the culture clash between local authorities and National Health Service organisations, to which reference was made by a number of speakers during the Second Reading of the Bill. Interestingly enough, other organisations have stepped in to support this amendment, which was put forward in collaboration with the consumer organisations. For example, a major drug producing group is worried that, faced with decisions on whether or not to recommend a new drug or a technological innovation, decisions will be made purely on the basis of cost rather than of cost benefit.
The language of the Bill is taken precisely from the language of the Local Government Bill which is going through another place. For example, the proposed new subsection (4)(a) and (b) is an exact replica of Clause 4(1) in that other Bill. The proposed new subsection (5) in this amendment is a replica of Clause 4(3) in the other Bill. During the Second Reading debate the Minister raised the topic of best value when she said,
"The new provisions will provide space for health services and local authorities to think more inventively; to develop innovative solutions to long-standing problems; and to use local resources in new and imaginative ways. They complement those in the Local Government Bill which will introduce the duty of best value for local authorities and enable the Government to remove obstacles to joint working".—[Official Report, 9/2/99; cols. 112–113.]

1459
This amendment tests the Government's commitment to ensuring that both partners in these partnerships work to the same song book. I beg to move.
Lord Harris of Haringey: This is an interesting amendment. Those of us who are currently involved in local government look forward to the legal introduction of the best value regime, which in many ways will be more testing than the previous system of compulsory competitive tendering. It is an important new regime in that it has as an integral part consultation with the people who use the services, the requirement that the authorities concerned challenge the way in which those services are delivered and think about innovative ways of providing them. It requires that there is proper comparison with benchmarks and other providers and it also involves competition. Those four "C's": consult, challenge, compare and compete, are extremely important. That is a discipline which local government is prepared to take on board. It could well be applied to much of the rest of the public sector. For that reason alone I believe that the amendment has merit and I look forward to hearing the Minister's reply.
However, there is a second reason, which was touched on when the amendment was introduced. If there is the expectation of increased joint working between local government and the health service, it will be extremely difficult, if not totally impractical, for one side of that joint working—the local authority side—to apply best value principles and for the health service not to embrace the principles in the same way. In the interests of ensuring that joint working between the health service and local government is as effective as we would all wish it to be, it makes sense for both the health service and local government to follow a similar regime. For that reason I have much sympathy with the amendment which has been proposed.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I have a certain sympathy with the language of the amendment, which I believe is interesting and probably quite effective. However, my sentiments are the opposite of those expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Harris. I am not at all satisfied that the concept of best value for local authorities is nearly as good as the concept of compulsory competitive tendering. I believe that the provision allows people to wriggle out of the concept of good value. They may say, "We thought it was best value bearing everything in mind". The best value element is the one part of the concept that I do not like. Fortunately the amendment does not appear to use those words. It appears to be the consumer organisation which is concerned with that phrase. I support the amendment not on the basis of best value but because it seeks,
"a combination of economy, efficiency and effectiveness".
Those are the words which I value.
Baroness Hayman: It has been interesting to debate the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and to consider ways in which the duty of partnership and the joint working that we wish to foster will take place on the ground. I do not
1460
believe that there is so great a culture clash as the noble Baroness may have suggested in speaking to the amendment.
While we want to see joint working it is important also to draw out the differences between the position of local authorities and that of NHS bodies in relation to best value. We must recognise that the relationship of the Secretary of State for Health to NHS bodies, including assigning the status of accountable officer to NHS chief executives, is different from that which exists between local authorities and the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
Best value is a duty owed to local people by elected members of councils, and the provisions of the Local Government Bill have been drafted to reflect that. I accept the point made by Members of the Committee, including my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey, that the principles of best value should apply to the NHS. The Government are committed to driving up performance and standards across the NHS through continuous improvement in both the quality and the efficiency of NHS services. Where I would differ from my noble friend is that it is our belief that this does not mean that we could or should apply those best value principles in exactly the same way. The point is that the regimes should complement each other—I made this point in the Second Reading debate—and that the principles on which they are based should be the same but that we should not necessarily be taking through exactly the same regime.
We have set out in The new NHS White Paper our strategy for achieving the high quality and efficiency to which I have referred, with specific proposals to strengthen the existing statutory and performance management framework through introducing the duties of quality and of partnership on all NHS bodies, now being given effect to through this Bill; through requiring health authorities to lead the development of a local strategy for improving health and modernising services and for ensuring the active involvement of local service users and local communities in that process, which is covered by Clause 21 of the Bill and to which I know Members of the Committee pay particular attention; through setting clear national standards that will apply to all NHS bodies; through the establishment of the national institute for clinical excellence and the development of national service frameworks for assuring local delivery; through the introduction of clinical governance arrangements and to complement existing corporate governance arrangements to ensure probity and regularity; and, finally, through monitoring performance through a national performance assessment framework, the establishment of the commission for health improvement and the annual surveys of patient and user experience.
These measures will complement the Secretary of State's wide-ranging powers of direction over NHS bodies which are subject to external audit by the Audit Commission to ensure that they have proper arrangements in place to secure economy, efficiency and effectiveness—the criteria to which the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, referred—in the use of their resources. Taken together, they ensure that our approach

1461
to improving performance in the NHS is consistent with those principles underpinning the best value regime being introduced for local government. However, as I said earlier, that does not mean that the detailed provisions should he the same for NHS bodies.
This amendment seeks to provide NHS bodies with similar duties of best value to those provided for local authorities in the Local Government Bill. I hope the Committee will understand that we can achieve this through the powers already available to us, including the Secretary of State's powers to direct NHS bodies. In a number of important respects, those powers are strengthened and those arrangements made more robust. I would therefore suggest to the Committee that importing wholesale the best value provisions from local government is not the best way forward. I trust that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, for making some points on my behalf with which I entirely agree. I did not do so because I felt that time was moving on. I thank him all the same. I thank the Minister for a very careful answer. I must confess that I do not find myself entirely at ease with all the points she made. We are talking here about a partnership with local authorities which involves joint commissioning of services. It involves commissioning services from each other, or the possibility that that should happen. If one comes at that from a different standpoint, one could be getting oneself into trouble. However, I do not want to dispute every point that the noble Baroness raised, as that would take another three-quarters of an hour. I shall read carefully what she said. I shall withdraw the amendment at this stage but may come back with another version of it at a later date. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 130:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
STANDING CONFERENCE
(".—(1) The Secretary of State shall establish a standing conference (referred to in this Act as the Standing Conference) which shall have the duty of—

(a) conducting an annual review of, and the making of reports and recommendations to the Secretary of State on, treatment priorities and funding in the NHS after consultation with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; and

(b) establishing a clear set of values and guidelines to clarify the decision-making process to be applied by Health Authorities, Special Health Authorities, Primary Care Trusts and NHS Trusts to ensure that patients are entitled to equal and consistent treatment, to be given clear treatment options and reasons where treatment is denied.

(2) The reports of the Standing Conference shall be published annually and shall take account inter alia of—

(a) the views of the public on the priority of treatments;

(b) the efficacy of treatments;

(c) the cost benefit of treatments; and

(d) the affordability of treatments.

(3) The members of the Standing Conference shall be appointed by the Secretary of State and shall consist of an equal number of lay members and members involved in the delivery of health care.
(4) In exercising his functions under the 1977 Act, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 or this Act, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the reports and recommendations of the Standing Conference.").
The noble Lord said: Several of our debates have touched on rationing. At this time of night I have no intention of instigating a long debate on the subject. Indeed, we alluded to so-called post-code rationing when discussing the commission for health improvement and NICE. However, it is clear that rationing occurs in a number of different ways. It occurs where health authorities have decided that treatments are core and non-core healthcare services; it occurs where health authorities, while generally being favourable to a treatment which may be provided in another district, insist on more evidence than is reasonable in order to ensure that their bills are not unduly inflated; and it occurs where health authorities have run out of money for particular treatments.
When one looks at the whole area of rationing, one sees that there are huge variations in how communications take place with patients about treatments that are being denied. That is a matter of particular concern. The amendment attempts to tackle the first kind of rationing. The second type, we hope, will be dealt with by the combination of NICE and CHIMP. The third is a matter of year-on-year resources as provided to health authorities and NHS trusts. We believe that the first type will be dealt with by our amendment. It seeks to set up a standing conference along the lines of the Dunning Committee which was set up in Holland to provide a public forum in which rationing issues could be debated.
For instance, what is core healthcare? Noble Lords may have seen an interesting article in The Times of 23rd February which looked at the detail of IVF treatment. The article was headed "IVF treatment and the lottery by postcode". Clearly, IVF treatment is not provided on a consistent basis across the country and health authorities have very different views about it. Members of the Committee may have heard on the radio this morning a discussion about chemotherapy and the kinds of so-called chemotherapy cocktails which consultants wish to make but which are denied them by their health authorities. Who in a health authority decides on what is core and non-core? Is the Viagra example the model? Do we expect the Secretary of State to descend in a chariot of fire to make a decision on a single drug; or is there another model? We suggest that there is another model. We are not proposing an executive body or anything that actually takes the decision on what is core and what is non-core. We are suggesting simply a forum available to the Secretary of State to advise him. The pattern of differences between health authorities is enormous.
Nowadays, health authorities, to their credit, are being much franker about whether tattoo removal or infertility treatment is or is not included in their menu of treatments. However, by itself, that is dangerous. It means that potentially we no longer have a national health service. We have a series of health authorities deciding on what treatment is available in their localities. That means, in the words of the Question that

1463
has been tabled for tomorrow by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, that people literally have to move house in order to find different treatments. That cannot be desirable. We are trying to ensure that there is at least a forum for a national debate on the subject that is long overdue. I beg to move.
9 p.m.
Baroness Hayman: The noble Lord has argued persuasively that we need to take measures to ensure that we have less unacceptable variation in standards of care in different parts of the country. I do not in any way disagree. What I believe the Committee should consider is whether the establishment of a national standing conference—a national priority-setting body—would be helpful in the process that we have set out in order to ensure a more nationally accountable NHS.
We are already setting up two new national bodies—the national institute for clinical excellence, in order to assess treatments, to examine their clinical and cost effectiveness, and to make the best possible evidence available to local health authorities, trusts and individual clinicians; and the commission for health improvement, whose role we have just discussed, to monitor the implementation not only of NICE's recommendations but of the national service frameworks, which will be aimed at reducing unacceptable variations and ensuring national standards of quality for patients wherever they are.
In some ways the arguments for a national standing council seem persuasive. The noble Lord alluded to the Dutch experience. Other countries have trodden that path but have not found it as easy or as successful a process as he suggests or they perhaps imagined it would be.
To reiterate, we have made it clear that we are committed to high quality, comprehensive services. We discussed earlier the need to ensure equality of access to those services and to ensure that there is not discrimination on the grounds of race or age. It is the Government's responsibility to decide on priorities within the resources that are available. That is not a responsibility that we wish to abdicate. In setting out national priorities, which we did in the national priorities guidance for 1999–2001 that we issued to the service last September, we made that clear.
We have set out our plans for ensuring a clearer national framework within which decision-making by local clinicians and commissions should take place. That involves setting up the national service frameworks, the commission and the national institute, and ensuring that there are clinical guidelines and advice on treatments that should be routinely available within the NHS. That will be underpinned by local clinical governance and the new performance assessment frameworks. There are also the health improvement programmes at local level. All those bodies and undertakings will need to engage the community and the interests of users and carers at appropriate levels. Earlier, we discussed the appropriate lay input into the commission for health improvement.
1464
We want to ensure a more consistent approach across the country. However, at the same time we must recognise not only that individuals have different needs, to which clinicians will respond, but that local services need to reflect local needs and take account of local views. We recognise that health authorities and primary care groups are in the best position to make judgments as to which services and which treatments are required, but we want them to do that within a stronger national framework. We are setting about creating that stronger national framework after the fragmentation of the past. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord will accept that the aims that he intends to promulgate with this amendment are being addressed by various measures from the Government.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that interesting reply. In a sense, it attempts to offer the best of both worlds—strong local views and a stronger national framework. I am not sure which bit is going to give at the end of the day.
Interestingly, the Minister did not mention Greg Dyke's NHS charter, which clearly has a role in this provision. If the Government accept any or all of the Greg Dyke formula, I should have though that subsection (1)(b), dealing with establishing a clear set of values and guidelines to clarify the decision-making process to be applied by health authorities, would be attractive. One does not quite understand the status of the Greg Dyke exercise; however, he has made some interesting suggestions. They fit in with the local decision-making aspect mentioned by the Minister.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He is absolutely right. The recommendations from Greg Dyke on the current patient's charter and how we could move forward on the NHS charter are interesting. He makes the point that, while there are some basic values which he believes ought to be national standards, he very much feels that charters ought to be determined at local level. I did not refer to this in particular, although we intend to take forward those proposals and, before too long, issue suggestions for consultation throughout the service. Setting national standards is the responsibility of government, after proper consultation, rather than the responsibility, as this amendment would make it, of a standing conference.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister. That was the most interesting of her responses. It demonstrated the direction from which the Government are approaching the matter. I look forward to consultation over the Greg Dyke proposals.
I agree that, when discussing rationing, there are difficult issues in relation to national bodies and whether there can be a consistent overall set of core healthcare treatments which form the NHS service. The Minister may have been thinking of Oregon, New Zealand and other such places as providing difficulties. If that is not to be the model that the Government wish to follow, the NHS charter model pursued by Greg Dyke must in a sense be the alternative approach: a broad set of values

1465
are laid down by which health authorities and NHS trusts are expected to be guided. The indication from the Minister is that that is the direction in which the Government wish to go, subject to consultation. To that extent, this has been an interesting exchange. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 131:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
("Access to information
ACCESS TO INFORMATION
The provisions of Part VA of the Local Government Act 1972 shall apply to a Primary Care Trust and to the Commission for Health Improvement as if in that Part any reference to a principal council included a reference to a Primary Care Trust and the Commission for Health Improvement.").
The noble Lord said: This is a purely probing amendment. I do not suggest that the Local Government Act 1972, or even a reference to it, belongs in this part of this Bill, but it is a useful model for deciding whether meetings of councils or public bodies should be open to the public. It seems to me a much better, more up-to-date and much more New Labour freedom-of-information model than that which is embedded in the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, which is an ancient piece of legislation applying principally to health authorities and parish councils. I believe that, if the department had had the opportunity to address itself de novo to how meetings of health authorities and the bodies referred to in the amendment should be made open to the public, it would not have set the provision in the following words:
"A body may … exclude the public from a meeting … whenever publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted or for other special reasons …
"A body may … treat the need to receive or consider recommendations or advice from sources other than members, committees or sub-committees of the body as a special reason why publicity would he prejudicial".
That amounts to carte blanche to close meetings to the public. I hope that that is not what the noble Baroness contends should be the case with these bodies. I hope that she will be able to give me some comfort that in practice she would expect a much more open set of attitudes than would be permitted under the Bill as it now stands. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I hope that I can give the noble Lord some reassurance on the issues which concern him. The Government are committed to openness and transparency of process and the principle that public bodies be accountable to the people they serve.
The noble Lord rightly points out that, while we have made provision in the Bill for primary care trusts and the commission for health improvement to hold their meetings in public, this is done by making them subject to the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, which is the Act that NHS bodies are generally committed to. It is our firm intention to extend this to primary care trusts, and we have done that in paragraph 1 of Schedule 4 to the Bill. I was interested to hear the
1466
noble Lord say that because this was an Act of 1960 it was ancient legislation. I suggest to him that in your Lordships' House legislation of 1960 is probably not ancient legislation. It is, however, as he correctly points out, not phrased in exactly the same terms as the Local Government Act 1972, which requires committee meetings to be held in public and agendas and minutes to be made available to the public.
I suggest to the noble Lord that the commission for health improvement and primary care trusts are more like health authorities and trusts than they are like local government. They will not have a large and complex committee structure at which main decisions are taken. The majority of the business of the commission for health improvement is likely to be undertaken in main meetings. While there may be some sub-committees, they are likely to be on technical and administrative matters. To make such meetings open to the public would impose considerable administration and costs on the organisation. The document published last year, Quangos: opening the doors, which I hope he will recognise as showing our commitment to openness in the working of non-departmental public bodies, makes clear that there are costs involved in these matters.
We want to be as open as possible. We believe that meetings should generally be held in public. Both primary care trusts and the commission will hold open annual meetings at which members of the public will have an opportunity to question and gain greater understanding of the work of those bodies.
The noble Lord suggested that there was something rather sinister in the ability of those bodies to meet in private and not to make documents public when they thought that necessary. Given our earlier debate on confidentiality, Members of the Committee will be aware that both bodies are likely from time to time to deal with matters of a confidential nature and that at such times it is reasonable that the public should be asked to withdraw. The same arrangements to maintain confidentiality should apply to any papers made available to PCT boards and the commission. To complete the picture, I should add that, as we discussed earlier, specific provision is made in Clause 15(2) and paragraph 12 of the schedule for the commission to make its findings public and to issue an annual report.
In addition, the local NHS has a duty to consult widely where there are proposals for change in local services. There is already a requirement on NHS bodies to publish annual reports and to make available other information to the public concerning plans for health and healthcare. We do not wish to impose further administrative burdens and costs on the NHS. Earlier we had a debate about the importance of ensuring that maximum funding is directed at delivering and improving services for patients.
I hope that, in view of what I have said, the noble Lord will feel that not only is there already extensive provision as to public access to proceedings and reports of both the commission and primary care trusts but that there is absolutely no intention that those bodies should operate in any kind of shadow and that we are committed both to openness and transparency of process.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I am very grateful for the Minister's explanation but it does not go a very long way to address the basic question that I ask; namely, why these new bodies and existing health authorities are given a blanket permission to close meetings to the public, whereas local authorities are allowed to close meetings to the public in particular circumstances but are not given a blanket permission. The difference is that in the case of local authorities and other bodies certain circumstances will arise where it is right to close meetings to the public, but those circumstances are specified in the Act. Under this legislation and that which applies to existing health authorities—one asks why the opportunity is not being taken to revise the latter—these authorities are given blanket permission to close meetings to the public. The noble Baroness appears to believe that a formal annual general meeting every year—rather like some corporate bunfight—is sufficient to meet the obligation on health authorities to open their meetings to the public.
Baroness Hayman: If the noble Lord will forgive me for interrupting, I believe that he has misrepresented what I said. I did not say that I believed one annual meeting to be sufficient. I thought I had made it clear that the Government considered that these bodies, governed as they would be by the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960, should hold their meetings in public. I take the noble Lord's point that these bodies will be governed by one piece of legislation that does not specify what is a confidential piece of business, and therefore the circumstances in which part of an agenda may be debated in closed session. But the noble Lord should not suggest that the Government consider that there should be only an annual meeting. I hope I have assured the noble Lord that, unless there are confidential matters on the agenda, the intention is that these bodies will meet in public.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I have restrained myself until this moment. I am entirely in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on this matter. As a member of a local authority for 12 years, almost all of our meetings were held in public. Working group meetings were not held in public because no decisions were taken at those meetings and the position was quite different. But any meeting where decisions were taken, whether it be a sub-committee or whatever, was held in public. When matters were not made public it was for a specific reason laid down by statute, always on the basis of advice from the responsible officer in the legal office who served that particular committee. This is a rather different situation. After all, both bodies spend very large sums of public money. A district general hospital spends about as much money as a district authority. I am not sure why one should have greater protection than the other.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful for the intervention of the noble Baroness. I shall consider what both she and the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, have said. But I hope that the noble Baroness will acknowledge that the
1468
practice of NHS bodies particularly recently has been to hold meetings in public and not to make use of the provisions in any way to cloud matters or to meet secretively.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. I am very glad to hear what she says. However, my experience of a few years ago was not in that direction.
Lord Lucas: I am very grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. Her experience bears out part of what I have said. I do not argue with the Minister and suggest that there is widespread misbehaviour, but this Bill gives these new parts of health authorities a power which, looking at health authorities and these bodies in general, they should not have. They should be much more tightly regulated as to what items they are allowed to debate in these circumstances.
Lord Nunburnholme: Perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness that a D Notice applies only in wartime.
Lord Lucas: I do not pretend to be able to draft the measure this evening. I am sure that the noble Baroness and her officials will be better at drafting than I am. However, it would be a better basis for legislation to specify in the Bill the information which allows the authorities to close meetings to the public rather than provisions allowing them general good will and giving them blanket permission to close meetings to the public.
I shall consider pursuing the matter at Report stage. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 19 [Co-operation between NHS bodies]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 132:
Page 15, line 32, after ("other") insert ("and relevant voluntary and community organisations").
The noble Baroness said: In Clause 19 we move from the Commission for Health Improvement to the duty of partnership. The purpose of Amendment No. 132, and Amendment No. 134, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, extends the duty to co-operate to include a duty on NHS bodies to co-operate with relevant voluntary and community organisations. The amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, carries that concept somewhat further forward. It places a reciprocal duty of co-operation on those bodies with the relevant NHS bodies.
The purpose of the amendment is to bring about better co-operation, communication and co-ordination between different parts of the NHS for the benefit of the public. NHS bodies should try wherever possible to work closely and co-operatively with outside agencies and non-statutory bodies such as community and voluntary groups, community health councils and other groups representing patients and health service users, advice and welfare agencies and the professional organisations and trade unions representing NHS staff.
We from these Benches believe that such groups can offer a great deal of help to the NHS. Patients and patient groups are often well placed to advise on the quality of current services and to suggest ways in which services could be developed and improved. Advice and welfare agencies can bring a wider perspective to the NHS—for example, on public health issues such as the effects of poor housing and health. Professional organisations such as the Royal College of Nursing, the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Midwives also have a contribution to make.
Many NHS trusts already benefit from working closely with those organisations on such issues as employment policies and policies relating to clinical practice. Further co-operation of that kind, we believe, will benefit patients and staff and is to be encouraged. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am sympathetic to the general thrust of the amendments and the thinking underlying them, but I cannot support them. While we all want to see the best possible co-operation between the NHS and voluntary groups, it is no good imposing a duty in law on the health service to co-operate with such bodies when no corresponding duty is being created in reverse. There has surely to be symmetry. One would have to widen the scope of the Bill quite dramatically to achieve that, even presuming that it seemed to be a good idea in the first place.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I agree with what my noble friend said, but I believe that there is something behind the amendment to which the Government should pay attention. At the annual conference of the National Council of Voluntary Organisations on 21st January, the Prime Minister made what I think he intended to be a key speech on government policy. Perhaps I may quote one part. He said:
"In the second half of the century we learnt that government cannot achieve its aims without the energy and commitment of others—voluntary organisations, business, and, crucially, the wider public. That is why the Third Sector is such an important part of the Third Way".
If voluntary organisations are the third way, and the "giving society" is a key government policy—I can find no fault with that—it is important to provide in the Bill that the health service bodies consult and co-operate with those parts of the voluntary sector involved in the area in which they are functioning. To that extent I believe that the amendment is important.
Baroness O'Cathain: For clarification, can we be given an estimate of the number of voluntary and community organisations which might be classified as "relevant"? Who will say that those organisations will be relevant? The people in the voluntary and community organisations probably count themselves as relevant, but who is to make the judgment? It could well be that they might not appear to be relevant to the people running the NHS.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: The term "relevant" appears frequently in legislation in a somewhat ambiguous fashion. In this circumstance, a self-sorting
1470
mechanism arises. These are the voluntary organisations which are concerned with carers, caring organisations and particular aspects of health. I refer, for example, to the schizophrenia organisation.
Baroness O'Cathain: I believe that to put them on the face of the Bill would invite a huge raft of people to declare themselves as relevant. They may feel that they may have some influence and want to be heard. We could be creating an enormous bureaucracy and a talking shop, which is my problem with the amendments. I can see the principle or the thought behind them, but trying to effect them would be difficult.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My proposal is not to list them in the Bill, because there has been criticism of lists which have been given, but to allow for discretion on such occasions.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I agree with what I take to be the intention behind both amendments; namely, to promote stronger relationships between all parts of the NHS and local voluntary, community and patient organisations and to bring about better co-operation. I do not believe that any Member of the Committee would disagree with that. However, apart from the specific points made by the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, in relation to the definition of "relevant", I am not persuaded that the clause is the right vehicle for such a sentiment.
The clause we are discussing is directed to re-establishing the principle of partnership working across the NHS in place of the fragmentation of the internal market. The clause makes clear the reciprocal nature of the duty binding each of the NHS bodies to co-operate with each other. That is a sufficiently important principle to stand alone and I suggest that the clause contemplates a different kind of partnership relationship from that with non-statutory bodies.
I can conceive of few if any circumstances in which one would want to put the same duties of co-operation on these non-statutory, and sometimes informal, bodies as are appropriate to bodies working within the NHS. Indeed, I suggest that the onus has to be on the NHS to reach out to such bodies, inviting their participation in planning and delivering improvements in local services and the health of the local community.
In that context, Clause 21 on developing and taking forward local strategies for improving health and healthcare seems to be the better context for pursuing voluntary body, user, carer and community involvement. There are a number of amendments to be debated on that clause to which we shall turn shortly. However, we have already made clear in previous guidance on health improvement programmes the crucial importance of promoting full involvement in the full range of community, voluntary, user and care interests in developing these plans. Work is in hand with health action zones and others to promote stronger forms of community involvement.

1471
Given the forthcoming debate on Clause 21, I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that an amendment to the duty of co-operation on NHS bodies would not be appropriate.
9.30 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his answer, although I am not satisfied with it. We have deliberately drafted the amendment so that the duty of partnership is on the NHS bodies to share and co-operate with the voluntary organisations.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is extremely important in this regard. Given the role that voluntary organisations play today within the NHS, it is extremely important that they are included and not excluded from that partnership. In the light of that, we shall look carefully at the Minister's reply. We are not fully satisfied with his answer and we may wish to return to the matter on another occasion. However, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 133:
Page 15, line 33, at end insert—
("(2) To this end any bodies mentioned in subsection (1) which have co-operated with each other in exercising prescribed functions shall—

(a) meet at least 4 times per year in public to discuss partnership arrangements;

(b) invite a representative from all affected community health councils and local authorities;

(c) make an annual report on such meetings to the Secretary of State, which he shall publish.

(3) In subsection (2) "prescribed" means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State.").
The noble Earl said: Clause 19 is a short and delightfully simple-sounding clause which states that:
"It is the duty of Health Authorities, Special Health Authorities, Primary Care Trusts and NHS trusts to co-operate with each other in exercising their functions".
So short is the clause that I feel I must ask the Minister a few questions.
Looking at the clause purely as a matter of law, the first question is very simple: what does the duty amount to? Who is to decide whether the duty has been breached or fulfilled? What mechanisms are to be put in place to ensure that the duty is met? How is the duty to be enforced? What are the penalties for non-compliance? Indeed, are the terms of Clause 19 sufficient to enable a court to reach a judgment on the issue, if it came to that?
That is why we need some flesh on the bones and that is the reason for my amendment. If the duty of partnership is to amount to anything tangible or to mean anything to the public, there must be an opportunity for bodies which are working in partnership to meet to discuss how they can work together more effectively. It is necessary also for those meetings to be reported so
1472
that patients can be assured that their healthcare bodies are working together in a productive manner. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The noble Earl expresses some scepticism about the duty of partnership laid down in the clause. I regard this is an extremely important component of the Bill.
I believe that the very specific requirement imposed by Clause 21 on health authorities, primary care trusts and NHS trusts—the bodies to whom that duty applies—to participate with their local authority in developing health improvement programmes and in working together to implement them is a clear indication of the strength and breadth of the duty of partnership, because that requirement makes clear that the Bill is about partnership and co-operation for a purpose—namely, improving the health of local communities and improving the health services they use.
We already have in Clause 21 a framework for bringing together all the local players with an interest in an inclusive process. That includes also local authorities and community health councils, along with the wider community and a wide range of local organisations. I am sure that we shall discuss that in depth when we deal with the amendments to Clause 21.
Perhaps at this stage I may concentrate on what seem to be difficulties with the amendment now before us. First, I have some concerns about its scope. Clause 19 is deliberately drafted to embrace co-operation between bodies right across the NHS. In the main, of course, the need will be for local co-operation in the planning and delivery of local services. The health improvement programme process reflects that. But there will be many instances where much wider co-operation is at issue, some of them on important themes on which we have already touched in this Committee—in the commissioning and provision of specialised services, for example; on matters of education and training; or on research. Each NHS body will need to co-operate through a network of different relationships for these purposes and we intend the scope of Clause 19 to reflect that.
I do not believe it would be appropriate to subject each such example of co-operation to the sort of arrangement proposed in the amendment. The key ongoing relationships will be covered by the health improvement programme process. To subject other wide-ranging forms of co-operation to the processes in the amendment would, I fear, prove bureaucratic and burdensome. Indeed, at worst it could prove a disincentive to the very partnership working we are all seeking to achieve.
Secondly, I am uneasy at the concept of a series of meetings and reports "to discuss partnership arrangements." I would much rather see all concerned getting on with the business of working together to achieve some results for their local communities. We want partnership for a purpose and I believe that is what the partnership clauses of this Bill, taken as a whole, offer us.

1473
I believe that we are right to set a broad duty of co-operation in Clause 19. I should be reluctant to see it circumscribed by procedural requirements. We must certainly ensure that partnership working becomes a reality but I believe that the health improvement programme process at Clause 21 provides a better means of achieving this.
The noble Earl raised some questions about how such co-operation was to be enforced. From my experience of working in the National Health Service we should not under-estimate the capacity of the NHS to respond to the underlying philosophy enunciated in the clause in relation to the NHS bodies we wish to see co-operating. If there were specific situations where it was seen that some NHS bodies were not co-operating and that that was undermining the effectiveness of the health service, exceptionally the Secretary of State's powers of direction could be used over NHS players. But I hope that that will be unnecessary. The clause is an important philosophic statement about the way in which we expect the NHS to conduct itself in the future. I have every confidence that the NHS will accept and embrace that philosophy.
Baroness O'Cathain: Does the Minister really believe that people volunteer to be co-operative the whole time when they have so many jobs to do? This type of arrangement whereby people would need to put into their diaries the relevant names of those with whom meetings had to be arranged once a quarter would target attention to co-operating. They would not allow something to go to the bottom of the in-tray; they would just get on with it.
It may be that these bodies could be told to meet just four times a year in public. If they needed to meet more frequently they could do so because the amendment suggests "at least" four times a year. If people know that they have to meet those with whom they should be co-operating on the basis of once a quarter, that will focus their attention on co-operation. The Minister says it is a philosophic statement. It is also philosophic to say that they should have a target to co-operate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My experience of NHS bodies, if we take, for example, the area of a district health authority and the organisations within that authority—NHS trusts, primary care groups and so forth—is that they will meet many more than four times a year.
My point is that the duty of co-operation is an important statement about the values within which we expect the NHS to operate. That is unlikely to be added to or solidified by a requirement to meet four times a year. We shall come to this matter later, but as regards joint consultative committees and the requirement to meet with local government, in the past 20 or 30 years we have moved beyond that. Relationships are so important now to provide integrated services that whether or not there are four statutory meetings a year
1474
would have no effect on that. We have to ensure that everyone in the NHS is signed up to real co-operation. On that basis, stating this duty is important.
Earl Howe: Of course, I understand that it is important, in the context of the Bill, that the various arms of the health service should work together. I did not mean to sound like a sceptic on the concept of partnership or, indeed, to question the worth of making statements of intent. My only concern was that the words that we convert into law should have real meaning; that any duty in law should be capable of being enforced and adhered to, and that there should be proper mechanisms in place to help the parties to do that.
With the best will in the world, there will be conflicts of interests at play, even with this duty in place. My noble friends alluded to those. Health authorities, primary care trusts, NHS trusts and so forth will sometimes have to sublimate their own interests in order to assist or support one another if this duty is to be fulfilled. What happens if they have different priorities? All these questions arise.
I thank the Minister for his reply. However, I shall have to reflect a little further on what he has said. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 134 not moved.]
Clause 19 agreed to.
Clause 20 agreed to.
Baroness Pitkeathley Baroness Pitkeathley moved Amendment No. 135:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
REQUIREMENT OF HEALTH AUTHORITIES TO ASSIST COMMUNITY CARE ASSESSMENT
(".—(1) Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (assessment of needs for community care services) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), for the words "notify that Health Authority or local housing authority and invite them to assist, to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances, in the making of the assessment;" there shall be inserted "in the case of a Health Authority require, and in the case of a local housing authority invite, the authority concerned to assist, to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances, in the making of an assessment;".").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would require the health authority to assist a local authority when it is carrying out an assessment of a person's need for community care services. The health authority would be required to assess the person's health needs in relation to community care. The amendment also mentions that housing authorities would be invited to assess those needs.
The background is as follows. As noble Lords will know, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 came into force in April 1993. The Act places the responsibility for arranging community care services on local social services authorities. A local authority must carry out a community care assessment where it appears to that authority that a person may be in need of community care services which the local authority may provide or arrange.
Where the local authority believes that the person has health needs, it is required to invite the local health authority to assist in that assessment. However, there is no corresponding requirement on the health authority to respond to a local authority's request for assistance.
Accordingly, the amendment would place a duty on the health authority to participate in the assessment of a person's health needs when asked to do so by the local authority. The amendment makes it clear that the health authority's duty is to assist the local authority,
"to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances".
In my view, that would very much accord with the duty of co-operation set out in Clause 20. I am sure that it is very much in keeping with the commitment to partnership between health authorities and local authorities which is expressed in the Bill and which, as we know, is active between many of the professionals involved.
I should point out that the amendment has the support of the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Local Government Association, and of charities such as the Carers National Association and Scope. I beg to move.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I spoke slightly on this matter at Second Reading. It seems to me to be absolutely vital that if Clause 22, which we have not yet reached, is to stand part of the Bill, the local authorities, social services, health authorities and the whole health machine must talk together before anything can happen. Therefore, I support the noble Baroness in her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I rise briefly to echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I look forward very much to hearing the Minister's response to this interesting amendment.
Lord Warner: I too speak in support of the amendment. In doing so, I declare an interest as a member of the Association of Directors of Social Services. From my experience as a director of social services, I regard this as a worthwhile amendment which would deal with some of the occasionally difficult cases where health authorities do not always co-operate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The effect of the amendment would be to require health authorities to assist in community care assessments undertaken by local authorities. I believe that the amendment is unnecessary.
Local authorities are under a duty to give a community care assessment to anyone who, in the authority's view, may be in need of community care services. We have made clear in guidance that these assessments should always involve medical professionals when appropriate, but this will not always be necessary.
1476
Community care assessments should enable the local authority to make appropriate decisions about service provision, but the exact form of each assessment is something best left to them. In some circumstances, a fully comprehensive assessment will clearly be essential, involving people from a number of professional backgrounds in working with a person with multiple needs to identify the best way forward. But in other cases, a quick and simple assessment may be all that is needed so that necessary help can be provided with minimum delay. Requiring NHS input in every assessment might make it more difficult to target timely help where it is most needed.
I believe that my noble friend and I have the same underlying aim: to get the right services to the right people at the right time. Although I do not believe this amendment offers the best way forward, we do have other action in hand. We set out in our better services for vulnerable people initiative the requirement on health and social services to develop a joint framework for multi-disciplinary assessment of older people in acute and community healthcare settings. Improved multi-disciplinary assessment—where this is appropriate—leads to better co-ordination of care between agencies and better outcomes for service users. I believe this developmental approach to multidisciplinary assessment is the right way of achieving flexibility and better outcomes for service users by tailoring assessment to their needs.
We shall, of course, continue to monitor the development and implementation of these multi-disciplinary assessment frameworks to ensure there is good progress on the aims I have described. I hope that my noble friend will accept that this is a serious endeavour to address the concerns behind her amendment and will not feel the need to press it.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Baroness goes any further, the Minister mentioned multi-disciplinary assessments. He is, of course, absolutely right, but unless one organisation—the health authority, for example, or the local authority—can push the case of an individual—it will almost invariably be an individual whose needs are being assessed—there will not be a multi-disciplinary assessment. How does the Minister intend to carry this forward? To paraphrase, he said, "We will wait to see how the system develops." I am tempted to use the oft-quoted expression in this House, "How long, dear Lords, how long?"
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We should not underestimate the likely impact of the better services for vulnerable people initiative because it is intended to deal with the problem of people slipping through the net who are not best served by the current assessment procedures. In the very nature of achieving better co-ordination care between agencies and better outcome for service users, the whole intention is to deal better with the needs of the individual.
Clearly, noble Lords have raised issues on the basis that it is deemed that the NHS is failing to respond to local authorities in the assessment procedures. It is certainly my hope that NHS failures to provide the

1477
support the local authority requires are limited. However, there is an overall duty of co-operation and powers of direction under Section 17 of the National Health Service Act 1977 which allow the Secretary of State to direct health authorities and trusts to provide services. So there is a chain of accountability which enables the health service to respond to problems in this area.
Baroness Pitkeathley: I thank the Minister for his thoughtful reply. It is no part of my approach to doubt his commitment and that of other noble Lords to a multi-disciplinary approach to assessment. The amendment was put forward to address the few problem cases we can identify. I shall carefully study what has been said and trust that his hopes are justified about the limited number of cases to which this would apply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 21 [Plans for improving health etc.]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 16, line 6, after ("Authority") insert ("and Special Health Authority").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor probing amendment. We believe that special health authorities as well as the health authorities should have a duty to prepare a health improvement plan. I believe that it is the intention of the Government eventually to phase out special health authorities, but for the moment they exist and it is important that they do not opt out of the health improvement framework in the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I accept the points made by the noble Baroness, but there is a problem in seeing how the duty in Clause 21 could properly be laid on the special health authorities, which would include NICE, the Central Blood Laboratories Authority and the Special Hospitals Authority. It is difficult to see how they could strictly fulfil the requirements of Clause 21.
We will ensure that all special health authorities work in partnership with others in the NHS and local government to ensure that NHS services are delivered effectively to improve the health of the population. That is why special health authorities are explicitly included in the duties of co-operation in Clauses 19 and 20. Clause 21 is different because it is based upon the duty of each health authority to secure health services for, and advance the health of, a defined local population. All the more detailed requirements of Clause 21 flow from that starting point. It is difficult to see how that could realistically be extended to put this duty on special health authorities, which are established generally with a much more closely defined function, usually exercised on a national basis.
If the intention is to ensure that all special health authorities seek to exercise their functions with the aim of improving health and healthcare, I do not think that there is any disagreement between us in principle. I hope
1478
that the noble Baroness will agree that extending Clause 21 in the way suggested is not the best means to achieve this aim.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his most helpful reply. I think we now understand better the reasons for leaving out these authorities. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 16, line 6, leave out from ("Authority") to ("to") in line 7.
The noble Baroness said: Amendments Nos. 137 and 139 would have the effect of making it the responsibility of each health authority to prepare its health improvement plans on a rolling basis, publishing them on a regular annual basis. The reason is to ensure that health authorities recognise that it is their responsibility to produce the plan and thereby have a sense of ownership rather than regarding it as just another of those tasks which must be completed for the department. Annual publication would keep the authority up to the mark. Amendment No. 138 makes it clear that such a plan would provide a framework for wider consultation within the community. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The effect of these amendments would be to put on the face of the Bill a mandatory requirement that a health improvement programme be prepared annually. As a general rule, we would wish to avoid specifying matters of administrative procedure on the face of the Bill. In the case of health improvement programmes, I would be particularly uneasy because one of our aims is to break out of the strait-jacket of the annual planning and contracting round. We certainly intend—as the noble Baroness suggested—that the programme should be rolled forward, and published, each year. Our existing guidance makes clear this expectation. I am happy to give a firm assurance now that this is what we intend for the future.
However, our intention is that the health improvement programmes should cover a three-year period. As they are rolled forward each year, we intend that a number of issues will be reviewed in depth rather than the whole plan being updated in every detail. We believe that this will enable better planning for strategic change. Critically, it will allow more time for the in-depth involvement of users and carers, community groups, clinicians and other staff—all those whom noble Lords are keen to see more fully engaged and who, as my noble friend Lord Harris, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and others, have pointed out, have found the traditional arrangements for formal and tightly timetabled consultation on comprehensive plans so frustrating.
We want to develop the new arrangements differently. For example, we expect the health improvement programmes for the period beginning April 2000 to cover implementation of the first two national service frameworks on coronary heart disease and mental health. If we take the example of mental

1479
health, I can tell the Committee that during 1999 we envisage that health authorities will plan to bring together NHS trusts and the clinicians concerned, primary care groups, social services and other local authority representatives—such as housing—and other local players, together with users, carers and the voluntary groups to whose important contribution the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, drew our attention earlier in the proceedings. The intention is that, together, they will take the time to look in depth at what needs to be done and plan the way ahead. When the programme comes to be rolled forward again, the same sort of in-depth review would be applied to other topics.
It is on that basis that I would be reluctant to see us put anything on the face of the Bill that bound us tightly into an annual round at the expense at this sort of in-depth planning on a longer cycle. I hope that I have reassured the noble Baroness of our clear intention to see regular publication of what is contained in this work and that, on that basis, she will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Skelmersdale: If that is the case, why does not the Bill say so?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: We have certainly made it clear in guidance that this is what we intend to see happen. However, I am not sure that one would necessarily want to constrain on the face of the Bill for all time the necessary administrative arrangements in relation to the publication of plans. The intention, though, is quite clear.
10 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am not totally satisfied with it because it seems to me that the sense of ownership that I spoke of is an important issue. However, in the light of his reply, for the moment I shall withdraw the amendment and reconsider the issue at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 138:
Page 16, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Health Authorities shall before drawing up any plan under this section consult relevant voluntary and community organisations, including in particular organisations representing carers.").
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 138, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 140 to 144, 146 and 147. This series of amendments all relate to issues of who shall be consulted by health authorities when they draw up local health improvement plans. We believe that the wording of the Bill as it stands is too vague. The purpose of these amendments is to flesh out consultation arrangements and to ensure that the process is broad and that there are statutory requirements to include certain organisations or kinds of organisations within the process of consultation.
Our main concern in framing these amendments is to ensure that the consultations over the health improvement plans are thorough, inclusive and effective. We reject the approach of Amendment No. 141 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, because we believe that it is too prescriptive. We do not think that lists of this kind are the right way to handle this issue. Nor do we see why central organisations such as the BMA or the RCN should be included in this process at the local level. There must be some local flexibility. We therefore believe that the right approach is to list—as we have done in Amendment No. 143—the kinds of organisations that should be included.
As is clear, Amendment No. 143 is supported by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who is unable to be here today. He has asked me to read out his contribution to this debate. The noble Lord wishes to bring a quick example to the Committee's attention to highlight the importance of delivery of public health initiatives to people with learning disabilities. Some of the inequalities in access to healthcare are quite startling. Research by Mencap reveals, for example, that cervical smear testing in women with learning disabilities is as low as 3 per cent. for those living with their families compared with the UK average of 85 per cent. This is clearly unacceptable. We must ensure that groups of and for people with learning disabilities are well represented in the formulation of local health plans of this kind. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I am all too well aware that Amendments Nos. 141 and 144 tabled in my name fall foul of the Skelmersdale injunction against shopping lists, and I accept the criticism. However, I believe they serve a useful purpose. This is not just a ritualised exercise in listing. What it is designed to emphasise—as has been said already—is that consultation has to be wide and inclusive, and that health improvement programmes cannot just be imposed. There needs to be a sense of ownership on the part of all those directly involved. That comprises a great many groups of people.
Amendment No. 144 specifically refers to universities and schools for medicine and nursing or professions allied to medicine. It does so because one needs to remember how important those are to the functioning of the health service as we know it. If I were to single out one group for special mention, it would be the voluntary organisations because so often it is those groups who represent users and carers who can identify needs and gaps in the current provision, particularly as they affect minority groups or those who may find it difficult to access mainstream services. During the first round of health improvement programmes it has not always been easy for voluntary organisations to contribute as ideally they would wish to do. That is why I believe it is particularly important that their voice should be heard during the process of consultation.
The Explanatory Notes to the Bill make it clear that the process is intended to engage voluntary bodies. The Secretary of State's direction-making powers in Clause 21(5)(a) and Clause 21(6) could be used to ensure that such bodies are involved. But there is a gap here. What mechanisms will there be to ensure that the

1481
Secretary of State is aware that the process is not working as perhaps it should? How will a voluntary organisation, if it is out of the loop, so to speak, know what is going on and how it can make an appeal? I shall be pleased to hear the Minister's comments.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I would not wish to anticipate whether the noble Lord the Minister or the noble Baroness the Minister—in tonight's double act—will respond to these amendments. Having said that, I am sure that I can anticipate their response. They will say that these amendments are unnecessarily detailed and prescriptive. The point that has been made by the noble Earl about the involvement of the universities is absolutely crucial. The universities are now playing an increasingly important role, not only in the training of doctors and dentists, but in the training of nurses, physiotherapists, occupational therapists and many other health care professionals, including speech and language therapists. Scientists too are playing an increasingly important role in the NHS as are the medical laboratory technologists and many more.
I know that, at an earlier stage of the Committee's proceedings, the Minister gave us a number of assurances about the involvement of and consultation with the universities. But in some way the important role that they play, like the important role of the voluntary organisations to which the noble Earl has referred, must be acknowledged in the proceedings on the Bill.
Lord Harris of Haringey: Amendment No. 140 stands in my name. It highlights the importance of involving not only community health councils but groups representative of patients and groups representative of carers. One of my concerns is that while the health improvement programme process will be an extremely important one, there is a danger that it will be dominated by institutional structures and by the various statutory agencies. Bringing them together and getting them to talk to each other about these matters is a considerable step forward and of benefit to the local community. It is important that measures are taken which, on the face of the Bill, ensure that there is an expectation that user groups, carers groups and the local community health councils are involved in the process of drawing up health improvement programmes.
It is also worth recognising that if these programmes and plans are to mean anything they will lead to resources being shifted from one area to another between priorities. Locally, this might be very controversial, and the achievement of long-term national and local priorities—particularly in the reduction of health inequalities—may mean that established services have to be reconfigured or cut if further resources are not identified. For that reason it is particularly important that the groups set out in my amendment are fully involved and that there is a clear expectation set out on the face of the Bill that they will be involved in order to ensure that there is public support and consent for the changes which will come forward through this process.
Lord Rowallan: I, too, rise to support the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford. It is
1482
essential that the voluntary organisations are mentioned on the face of the Bill. The point made by my noble friend Lord Howe is terribly important. If by any mischance the voluntary organisations miss out on this whole future arrangement, how will they get back into the system? I should appreciate an answer from the Minister on this very important point.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: As the noble Earl said in speaking to his amendment, we have returned to the subject of lists and the "shopping list" phenomenon described so eloquently on the first day of our deliberations in Committee. Many of the lists that are before us reflect the dangers that we have already discussed. There are very few proposals on which I take issue in principle. Indeed, some of the amendments, in particular Amendment No. 143 tabled by the noble Lords, Lord Clement-Jones and Lord Rix, bear a striking resemblance to aspects of the guidance that the department has already issued on this subject. Indeed, if one were to be drawn further into the list business, one might say that important groups of NHS staff still appear to be missing from the amendments as tabled. While the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has done justice to the dentists, pharmacists might have good cause to feel hard done by, as none of the detailed definitions appears to cover them.
Turning to general principles, this debate has brought out the importance that we all attach to seeing health improvement programmes developed and implemented through arrangements that are truly inclusive. That is entirely what the Government want to achieve. The existing guidance points out to the wide range of local stakeholders that we wish to see all staff engaged, not merely professional representative bodies: voluntary groups, users, carers, the wider local community and other partners such as universities, local schools, employers and others. We could not have been clearer in the message that we have given to the National Health Service.
We have also made it clear that we are looking for full involvement, not the traditional type of NHS consultation, which I have known and loved for so many years; namely, brief consultation on a plan that is all but finalised. We wish to see active participation right through the process of assessing local needs, identifying the best way to respond to national and local priorities and developing firm plans for action. I am convinced that that will mean new ways of working. Through health action zones and other means we are already encouraging innovative approaches to partner and community involvement. And we are supporting health authorities and others in developing the skills that they need to acquire in order to achieve that. Many local authorities have valid experience in community involvement which we hope that they will bring to the table of discussions and joint working between the health service and local government.
The amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, draws particular attention to the importance of ensuring proper links to the universities and to the wide arrangements for the education and training of those

1483
who work in and with the NHS. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, had some important points to make on that issue.
It is our intention that those links should be strong. Indeed, I do not believe that the NHS could hope to be successful in the future unless it had very strong links with universities and institutes of higher education, to which we look for so much support, collaboration and co-operation.
Equally, it is critical that the service needs identified by the health improvement programmes feed into the planning of education and training programmes, so that staff numbers and skills match local needs. We want the process of achieving partner involvement to be transparent. That is why we have already asked for health improvement programmes to record not merely those who have been involved in their development but how they have been involved and what plans there are to build on that in the future.
We recognise that developing strong partnerships may take time. We have asked that the first improvement programmes include an honest account of what has been possible for this first round, and where more remains to be done. We shall monitor progress on this matter very closely.
The subject of learning disabilities was raised, which I am sure would have been raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, had he been able to be present. We have asked health authorities to take particular care to involve groups who have tended to be under-represented. We fully recognise that learning-disabled people have often fallen into that category. As I have previously explained, with the opportunities of a three-year rolling programme and a new approach to involvement, we very much hope that we have the process with which to be able to achieve that.
I hope I have made clear the Government's commitment on this front. I would add that, over and above the general concerns that have emerged about lists of organisations, I have some particular concerns in this instance. I believe that there is a real risk of highlighting some local players rather than others, while an attempt to be comprehensive seems doomed to failure. Equally, we do not want to see health authorities checking exhaustively that they have made contact with every player on a national list in a "tick-the-box" mode. I believe that that has been the traditional experience of NHS consultation, which has not worked very effectively in the past. I believe that our effort is injecting into the NHS a new spirit of real participation with the kind of organisation and players that Members have mentioned tonight. We want to see them grasp the spirit of inclusiveness and work out imaginatively who needs to be engaged, and how they can be engaged, in different elements of the process. For example, local businesses and employers may be key players on some local issues but have much less reason for involvement in others. Different community and voluntary groups, and different users and carers, will have their own special interests. This is precisely the kind of detail that
1484
is best left to local handling within a clear direction set through guidance or perhaps, where necessary, secondary legislation.
Clause 21(5) enables the Secretary of State to issue directions should there be difficulty in securing proper involvement either nationally or locally. I believe that the arrangements I have described mean that we shall be able to monitor progress and act if need be. That is why the power is there.
I hope that the assurances I have been able to offer and the safeguards available will meet the concerns that have prompted these amendments.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for his reply. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, it is extremely important that these local health improvement plans are locally embedded and locally owned. That is why the whole process of consultation is so important. As the Minister stressed, that has not been the habit of the NHS, and old habits die hard. There are occasions when it is useful to embody new procedures in statutory instruments rather than in directions. This might have been an occasion when it would have been useful to do so in order to push people out of old habits. However, given the Minister's assurances that he will monitor progress and that, if this provision does not seem to be sufficient in engendering a new spirit of consultation in local NHS participants, he will issue the necessary directions, I shall withdraw the amendment for the present time.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 139 to 144 not moved.]
10.15 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 145:
Page 16, line 37, at end insert ("which shall include needs assessment, statement of resource (including human resource) requirements and identification of priorities for action,").
The noble Lord said: On the previous Committee day we had a most interesting discussion on Amendment No. 64 relating to medical workforce planning and the shortage of consultants. Amendment No. 145 is similar in intent. I believe that we on these Benches have made it clear that we very much welcome the health improvement plan process. Indeed, I am very influenced by the document produced by the department which considered why Health of the Nation had not been as effective as it might have been. I have a suspicion that, if we get these health improvement plans right, they will make Our Healthier Nation successful where The Health of the Nation was not. Health improvement plans may be the instrument by which to do that.
That said, there is nothing on the face of the Bill as to how matters are to be dealt with in relation to the content of the strategy stated in Clause 21. We believe that that is a gap. The circular itself to an extent goes into the detail but we believe that it is important to state at least some of the contents of the plans. For that reason we have repeated some of the wording of the circular. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, has spotted the way that we have put together the amendments; namely, we have looked at the circulars to see what is

1485
in them. We believe that that is a reasonably informed way to do it. I admit that we gagged slightly at the phrase "resource mapping", since we were not sure how many members of the Committee would accept the insertion of such a phrase on the face of the Bill. We thought that "human resource planning" might be slightly less jargonised.
This is a matter of some concern. As in the case of medical workforce planning, hospital doctors wished us to table this amendment, particularly the aspect of human resource planning. They wanted us to make the point very strongly that the whole question of the number of jobs and the people required to fill them—the human resource requirement of hospitals—was a matter of intense and important debate at local level. It was an opportunity for staff, particularly junior staff, to get involved in discussion particularly about levels of staffing required in hospitals. This may be a bridge too far in terms of wanting to insert this in primary legislation but it is nevertheless a very important point. Junior staff in particular should be allowed to enter the debate and discuss the human resources required at their level. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I am sorry that the noble Lord does not like the term "resource mapping". I regarded it as a rather good phrase. I readily recognise the important point he makes that the human resource dimension should be fully taken into account in relation to the future plans and priorities of the health service at local level. All of us with experience of the NHS are aware of the problems that can arise when this is not done. The intention expressed in this amendment is one that the Government absolutely share. As the noble Lord implies, this matter is reflected already in guidance that we have issued in the health improvement programme process. The issue before the Committee is not whether those plans should take proper account of needs assessment and available resources including, critically, appropriately trained clinicians and other staff. Clearly, they should. They should certainly focus on local and national priorities and the way that they can best be addressed. The difference between us is not about our aims but about whether this kind of essentially procedural detail belongs on the face of the Bill.
The Bill includes a direction-making power that combines the ability to specify certain core requirements, should that seem appropriate, with flexibility to modify and update these in the light of experience. I believe that this offers the best means to ensure that the points put forward by the noble Lord are given due weight. It has already been stated that the HR requirements of the health improvement process will be published within the health improvement programme. We have also made clear that when we talk of the need to take account of the views of staff we mean all staff—not just clinicians and professionals but all staff in the health service. I hope that on that basis the noble Lord is prepared to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that very helpful reply, which is not unexpected. Clearly, this is an issue that needs to be aired because it is a matter
1486
of considerable importance particularly to those staff within NHS trusts. I fully accept that the intention is that they will be involved in that process. We look forward to seeing how that works in practice. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 146 and 147 not moved.]
Clause 21 agreed to.
Clause 22 agreed to.
Clause 23 [Payments by local authorities to NHS bodies]:
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Clause 23 agreed to.
Clause 24 [Arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 149:
Page 20, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) Nothing contained in this section shall permit charges to he made for health care by any local authority.")
The noble Lord said: This is potentially an important amendment. It goes to the core of joint working arrangements on food, budgets, and so on, It seeks clarification on the interface between social care and healthcare. Clause 24 allows the NHS and local authorities flexibility to work together in new ways by pooling budgets and delegating functions and resources. Health and local authorities will be able to agree which is best placed to provide particular functions.
However, it is incumbent on the Government to answer a number of questions about the way in which those arrangements will operate. Do they recognise the barrier that charges present to joint working at present; and the fact that those problems will increase with an unamended Bill? Precisely when do they expect to publish guidance on charging? Currently it is not available.
Charges cannot be made for NHS services, but local authorities are under a duty to charge for residential services and have the power to charge for non-residential services. We are concerned that it is not clear how the charging for services will work. Most local authorities now charge for non-residential services. But the current charging policies are complex and confusing. We are concerned that many carers may be paying for services received by the person for whom they care despite the fact that carers should not be charged for such services.
We welcome the statement in the government paper, Partnership in Action, about guidance being issued. However, there is little consistency nationally on charging. Little consideration is being given to the impact of charging on the joint working arrangements.
The Select Committee on health—we have referred to it on previous occasions during Committee stages—commented about the confusion as to which agency, health or social services, is responsible for which service. It said that this confusion is epitomised by the farcical question of whether a person in the community needing a bath should receive a "health" bath or a "social" bath. The first comes free; the second, in theory

1487
at least, has to be paid for on a means-tested basis. I do not wish to carry things to their logical conclusion—that clearly takes things to an absurdity—but it is a typical example of what could grow into a considerable problem with the joint working arrangements. We are concerned that the requirement to charge for social care proposed by the Bill could lead to more services being treated as social care and therefore subject to a charge, thus seriously undermining the principle that healthcare should be provided free of charge. The amendment ensures that the situation is clarified.
Perhaps I may refer to other services such as physiotherapy. The chartered institute is worried that, where local authorities are the lead provider of some community health services, the services will be prevented through means testing and that there will be charging for them. We on these Benches wish to see on the face of the Bill confirmation of the Government's intentions. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I wish to speak in support of the amendment on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who cannot be here today. One of his principal concerns about the Bill is to ensure that partnerships between health and social services are well managed financially and operationally. MENCAP's recent report, Fully Charged, reveals that there is a growing trend towards charging people with learning disabilities for important community care services, such as day care attendance.
We need to ensure that services which are currently provided free by the NHS remain free once these new partnerships are forged. That was the point made by my noble friend. Lowering the boundaries over what counts as health services and social services should be to the advantage of service users, not to broaden the scope for charging.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I acknowledge that there are issues in this area which we must examine in relation to the responsibilities respectively of health and social services. We will be considering the detail of the framework on charging, promised in the social services White paper, in the light of the recommendation of the Royal Commission report published and discussed in the House today. Until we have studied the recommendations in detail, I cannot say when we will publish the framework.
I believe that the amendment is unnecessary. We have made clear on numerous occasions that we have no intention of changing the fundamental principle that NHS services are provided free to patients. NHS bodies have no powers to charge for NHS services, except where permitted under the 1977 Act. The Bill does not alter that. There is no power for local authorities to charge for NHS services. The Bill does not alter that. Where a local authority provides or commissions NHS services on behalf of an NHS body, those services will remain free to the service users.
1488
I understand the reason why noble Lords seek the amendment. The use of the new operational flexibilities provided for in Clause 24 will allow health bodies and local authorities to work more closely in commissioning and providing healthcare and local authority services. Under some arrangements, health and social care will be provided by the same body. Under the integrated provider flexibility, a social services authority might develop a service providing some healthcare on behalf of an NHS body—for example, physiotherapy or speech and language therapy—together with domiciliary care. As at present the healthcare provided will be free and the social care could be charged for.
We clearly recognise concerns that the distinction between health and social care may not at all times be sufficiently clear. The simple fact remains that NHS care is free and local authorities have a power and sometimes a duty to charge for the social services they provide. That distinction will remain. I am sure your Lordships will be reassured to know that we fully intend to make that clear in the regulations provided for under Clause 24.
We stated in our discussion document. Partnership in Action, that we would require authorities seeking agreement from the Secretary of State for their use of the new powers to set out clearly how their charging regimes for social services would be applied. Guidance on applications for use of the flexibilities will state clearly the position on charging for healthcare and that NHS services remain free at the point of use. We will require that applicants set out in their proposals how their local charging policies will be applied in the light of that. The bodies concerned will need to set out clearly what is NHS care and what is social care. We will use the application process to monitor how the bodies will ensure that healthcare remains free to users.
I hope that in the light of that explanation the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I understand what he says about guidance and monitoring, but at the beginning of his answer he seemed to imply that it would be unlawful for a local authority to charge for healthcare services. Is that correct?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes.
Lord Clement-Jones: I am taken aback by the brevity of that answer! On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 150:
Page 20, line 18, leave out ("may issue guidance") and insert ("shall issue directions").
The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 151.
The context for these amendments is the loss of the JCCs, which is dealt with in Clause 25. Many voluntary organisations have conveyed to us that those joint

1489
consultative committees have provided a way whereby the voluntary organisations in particular can play a full part in decisions taken by the local health authority and the local authority. They want the same sort of requirement to be on the face of this Bill in regard to the joint activities of local authorities and the national health bodies under Clause 24.
The wording of Clause 21(5) is stronger in terms of consultation than is subsection (6) of this clause. Subsection (6) provides that the Secretary of State may issue guidance. I believe that we must have "must issue" even though I believe that the word "directions" is less preferable than "guidance". Therefore, I shall not insist on every word of this amendment.
The rest of Amendment No. 151 provides what the guidance must consist of and who the consultees shall be; namely, the local community health council, organisations representing the interests of people for whom the health authority is responsible—that is, people in the locality—and organisations which represent the interests of carers of those people. Broadly speaking, that is the equivalent of those people who currently have a right to nominate people to sit on the JCCs.
I hope that the Minister will recognise that at present, where they are working well, the input of the voluntary organisations and the community health councils is extremely valuable in making sure that work is well-targeted. I hope that the Minister will he able to strengthen the wording of Clause 24 accordingly. I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: The new approaches to joint working provided in Clause 24 put in place a framework which will allow local innovation. It is very important that we do not stifle innovation by placing on authorities requirements which may not be necessary in every case. I understand that the reason behind the amendment is to ensure that appropriate local consultation takes place when NHS bodies and local authorities wish to use the new flexibilities. But setting out in detail on the face of the Bill who should be consulted on every occasion is against the spirit of local flexibility and partnership which underpins those provisions.
The approach we have taken is to leave the detail of the provisions to regulation while setting on the face of the Bill what those regulations might cover. Subsection (3)(b) of the clause allows the Secretary of State to prescribe through regulations the conditions to be satisfied by authorities, including in relation to consultation. I consider that power to be more than adequate to ensure that authorities consult appropriately.
The Committee will appreciate that we wish to use the regulatory powers sparingly. We do not wish to stand in the way of progress by placing unnecessary burdens on authorities. The Bill allows us to require authorities to consult particular organisations if it is necessary to do so. It also allows us to issue guidance to authorities to help them to ensure that they consult appropriately. I do not believe that we need a further
1490
power to direct authorities and we certainly do not need to constrain authorities to consult organisations where it may not always he appropriate to do so.
I turn now to the specific issue of community health councils. Of course we want CHCs to be consulted on proposals where appropriate. Health authorities already have a duty to consult CHCs when considering substantial developments or variations in services. And we want patients and carers to be consulted. But those groups will be properly involved in the development of the health improvement programme under which the new provisions will be used. It is important that the right people are consulted at the right time. But it is not necessary to set out on the face of the Bill all the details. The powers in the clause to make regulations and issue guidance are the right way of ensuring that the appropriate people and organisations are consulted. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Rowallan: I make no apologies for once more standing up on behalf of the voluntary sector. Can the Minister give me an assurance that the money that goes into the pool will be available for all service providers, which must include the voluntary sector, and not just those that are affiliated to either the health or local authorities? Obviously that is an important issue.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I assume the noble Lord is pointing to a situation where the health and local authority agree to pool funds. It would then he up to the managers of those joint funds to decide how that resource should best be spent. Whether we are talking about health improvement programmes or about the use of funds in this way, I expect voluntary organisations to play a full part in that process.
Lord Rowallan: Forgive me for coming back again. Surely if there is nothing written in the Bill and if those governing the pooled resources take the view that they do not want anybody else involved in that pool of money, that will leave the voluntary sector completely outside. Should not something be written into the Bill to ensure that that cannot happen?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I hoped that I had made clear that in the whole process of partnership, health improvement programmes, developing joint initiatives and the pooling of funds, we expect the voluntary sector to play a full part in the deliberations that will take place. Indeed, I do not see how the kind of proposals being made here can be effective when it comes to developing services without the full involvement of the voluntary sector.
In relation to the issue of the money that has been pooled, it will be possible for that money to be allocated to the voluntary sector.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am not entirely satisfied with that reply. Some of the voluntary sector people who have made representations to us will also not be satisfied.

1491
It is particularly unfortunate that in his reply the Minister suggested that in some sense the voluntary sector would hold the National Health Service and the local authorities back in terms of their innovatory approach to joint working. In fact in many cases the voluntary sector is the most innovative in providing for new patterns of care. That was a particularly unfortunate statement.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: If the noble Baroness will allow me to intervene, I am sorry if I gave that impression. I did not mean to imply that the voluntary sector would hold back an innovative approach to working together, to developing health improvement programmes and providing joint services. Far from it. I believe that the NHS has learnt much from the voluntary sector about innovative approaches to health services. I spent a large part of my previous life in the health service encouraging strong development between the NHS and the voluntary sector.
I was trying to explain—perhaps badly—that in these new arrangements we are trying to establish a much more dynamic approach to working relationships between the NHS and its partners, statutory or voluntary. One does not want to see such dynamic relationships constrained by too many set, bureaucratic conditions. However, I assure the noble Baroness that it is our intention that the voluntary sector will play a very full part in the new arrangements.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for that assurance. We shall have to read with great care what the Minister said in both his interventions and no doubt talk to the people who have pressed us on this matter. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments No. 151 and 152 not moved.]
Clause 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Joint consultative committees]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 153:
Leave out Clause 25 and insert the following new Clause—
JOINT CONSULTATIVE COMMITTEES
(". It shall be the duty of joint consultative committees constituted under section 22(2) of the 1977 Act to advise the NHS bodies and local authorities on the proper performance of their duties under section 21 above.").
The noble Baroness said: Once again this amendment picks up the whole issue of consultation and voluntary sectors. We are concerned at the loss of the statutory right for the voluntary sector to be represented—which is the result of the abolition of the JCC as a statutory requirement—coupled with the lack of provision in the Bill for alternative joint arrangements which would maintain this representation. As I have said, it is the issue that we have been banging on about for some time now.
The right of representation has been crucial in enabling voluntary organisations at the local level to influence decision making and resource allocation, and to work in partnership with the health and local authorities to develop more services appropriate to people's needs. It has acted as a basis for involvement by a wide range of voluntary organisations, including small groups, at all levels of joint health and social care planning.
The loss of the right of representation is a retrograde step. That goes against stated government intentions for greater voluntary sector and service user involvement in health and community care. It will reduce the capacity of voluntary organisations to operate as an equal partner within the statutory sector in delivering improvements in health and social care. We have therefore tabled the amendment to ask the Minister to consider, once again, whether the JCCs really do need to be abolished or whether they should continue to be maintained as statutory organisations. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: Perhaps the Minister can tell us about that. I was not aware, having served on JCCs, that voluntary organisations had a statutory right to be there. Perhaps I never understood the position correctly. Maybe the Minister can clarify the point.
We have heard a lot about voluntary organisations. Of course, we are all very much in favour of such organisations and all that they do. However, "the voluntary sector" is a vague term. It comprises very large numbers of organisations. Such organisations seem to come and go. Some are long-established and unchanging; others are growing up, brand new and meeting new requirements overnight. I do not quite understand how there can be a statutory position and whether it applies to one or to many.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I start by saying to the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, that voluntary organisations have a statutory right of three places on JCCs.
From what I have said in the last few debates, I hope it is clear to Members of the Committee that I and the Government recognise that the voluntary sector has a crucially important role to play in the new NHS. However, I do not believe that the retention of JCCs is necessarily the way to reflect and underpin that role.
In the new NHS, health improvement programmes have been established as the key planning mechanism determining investment in services to improve the public's health. They include the contribution of both the voluntary sector and local government. Maintaining a separate planning mechanism for the voluntary sector and local government within a JCC concept would only increase bureaucracy, duplicate the planning process and maintain the isolation of these areas from the day-to-day work of the NHS. I recognise that JCCs have performed an important and valuable role in the past and that all members have made an enormous contribution, but to retain them would run against the spirit of partnership working we have adopted in this Bill.

1493
An important theme running through our discussions has been the rejection of simplistic structural solutions to allow local initiatives to flourish. The new flexibilities provided for in this provision will allow the NHS, local government and the voluntary sector to be involved in partnership working. When health improvement programmes are fully developed, they will be much more effective as a way of ensuring partnership because their scope will be much wider than that of JCCs.
For the first JCC that I attended, we had to hire a town hall to accommodate its 70 or so members. One remembers the bulk of paper! Although JCCs were a useful structure 20 years ago in getting health authorities and local government sitting together, almost for the first time, I believe that their time has come and is now past. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that reply. In the light of what he said, we accept that it is the intention of the Bill to replace the JCC framework with a wider and more flexible framework through the local health improvement plans. However, I repeat the point that I made earlier: where there is not a statutory obligation to consult, there is always the temptation not to do so. The old NHS was not good at involving other organisations in its planning. We look forward to seeing how the health improvement plans develop and we reserve the right to bring back at another stage the issue of the statutory right of the voluntary sector to some form of consultation. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 25 agreed to.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 154:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
("Regional Assemblies
Upon a regional assembly being created for any region in England, such regional assembly shall for the purposes of the 1977 Act, the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990, or under or by virtue of any prescribed provision of any other act, assume responsibility for—

(a) strategic planning,

(b) capital infrastructure, and

(c) specialised services commissioning,

in the health service in respect of such region.").
The noble Lord said: When my noble friend Lady Sharp starts referring to "banging on", I know that the hour is late. As we still have some important clauses ahead, I shall speak to my next two amendments quickly.
We know that the Government want, or are prepared, to create regional assemblies where there is demand for them. We have seen one outcome of that in terms of the Greater London assembly. In a sense, this is a probing amendment to see in which direction the Government are moving. No doubt, when the GLA Bill comes to this House we shall discuss the precise powers of that authority. Particularly in public health, the powers given seem extremely disappointing.
This amendment is an attempt to draw matters wider than public health. Regional assemblies should have a strong position with regard to the provision of health care in their regions in terms of strategic planning, capital infrastructure and specialised services commissioning, which subsumes the work of the regional office of the NHS. The amendment is designed to ascertain the Government's intentions in this respect. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I shall listen to the Minister's reply to this amendment with great interest because one understands that the regional assemblies are intended to be a counterbalance, among other things, to the Scots Parliament. The Government are requiring the Scottish Parliament to appoint 15 health boards to perform these the functions and not to do it themselves. We shall be coming to that issue in a later amendment, but it would be interesting to know whether the Government are consistent in their thinking.
Earl Howe: I have real difficulties with this amendment. The time to think about the role and functions of regional assemblies is when and if a Bill comes before parliament to set them up. I do not think one can look forward hypothetically in that Bill, as the amendment seeks to do, and imagine a whole structure of government that has not yet come into being.
More substantively, I disagree with the whole premise underlying this idea. It reeks to me of divided responsibilities and confused responsibilities. It also reeks of upheaval. Where does it leave primary care trusts, which will have responsibility for the activities mentioned in the amendment? Where will it leave health authorities, for that matter? I feel that, if you believe in a health service, you should leave the running of it to those whose profession and business it is to do just that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: I am very much opposed to the amendment. Having been a member of the Greater London Council, it would have been quite hopeless for us to have had that health responsibility. To find a health responsibility in London, you have to go back as far as the LCC, which existed prior to 1964. It would be a retrograde move and would be very damaging to the health service. I am opposed to the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: It is a nice try, my Lords, and it could best be described as an interesting, speculative amendment.
Since no regional assembly in England is in existence, and there is no legislation on the statute book to enable such an assembly to be established, there could be no question of our enacting a provision to confer any responsibilities on an as yet hypothetical body.
It is important, of course, to ensure close working relationships between the regional offices of the NHS Executive and other regional bodies, not least because of the important contribution that these bodies can make in terms of the wider strategic and economic

1495
responsibilities within a region, and the links between an economic situation and well-being and improving public health and tackling health inequalities.
I assure Members that the NHS and its regional offices will want to work constructively with the regional development agencies and regional chambers, as they already seek to do with the government offices of the regions. I think that is the appropriate course of action in relation to this issue. On that basis I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply; at least he did not talk about my amendment reeking. I think it is a fairly odourless amendment. I thank him for his reply, as far as it went. It will be interesting when and if there is a Yorkshire assembly because people in Yorkshire will wonder why they have distinctly fewer powers than, say, a Welsh assembly on matters of health. No doubt we shall have many hours of debate in years to come. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 155:
After Clause 25, insert the following new clause—
("Specialised services: consultation
CONSULTATION IN RESPECT OF SPECIALISED SERVICES
Before arrangements to provide specialised services between an NHS regional office and the relevant providers are finalised, an NHS regional office shall ensure that the Primary Care Groups and Primary Care Trusts in the area covered by the relevant NHS regional office are fully consulted.").
The noble Lord said: I can be even more brief with this amendment. This is almost a cuckoo at this point in the Committee's proceedings. The Minister took us through the detail of specialised services to show how the pattern varies between different types of treatment and different specialties. However, the mechanics of the way the consultations are expected to take place between NHS regional offices and their primary groups and PCTs are still opaque, and elucidation in this area would be helpful. I beg to move.
11 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: I certainly recognise and support the intention behind this amendment; namely, that we should ensure proper engagement of primary care groups and primary care trusts in the commissioning of specialised services. Indeed, we went a step further, in that we laid down in The New NHS the important principles that all health authorities, primary care groups and primary care trusts should participate in these arrangements, and that those undertaking the commissioning should be accountable back to health authorities, PCGs and PCTS. The reason is clear: the arrangements need not simply to command the confidence of the clinical units concerned but also to be properly dovetailed into the commissioning of local services.
It follows from what I have said that I have some difficulty with the premise upon which the amendment is drafted. The Secretary of State has charged regional
1496
offices on his behalf with ensuring that there are effective arrangements for commissioning these services in each region, but they do not commission services themselves. The Secretary of State is already holding his regional officers accountable for ensuring that specialised commissioning arrangements more than meet the aims of this amendment. Therefore, on that basis, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that explanation. I shall consider quite carefully what he has said. There may be some elements in respect of which I do not fully understand the pattern, but the Minister's response was very helpful in terms of describing exactly what the regional offices are bound to do. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Powers relating to voluntary schemes]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 156:
Page 21, line 16, leave out ("The Secretary of State") and insert ("A voluntary scheme").
The noble Earl said: In speaking to this amendment. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 157, 158, 159 and 175. There is difficulty with Clause 26(3) as drafted. This part of the clause empowers the Secretary of State to require manufacturers and suppliers who have signed up to the voluntary scheme to "record and keep" any kind of information and to provide that information to him. The difficulty is that these provisions are not limited to those obligations contained in the scheme itself; nor are they subject to any express obligation to consult the industry body on the scope of the information requirements.
I recognise that the wording of the subsection contains the qualifying phrase,
"which the Secretary of State may require for the purpose of enabling the scheme to operate",
but that is extremely one-sided. It is the Secretary of State who will have the power to decide what information he considers to be relevant. That, effectively, leaves the field completely open. That is a matter of concern, especially as the information powers will now be the subject of statutory penalties under Clause 30.
Therefore, the amendments I propose are quite simple. They seek to define the requirement to supply information by reference to the voluntary scheme itself, so that the provisions are automatically agreed with the industry. Moreover, under Amendment No. 175, I am also suggesting that there should be consultation with the industry about the regulations to impose penalties, so that those penalties can be considered at one and the same time as the voluntary scheme is negotiated. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: In giving some support to this group of amendments, I should like to make a number of general comments relating to Clauses 26 to 31 as a whole, because these have given great concern to the Association of the British Pharmaceutical

1497
Industry. As I did on Second Reading, I must declare an interest as an occasional neuroscience adviser to a particular pharmaceutical company.
The problem is that an effective boundary needs to be established between voluntary and statutory schemes of regulation. The Bill ought to include objectives which reflect the needs of patients, the NHS, the UK pharmaceutical industry and the UK science base. Indeed, we shall be speaking to an amendment later which relates to provision being made for arbitration in disputes.
Similarly, it is important, as the noble Earl said, that there should be clarity as regards consultation and information required by government. The pharmaceutical industry should be regulated in line with best practice in other industries. But the Bill as it stands ignores such best practice, instead potentially threatening the future for the UK-based pharmaceutical industry. One company has pointed out that the UK is a leading country for pharmaceutical investment. Seven of the current top 25 medicines in the world are the result of UK research. One recently discovered medicine, olanzapine, for the treatment of schizophrenia, was discovered in the UK and has revolutionised treatment outcomes for this distressed patient group. It is now one of the best selling medicines in the world. Many companies believe that the current voluntary scheme has served both government and industry well since its inception. It has provided a stable base to maintain investment levels in R&D, and good value for the taxpayer.
There is an ever growing number of demand side controls on pharmaceuticals. The current NHS reforms, including unified budgets, NICE guidelines and national service frameworks, will continue the development of demand side controls. Many companies believe that supply side government imposed price and profit control is not the best way to proceed. They recognise the Government's need to address non-compliance under the voluntary scheme, but that non-compliance has in the past been limited to a small number of companies.
I trust that the Government will be able to assure the pharmaceutical industry that the voluntary scheme will continue and that the clauses in this Bill which potentially might lead to companies at present participating in a voluntary scheme having price controls imposed upon them will be withdrawn as the proceedings continue.
Baroness Cumberlege: I wish to speak to these amendments. I shall resist the great temptation to make a Second Reading speech. However, I wish to ask about something that was not available to us at Second Reading and which concerns the clauses we are discussing. We have in this House the impressive Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. It is respected by your Lordships. Its deliberations are consistently thoughtful, wise and appropriate. I know that when I was a Minister I was extremely concerned to meet the requirements of that committee. Never have I known the committee so concerned and for it to use such direct language, urging the Committee to amend the clauses to prevent their bypassing primary
1498
legislation, and to put the Bill in proper order thus avoiding Henry VIII clauses. What does the Minister feel about the report, and how will she and her colleagues treat the considered and forthright advice given to them? At 20 minutes to 10 this evening the Minister the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said in relation to local authorities—I use his words directly—that it was the Government's intention "to use regulatory powers sparingly". If the Government are to use those regulatory powers sparingly in relation to local authorities, I wonder why the Government appear to be so punitive and dismissive of the commercial sector.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My name was attached to this series of amendments, I think mistakenly, although I have sympathy with some but by no means all of the proposals, as will become clear when I address the Question of whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. We on these Benches by and large do not believe it right to have statutory regulation of a voluntary scheme. By and large we support the amendments because they make the provision more of a voluntary scheme. Nevertheless, our preference would be to have the clause withdrawn completely from the Bill.
Baroness Hayman: There has been something of the flavour of a Second Reading debate about our discussion on these amendments although I make no complaint about that because we have moved on to an important area of the Bill which concerns the regulation of prices in the pharmaceutical industry. It is right that we should discuss Amendments Nos. 156, 157 and 158 which I shall discuss in a moment. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, also spoke to Amendments Nos. 170 and 175. I shall come to those in a moment.
Perhaps I may respond to two general points. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that one should pay special attention to the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. I said at Second Reading that we would look with care at its report. It made two main recommendations regarding the elements of the Bill on PPRS and statutory reserve powers for companies which were not compliant. One recommendation was that we should have affirmative rather than negative powers when regulations and directions are made under Clauses 26 to 29. I indicated to the Committee when we met last week that the Government accept that suggestion and will bring forward an amendment at an appropriate stage to take affirmative rather than negative powers. Equally, when we come later to a specific amendment on the issue of an appeals procedure—which was of concern to the committee—I can be helpful and will indicate what the Government will intend to do.
Perhaps I may respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, about the value of a voluntary agreement. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, also referred to the general issue of the desirability of a voluntary rather than a statutory agreement. I reaffirm the Government's view that, in the main, the voluntary agreements that have existed for 40 years have been of great value. They have been to the benefit both of the

1499
industry and patients in the NHS, as represented by the Government. It is our intention—we are conducting negotiations at present—to continue that tradition. We hope that we shall reach agreement on another voluntary agreement that properly recognises fairness to the NHS in terms of the prices paid for medicines and is fair and reasonable to the pharmaceutical industry as the supplier. One would wish to take into account the need to recognise the very clear demands of funding on research and development that is very important both for the industry's success and the improvements in patient care to which the noble Lord referred. We are aiming to provide another successful voluntary agreement.
Although the noble Lord, Lord Walton, suggested that there had been very few areas of non-compliance, there are concerns that areas of non-compliance are increasing. Companies are failing to submit their financial returns by the due date to enable the Government to assess profit levels and are delaying the provision of information or delaying the repayment of excess profit. One major company has refused to submit financial returns since 1990 and has resisted all approaches to comply. Over the past year, 24 companies have increased product prices without the Government's agreement—at an estimated cost to the NHS of £30 million a year and at the expense of other NHS treatment and care.
There is a risk that if we do not take action to secure compliance, some of the companies that have so far complied properly will cease to do so. In addition, there are issues of transparency. The PPRS has been criticised by the Select Committee on Health, among others, for its lack of transparency. We need to consider that in the light of general government policy and indeed of European law. While we wish to retain a scheme of profit-capped regulation for a further five years and we hope to see that successfully and voluntarily negotiated with the pharmaceutical industry, we also need to have the levers necessary to ensure compliance. I think the noble Lord, Lord Walton, recognised that need.
The Government believe that Clause 26 provides a firm and clear foundation on which voluntary agreements will stand in the future. The voluntary scheme itself will determine what is required for its effective operation. Perhaps I may reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, by saying that we intend that the information required will be set out in the agreement which we are seeking to reach with the industry. However, I recognise the concerns that have been expressed that, as currently drafted, Clause 26(3) is perhaps very wide in terms of the information that could be sought. With the Committee's agreement, I should like to take that away and see whether we can come up with drafting that will suitably circumscribe the kinds of information that would be called for.
Perhaps I may deal also with the two amendments that are linked with Amendment No. 156. Amendment No. 158 also covers the information requirements of the voluntary scheme. It would remove from the face of the Bill the reason for information being required under the voluntary scheme. I believe that it is necessary to be
1500
explicit here and to make plain the reasons why companies will be required to record, keep and provide information. It would not be consistent with what I have just suggested on Amendment No. 156—to see whether we can provide additional clarity—to take on board Amendment No. 158, which would reduce that clarity. Therefore, I would urge the Committee not to pursue that amendment.
With regard to Amendment No. 157, as has been the case for the past 40 years, we envisage only one voluntary agreement to be in place at any one time. However, the term "a voluntary scheme" in Clause 26 (3), as in Clause 26(2), merely indicates that there will probably be a series of such voluntary agreements over the lifetime of the Bill rather than that there will be several specific agreements in place at any one time. Therefore, I do not think that that would be a sensible amendment to make.
Amendment No. 159 seeks to add the words,
"after consultation with the industry body".
I said earlier that we acknowledge the value to be placed on a voluntary agreement between the Government and the pharmaceutical industry. By definition, the content of a voluntary agreement will be decided only with the express consent of both parties to it; that is, the Government and the ABPI. It is therefore unnecessary to provide a further consultation with a body that has already subscribed to and chosen to join the agreement. So I do not think that that adds anything in terms of ensuring that the agreement is voluntary.
Perhaps I may deal with Amendments Nos. 170 and 175.
11.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister. I did not speak to Amendment No. 170 and I shall not move it.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to the noble Earl. I shall follow his example and not speak to it either.
Turning to Amendment No. 175, it is entirely proper that the industry body should be consulted over matters of detail relating to sales of medicines to the NHS. The setting up of the statutory scheme is already subject to contribution. These are matters on which the industry body can contribute.
The amendment as drafted may not be the best way of extending the consultation process. If the noble Lord and the Committee were content, I should like to take the matter away in an attempt to see whether we might produce a government amendment to introduce the consultation process in the setting of maximum prices.
On an issue of clarity, I should not have given my recollection of what the Select Committee said rather than read carefully what it had actually said. The committee did not in fact recommend the affirmative resolution procedure, as I mentioned in my response to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, other than for Clause 30(6). That is the area in which we should intend to bring forward an amendment in order to conform with the recommendations of the Select Committee.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for her response. In the interests of brevity, I shall leave it at that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 157 to 159 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 160:
Page 21, line 32, at end insert—
("(5) Any dispute between the Secretary of State and a manufacturer or supplier to whom a voluntary scheme applies—

(a) in connection with or arising out of the scheme, or

(b) as to any addition or modification which should he made to the scheme pursuant to subsection (2)(b),

may be referred to arbitration or to the determination of an independent person or body in accordance with the procedures established in the scheme.").
The noble Earl said: This amendment, which I shall take with Amendment No. 176, needs only a brief comment but is extremely important.
As the Bill is drafted, there is no mechanism available to deal with disputes between a company and the Department of Health, either in relation to the requirements of the voluntary scheme or as regards the payment provisions under Clauses 27 and 28, or as regards the penalty provisions under Clause 30. I do not believe that that is equitable. Nor do I believe that it is in the interests of either the industry or the department.
The Minister mentioned at Second Reading, and again just now, that there were companies that were in breach of the existing PPRS, one for a number of years. We cannot go into detail about individual cases, but how much better it would be if there were a neutral arbitrator or tribunal available to resolve disputes of this nature. It would make both the company and the Department of Health much less inclined to be obdurate for long periods and would open up the prospect of disputes being settled more speedily. I hope that the Minister will be receptive to these proposals, as I believe she has hinted she will be. They are made in a genuine desire to see the PPRS working as we all wish it to do. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I support the noble Earl in his Amendments Nos. 160 and 176, and wish to speak to Amendment No. 174. This amendment, like the other two, might be described as a tidying up proposal. It applies to Clauses 28 and 29 relating to the setting up of a statutory price regulation scheme. Just as Amendment No. 160 calls for an arbitration scheme to be put into effect in the event of a dispute between parties to the voluntary scheme, so it is appropriate that there should also be an arbitration mechanism for any statutory scheme. Given the extensive powers that the Secretary of State will take upon himself under the establishment of any statutory scheme, equity demands ways of balancing interests. We must recognise that, however good the scheme, conflicts of interest and dispute will arise. It is necessary to write into the Bill clear dispute mechanisms as a requirement. From these Benches we support the amendments proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I commend Amendment No. 174.
Baroness Cumberlege: I, too, support these amendments. The problem with the Government's proposals as they stand is that they give the
1502
pharmaceutical industry the feeling that it is not wanted. It is a global industry which can site its enterprises anywhere in the world. It will go where it feels wanted and respected. Indeed, in some places the pharmaceutical industry is even given sweeteners because it is recognised that the industry is a prize which is worth winning.
The Government have rightly placed an enormous emphasis on education. Those who are the brightest are employed by the pharmaceutical industry, a quarter of its employees being graduates. If we educate people in this country to a high standard but then offer them no jobs, we shall be educating people for emigration, which I think would be a very great pity. Anything we can do to make the industry feel wanted—and arbitration will clearly be a part of that, because it is a fair proposal—should be supported by the Committee.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I rise briefly to support these amendments. The ABPI has said clearly that it would have much preferred to see an effective boundary defined between the voluntary and statutory schemes on the face of the Bill, but it accepts that such a boundary could be introduced into regulations made under Clause 28. We seek the assurance of the Minister not only that the appeal mechanism and arbitration will be introduced but also that that boundary will be clearly defined in regulations.
Baroness Hayman: I hope I can be helpful to the Committee, both in what I say and the brevity with which I say it.
As far as the boundary between the voluntary and statutory schemes is concerned, there are amendments which deal with that matter, but I hope I can offer a way of making it clear that the statutory provisions will not take effect for those who agree to, and abide by, the voluntary scheme. Perhaps we can come to that point in a moment.
As regards these three amendments, which would set up an appeals procedure both for the voluntary scheme and for decisions made under the statutory scheme as defined in Clause 28 and regulations made under Clause 30 for enforcement, Members of the Committee correctly pointed out the need, to which the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation also pointed, to set up an independent tribunal to ensure a process that is as speedy and open as commercial confidentiality allows. It has been suggested that I hinted that we might possibly want to do that. I say clearly that we intend to do it. I should be grateful for a little time to enable us to try to draft something which comprehensively covers the three areas which it is necessary to cover.
Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, that we have tried to meet the concerns of the ABPI on this and other issues. I should not like anyone to think that the Government's proposal to take what I believe is justified and justifiable action to ensure that there is compliance which gives equity, fairness and a reasonable price to the National Health Service in any way undermines our confidence in, and respect for, the contribution of the pharmaceutical industry in this

1503
country, which has been enormous. It is a world leader. It is an industry for which the department has a sponsorship role, which it is pleased to take on. It is an industry which has a considerable knowledge and research base, which is important to our economy, and nothing in these clauses should be taken as undermining our support for it.
Strictly speaking, companies under the voluntary scheme will be subject to statutory provisions—the process requirements under Clause 26—but not the statutory scheme under Clause 28. That was the distinction that I sought to make in replying to the noble Lord, Lord Walton. By definition, in putting a voluntary scheme on the face of the Bill one makes them in some way subject to statute. But I believe that the noble Lord understood what I said—at least I hope that he did.
Earl Howe: I thank the Minister for her constructive and helpful reply, which I am sure will be welcome news to the pharmaceutical industry. We look forward to seeing the amendments to be tabled by the Government at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether Clause 26 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We on these Benches believe that a voluntary scheme should be what it says it is: voluntary. In this regard it should not need statutory reinforcement. If the voluntary scheme does not work the Secretary of State may introduce a statutory scheme as set out in Clauses 27 to 29. But we are opposed to a hybrid scheme that confers on the Secretary of State wide powers to enforce the terms of a voluntary scheme. We believe that the voluntary price regulation scheme, which in one form or another has worked in this country since the late 1950s, has had very substantial benefits for Britain. In particular, it has helped to encourage the development of a research-intensive, innovative pharmaceutical industry as instanced by the fact that, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, said earlier, seven of the top selling 25 drugs in the world were developed in British R&D laboratories.
Thanks to a price and regulation regime that has favoured innovative and research-intensive activities over "me too" drug production, the industry in this country is a leading contributor to the global market-place. Three leading companies—Glaxo-Wellcome, SmithKline Beecham and Zeneca (shortly to become Zeneca Astra)—are British-based, while other international companies such as Upjohn-Pharmacia have chosen to locate their headquarters here. Many leading manufacturers, including Merck-Sharp & Dohme, currently regarded as the world's leading research company in pharmaceuticals, locate substantial R&D facilities in the UK. These facilities feed upon one another. In total we have a considerable "clustering" of research activities attracted to the UK by the quality of
1504
the research base and the general environment in which the industry operates. But in its turn it provides jobs for high-quality graduates and research moneys that help to maintain the excellence of the science base in this area. It is a prime example of what all political parties claim they wish to see achieved in this country: a high productivity, high value-added industry.
As the Minister made clear, especially of late there have been a number of breaches of the voluntary agreement. In our view, it is up to the industry to make sure it delivers on its side of the agreement and up to the Government also to honour their promises, which notably in 1993 they failed to do. The industry should not have to rely on the Government to pull renegades into line. If the scheme does not work there should be a fully-fledged statutory scheme in its place. While we back the voluntary scheme we are unhappy about the degree to which it depends upon secret decisions made behind closed doors. We have therefore proposed—I shall speak to this later in the debate—that the Secretary of State should issue regular reports on his negotiations with the industry that describe in much greater detail than at present the outcome of the negotiations.
But I return to where I began. We do not think that the Government should legislate to enforce a voluntary agreement, and accordingly we do not believe that Clause 26 should stand part of the Bill.
Baroness Hayman: It is late in the day to discuss the semantics of whether or not this is a hybrid scheme. Perhaps I may respond briefly to the noble Baroness. I should like to reiterate that the Government are committed to renegotiating the pharmaceuticals price regulation scheme. Negotiations are currently taking place with the industry with the objective of achieving agreement. I believe that those objectives are shared by both sides of the negotiations. We as a government want them to be a success. We recognise what has been achieved over the years under previous agreements and we consider that another voluntary scheme is the best way to proceed.
However, I have to repeat that we need to take account of recent experience in operating the current scheme. That is what has led the Government to conclude that it will not be possible to operate the new scheme fairly and effectively without some means of addressing those companies that sign up to the voluntary agreement but then do not abide fully by the agreed terms.
I have explained what some of those difficulties have been in the past and the reasons why that situation brings both the administration and the efficiency of the scheme into disrepute and delays the payment of excess profits where they are payable under the scheme. That is not fair to companies which comply with the scheme. Nor is it fair to the NHS.
We do not believe that what we put forward is a hybrid scheme. We want to reach an agreement which will be voluntary and any other provisions about a statutory need to provide information would not affect

1505
the companies which signed up and abided by it because they would be working within the terms of the agreement. We believe that that is the best way forward.
However, experience of recent years has shown that not all companies which sign up to a voluntary agreement are then prepared fully to comply with it. My understanding from discussions with the pharmaceutical industry is that it recognises the justification for the Bill including provisions for penalties to give teeth to the obligations which companies will undertake under the terms of the voluntary PPRS. I suggest to the noble Baroness that the two alternatives that she proposes, as I understand, by opposing the Question that the clause stand part of the Bill—either for a voluntary agreement, which is susceptible to the same problems that we have had in the past; or to a full scale statutory scheme—are not the best way forward. It is sensible to recognise the value of a voluntary scheme but equally it is necessary to have the statutory underpinning which ensures that that scheme is effective.
We do not believe that it would be sensible for the Government to have to decide between continuation of a probable non-compliance by some companies and a full statutory scheme. Both those outcomes are less satisfactory than a voluntary scheme with which companies comply fully. That is the aim of the clause. I urge the Committee to support that it remain part of the Bill.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that reply. We beg to differ on the issue, but, given the lateness of the hour, I shall not pursue the point.
Clause 26 agreed to.
Clause 27 [Power to control prices]:
[Amendments Nos. 161 and 162 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 163:
Page 21, line 40, at end insert—
("(2) The powers conferred in this section shall not apply to a manufacturer or supplier to whom a voluntary scheme under section 26 applies.").
The noble Earl said: We come now to an important set of amendments. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 163 and 167.
Clauses 27 and 28 of the Bill came as a considerable shock to the pharmaceutical industry. The provisions in these clauses empower the Secretary of State not only to limit any price which may be charged by any manufacturer or supplier of health service medicines but also to introduce a statutory scheme under which prices or profits of manufacturers or suppliers would be compulsorily curbed in respect of any health service medicines.
Only a few months ago, in July 1998, the Secretary of State was quoted in the Pharmaceutical Times as saying:
"The PPRS delivers with no surprises and at the same time the UK is well below the international average on the cost of our drugs. I don't think we will be looking for any giant changes".
We have only to look at Clauses 27 and 28 to see how giant the changes are and how far the Government have altered course since July last year. What has brought
1506
about this dramatic change in the Government's position—so dramatic that they are effectively doing away with the voluntary nature of the PPRS by taking on powers to fix the prices of drugs as they choose?
The Government's justification for these new powers is that certain companies are not complying with the voluntary scheme. If that is really their perception, I believe that we need further and better particulars. We are told that one major company has refused to submit financial returns since 1990. If that is true, it is clearly unsatisfactory. However, there are at present 45 companies in the scheme and one problem case out of 45 hardly seems to justify the kind of power we see here. Indeed, on 26th November, the Secretary of State told another place that the reserve powers,
"should have no significant impact on the vast majority which always have complied and are complying at present".—[Official Report, Commons, 26/11/98; col. 332.]
But these powers could apply to the compliant majority. They are not limited reserve powers; they are sweeping powers. They would enable the Secretary of State to impose direct price and profit controls on individual companies, or on the industry as a whole. The Government in the Bill makes much of the spirit of partnership, but I have to ask where the spirit of partnership is in Clauses 27 and 28.
The clear understanding within the industry was that the new statutory powers were intended as reserve powers to back up the PPRS and that Clauses 27 and 28 would be held in reserve in the full expectation that their use would he unnecessary once the new voluntary PPRS had been agreed upon. Indeed, the Minister herself on Second Reading said:
"We consider that a voluntary scheme which is clear and fair is the best way of working".—[Official Report, 9/2/99; col. 113.]
She has repeated those sentiments tonight. How do the Government believe that a voluntary scheme can be successfully negotiated if the companies attempting to sign up to it are simultaneously threatened by the use of compulsion? That threat undermines the entire voluntary basis of the PPRS. What the Bill does is to place companies in double jeopardy and that is totally inequitable and counter productive.
If the Secretary of State and the industry reach agreement on a voluntary scheme under Clause 26, the companies which have agreed to take part in the scheme should be expressly exempted from compulsory controls of any kind. By that, I do not mean that there should be no sanction against those who break the terms of the PPRS. I see nothing offensive in principle about the provisions in Clause 30 for penalties on non-compliant companies. But what is completely unacceptable is the enactment of new compulsory powers of price and profit control which could operate indiscriminately against saints and rogues alike. And that is the purpose of the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: I have already raised the issue of the boundary and it may well be that the Minister will say that this issue is to be dealt with under regulations. But looking at the wording of Amendment No. 167, to which the noble Earl referred, is it not possible that the Government could come hack with an amendment

1507
at Report stage indicating precisely on the face of the Bill that the statutory scheme will not apply to a manufacturer or supplier who is complying with all the provisions of the voluntary scheme? Would that not be a means of meeting the great concern of the industry on this matter?
Baroness Hayman: Yes, I believe that it would and that that is what we ought to do. With the leave of the Committee, I should like to see whether we can draft a provision which I agree with the noble Lord will be better dealt with on the face of the Bill rather than by regulation.
We have here three sequential clauses. We have Clause 26 dealing with the voluntary agreement; Clause 27 concerned with the control of prices; and Clause 28 intended to operate where there is no voluntary agreement or in relation to those companies or suppliers that fail to abide by the terms of the agreement.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was quite right to point out that the Government's intention has always been that the statutory provisions should have no significant impact on those companies which agree to and comply with the voluntary agreement. Amendment No. 163 underlines the Government's intention that the control of prices should not apply to manufacturers and suppliers who are abiding by voluntary schemes, as described in Clause 26. Amendment No. 167 makes clear that Clause 28 is to operate only in the case where there is no voluntary agreement or where companies or suppliers fail to abide by the terms of that agreement.
It is not our intention that any manufacturer or supplier abiding by the terms of the voluntary agreement to which Clause 26 refers should be subject to the powers conferred in Clause 28.
I believe that the boundaries to which the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, referred are not very clear on the face of the Bill, although I believe that we have been clear as to our intentions. Therefore, with the leave of the Committee, I wish to take away both amendments with a view to looking at how we may subsume their spirit and bring forward amendments at a later stage.
11.45 p.m.
Earl Howe: Once again, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for the constructive way in which she has responded to these amendments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 agreed to.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 164:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
ANNUAL REPORT BY SECRETARY OF STATE
(". The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to Parliament containing a general survey of developments during the preceding twelve months on the voluntary schemes including references to—

(a) any modification of an existing voluntary scheme or introduction of a successor voluntary scheme,

(b) decisions taken to prohibit price increases and collect payments under section 26(4), and

(c) decisions taken to control prices and profits under section 27.").

The noble Baroness said: This amendment picks up the issue to which I referred in my earlier intervention. The Secretary of State is answerable to Parliament and, through Parliament, to the electorate. If he is party to a voluntary agreement, he should be answerable to Parliament for his actions. At present, we know remarkably little about the deals done under the PPRS. It is a classic corporatist deal. Those on the Opposition Benches should be joining us in wishing to bring some of those dealings out into the open.
The amendment asks the Secretary of State to make an annual report on developments within the voluntary scheme and to report in detail on any modifications agreed. It is pursuing the agenda for transparency and open government which we have been pressing on the Government throughout the Bill. We hope that we are beginning to make an impact. I hope that the Minister will respond positively to that request. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I hope that I can be helpful in terms of the spirit of what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve.
I accept her view that there have been criticisms of PPRS agreements in terms of their complexity and lack of transparency. Indeed, that was one reason that I put forward earlier for needing to make some changes. That is why we are trying to place the voluntary agreements and statutory schemes on a clear basis—to meet some of those criticisms.
I should say to the noble Baroness that the Government intend to publish reports to Parliament on the operation of both the voluntary and statutory arrangements. Much has been done with the first two reports which have already been published, although I hear what she says about not being satisfied completely as regards the detail of that. There are problems which we should acknowledge in respect of matters of commercial confidentiality. But certainly, aggregate figures should be made available and we should do what we can to meet that.
I would question whether it is sensible to place a requirement to publish an annual report on the face of the Bill. One can easily envisage circumstances over the lifetime of the Bill once it becomes an Act when it might be inappropriate in terms of timing to publish a report as described by the amendment. There may be a time when there is no voluntary agreement or when

1509
negotiations between the Department of Health and the industry body are at a late stage when the 12 months conies round.
It is in order to have flexibility that I suggest that it is better not to put the requirement for an annual report on the face of the Bill, especially when we look at the issue of a statutory scheme where it might be the case that only a small number of suppliers and manufacturers are affected in any given year. It could be only one or two. It would be very difficult in those cases to see how confidentiality could be maintained and the company's business affairs would be placed in the public domain against its will. One way around that might be found in aggregating the results over a longer period so that a report on the results of the statutory scheme was produced which did not breach areas of confidentiality. Again, we need some ability to act flexibly and responsibly to the conditions prevailing over the lifetime of this legislation. I can assure the noble Baroness that it is our intention to publish reports to Parliament on the operation of both the voluntary and the statutory schemes.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for that very forthcoming reply. We would like to see something on the face of the Bill as a statutory requirement. However, in the light of the Minister's assurances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Statutory schemes]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 21, line 41, after ("State") insert ("for Trade and Industry").
The noble Baroness said: This is a minor amendment but is of some significance. As I have argued, we believe that there should be no hybrid scheme. There should be either a voluntary or a statutory scheme. This amendment relates to the statutory scheme. If it is to be introduced we believe that there is a conflict of interest between the position of the Secretary of State as a regulator and as a purchaser of health services. Essentially the statutory scheme, if introduced, is a piece of industrial policy about the health of the pharmaceutical industry. As such, we believe that the right Minister to act as intermediary is not the Secretary of State for Health but the President of the Board of Trade. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I support this amendment. It is self-evident that if a statutory scheme were to apply the Department of Health would be both customer and regulator at the same time. That is not at all satisfactory. If we are to have a statutory scheme—I sincerely hope we do not—then there ought at least to be another department of government in charge of it, a department which can perhaps take a wider and more dispassionate view of the issues involved.
Baroness Hayman: This amendment arises perhaps from an unnecessary broadening of the Government's overall purpose in terms of any statutory scheme. Our purpose, as indeed with the voluntary scheme, is to
1510
ensure that the prices paid by the NHS for its medicines are fair and reasonable both to the NHS and the pharmaceutical industry. It is not the purpose of the Bill to regulate the operations of the pharmaceutical industry beyond that aim.
I have said several times this evening that we hope to proceed in this matter by co-operation under a voluntary agreement, but it is clear that circumstances might arise where a statutory scheme would need to be introduced. Clause 28 is concerned with the making of such a scheme. It is a matter for the Secretary of State to determine after appropriate consultation. After all, he is the purchaser of medicines for the NHS and it is his concern that those medicines are priced reasonably and fairly.
The Secretary of State for Health has a key interest in maintaining close contact with the industry in its role of ensuring best value for money as purchaser as well as seeking to maintain an industrial policy within the UK which encourages development of innovative medicines and treatments. Acting as a sponsor commits the Secretary of State for Health to maintain a sensitive and broad perspective as regards developments and concerns within the industry which will, in turn, impact on the provision of healthcare through the NHS.
The amendment will place that responsibility with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, whose concerns are not with the NHS. Furthermore, once the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has made a statutory scheme, it will then fall to the Secretary of State for Health to introduce it under Clause 28. I suggest to the Committee that cannot be a sensible course of action.
I have to say also, simply in terms of drafting, that there is the issue of naming Secretaries of State in primary legislation. That is most unusual and, where it has occurred in the past, has led to confusion and uncertainty as to responsibility when departments have merged or split. Therefore, I suggest to the noble Baroness that that is one good reason for the all-purpose term, "Secretary of State" rather than being more specific in the legislation. However, that is, perhaps, a technical point.
Although I understand where the noble Baroness was coming from on the amendment, I believe that this is not a matter of regulation of the industry as a whole. This is very specifically about ensuring fairness under any statutory agreement that might need to be introduced. I suggest that putting responsibilities for part of that with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would not help.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I thank the Minister for the answer. As we know, the Department of Trade and Industry has been empire building very hard and it is possible, of course, that it might at some time merge with the Department of Health, although one would hope not to see that! We may think about this at a later stage, but, in the light of the Minister's reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Noble Lords: No!
11.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 165) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 8; Not-Contents, 28.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Howe, E.

Bumham, L. [Teller]

McNair, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Henly, L. [Teller]

Sharp of Guildford, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ahmed, L.

Hardie, L.

Amos, B.

Hayman, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bach, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L.[Teller]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Desai, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Donoughue, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.[Teller]

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Monkswell, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Palmer, L.

Gilbert, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hacking, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
12.4 a.m.
[Amendments Nos. 166 to 168 not moved.]
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 169:
Page 22, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall publish within seven days details of any payments made under subsections (4) and (5) above.").
The noble Lord said: In moving to move Amendment No. 169 I shall speak at the same time to Amendment No. 179. My main interest is to hear the Minister's explanation of the Government's view of publishing this sort of information in the way my amendment suggests. I am not clear from what was said in relation to a previous amendment whether the names of those who default under the current voluntary scheme are made public. If they are not, I would be interested to know why. Thinking of the future, it would be thoroughly desirable if the Government's decisions under these two clauses were published. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: Clause 28, to which Amendment No. 169 is directed, among other things provides for the repayment of unreasonable profits made from the sale of medicines to the NHS or extra income derived from those sales gained by a price increase not agreed by the Secretary of State. It is the basis of a statutory scheme which is to operate when suppliers and manufacturers are not covered by a voluntary scheme.
1512
The amendment seeks to make details of payments under a statutory scheme public within seven days of their receipt. I agree that the effects of a statutory scheme are of genuine interest to many parties, but I can see absolutely no point in requiring the information to be made available piecemeal and at high speed in the way that the amendment proposes. I can think of no precedent for such a requirement, and also there is the need to respect the commercial confidentiality of suppliers and manufacturers. This is an important principle and the amendment could result in its breach. We shall be making available aggregated details of the operation of both the voluntary schemes, including repayment, but we do not think it is appropriate to have to do that within seven days.
In response to the noble Lord's specific question, the names of companies not complying with the scheme have not been made public, with commercial confidentiality being cited as the main reason.
Amendment No. 179 requires the Secretary of State to publish directions given to a supplier or manufacturer about the operation of statutory schemes in individual cases.
Clause 31(1) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations generally, or to give directions to a particular manufacturer or supplier. It is constructed in this manner for a specific purpose: it allows the Secretary of State to deal with a particular supplier or manufacturer in a manner which respects commercial confidentiality.
I recognise that the amendment seeks to achieve greater transparency, but I suggest to the noble Lord that it would defeat the object of respecting commercial confidentiality by placing in the public domain matters between the Secretary of State and a particular supplier or manufacturer about that company's professional and financial affairs. We do not believe that that is the right way forward. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment and accept the details of what I gave him when we discussed the earlier amendment; namely, that we will be making available aggregate details of the operation of both the voluntary and the statutory schemes.
Lord Lucas: I thank the Minister for her reply, but I do not find her answer satisfactory. After all, when the Ministry of Defence reaches an agreement with a supplier which results in that supplier paying a substantial amount of money back because of overcharging, or whatever it may be, the common practice is for the identity of that supplier to be made public. Can the Minister give me an example of what sort of considerations of commercial confidentiality apply where a supplier has been misbehaving itself to the extent that the Government have taken action under one of these two clauses? Can she give an example where it would be reasonable in all the circumstances, and taking into account the public interest, not to publish the name of that supplier?
Can the noble Baroness say how commercial confidentiality applies to such things as the actual cost of manufacturing a particular medicine, or the details of what has gone on behind the scenes? The fact that a

1513
manufacturer has transgressed and has been fined, say, half a million pounds, is surely not a matter to which any commercial confidentiality can apply without stretching that concept to an extent which would make a freedom of information Act—if we ever see one from this Government—entirely unnecessary because there would be no freedom.
Baroness Hayman: Rather than chance my arm at this stage of the proceedings by producing an example which might be flawed, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to consider that and his analogy with the MoD and write to him on both issues.
Lord Lucas: Of course I will. The noble Baroness has been extraordinarily generous, not only to me but also to other Members of the Committee. That is a great compliment to her as a Minister and has made listening to these proceedings a great delight. I doubt that I ever behaved as well as she has when I served on the Front Bench. I should certainly be grateful for that consideration. I am sure that the noble Baroness understands the point that I am making here. I look forward to receiving that letter in due course, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 agreed to.
Clause 29 [Statutory schemes: supplementary]:
[Amendment No. 170 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 171:
Page 22, line 33, after ("body") insert ("and bodies representing consumers and patients").
The noble Lord said: Clause 29(1), says:
"The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the industry body, make any provision he considers necessary or expedient for the purpose of enabling or facilitating—

"(a) the introduction of a statutory scheme, or

"(b) the determination of the provision to remain in a proposed statutory scheme".

The purpose of my amendment is to elicit from the Minister why other bodies, especially consumer and patient bodies as well as the new national institute for clinical excellence, will not be involved in that process. It seems rather exclusive simply to have consultation with the "industry body" when what is a significant step—that is, the setting up of a statutory scheme—takes place. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: I understand the spirit in which the noble Lord puts forward this amendment. I am sure he will be aware that we have made it absolutely clear in most responses that the Government intend to consult the representatives of patients, users and carers of the service. We have not done so here because, in terms of taking on a statutory scheme, it would be the technicalities of a scheme which set out to achieve fair and reasonable prices. In turn, that would give full regard to the needs of patients and consumers. The important issue for patients is that they continue to have access to the medicines indicated in their treatment. In considering this issue I am sure that the Secretary of
1514
State will listen to the views of patient groups. However, I do not believe that there should be a requirement to consult on the technical issues of a statutory scheme either with the national institute for clinical excellence—whose remit in this area is not clear—or with representatives of patients and consumers. A statutory scheme would be concerned with the prices paid to the NHS.
I understand that the noble Lord will say that that in turn influences the amount of money that is available for other forms of care and is, in the broadest sense, of interest to patients and consumers. I do not disagree with him on that and I think the broad framework of such an agreement is something on which patient groups may wish to put forward their opinions. However, a statutory scheme would be concerned specifically with prices paid by the NHS and would be a matter for the Secretary of State as purchaser and the industry body as the representative of the suppliers.
In that case I think it is proper that we put on the face of the Bill the duty to consult with those suppliers who would be subject to the workings of a statutory scheme. However, I am not certain that it is appropriate to refer on the face of the Bill to consultation on what, as I say, is essentially the technicalities of price setting within the pharmaceutical industry. I hope therefore the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
12.15 a.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am not quite sure that she has addressed the point of whether NICE would have information on the technicalities of any statutory scheme. Over a period it will build up an enormous amount of expertise in the whole area of drug pricing and so on. However, the hour is late and I shall ponder the Minister's reply before the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 172 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 173:
Page 22, line 37, at end insert—
("( ) In exercising any powers or negotiating any price under or by virtue of any provision of this Act, the Secretary of State shall have regard to the priorities of the NHS for research and development in the field of pharmaceuticals.").
The noble Baroness said: This amendment reiterates the point that has already been made in the debate. It asks that any statutory scheme of price regulation that is introduced shall take account of the importance of research and development to this industry. As I stressed earlier, we have succeeded in "growing" in this country an extraordinarily successful and innovative pharmaceutical industry. It is a highly profitable industry but a good part of its profits are reinvested. The average cost of bringing a new drug to market these days is over £250 million. This is a vast sum and the industry deals in vast sums.
In setting prices, the Government must recognise that the industry has to have this level of resources at its disposal. If they do not do so, there is a great danger

1515
that we shall lose this extraordinarily successful research-based industry from which this country currently benefits a great deal. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 178, 180, 181 and 182. One of the standard features of recent legislation giving government the power to control the prices and profits of a particular industry is a section setting out a clear statement on the face of the Bill of the objectives which underlie these powers. An example of this is Section 3 of the Electricity Act 1989. If we look at this Bill, however, the powers are there but the context is not. Indeed the powers proposed in the Bill are far more discretionary than the statutory powers which apply in industries such as the privatised utilities. With the privatised utilities the power to control prices rests effectively with an independent regulator. The Bill should state in clear terms the Secretary of State's obligation to have regard to defined statutory purposes in exercising the powers confered upon him. These purposes ought best to be a restatement of the objectives underlying the PPRS. That is what Amendment No. 178 seeks to achieve.
Statutory control of the prices and profits of private companies is very much a course of last resort for any government—even, I suspect, for this Government. Clause 31(4) of the Bill attempts to hedge in these powers by including a test of reasonableness. But, on reading that subsection, I wonder whether the wording could be made clearer and more direct. I have attempted to do that in Amendments Nos. 181 and 182. In Amendment No. 180 I have suggested that there ought to be exactly the same test of reasonableness applied to anything the Secretary of State does under Clause 26 relating to the voluntary scheme.
Baroness Hayman: I hope I can be helpful to the Committee, although I am not certain that I can accept specifically either the amendment of the noble Baroness, Amendment No. 173, or the later amendments, as they stand, of the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Amendment No. 173 would place on the face of the Bill a requirement for the Secretary of State to have particular regard to the priorities of the NHS for research and development in the field of pharmaceuticals in the exercise of any statutory scheme. The purpose of the statutory scheme—as is the purpose of a voluntary agreement—is to ensure that the prices paid by the NHS for its medicines are fair and reasonable. As I have said before, deciding what is a fair and reasonable price is a process involving many factors, one of which is the amount of profit made by suppliers and manufacturers from the sale of medicines to the NHS.
However, it is not the only one. The amendment points to the importance of research and development to pharmaceutical products. That importance has long been recognised by the NHS. In the pharmaceutical industry the cost of that research and development is high and is met from profit. It is reasonable to take account of research and development costs because the NHS ultimately benefits from the supply of safe, effective and innovative medicines. I assure the Committee that the
1516
recognition of the importance of research and development will continue in the event of the introduction of a statutory scheme. I am not sure that it is necessary to have such a commitment on the face of the Bill. The Secretary of State, in not having regard to the importance of research and development in setting prices and profits would be acting against the long-term interests of the NHS.
Amendment No. 178 is a similar but more comprehensive amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It raises a number of questions. First, there is the issue of whether it is desirable to have a statement of objectives on the face of the Bill. This is a difficult matter requiring some care. It runs the risk of the objectives being followed so closely that they restrict the operation of the Bill and make it unworkable. There is also the issue of whether it is desirable to give a separate set of objectives to one part of the Bill with the statutory scheme, and potentially other objectives set out in the voluntary scheme, which is not yet decided upon.
The objectives proposed, as they are laid out, seem perfectly acceptable principles—I would not wish to dissociate myself from any of them—but we would he setting the courts a near impossible task if we were to ask them to consider not simply whether a company's profits were in accordance with the rules of the scheme but whether the Secretary of State's actions could be considered best calculated to achieve the objectives set out here.
It is vital that we work on a co-operative basis with the pharmaceutical industry, and we hope that this co-operation will be through a voluntary agreement. It is in that agreement that a statement of objectives, such as those proposed, should reside. They are then capable of change in the light of changed circumstances and renegotiation. I do not believe that it would help to have an inflexible statement of objectives on the face of the Bill if they were subsequently relied on as a key to the operation of the legislation.
However, I have some sympathy with regard to the issue of whether we could find a way of placing on the face of the Bill some general principles against which a Secretary of State would work in drawing up a statutory scheme. I hesitate to say that I am certain that we will be able to do that—because of the difficulties in the proposals before us—but I am certainly happy to take this away to see whether we can do something that is perhaps more specific than the reference to be reasonable in all the circumstances to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, referred and which is, I have to accept, fairly broad.
We shall look to see whether we can produce something that would not introduce possibly excessive scrutiny of the operation of what is intended to he a light touch scheme but something that more clearly defines general principles and general circumstances. Perhaps I may take this away and see whether we can bring something forward at a later stage.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I am most grateful to the Minister for her very forthcoming reply. In the light of what she said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
Clause 29 agreed to.
Clause 30 [Enforcement]:
[Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 177:
Page 23, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) An order under subsection (6) shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament in draft and shall be subject to approval by resolution of each House.").
The noble Earl said: Clause 30 lays down penalties for infringements of any of the regulations or directions which may arise from the preceding four clauses covering either the voluntary scheme or the statutory controls that may be imposed by the Secretary of State. This amendment is concerned not with the principle of having penalties but with the power of the Secretary of State to increase those penalties without further reference to Parliament. This is a Henry VIII power and it is one about which the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee expressed particular concern.
I strongly share that concern because, even setting to one side for a moment all our disagreements about statutory versus voluntary schemes, it seems wholly wrong for Parliament to give a blanket power to the Secretary of State to enable him to set literally any amount as a penalty. I do not believe that that kind of power exists in law in respect of other types of fine or penalty. Nor do I see any argument for it existing here, more especially because these penalties apply not just to the infringement of the statutory controls but to the voluntary scheme as well. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: We on the Liberal Democrat Benches strongly endorse the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and support the amendment. As he mentioned, it was strongly recommended by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and we believe that there are eminently good reasons for making subsection (6) subject to the affirmative procedure.
12.30 a.m.
Baroness Hayman: It is certainly our hope that the powers conferred under Clause 30(6) would not often be used over the lifetime of the Bill. The provision is there to ensure that the penalties for non-compliance with either the voluntary agreement or the statutory scheme should remain at appropriate levels.
Noble Lords are correct in pointing out their own view and that of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee that provisions such as these should be made by affirmative resolution. I referred earlier to our intention to bring forward amendments at a later stage to bring the Bill into line with the suggestions made by the Select Committee. Perhaps this is one of a number of areas in the Bill in which that could be done.
Perhaps the Committee will allow me just a moment's leeway, for the sake of completeness, to deal with other government amendments which it may be helpful to foreshadow that we intend to bring forward. I made
1518
reference earlier to issues surrounding unified budgets. We also want to bring forward an addition to the section of the Bill dealing with evasion of charges and fraud to cover the introduction of a penalty charge for non-payment of an NHS charge or the incorrect claiming of a benefit. That would respond to the recommendations of the efficiency scrutiny on fraud published in June 1997.
I also hope, in response to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, at Second Reading, to bring forward a government amendment on the issue of professional indemnity insurance and to introduce an amendment responding to concerns raised by the professions relating to the role of local medical and dental representative committees in relation to primary care Act pilots. I am grateful to the Committee for allowing me to make that clear as well as our intentions in relation to this amendment.
Lord Monro of Langholm: Will the noble Baroness make it clear that the affirmative resolution will apply to all of Part II relating to Scotland as well?
Baroness Hayman: I am not sure that I can make that crystal clear at this precise moment. We shall come to the provisions for Scotland shortly. As I understand it, the recommendation of the Select Committee and this amendment in particular deal only with Clause 30(6). Perhaps before we come to debate the Scottish provisions I can find out and respond to the noble Lord at that point.
Earl Howe: I am extremely grateful, as so often this evening, for the noble Baroness's constructive approach. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 30 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 178 not moved.]
Clause 31 [Controls: supplementary]:
[Amendments Nos. 179 to 182 not moved.]
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 182A:
Page 23, line 32, at end insert—
("(4A) In carrying out his duties under subsection (4), the Secretary of State shall publish criteria setting out what factors should be taken into account in determining prices and profits which would be reasonable in all the circumstances.
(4B) Prior to publishing the criteria referred to in subsection (4A) above, the Secretary of State shall consult such organisations as he considers appropriate.").
The noble Lord said: I shall be brief as this matter has partly been discussed. The amendment proposes that the Secretary of State should publish the criteria as to how he decides whether prices and profits are reasonable. It seeks to clarify the situation.
There is another problem that should be mentioned. According to the annual report of the Department of Health, the PPRS is meant both to secure cost-effective medicines for the NHS and to promote the pharmaceutical industry. There may be problems of conflict between the two. I am not sure which hat my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health

1519
would wear in deciding one against the other. This is a probing amendment. I hope that my noble friend can give me a satisfactory answer at this late hour.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful to my noble friend for the clarity and brevity with which he proposed the amendment. I believe he is right to point out that there will he judgments to be made in the objective of securing an agreement that is fair and reasonable both to the NHS as purchaser and to the industry as suppliers and manufacturers. I believe that it will he difficult but not impossible to do so. Previous schemes have managed to square that circle and I hope that the current negotiations will result in a scheme which both parties feel satisfies the need of the NHS for medicines at reasonable prices and of the industry for a reasonable profit base, not least for the reasons of supporting research and development to which reference has been made.
The amendment affects the Secretary of State's use of powers conferred under a statutory scheme. Such a scheme will be used where a voluntary scheme does not exist or where a company fails to abide by the terms of that agreement. Subsection (4) confines those powers to making any decisions by reference to the prices or profits which would be reasonable in all the circumstances. The amendment puts on the face of the Bill a requirement that the Secretary of State shall consult appropriately before deciding and publishing the criteria to be used in determining what prices or profits would be reasonable in all the circumstances.
In the event that the powers are exercised to provide for a statutory scheme of profit control, the statutory scheme would be entirely set out in regulations. Those regulations would have to be very detailed and formulaic and would contain the criteria to which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, referred. The Bill already provides for consultation with the industry body before the power is exercised and the Secretary of State is free to consult other bodies as he sees fit.
On the question of price control, the Secretary of State will again have to consult the industry body before exercising any power. He is also required to act reasonably, as required by general law and Section 31(4) of the Bill. To do so, a clear statement of the criteria which had been used in determining any price would be required. I hope that my noble friend will feel that the effects which the amendment seeks to put in place are already met, if not on the face of the Bill, in the regulations that would have to be made in the exercise of this power, and that on that basis he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Desai: I am grateful to my noble friend for that very clear exposition. I need only add that among the organisations that the Secretary of State should consult should be some consumer organisations. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 183 and 184 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 185:
Page 24, line 3, at end insert—
(""the supply of any health service medicine" means the supply of a health service medicine to the health service,
"the manufacture of any health service medicine" means the manufacture of such health service medicine as may be supplied to the health service.").
The noble Earl said: I believe that there is a problem with the definition of "health service medicine" in Clause 31(6). I take it that the Bill intends to limit the exercise of the powers contained in Clauses 26 to 31 to medicines actually supplied to the NHS. As drafted, however, the definition of "health service medicine", which is,
"a medicinal product … used to any extent for the purposes of the health service",
leaves open the possibility that the controls would apply to such a medicine even when it was being supplied to someone other than the NHS. In other words, it would, as a product, be subject to the controls, no matter whom it was sold to. Amendment No. 185 attempts to put the issue beyond doubt by including two new definitions in Clause 31. I hope that the Government will be receptive to them. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: I wish to indicate the strong support of these Benches for the amendment. The clause as currently drafted is too wide. The amendment specifies the area that the clause is meant to cover, which I am sure is the Government's intention.
Baroness Hayman: Both noble Lords have expressed concern about the breadth of the current definitions within this part of the Bill. Clauses 26 to 31 are concerned with the single aim of ensuring that the prices paid by the NHS for its medicines are fair and reasonable. We are not concerned to control prices or profits on the sales of private medicines. However, at the margins, particularly when dealing with wholesalers, the precise destination of every drug in any particular consignment is very difficult to identify. That is the problem in limiting the scope of the price and profit control powers created under the Bill to medicines sold to the health service rather than to categories of medicine that are used to a significant extent by the service. But the problem to which I have alluded arises under the present voluntary arrangements that have operated satisfactorily.
I recognise that something may be required to deal with this marginal problem, but I suggest to the Committee that it may be best dealt with in regulations. Perhaps I can look at whether there is a way of doing that. There are problems in the suggested amendment which would have equal and opposite difficulties in the clause as it is phrased at the moment.
Earl Howe: I am grateful to the Minister for indicating that she will give further thought to the issue. I realise from her response that it is not as clear-cut as I had thought. Nevertheless, there is an ambiguity in the wording which perhaps can be removed by a little

1521
judicious rephrasing. We can perhaps look forward to returning to this matter at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 31 agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clauses 32 to 35 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hayman: Perhaps I may take this opportunity before I sit down—if that is the appropriate way to put it—to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, on the question of the affirmative procedure and Part II of the Bill and the proposals that we make in Clause 36. This is a reserved matter and therefore will apply to Scotland. Clause 36 has no bearing on Part II of the Bill nor indeed on any of the Clauses 26 to 31. I hope that that deals with his point.
Clauses 32 to 35 agreed to.
Clause 36 [Repeal of law about fund-holding practices]:
[Amendment No.186 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Monro of Langholm: Perhaps one should take this opportunity to debate Clause 36 which, after all, represents a major change in the health service in Scotland. It removes the capability of fundholders. I believe that some explanation from the Minister is required as to the reasons for the inclusion of this provision in the Bill over and above what is in the White Paper. It is unfortunate that Part II of the Bill is being considered at 12.45 in the morning. This makes very substantial changes to the health service in Scotland. This is hardly the time to discuss such important issues. While I appreciate that fewer general practitioners in Scotland than in England undertook fundholding, I believe that fundholding has been a success in terms of what they have been able to achieve: less interference in general practice; a reduction in bureaucracy; less impact on costs; easier prescribing under fundholding; and the ease of organisation of entry into hospital. Before we say goodbye to fundholding as provided for in Clause 36, the Minister should be able to put forward a good case for this major change.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, for the trouble he has taken in writing to us this afternoon setting out in more easily understood English the more complicated changes to the Bill under the Scottish draftsmanship. That is appreciated. I am sure that all who read it in the future will wish that the Bill had been drafted in similar terms.
Having offered those words of thanks, perhaps when the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, replies, he will argue a case for Clause 36.
12.45 a.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: In discussion with my local health board I gained the impression that the few fundholding GPs had already accepted that the writing
1522
was on the wall. In view of the advanced state of preparations for implementing the Bill by 1st April, fundholding has virtually come to an end.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): I am grateful for the contribution by the noble Lord. He makes the case strongly that there are different circumstances in Scotland from the circumstances which existed in England. In England, 50 per cent. of GPs were standard fundholders in April 1997, with a further 7 per cent. in community fundholding. Similarly, in Wales, 47 per cent. of GPs were standard fundholders, with a further 6 per cent. in community fundholding.
However, in Scotland, although about 50 per cent. of GP practices had joined fundholding by 1998, more than 30 per cent. were in the primary care purchasing scheme, the Scottish equivalent of community fundholding, but less than 20 per cent. as standard fundholders. In Scotland the new structures that we are building will be on the same principles as those in Wales and England. They will provide strong organisational support for the development of primary care and will involve local doctors and nurses in planning and influencing the high quality of services for patients.
Members may ask: why then the difference? The difference in the two models reflects the different starting points in Scotland compared with England and Wales, as well as the differences in culture and historic structure of the National Health Service. For example, purchasing of secondary services by GPs was much less widespread in Scotland, where the majority of GPs who had joined fundholding were community fundholders. There are also substantial parts of Scotland with rural and dispersed populations such as the Highlands and Orkney, the Shetlands and the Western Isles, where competition between providers was never really a reality. In Scotland we have a different situation and it deserves different treatment.
I turn to Amendment No. 186. We have made a clear commitment to end the internal market and replace it with modern arrangements founded on the principles of partnership and co-operation. Clause 36 abolishes the GP fundholding system which formed a major part of the old internal market. The regulations were laid on 17th February to bring the existing GP fundholding schemes in Scotland to an end on 31st March. A single remaining form of fundholding will operate from then until all fundholding is abolished, as we intend, through the provisions of this Bill. Clause 36 enables us to remove this remaining form of fundholding, which we intend to do as soon as practically possible. Fundholders recognise that it is now time to move on. We believed that it is important not only to signal the end of GP fundholding as swiftly as possible, but also to ensure that transitional arrangements are in place for as short a time as possible.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 187:
After Clause 36, insert the following new clause—
ALL SCOTLAND HEALTH BOARD
(".—(1) Section 2 of the 1978 Act (health boards) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (3) after "order", in the first place it occurs, there is inserted "create an all Scotland Health Board or".").
The noble and learned Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, in whose name the amendment stands, I rise to move it. In doing so, I preface my remarks with a view I know is shared by my noble friend; namely, to raise once again the general observation as to why a Bill containing the clauses to be found in Part II is being brought forward to this House on the very eve of devolution.
Having read the debate on Second Reading, I am well aware that the point was raised then by my noble friend, but I am not sure that the answer he received stands up. The answer was to the effect that the new primary care trusts will come into being on 1st April and need a full range of powers to do so. The legislation was necessary to bring that about. Whatever may come into being by 1st April 1999, one thing will certainly not; that is the Health Act 1999 based on the provisions which are to be found in the Bill currently before the Committee.
There is no possibility whatever that the Bill will have completed its parliamentary passage by that date. Therefore, the justification put forward on Second Reading, initially by the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, and subsequently adopted by the noble Baroness the Minister, does not hold water. If primary care trusts are to require some legal basis for their existence at 1st April 1999—and I do not dispute that that may prove to be necessary—they will not find it as at that date in the provisions of the Bill.
I have already referred to the fact that the Bill is brought forward on the eve of devolution coming into effect. As Members of the Committee will be aware, elections to the Scottish Parliament are due to take place on 6th May. All the parties have selected—in some cases, more accurately, appointed—those who are to stand as candidates at the election. Manifestos are being drafted; teams of election spokesmen are being appointed; and, I suspect, we are not far away from an embargo being placed on Scottish Office Ministers making any further official announcements or taking part in any further official visits in the immediate run-up to the election. Yet, here we are debating a Bill dealing with a major reorganisation of the National Health Service in Scotland. It is being considered initially by your Lordships' House and then in the fullness of time by another place.
From my reading of the Bill, the debate on Second Reading, the White Paper and surrounding documentation, I perceive nothing urgent in the subject matter of the clauses which requires the Bill to be enacted to include Part II. We will return to this matter, no doubt in somewhat greater detail, when the Committee comes to consider Amendments Nos. 219, 220 and 221.
The sharp political issue is that, if and when Part II becomes law, becomes part of an Act of Parliament, there may well be in position in Scotland a Scottish executive which is not composed entirely of members of the Scottish Parliament who are supporters of the present Government. It seems to me to be entirely wrong to place legislation on the statute book with no guarantee whatever that the people who will fall to bring it into effect and to implement it are full-blooded subscribers to the policy which lies behind the legislation.
There is also considerable force in the point made a few moments ago by my noble friend Lord Monro as to the lateness of the hour at which we are discussing this important issue. There is a certain irony in that one of the justifications for devolution, which I recognise has some force to it, is that it should do away with the need to discuss important legislation in the middle of the night. And yet here we are, on the very eve of devolution, doing that very thing and likely to be doing so, as I understand it, for not a little time yet.
Amendment No. 187 is a probing amendment which seeks to explore whether it is certain that there will always be a need to keep more than one health board in Scotland for individually defined geographical areas within Scotland.
In moving this amendment, I take the opportunity to renew the thanks of my noble friend Lord Monro to the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, for responding positively to the request made by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour on Second Reading. She asked for a Keeling Schedule, which—possibly for understandable reasons—has not been made available. But the documentation which has been produced has certainly assisted in considering these amendments and in arguing them before the Committee.
As some Members of the Committee may be well aware, there is in fact in existence a statute law database but it is available only to parliamentary draftsmen and officials. Therefore, when one is in opposition, trying to scrutinise legislation, one is to some extent at a disadvantage. That disadvantage has been removed substantially by the extremely helpful co-operation which government Ministers have given in relation to the question that was raised.
It is clear from information made available to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish that the Government propose to introduce two types of NHS trust in Scotland—the acute hospital trust and the primary care trust. It would be sensible to have a review of the boundaries and the number of health boards. One reason for the BMA putting forward this suggestion is to enable consideration to be given to the development of managed clinical networks, a concept which the Minister will be aware was discussed in a paper issued on 9th February of this year by the NHS Management Executive in Scotland.
As the Minister will know, managed clinical networks are defined as being linked groups of health professionals and organisations from primary, secondary and tertiary care working in a co-ordinated manner unconstrained by existing professional and health board

1525
boundaries to ensure equitable provision of high-quality clinical services throughout Scotland. If they fail to be introduced, there may well be an argument for restricting dramatically the number of health boards, possibly to a figure as low as one.
The amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish seeks to amend the existing provisions of Section 2(3) of the 1978 Act to make it clear on the face of the statute that the figure could be reduced to a figure as low as one.
Some Members of the Committee may feel that that is a somewhat dramatic option to place in the hands currently of the Secretary of State but, come 1st July, it will be in the hands of the First Minister. Those Members of the Committee who were present on Second Reading or who have read the Hansard reports of the debate will be aware that the noble Lord, Lord Ewing of Kirkford, went one step further and argued very cogently at col. 148 for the abolition of all health boards from the scene. He justified his argument on a number of grounds, including a substantial saving in cost and also, by virtue of his experience as chairman of a health board, his view that strategic health planning, healthcare for the future, can be carried out over much wider areas than has hitherto been possible under the system of health boards.
Whether or not one agrees with the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, there is clearly a case to be made for the First Minister to be given power to restrict the number of health boards dramatically, possibly to one or possibly remove them altogether. This amendment will provide that the first option is clearly stated on the face of the statute. I beg to move.
1 a.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My noble friends are keen to move health into the care of local government. However, I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation as to why we should not have one health board for Scotland, or indeed none at all, and instead have a situation where all the hospital trusts and primary care trusts report directly to the Scottish Minister for Health.
Lord Monro of Langholm: The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, is about the only chap in this building who thinks that health should be put entirely in the care of local government. As the Minister who introduced area health boards in 1972 when we reorganised the health service in Scotland into a single-tier system, which has worked well ever since, I shall be sorry to see them go. But what worries me is that we are setting up under the area health board an acute and primary care trust. It will devolve its powers into the co-operatives for managing the practices. One begins to wonder what the area health boards are going to do. I have been told that they will be there for the grand issues of long-distance planning and finance but that day-to-day management of the health service in any one area will be in the hands of the acute and primary care trusts.
1526
What worries me in relation to the amendment is the sheer geographical size of Scotland. For instance, the area health board in my area stretches from Gretna Green to Stranraer and from the Solway Firth right the way up to Sanquhar and Kirkconnel. It is a huge area, enough for any organisation to run a health service within it. To think that that health hoard might stretch over the whole of Scotland fills me with some degree of awe.
The Minister must justify what each area health board is going to do within the current health board areas and what its relative operation control will be over the trusts and the co-operatives to be set up under the present Government's plans. Frankly, I feel we are setting up an extremely bureaucratic situation that is going to be of no advantage to the poor patient who is there to receive the benefits of the health service and at the end of the day we will ask why on earth we have gone through this enormous somersault and reorganisation of the health service in Scotland which is entirely unjustifiable.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Briefly I must add my voice to protest at the way the Government are treating Scotland. It is now one o'clock in the morning and we are discussing an enormously important part of the Bill which turns the health service in Scotland upside down. We are doing it when it should be the job of the Scottish Parliament, as my noble and learned friend said.
My noble and learned friend mentioned the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Ewing. He is not in his place; I do not believe he has been here today so presumably he does not wish to pursue this matter. However, he pointed out that in Fife, the health board costs £6.1 million per year. That, by my calculation, is a middle-sized health board. It is one of 15, so it may well be that the running costs alone of the health boards are something of the order of £90 million. That is a lot of money. As the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, stated, the health boards will have two roles: they will be bankers, allocating money from the Scottish Parliament to the trusts in their area, and they will do strategic planning, which is easy to do nowadays on a larger scale.
The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who, I believe, aspires to be a member of the Scottish Parliament, can see the Scottish Parliament wanting to do that job. I could see his eyes sparkling at the idea, and he will not be alone. Would the Government not be right to make that possible? I support the amendment.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I am glad to hear that Members of the Committee opposite found the information that we were able to supply of some use to them. It was with great humility and diffidence that I offered guidance in these matters to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, or even to the noble Lord, Lord Ewing, well versed as they are in Scottish Office matters.
I take the point too made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. However, I believe that we are due to have a debate on the devolution provisions on Thursday. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that I do not think it is entirely the doing of this side of the House that we are still here at five past one. However, I should like to take in some of the points raised by the

1527
noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay. I want to make clear that the Bill does not represent a sudden rush to try to get proposals through before devolution. On the contrary, it sets the seal on a process which has been going on since before we took office.
Many of our changes have been achieved within existing legislation. Those include reducing the number of National Health Service trusts in Scotland to 28; introducing co-operative mechanisms to promote partnership through the development of health improvement programmes and the setting up of the clinical standards board for Scotland to assure quality.
The provisions in the Bill deal only with those few matters where the law needs to be changed; that is, formally abolishing GP fundholding; enabling the appropriate National Health Service trust to take responsibility for family health services under Part II of the 1978 Act; changing trusts' financial arrangements; and imposing a duty of quality on the National Health Service in Scotland.
The proposals come as no surprise. They were all signalled clearly in our manifesto at the 1997 general election. They were set out in detail in our White Paper, Designed to Care published in December 1997. The National Health Service in Scotland is already building on them.
I turn to the amendment. There is nothing in the existing Section 2(3) of the 1978 Act to stop the Secretary of State creating an all-Scotland health board should he wish to do so. The noble Lord has set out what he believes would be the advantages of such a step, but I am not convinced. The Government believe that health boards continue to have a key role in bringing a local dimension to the planning and commission of services.
The national perspective is provided by the management executive of the National Health Service in Scotland. It is difficult to see how a pan-Scotland health board and the management executive could sensibly co-exist. I am surprised that the Bill, and the arrangements set out in Designed to Care, should be read as bringing about a reduction in the role of health boards. The White Paper is about making clear the different roles within the National Health Service.
In broad terms, health boards are responsible for strategy and planning. National Health Service trusts are responsible for the delivery of services. That takes forward, in a constructive way, the distinction between the two roles introduced in 1991. Health boards have a number of specific roles which are of great importance to the health and well-being of the populations. Apart from distributing resources to trusts, they are responsible for assessing the health needs of the local populations.
As the recent White Paper, Towards a Healthier Scotland, also pointed out, health boards are responsible for protecting and improving the health of the resident populations in promoting public health issues and ensuring fully co-ordinated community care policies. Health boards work closely with local authorities. The Government are anxious to encourage working across the boundary between health and social care. The effect
1528
of delivery of healthcare often depends on the active co-operation of other agencies, especially local authority social work departments.
Whatever structure we adopt, some boundary will exist. The important principle must be that the patient's care comes first, and the patient should not be aware that there is a boundary. To achieve this, the National Health Service in Scotland and local authorities need to develop close working relationships, and we are consulting on this aspect. The paper, Modernising Community Care: an Action Plan was published last October. It emphasises better and faster decision-making and caring for people in their own homes. Any changes thought necessary will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. Health boundaries must not act as constraints on the care provided for patients. There is increasing emphasis on designing services from the patient's perspective, and the re-design of services to suit the needs of the patient does not allow health board boundaries to get in the way.
A further example of the work of the acute services review, which reported last June, and one of the fundamental assumptions, was that the review should not be constrained by health board boundaries. Its key recommendation is the development of managed clinical networks and anticipates that many of these will operate at regional and national levels. Just as people want to be treated locally if possible, I believe that they also want services planned at a local level where it makes more sense to do so. Health boards have the expertise to assess the needs of the local populations.
I have sought to explain why the Government take the view that a single health board covering the whole of Scotland is not appropriate. Nevertheless, as I mentioned at the start, there is nothing in the existing legislation to prevent a future government making that change if they choose. It will of course be open to the Scottish Parliament to consider the number of health boards and their role. The amendment is therefore unnecessary, and I hope that the noble Lord will not press it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am very grateful to the Minister for his full explanation. I fully accept two of the main points he made. These proposals have been heralded for some time. A number appear in the Labour Party manifesto, some in the White Paper. However, as he rightly says, this is probably more a matter for debate on Thursday, and also the fact that they have come too late. However, there is force in the final point he makes that the legislation as drafted could be construed as allowing the Secretary of State by order to vary the number down to one. With that assurance from him that the Government accept that that is the correct construction of the existing legislation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
Clauses 37 and 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 [Constitution of NHS trust boards]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 188A:
Page 31, line 3, after ("trust)") insert (", at least two of whom shall be a registered medical practitioner and a registered nurse or midwife,").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No.188A seeks to amend Clause 39 to provide that Section 12A of the 1978 Act would have additional words inserted to the effect that at least two of the executive directors, that is, directors who are employed at the trust, shall be in the first instance a registered medical practitioner and a registered nurse or midwife. The amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish after consultation and has the full support of the Royal College of Nursing.
The purpose of the amendment is quite clear: it is to ensure that health professionals, including a registered medical practitioner and a nurse or midwife, are represented at executive level on each of the National Health Service primary care trusts and acute hospital trusts in Scotland.
If acceptable to your Lordships, the amendment would enshrine in statute the commitment by the Government that there should be a nurse director as one of the executive directors on the board of each of the trusts. The matter is dealt with in a number of places in the White Paper. Page 12 indicates that the Government are committed to giving clinicians who work in the hospitals, along with those who use their services, a bigger say in management.
Clearly the amendment fits in with the manner in which the policy is described. When one turns to Section 5 of the White Paper, Designed to Care, the text makes it clear in a number of places that one aspect of the Government's policy is to involve, to a greater extent than is said to be occurring at the moment, those involved in the delivery of clinical services in the arrangements set down for managing them.
Perhaps I will be forgiven if I restrict what I quote from the White Paper to what is to be found in paragraph 75 of the section which deals with primary care trusts. This refers back to the emergence of new collaborative working methods and the benefits that they bring to patients and practitioners alike and says that,
"primary and community health services will be brought together under a single unifying structure in the form of Primary Care Trusts. The establishment of these Primary Care Trusts will build on the strengths of general practice and give a voice to community nursing and other primary care professionals managing and delivering care to their local communities. In this way primary care will be able to pool resources, work across organisational boundaries, and develop shared aims and objectives which will underpin the drive towards better quality of care for patients".
As I said, in view of the lateness of the hour, there is no great need to review in detail what is said in other paragraphs in the White Paper, especially in the section dealing with acute hospital trusts.
The main point to be made in support of this amendment is, as I have already mentioned, that the Government have given a commitment that there will be a nurse executive director on each primary care trust and acute hospital trust in Scotland. If that commitment has
1530
been given—as it has—it seems entirely logical that the same should apply to a registered medical practitioner. Therefore, the amendment was tabled by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish to give the Government the opportunity to fulfil that commitment and to give it statutory recognition in legislation which, as I understand it, the Government propose should be available for the Scottish executive to implement once it is elected in May and takes up its executive responsibilities on 1st July.
If the Government do not accept this opportunity, that might involve their sending a most unfortunate signal not only to the health professionals in Scotland but also to the people in Scotland as to whether or not their word can be trusted in health service matters. I beg to move.
1.15 a.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: I have two points on the trusts that I should like to put to the Minister. First, this Government seem to have got themselves into an inflexible position over the Peach/Nolan recommendation on appointments to public boards, bodies and quangos. Can the noble Lord tell me what the position is over the trusts and the area health board; and, indeed, the co-operative? For example, do those bodies have to go through the Peach/Nolan recommendation of having three recommendations for each appointment? That would mean that you would have to have 36 names for a 12-member health board in order to choose 12. Further, who will put forward the recommendation and does it apply to the chairman appointed by the Secretary of State?
Secondly, the information paper that we have recommends one co-operative to a health board. However, does the noble Lord really appreciate the size of these co-operatives in the geographical sense that I indicated in terms of my own Dumfries and Galloway health board? We should bear in mind that there will be a number of professionals on the body. I refer to general practitioners. Will they have time to tour these huge areas attending bureaucratic meetings and to manage these co-operatives? That requires skill and time and will cost a lot of money. Will the Minister answer those two points?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am a little concerned that particularly as regards the primary care trusts the amendment gives undue influence to doctors, nurses, registered nurses or midwives. The allocation of two of the five posts to those professions strikes me as unfair on dentists, pharmacists, optometrists, health visitors, district nurses and mental health staff. Does the Minister agree with me on that?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I presume the Minister will tell us that nurses and medical practitioners will take part in the co-operatives and that therefore the Government are not obliged to say that they will have to be executive directors of the primary care trusts. However, we are told that a commitment has been given to nurses. If the Government do not intend to put that on the face of the Bill, why not? That is the question the Minister has to answer.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay of Drumadoon, has

1531
explained, his amendment seeks to ensure that nurses and doctors are on the National Health Service trust boards. I hope I can satisfy him on this matter. The White Paper, Designed to Care, signalled our intention to modify the existing arrangements with regard to National Health Service trust boards as part of the modernisation of the National Health Service in Scotland.
Provision for the broad composition of a board is set out in the 1978 Act. This sets out that the board consists of directors, including a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State, and executive and non-executive directors. We specified that non-executive members, or trustees as we would now like to call them, should be representative of the community as a whole rather than representative of a single staff group. Membership of trust boards is specified by secondary legislation and this allows for a greater degree of flexibility in the future, if it is necessary. That would allow change in the composition of a board. Currently every trust board must include a medical practitioner and a registered nurse or midwife. We have no intention of changing that. The Government obviously set great store by the contribution of nurses and doctors but a difficulty would arise if that led to other groups seeking similar treatment. We believe that could lead to excessive rigidity.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro, asked how the Nolan rules might apply to appointments to health boards. I do not have an immediate answer on that point. In principle I believe that such appointments probably will be subject to those rules. Indeed the Scottish health service arrangements were probably seen as some kind of model for the Nolan rules. However, as I understand the position, the local healthcare co-operatives are not subject to the Nolan rules because they are co-operative groups of independent GPs and are part of the management structure of the primary care trusts.
As regards whether GPs have time to manage the co-operatives, the Government have provided packages of support to release GPs from other duties. It is our belief that the positive response that we have had so far from the medical community in Scotland shows that people, perhaps having weighed those options, have decided that this is not just a workable but also an attractive proposition. I hope that with the reassurance I have given, the noble and learned Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I am grateful to my noble friends Lord Monro of Langholm and Lady Carnegy of Lour for their support in this matter. I am also grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his explanation of the Government's position. Far from reassuring me, the explanation gives me further cause for concern. If, as the Government point out, this is dealt with as a matter of secondary legislation and they have no objection in principle or policy to the amendment, there does not seem to be any good reason why the commitment that was given should not be honoured and entrenched in primary legislation, which, as the Minister will be aware, is far more difficult to change than secondary legislation. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, raised whether other
1532
health service practitioners should be included in the primary legislation. It is entirely a matter for him whether he wishes to table an amendment to that effect at Report stage.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: If these two professions were placed on the face of the Bill, would it not in future prevent other professions being added as directors?
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Not as I understand the current legislation, which was explained to us in the letter sent by the Minister for which we are grateful. But the fact that on the face of primary legislation it is necessary to have two types of health service professionals as executive directors does not preclude, as I understand the law, the Secretary of State or the First Minister bringing forward an order which also required chiropodists, dentists or whomsoever to be on the board; nor does it prevent such people being appointed, whether or not they are mentioned in primary or secondary legislation. Therefore I have to say to the Minister that I find his response unsatisfactory and I shall seek to test the opinion of the Committee.
1.27 a.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 188A) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 2; Not-Contents, 29.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Mackay of Drumadoon. L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Hacking, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hardie, L.

Amos, B.

Hayman, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hoyle, L.

Bach, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Desai, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Donoughe, L.

[Teller.]

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Monkswell, L.

Gilbert, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Sawyer, L.

Grenfell, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 189:
Page 31, line 6, at end insert—
("(2) In section 12A of the 1978 Act (NHS trusts), after subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) The chairman and trustees of every NHS trust shall, on appointment, be resident in or employed in the area covered by the trust."").
The noble and learned Lord said: Again I rise to move this amendment in place of my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. It seeks to probe the

1533
Government and elicit from them details of their policy as to how well connected with the local area covered by a particular health service trust, whether a primary care trust or an acute hospital trust, the non-executive directors of the trust—namely, the trustees, who include the chairman—must be. In replying to the previous amendment the Minister touched on the connection between the non-executive directors and the local community—not that they formally represent members of the community, but that they should have a connection with them.
As presently drafted, Clause 39 seeks to amend Section 12A of the 1978 Act in the terms to which I have drawn attention. It is obviously unnecessary that this amendment should cover executive directors; by definition they are employed by the National Health Service trust concerned and are therefore employed in the area for which the trust has responsibility.
I trust that the Government will not dispute the importance of non-executive directors being seen to act on behalf of the people who live and work in the area in respect of which a trust has responsibility. That is seen to be their primary role, as it were, rather than becoming too involved in the day-to-day management of the provision of healthcare services, which is a matter for the professionals who are employees of the trust, whether or not those professionals also be executive directors.
Such identification with the needs of the local people is important. Those who work or reside in an area are the potential patients of a trust. It is appropriate, and indeed necessary, to have on that trust people who will speak and argue on their behalf rather than take a particular position on behalf of the employees of the trust, whom other people are there to represent.
It seems to me, and it certainly seemed to my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish, that Section 12A of the 1978 Act, if it is to be amended as the Government propose by Clause 9, would benefit from an amendment which required the chairman and non-executive directors, the trustees, to be either resident in or employed in the area. I beg to move.
Lord Monro of Langholm: I support my noble friend in his amendment. So far as I am aware, the chairmen of area health boards would live in their own areas. That could, however, be difficult in the central belt of Scotland, where one is domiciled to the headquarters of one's health board. In the more rural areas that was always the case, certainly when I set up the original health boards.
Although 1st April is only about four weeks away, the Minister is not aware of how new members are to be appointed to trusts or to the board. I know from experience, as I am sure does he, that it sometimes takes months to obtain the appropriate appointments to boards and trusts, going through all the formalities and the careful and diplomatic soundings beforehand. It seems to me that if area health board chairmen or members of boards or trusts are about to be appointed, the Minister should have a great deal of information in the pipeline. Yet he is not aware whether or not he has to invoke the
1534
Nolan recommendations. I hope that before we finish the debate tonight he can go a little further with regard to what the position will be in four weeks' time.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It may well be that in central Scotland, as my noble friend said, it is not very easy to keep membership to those living within the border of each trust. But the point is important. My research tells me that quite a number of current non-executive directors of trusts tend to "go native" and become so absorbed into the system that they begin to act like professional administrators and are therefore not as good a foil as they should be to those administrators. If they knew that they had to live in the area and therefore were speaking for the area and their minds were addressed to working entirely within the boundaries of the trust, that should help. I hope that the Government are interested in the amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: If this new statutory requirement were to be put on the face of the Bill, I should prefer it to say that the chairman and trustees should be "domiciled in" rather than "resident in". "Domiciled" means that it is their first and main home, whereas "resident" could refer to a convenient pied-à-terre, which would defeat the purpose of this statutory requirement.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Monro, as I said earlier, I believe that the Scottish health boards have been something of a model for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Nolan. I can confirm that health boards and trusts are subject to Nolan and that people have been appointed to new trusts under the Nolan principles.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Mackay, has explained his wish to ensure that there should be proper representation on all the boards. We accept that there should be strong links between those appointed to a trust board and the community which the trust primarily exists to serve. Geographical considerations such as this are already a fundamental part of the appointment process, as has been acknowledged. We have achieved much of what the noble and learned Lord wants without the need for legislation, and I am sure that that will continue to be the case in future.
However, a trust often provides services to a wider catchment population than lives in its immediate vicinity. That is particularly true where a trust provides services from a hospital located near the boundary of a health board. The amendment could have the effect of denying the trust the services of the best candidate for the job simply because he or she does not reside or work in the trust's area and is not prepared to take up residence there.
The example of the acute hospital trusts in Glasgow perhaps makes the point most clearly. From 1st April there will be two acute hospital trusts in Glasgow, one providing services primarily in the north of the city, the other providing services primarily in the south. In many respects they will be complementary. Patients from all over Glasgow and indeed from outside the city will be treated in both trusts. I am sure that the noble and

1535
learned Lord does not want potential trustees in Glasgow—especially the original proposer of the amendment, who lives in the lovely, leafy south side of Glasgow—to have to uproot themselves from north of the Clyde to south of the Clyde or vice versa. I repeat that the Government have every sympathy with the principle behind the noble and learned Lord's amendment but, for the reasons I have given, I hope he will not feel the need to pursue it.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Once again, I am very grateful to the Minister for his response. He clearly accepts the general principle which lies behind the amendment, but he makes the valid point that there are practical problems when a hospital is located near a boundary. My noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour also has reservations as to whether it would be appropriate for such a provision to be on the face of the Bill. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 39 agreed to.
Clause 40 agreed to.
1.45 a.m.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 190:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause —
LOCAL HEALTHCARE COOPERATIVES
(". In Schedule 7A to the 1978 Act, after paragraph 13 there is inserted—
"13A. If no local healthcare cooperative has been set up in any part of an NHS trust's area, the trust shall have power to set one up and keep it in place."").
The noble and learned Lord said: Amendment No. 190 seeks to insert a new clause into the Bill and by virtue thereof to add provisions to Schedule 7A to the 1978 Act to the effect that,
"If no local healthcare co-operative has been set up in any part of an NHS trust's area, the trust shall have power to set one up and keep it in place".
Local healthcare co-operatives are discussed and described in the following terms on page 42 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill:
"These will be voluntary networks of GPs and other primary care professionals working together to plan and provide primary and community health services and provide support for general practice. Local Health Care Co-operatives will be established from April 1999 as part of the management structure of primary care NHS trusts … and will draw their powers and functions from these trusts. They do not therefore require separate legislative provision".
I have already referred to the practical problem that may arise if this legislation is not in force by 1st April of this year. Clearly, it will not be in force then, and I do not repeat what I said earlier. But I seek to probe the Minister on two general lines. First, why should the setting up of these networks be an entirely voluntary exercise on the part of GPs and other primary care professionals who work in a particular locality? If the idea of the networks has merit and they are designed to play an important role in a reorganised National Health Service in Scotland, why is power not given to an NHS
1536
trust—in particular the chairman and directors—to set one up if it believes that it is to the benefit of the people to whom it has overall responsibility for the provision of healthcare? Secondly, how can such a voluntary organisation have powers and functions, which I assume to be statutory, if it is a body that has no statutory basis? That point is entirely separate from the point about the date of 1st April which I mentioned earlier. I believe that these matters should be clarified in response to Amendment No. 190. I beg to move.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I believe that the local health co-operative must be assembled by the primary care practitioners. After all, if the chairman of the primary care trust sets it up but nobody wishes to attend, it will not really happen.
Leaving that aside, in my view the Bill does not set out clearly enough the fact that a local health co-operative should have a coterminous boundary with a local authority, not because my noble friends wish to move health into local authority control but because the local health co-operative alongside the local authority, and the social work department in particular, will need to work hard to plan services. To do that with perhaps more than one local authority may prove to be extremely difficult. I am concerned that the Forth Valley health board is proposing to have only two. I do not think that what is called the North Forth Valley Local Healthcare Co-operative will be able to liaise effectively with Clackmannanshire and the district of Stirling without some confusion.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: The amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord would go against a key principle of these reforms. The local health care co-operatives are established on a collaborative and co-operative basis between GPs and other primary care professionals. They are entirely voluntary. After a widespread consultative process we believed that that was the form closest to the culture which had been demonstrated distinctively by the medical profession in Scotland in contradistinction to the majority of the profession in England.
There is a different attitude in Scotland. That was thoroughly tested, I believe, both by experience and consultation. Therefore we believe that we can build on what we have seen to be the clear wish of the profession in Scotland, and not south of the Border. We want to put the frontline clinicians in the lead in delivering and managing services in the community.
The local healthcare co-operatives are our way of delivering this commitment in Scotland. The role we envisage for the primary care National Health Service trusts is that of supporting and developing the co-operatives as primary care clinicians come together to form them. But these co-operatives will be discrete management organisations within the primary care NHS trust. They will be non-statutory bodies and will draw all their functions from the powers of the trust. Their composition, structure and funding will be developed locally. The primary care NHS trust will have overall accountability for the services and budgets managed by the co-operatives. Co-operative leaders will be part of

1537
the management structure of the primary care NHS trust. We are receiving clear indications that a significant majority of GPs and other primary care professionals are showing interest in developing the local healthcare co-operative across Scotland. On that basis we are content that GPs and other primary care professionals will be able to join a local healthcare co-operative to develop co-ordinated services for their area. Yet again, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, in his analysis of the situation.
Having made the point that the fundamentals here have to be collaboration and co-operation, and that this cannot be imposed on professionals, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Before the Minister sits down, he said that he agreed with the noble Earl. I had understood the noble Earl to say that he thought the co-operatives should be coterminous with local authority boundaries. Surely you could not have such a body stretching from Brechin to Forfar to Pitlochry? One could not expect doctors to drive those distances.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I apologise if I gave the wrong impression. I was drawing on what I thought was the noble Earl's view—I share it with him—that this was based on a collaborative and co-operative spirit among the professionals in Scotland.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: I shall not enter into the debate as to whether the noble Earl's contribution supported my position or that of the Minister. I leave that for others to resolve.
While I fully accept that the use of the term "co-operative" implies a measure of consensual agreement among those involved, I remain apprehensive that, if in a particular locality—I deliberately choose a different word from "area" because that may or may not be related to the geographical area in respect of which a primary care trust may have responsibility—for whatever reasons, good or bad, the primary care professionals choose not to enter into a co-operative and a different view is taken by the trust, it may well be that, because of the local difficulties, the patients in the locality will miss out on what I understand to be the benefits of a major plank of the Government's proposals.
I do not seek to press the amendment. It was designed to explore the Government's position. I have received a reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 41 [Duty of quality]:
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon Lord Mackay of Drumadoon moved Amendment No. 190A:
Page 31, line 18, after ("Board") insert (", local health care cooperative").
The noble and learned Lord said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 190B. The two amendments seek to amend Clause 41 in line 18 by adding to the list of those who will be under a duty to put and keep in place arrangements for the purpose of monitoring and improving the quality of healthcare any local healthcare
1538
co-operative which may be established, or any independent provider. I understand that both amendments were tabled by my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish after discussion with and with the full support of the Royal College of Nursing.
The reasoning behind the amendments is self-explanatory. Whether or not a local healthcare co-operative has any statutory basis for its existence, or whether or not any independent healthcare provider operates in accordance with some statutory appointments procedure, they are both operating in exactly the same field as health boards, special health boards and national health trusts. The Royal College of Nursing believes that every patient who might benefit from and receive treatment from those engaged in co-operatives or operating as independent healthcare providers has the right to a minimum standard of quality, care and safety, irrespective of the particular sector from which that care comes.
As the Minister may be well aware, many large independent sector healthcare providers already subscribe to quality assurance schemes and it should not therefore be particularly difficult or onerous to publish details of their arrangements for monitoring and improving the quality of the healthcare they provide. It is also important for patients that smaller independent sector providers are not left behind in the drive which rightly continues to improve quality in the delivery of services in the health centre.
The Royal College of Nursing believes that the independent healthcare sector should not find itself unwittingly using outdated practices or delivering poor standards. The same applies to those who may group together on a voluntary basis in a healthcare co-operative of the nature we have been discussing in the last few amendments.
I find it difficult to imagine why there should be any objection to people who will be assisting in the provision of healthcare being under the same duties of quality as those imposed on health boards, special health boards and national health trusts. For those reasons, I beg to move.
2 a.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: This question of independent sector hospitals, homes and so on is extremely important. We had the discussion in the context of England and Wales and we were told that the whole matter had to wait until the Select Committee in another place had finished discussing it. Does that Select Committee relate to Scotland or not?
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Perhaps I should clarify for the Committee my position on local health co-operatives which are mentioned in Amendment No. 190A. I have no objection whatever to there being two or more co-operatives in a local authority area. However, I object to the idea of having two local authorities in a co-operative area.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Perhaps I may first answer the question from the noble Baroness,

1539
Lady Carnegy. The Select Committee will not cover Scotland but the Scottish Parliament will take into account its findings. I am grateful also for the explanation of the concern in relation to the local boundaries.
Amendment No. 190A is intended to ensure that the primary care services are covered by a duty of quality. That is the Government's intention. The clause as drafted already achieves that objective. The local healthcare co-operatives will be non-statutory organisations. They are an integral part of a Scottish primary care NHS trust and will thus be subject to the duty of quality. Therefore, it is unnecessary to refer to that on the face of the Bill.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Before the Minister sits down, can I take it that that answer applies also in respect of Amendment No. 190B?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: In relation to that amendment, I do not believe that it would be appropriate to attempt to use the current Bill to place new statutory obligations on private sector healthcare institutions. That will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to consider in due course. No doubt it will wish to take into account the conclusions of the Health Committee's current inquiry into the regulation, monitoring and inspection of healthcare outside the NHS which my noble friend Lady Hayman mentioned when dealing with Clause 13 last Thursday.
The guidance on clinical governance that was issued to the NHS in Scotland last November makes it clear that its provisions apply to services that the NHS commissions from other bodies. Thus, where the NHS contracts with a provider from the independent sector to provide a service to NHS patients, those contracts should be used to make sure that those clinical governance principles are applied. With those assurances, I ask the noble and learned Lord to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Mackay of Drumadoon: Once again, I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying his position on the two amendments. As regards Amendment No. 190A, he argues—and I see the force of the argument—that the amendment is unnecessary because anybody involved in a local healthcare co-operative would, as I understand it, be operating under the auspices of a particular trust.
I understand his response to Amendment No. 190B, which was to the effect that that is a matter which should be left to the Scottish Parliament. I must say, with respect to the Minister, that those two different answers seem to highlight the concern that I raised when I first entered into the debate on this series of amendments. However, we shall clearly return to that matter on Thursday. In those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 1908 not moved.]
The Earl of Mar and Kellie The Earl of Mar and Kellie moved Amendment No. 191:
Page 31, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) In implementing and maintaining the arrangements mentioned in subsection (1) each body shall have regard to any guidance issued for England and Wales by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.").
The noble Earl said: Every other Scottish proposer of an amendment has had a go at this late hour, so Members of the Committee should not imagine that I shall not. It is always a joy to move an amendment after two o'clock in the morning. I am therefore not surprised that the Consultative Standing Committee recommended standing orders for the Scottish Parliament which will be, curiously, held in the "daylight" hours. One of the features of this Bill is that it is little if at all known in Scotland, and when we debate it at this hour, I am not surprised.
Amendments Nos. 191 and 192 have the purpose of clarifying and extending the duty of quality which is rightly being imposed on health boards and NHS trusts. I am well aware that the legislative provision for the health service in Scotland has been presented in stripped-down or minimalist form; and I understand the Government's position on legislating for Scotland in this form. Generally it is right that the Scottish Parliament should have an early opportunity to put its own stamp on the NHS, and to do so in early time. This will be appropriate as health and education vie with each other to be the most important public concerns to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament.
Members of the Committee will have noticed that my amendments have the effect of adding to the minimalist functions laid down in the Bill. That may be worthwhile in this instance. Normally, I am in favour of diversity within the constituent parts and jurisdictions of the United Kingdom. However, during the Committee stages of the Crime and Disorder Act last year, I was able to argue—successfully as it happens—that the Youth Justice Board for England and Wales should be required to study systems of youth justice in other jurisdictions. I clearly had in mind the Scottish children's panels.
It can be argued therefore that health boards and NHS trusts should be required to evaluate themselves against the criteria set down by NICE for England and Wales, though NICE has no authority in Scotland. This could be seen as a useful temporary measure, at least until the Scottish Parliament has enacted its first National Health Service (Scotland) Act.
The second amendment would impose a duty to publicise how the boards and trusts have performed against the NICE criteria and against the expectations that have been sought from the public, from users and carers. That form of public evaluation and identification of future solutions will bring a real relevance to reports on the NHS, its boards and trusts. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I understand why the noble Earl is keen to ensure that work on clinical effectiveness is shared throughout the United Kingdom. That clearly makes sense and the Government have every intention of encouraging that process.

1541
Our firm intention is that the national institute for clinical excellence will work closely with its counterparts in Scotland. Indeed, arrangements already exist to facilitate such collaboration. The remit of the national institute for clinical excellence (NICE) extends only to England and Wales. In Scotland the Clinical Resource and Audit Group (CRAG)—our acronyms are more rugged than theirs—and the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) have been in existence for some years performing equivalent functions to NICE. They will be joined later this year by the new Scottish Health Technical Assessment Centre (SHTAC).
The intention is that those Scottish bodies should work closely with NICE, avoiding duplication of effort where appropriate. Already working relationships exist across the Border and there is no need for that to be made a statutory requirement. Indeed, it would be puzzling if there was to be a statutory provision in Scotland relating to NICE without there being reference to the Scottish bodies performing similar functions. I can therefore reassure the noble Lord that guidance produced by NICE will not be denied to Scottish National Health Service bodies. Indeed, I expect guidance issued by our bodies in Scotland to be similarly available, where appropriate, to bodies in England and Wales.
I also appreciate the noble Lord's concern to ensure transparency and accountability by requiring National Health Service bodies to publish information on the arrangements they put in place under that duty. That is a concern that the Government share. However, we do not believe that it is necessary to specify this requirement on the face of the Bill. In guidance issued last November we made it clear that we expect National Health Service organisations in Scotland to publish annual reports on what they are doing to improve and assure quality through clinical governance arrangements. We shall be specifying what those reports should contain.
I do not believe that a statutory requirement for publication will be necessary to ensure that the bodies in question comply with the guidance. After the past hour, I very much look forward to my first appointment
1542
tomorrow morning, which is at the dentist. However, I hope that I have said enough to convince the noble Lord that he need not pursue his amendment.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: I am very pleased to hear from the Minister that what I have suggested will be happening on an informal basis. Therefore, while contemplating a head to head between CRAG and NICE, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 192 not moved.]
Clause 41 agreed to.
Clauses 42 to 45 agreed to.
Clause 46 [Disqualification of Part II practitioners]:
[Amendment No. 193 not moved.]
Clause 46 agreed to.

Financial Services and Markets
A message was brought from the Commons that they have ordered:
That a Select Committee of eight Members be appointed to join with a committee to be appointed by the Lords, to be the Joint Committee on Financial Services and Markets, to report on the consultative document on the draft Financial Services and Markets Bill presented by Her Majesty's Command on 21st December 1998 and any further draft of the Bill which may be laid upon the Table of both Houses by a Minister of the Crown;
That three be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee shall have power—

(i) to send for persons, papers and records;

(ii) to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House;

(iii)to report from time to time;

(iv) to appoint specialist advisers;

(v) to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom;

(vi) to communicate to any Select Committee appointed by either House its evidence and any documents of common interest;

That the Committee shall report by 30th April 1999.
House adjourned at eleven minutes after two o'clock.

  Water: DFID Resource Centre
  Water: DFID Resource Centre
  Northern Ireland: Rough Sleeping
  Northern Ireland: Rough Sleeping
  Northern Ireland: A.3 Portadown to Armagh Road
  Northern Ireland: A.3 Portadown to Armagh Road
  Belfast Agreement: Early Release of Prisoners
  Belfast Agreement: Early Release of Prisoners
  Imported Art Objects: VAT Increase
  Imported Art Objects: VAT Increase
  Royal Hospital, Haslar: Closure
  Royal Hospital, Haslar: Closure
  Tower Hamlets: Domiciliary Care
  Tower Hamlets: Domiciliary Care
  Genetically Modified Foods
  Genetically Modified Foods
  Knives Act 1997: Prosecutions
  Knives Act 1997: Prosecutions
  Scotland: Local Health Council Budgets
  Scotland: Local Health Council Budgets
  Scottish Business in the UK Parliament
  Scottish Business in the UK Parliament
  Scotland: Primary Education Funding
  Scotland: Primary Education Funding
  Scotland: Secondary Education Funding
  Scotland: Secondary Education Funding
  Scotland: Nursery Education Funding
  Scotland: Nursery Education Funding
  Scottish Parliament: Standing Orders
  Scottish Parliament: Standing Orders
  Scotland: Housing
  Scotland: Housing
  Brandy and Rum Butters
  Brandy and Rum Butters
  Forestry Income
  Forestry Income
  Provisional Seed Certification Scheme
  Provisional Seed Certification Scheme
  Veterinary Medicines: Human Suspected Adverse Reactions
  Veterinary Medicines: Human Suspected Adverse Reactions
  Sheep Dip Container Design
  Sheep Dip Container Design
  Controlled Goods: Production Overseas
  Controlled Goods: Production Overseas
  Medical Research Council Funding for Small Projects
  Medical Research Council Funding for Small Projects
  English Nature: Letter to Dr. Cunningham
  English Nature: Letter to Dr. Cunningham
  New Statutory Powers
  New Statutory Powers