Sitting of 15 March 1999

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

    European Elections
    Mr. Martin Linton: When he plans to launch a public information campaign on the voting system to be used in the European elections. [74577]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I am pleased to announce to the House that we will be spending £3.5 million on a publicity campaign to explain to the electorate the new voting system for the European elections, and to encourage voter participation and a higher turnout. The campaign will begin in May. I will be happy to discuss details of the campaign with the Opposition parties.
    Mr. Linton: May I assure my right hon. Friend that there will be a wide welcome for his announcement that money will be spent on a public information campaign? The voting system will be extremely simple—indeed, it will be simpler than the present one, since it simply requires an "X" against one party name. However, does he believe that £3.5 million will be enough, given that £5 million was spent in New Zealand on introducing a new voting system to a far smaller population? Does my right hon. Friend think that the five weeks between the end of the local elections and the European elections will be long enough to drive the point home to voters across the country—who have known in previous elections that their vote might not count towards the result—that, for the first time, they will have a chance, through the new system, to ensure that their vote does count towards the result and does result in representation?
    Mr. Straw: Everybody's vote counts in every election, whatever the system. I am glad that my hon. Friend has welcomed the substantial amount of money, which will enable us to run a television advertising campaign and provide a leaflet drop into every household. It should serve its purpose.Turnouts in previous European elections have been unacceptably low in this country and in some others, and we hope that they are raised. On my hon. Friend's point about the five weeks between the local and European elections, everyone would accept that it would be confusing if the publicity campaign were to begin before the local elections had been completed.
    690
    My hon. Friend will know that the New Zealand system is infinitely more complicated than the one we have introduced.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the Home Secretary confirm that in any literature that is put out to try to explain the iniquities of the proportional list system, there will be a paragraph setting out clearly why such a system would be wholly inappropriate for future Westminster elections, and confirming that it will never be adopted for future Westminster elections?
    Mr. Straw: No—because that may be otiose. It is very important that this is an all-party publicity campaign, and that is why I am happy to discuss the matter with spokespersons of the other main parties.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Will not the public search out their own information if they have a reason to do so? Whatever fancy franchise is operating, is not having 100 per cent. electoral registration—so that everyone has a vote that counts—of considerable importance in these and other elections? What progress has been made towards a modern electoral franchise system?
    Mr. Straw: As the system is new, we need to explain it and—as my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) made clear—its simplicity. It simply requires one cross to be put on the ballot paper against the party of one's choice. That causes us no difficulty, although it may cause Conservative Members some difficulty—particularly as two Conservative parties will be standing. We accept the need for modernisation of electoral registration, and we will make proposals shortly in respect of that.
    Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the public information campaign extend to Gibraltar, to explain to its citizens—who are citizens of the European Union—why they cannot have votes? Will the Home Secretary reconsider the matter and introduce a short Bill to give them votes in light of the European Court's decision, or will he extend one of the British constituencies—in London, for example—so that they get votes that way?
    Mr. Straw: The Government take extremely seriously the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. The question of a specific and separate franchise for Gibraltar was fully debated in this House during discussion of the European Parliamentary Elections Bill. That proposition was rejected. Meanwhile, we are considering how to implement the decision of the European Court, but there is no prospect of doing so before the June elections.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) said that the new system was simple. However, is there not tremendous scope for confusion, given that two Conservative parties will be standing—the Hagueite Conservatives and the pro-euro Conservatives?

    691
    May I now ask my right hon. Friend a serious question? The registrar of political parties is not obliged to give reasons for his decisions or to publish guidelines. Is not there a case, because of the confusion that has arisen, for the registrar to do that?
    Mr. Straw: It is not the system, but the message coming from the two Conservative parties that will be complicated. Even if we were to spend £100 million on an information campaign about that, we would not cut through the confusion at the heart of those parties.
    So taken was I with my hon. Friend's first question that I have forgotten his second one.
    Mr. Prentice: It was about the registrar.
    Mr. Straw: Oh yes, the registrar. A process is laid down in the Registration of Political Parties Act 1998 whereby if there is an argument, it is referred to a special Speaker's Committee. That is how these matters should be dealt with.
    Sir Norman Fowler: I hope that the Home Secretary will remind us how many Labour parties and Socialist parties are standing.
    Large areas and populations are involved in the elections. The Home Secretary will obviously confirm that provision will be made for re-counts, contrary to some of the current rumours. Does he recall that virtually no one in the House, from any party, argued in favour of the closed list? Following the European elections, will the Government continue to be committed to the closed list for future elections, or do they have an open mind?
    Mr. Straw: Of course there can, and no doubt may, be re-counts, at the point at which the votes are counted, in a constituency or a combination of constituencies.
    Mr. John Bercow: No, no.
    Mr. Straw: With respect, that is the appropriate point, because it is at that point that there is a reconciliation, or lack of it, between the total number of votes cast and the aggregate of votes cast for individual candidates at that level.
    Regarding whether we have an open mind, I have always made it clear that we stand ready to review the operation of the system in the light of the experience in June.

    Hospital Workers (Workplace Safety)
    Mr. Derek Twigg: What steps his Department is taking to protect NHS hospital workers from criminal attacks at work. [74578]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): Home Office officials are contributing to a cross-Government working group, led by the Department of Health, developing proposals to tackle the violence that, sadly, hospital workers all too often experience. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities and police, jointly and in co-operation with the relevant local organisations, including health authorities and trusts, to formulate and implement strategies to reduce crime and
    692
    disorder in their area. We would expect those strategies to tackle violence against hospital workers where it is identified as a problem.
    Mr. Twigg: Like other hon. Members, I have had complaints from health service workers who have been attacked while on duty. I am sure that my hon. Friend will agree that partnership is an important approach. Are there any examples of good local practice to tackle this issue of major concern?
    Mr. Boateng: It is one of the most disturbing and alarming features of our times that public servants, doing a difficult job day in, day out, night in, night out, as hospital workers do, should be subject to such attacks. One in seven of all injuries suffered by NHS staff are directly attributable to acts of violence by patients or visitors to hospitals. That is an indictment of our society, and we must do something about it. I commend the example set in my hon. Friend's constituency, at Halton general hospital, where emphasis is being laid on staff training, giving them the strength to identify risks and, importantly, ensuring that signs throughout the hospital make it absolutely clear that such conduct simply will not be tolerated.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that 50 per cent. of nurses have been attacked over the past 12 months and that no less than 47 per cent. have specifically reported being punched, slapped or spat at, can the Minister tell the House now, or inform me later in writing, what proportion of violent incidents in accident and emergency departments are attributable to alcohol abuse?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point and his statistics, if accurate, are alarming indeed. The abuse of alcohol makes a substantial contribution to violence in accident and emergency departments, and that is why projects such as the one that is being run by the Cardiff violence prevention group are so important. Professor John Shephard has arranged a hotline as part of a strategy to identify the pubs and clubs from which the violence is emanating, and to tackle it at root with the management, the licensing authorities and the police. That strategy stands a good chance of reducing the violence associated with alcohol in A and E departments and, indeed, in some of the sites covered by that violence prevention group, violent assaults have been reduced by 50 per cent. That is an achievement for partnership work between NHS staff, the police and the private sector, and it is such partnerships that will bring those alarming figures down.

    Health Visitors
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: What responses have been received from organisations representing health visitors to the consultation document, "Supporting Families". [74579]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): While responses to the document are still being logged, we have so far received almost 200 responses from health care trusts, health care organisations and individuals in the medical profession. We have at least five responses from local centres of the

    693
    Community Practitioners and Health Visitors Association and a co-ordinated response from the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting. All of them showed considerable support for our proposals to expand the role of health visitors.
    Dr. Starkey: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. When I spoke to the health visitors in Milton Keynes, they generally supported the document, but they were concerned that they might be asked to interfere in people's personal relationships. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is envisaged that the role of health visitors will be to support and advise families, not to police people's personal relationships?
    Mr. Straw: I can confirm that. One of the reasons why health visitors are held in such trust and confidence by people is that they are seen as a source of independent advice and counselling, and not as part of the agencies of social control, which are necessary, but in which—happily—the health visitors are not involved.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does the Home Secretary agree that health visitors provide an invaluable service and do their jobs extraordinarily well? When he considers the responses to the consultation paper, will he also consider—taking into account the point made by the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey)—a graded system so that health visitors continue to call, beyond the usual arrangements, on families that are considered to be high risk?
    Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman's suggestion is very important and I shall certainly take it forward.

    Drug Treatment and Testing Orders
    Mr. Tony McWalter: What assessment he has made of the progress made by probation services in implementing the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, with particular reference to the supervision of drug treatment and testing orders. [74580]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): The three probation services involved—Liverpool, Gloucester and Croydon—in the drug treatment and testing order pilots have successfully set up schemes and, as of 5 March 1999, 28 orders have been made. It is too early to assess the effectiveness of those orders, but the early signs are encouraging.
    Mr. McWalter: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer, and I apologise for my lack of voice. I welcome his assurance that we are progressing slowly but surely on the issue, but is he confident that probation services and local authorities will have the resources necessary to deal with the issues when the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 is fully operational?
    Mr. Howarth: The Home Office has provided £1.7 million to run and evaluate the pilot schemes in the three areas that I have mentioned over their 18-month period. As we roll the scheme out, the necessary resources
    694
    will be in place to ensure that that new and innovative approach to breaking the link between drugs and crime is advanced in the way that the legislation envisages.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Government have used the probation services' tremendous efficiency improvements of more than 20 per cent. since 1994 as an example for the police force. However, many chief officers of probation are already reporting difficulties in meeting both national standards and new commitments under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, particularly following a 10 per cent. fall in the work force between 1994 and the end of 1997. Is the Minister confident that probation services will be able to recruit new officers? Is he concerned that in January there were only 274 trainee probation officers? Does he have any plans to try to increase recruitment and training of officers?
    Mr. Howarth: Staffing must be properly monitored. The comprehensive spending review settlement for the probation service over the next three years will provide £18 million, £24 million and £25 million respectively on top of the money already available. That should be enough to deal with the problems that are likely to arise. Training must, of course, be kept under review, and we shall keep a close eye on developments for both the service's work load and its available resources.

    Drug Addiction (Crime)
    Mr. Barry Sheerman: What new steps he is taking to tackle the links between drug addiction and crime. [74581]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): Our initiatives include piloting a new drug treatment and testing order with a view to national roll-out in 2000–01, and setting up and monitoring arrest referral and court referral schemes such as the STEP—the substance misuse treatment enforcement programme—in West Yorkshire, which I have visited and which is resourced by the police and probation services. We are also establishing a new drug prevention advisory service to support drug action teams on drug prevention, including prevention of drug-related crime.
    Mr. Sheerman: Although we have done much good work on both the supply of and demand for drugs, is my hon. Friend aware that police attention seems too often to be focused on low-level, corner-shop parts of the drug trade? Anyone who has spoken to a chief constable will know that drugs are a multi-million pound business and a tremendous problem that we must face up to. Does my hon. Friend believe that signing up to the Schengen group of countries will help us to take on large operators and big gangs, so that we can stop a business that is dangerous to many of our constituents?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend should know that about £1.4 billion is spent across Government on drug-related activity. Following the comprehensive spending review, £217 million of additional expenditure will be made available over a three-year period, mainly for treatment-based approaches. As regards Schengen and the

    695
    international drug trade, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is undertaking constructive discussions with colleagues from states that have signed up to Schengen and we hope that that dialogue will bear fruit in due course. One thing is absolutely clear: we will use our resources and our influence to stop the foul and iniquitous international trade in drugs, which does no one any good in the United Kingdom or elsewhere.
    Mr. James Clappison: Does the Minister agree that there is a trade in drugs in our prisons? Keeping drugs out of prison is vital if the link between drug addiction and crime is to be broken. Is it not a fact that drugs are far too readily available in our prisons? This is a difficult problem, but does the Minister accept that the Government made a serious mistake in weakening the system of mandatory drug testing just when there was evidence that it was working? Are not the Government in danger of not even fighting the war against drugs, let alone winning it?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's statistics are inaccurate, and I shall return to that point in a moment. First, however, we do not believe that it is acceptable that anyone in prison should use drugs, and whatever means are necessary to prevent that will be made available to the Prison Service, including additional resources from the comprehensive spending review.
    The truth is that our more careful targeting of mandatory drug testing has made us able to deal with the problem at the point at which it most seriously manifests itself rather than following a scatter-gun principle. Mandatory drug testing remains, but it is partly random, and partly at the discretion of governors. The hon. Gentleman should know that the proportion of people discovered through mandatory testing to be taking drugs has fallen rather than risen. Independent evidence shows that more people come out of prison drug-free than are going in. We must be doing something right.
    Dr. Brian Iddon: Bolton probation service has been running an excellent project, funded by the Department of Health, to examine the link between drugs and crime. The project will terminate at the end of this month, but last year it reported to the Department and I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the report, which identifies various gaps in the service that we could fill. One that concerns me is the absence of treatment services for very young people—that is, those under 18. Is my hon. Friend, with the Department of Health, dealing with that problem?
    Mr. Howarth: Although we may disagree on some of the finer points of policy, may I pay tribute to the work that my hon. Friend does on this matter? He is knowledgeable and he puts in a lot of time. There is concern that the right resources are not in all the right places to deal with the problem of drug taking at a young age. We are in continuous dialogue with our colleagues at the Department of Health and we are determined that, where appropriate, treatment-based approaches should be available to people of every age. It is particularly important that we catch people as young as possible so that they do not get into the spiral of drug abuse,
    696
    particularly abuse of hard drugs, which leads to crime and often, in the longer term, to very serious crime. It is important that we intervene as early as possible.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister acknowledge that the extent of addiction and criminal behaviour that originates in alcohol abuse is quantitatively much larger than that originating in drugs more narrowly defined? What plans do the Government have to give that problem comparable attention?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is right. A long history of particularly violent crime is associated with the heavy use of alcohol. I am chair of the ministerial group that is considering the problems of under-age drinking across the board. We have already introduced several measures to deal with it, including discouraging the use and production of inappropriate, so-called alcopops. More needs to be done and we are working hard to produce a programme that will start to deal with that serious problem.

    West Mercia Police
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: If he will make a statement on the number of (a) police and (b) administrative staff in the West Mercia police force in (a) 1998–99 and (b) 1999–2000. [74582]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I understand from the chief constable that the 1998–99 budget for West Mercia constabulary contained financial provision for 2,067 police officers and 1,065 civilian support staff. The 1999–2000 budget contains provision for 2,063 police officers and 1,072 support staff. The chief constable appears to have concluded that he can best deliver levels of service with slightly fewer officers and slightly more support staff.
    Miss Kirkbride: Frankly, that was a disgraceful answer. Clearly, it is not true to say that that is the chief constable's decision. It is purely a result of the fact that the Government have not properly resourced police forces in this financial year. The settlement figure for West Mercia is 2.8 per cent., which clearly does not cover the police pay settlement and all the other things that the police have to do to conform with the Government's legislation.
    Having admitted that disgraceful fact, will the Minister answer a question that applies to the future and not the present day? Changes will be made to the national emergency call centre in the West Mercia area. As a result, 90 police constables may well find that their posts become redundant. In the light of that dreadful answer, will he assure us that the complement will not be reduced and that those constables will be redeployed in the area, so that my constituents can look forward to having police on the beat rather than their being cut because of the inadequate resources provided by the Government?
    Mr. O'Brien: Oh dear! The Tory leader and shadow Chancellor call for cuts in taxes and spending, but Back Benchers call for more spending. It is no wonder that two Tory parties are fighting the European election. The hon. Lady might have joined me in congratulating Peter

    697
    Hanson, the new chief constable. Let us consider the answer that she described as disgraceful in the light of the Conservative research department's 1995 publication, which states:
    "Central government controls on manpower numbers and capital expenditure have been scrapped by the Police and Magistrates' Courts Act 1994—a change for which chief constables had been calling for some years. Decisions about resources will in future be made by police authorities and chief constables. This reform commanded all-party support."
    The Conservative party supported that and put it through. She should not now complain about what her Government did.

    Lewes Prison
    Mr. Norman Baker: What recent assessment he has made of the effectiveness of measures taken to minimise noise disruption for residents living close to HMP Lewes. [74583]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): There has been a prison at Lewes since 1853. Staff have acted on residents' concerns. Any prisoner found shouting from a cell window will be placed on a disciplinary charge. Cell windows overlooking the main road have been adjusted to control the level of noise.
    Mr. Baker: I am sorry to raise what appears to be a minor matter in this way, but I do so because I have failed to get a solution to the problem from the prison governor or from the head of the Prison Service in a face-to-face meeting. Noise continues for up three hours an evening. Abusive and foul language is shouted out of prison windows with no apparent control in the prison to stop it. It causes great disturbance to my constituents who, at a recent meeting, said that they were fed up with it and wanted a resolution. What will the Minister do? I gather that he can change the windows and have them closed so that people cannot lean out, but what is going on in the prison which means prisoners can run riot for three hours?
    Mr. Howarth: I understand that the problem is perpetrated by young offenders. The hon. Gentleman should know that the governor of the prison has been working closely to address the noise problem with the environmental health department, which has written to the prison to say that it is pleased by the positive way in which the prison has approached the problem. He should also be aware that the person who originally raised the complaint has also contacted the governor to express her thanks for the measures taken by the staff at the prison. It might not make good Focus material, but if the hon. Gentleman took up the governor's invitation to discuss the problem, he might have a better understanding of the measures taken.

    Voluntary Organisations
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: What assessment he has made of the role of voluntary organisations in combating crime and disorder; and if he will make a statement. [74584]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): Voluntary organisations have an important role in preventing and reducing crime. That is why the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires a wide range of voluntary bodies to be invited to participate in the work of the crime and disorder reduction partnerships.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. I raise the issue because of the previous Government's lack of initiative in helping voluntary organisations to combat crime and disorder. Does she accept that there are many groups in my constituency, including town, parish and community councils, the Churches, neighbourhood watch and Victim Support, that are keen to combat crime and disorder in the community? My concerns are heightened by the fact that the elderly and disabled are the most vulnerable people. Will she consider helping voluntary organisations in their campaign to combat crime and disorder, and explain the way forward in that respect?
    Kate Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. The whole aim of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, and particularly of local crime reduction strategies, is to give local communities and voluntary organisations an important role in deciding how to tackle local problems. Voluntary organisations can bring a different perspective to tackling crime and disorder. It is crucial that they are given such a role, which is why it is now statutory under the Crime and Disorder Act. We shall continue to work closely with the voluntary sector to ensure that that happens. The sort of initiatives that are happening in my hon. Friend's constituency will happen throughout the country and be supported by the Government.

    Liquor Licensing Laws
    Mr. John Grogan: What progress he has made in reviewing the liquor licensing laws. [74585]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): As my hon. Friend knows, last May I announced a comprehensive review of liquor licensing legislation, with the aim of producing a simpler and more effective system. We have been having useful discussions with a wide range of interested parties including the trade, courts, police and residents associations. We aim to produce a set of balanced proposals for public consultation by early next year.
    Mr. Grogan: Does my hon. Friend agree that a more flexible and more liberal liquor licensing system, with longer opening hours, has been a resounding success in Scotland for the past 25 years? Does he also agree with those senior police officers who argue that a more modern system in England and Wales could help to cut crime by abolishing for ever the 11 o'clock rush, which leads to so many people spilling out into our streets at exactly the same time in search of food or transport home?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is quite right. As often happens, the Scottish experience leads us to draw many

    699
    interesting conclusions. I hope that what emerges from the review process is a properly balanced system, whereby the rights of consumers to have access to entertainment and alcohol at a suitable time for them are properly balanced by the need to provide protection for residents who live near licensed premises. If we achieve a system that meets both those tests, which I believe is possible, we shall have done a good job.

    Animal Procedures Committee
    Mr. Brian White: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Animal Procedures Committee. [74586]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. George Howarth): The principal role of the Animal Procedures Committee is to advise the Secretary of State on matters to do with the operation of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. Work completed and planned covers matters of current importance concerning the use of animals in scientific procedures. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I greatly value the committee's advice and we consider that the reform of the membership that has taken place since the election gives the committee a more balanced membership.
    Mr. White: Although I accept that the current Government have done more for animal welfare than any previous Government—the number of animal welfare experts on the committee has increased and cosmetics testing on animals has ended—does the Minister accept that, with 2.5 million animals affected, there is a great deal more that the committee needs to do to protect the welfare of animals?
    Mr. Howarth: The committee recognises that a large amount of work can still be undertaken; its members are anxious to get on with it, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I encourage them to do so. What is important is that those who have responsibility—whether at individual institutional level, as a member of the Animal Procedures Committee, or as a Minister—should be constantly vigilant to ensure that animals are used in such procedures only when no reasonable alternative exists. Measured against that simple test, we are doing well; however, we must always apply that test, because there are occasions when extremely important benefits to medical science and public safety can be derived from the procedures.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does the Minister agree with the Animal Procedures Committee's conclusion in its recent report, that the 1986 Act
    "provides a good framework for a well regulated and responsible use of animals in experiments within the UK"?
    Does he agree with the committee's recommendation that the
    "working of the Act can be improved further"
    by, for example, enhanced training, better cost-benefit analysis and acquiring animals for experiments only from countries whose welfare standards match our own?
    To anyone who is concerned about animal welfare, does not that report show that there can be no justification for any further independent review, such as a royal
    700
    commission? Would not that only delay and hamper the progress towards higher standards that is already being achieved under the existing Act? Does the Minister now regret his party ever having promised a royal commission—a promise that had all the appearance of being aimed at winning votes—and will he take this opportunity to confirm that the Government have abandoned that pledge?
    Mr. Howarth: The Government have an open mind about whether a royal commission would be the best way of achieving a reduction in the number of animals used in such procedures. For the present, I am content that the time and energy that we devote to these issues is aimed, where possible, at reducing the number of animals involved in the procedures or at least ensuring that the procedures are appropriate.
    The hon. Gentleman is correct about the conclusions of the review of the 1986 Act conducted by the APC. As part of that process, from the first of next month we will require establishments that conduct the procedures to carry out an ethical review. When considering embarking on such experiments, a committee within the institution will be required to consider whether that is the most important form of action. Most sensible people have welcomed that move, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman will.

    Kerb Crawling
    Ms Jenny Jones: What plans he has to review the law on kerb crawling. 174587]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): We intend to make kerb crawling an arrestable offence when a suitable legislative opportunity arises. In addition, we set up in January a review to consider the present law on sex offences and to recommend clear and coherent offences that will protect the individual, particularly children and the more vulnerable, from abuse and exploitation. This will include offences of abuse and exploitation associated with prostitution. While kerb crawling will not be central to this exercise, the review will certainly have to take that offence, and views expressed about it, into account.
    Ms Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he believe that the power of arrest for kerb crawling should be extended to the police? Does he propose to introduce legislation and, if so, is it likely to be in the lifetime of this Parliament?
    Mr. Boateng: I am absolutely committed—as are the whole of the Government—to ensuring that kerb crawling becomes an arrestable offence, and we seek to utilise the first suitable legislative opportunity to achieve that objective. I have met officers from Nottingham and from Wolverhampton to discuss the outcome of the piloting of the Association of Chief Police Officers guidelines on child prostitution in my hon. Friend's constituency. That scheme is teaching us some very important lessons about how best to deal with this menace, and particularly how to get at the pimps who continue to ply this evil trade.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many of the prostitutes who provide services are under the age

    701
    of consent? To what extent is the Minister implementing measures to ensure that the lessons learned in Wolverhampton and the west midlands are extended to the rest of the country?
    Mr. Boateng: We are taking all possible steps, with the Association of Chief Police Officers and the various child protection societies, to ensure that the lessons learned in Wolverhampton and Nottingham are recognised throughout the country. Those pilot projects show that a high proportion of young people who come to the attention of the police and social services are below the age of consent—some children as young as 11 are put on to the streets by their pimps and subjected to appalling sexual abuse by kerb crawlers. That is what it is: sexual abuse. It is not just another form of prostitution, but the sexual abuse of children. We will look to the review of sexual offences to ensure that the punishment fits the crime in this instance—which it does not always do.
    Ms Diane Abbott: is the Minister aware of the great concern about this matter in my constituency, expressed by, among others, the Amhurst Park action group—a long-standing activist organisation that has campaigned on this issue and met with the Home Secretary to discuss it? Those bodies will be pleased to hear that the Government intend to introduce legislation in this area. Does the Minister appreciate my concern that the legislation, which is supported by not just community groups but the Metropolitan police, should not be long in coming?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend has been in the forefront of the campaign on this issue. Indeed, if my memory serves me well, it was the first issue that she discussed with me soon after my appointment as Minister of State. I have not forgotten that discussion—one seldom does in the case of my hon. Friend—and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has met the Amhurst Park residents association to make progress on that matter.

    Vulnerable Witnesses
    Dr. George Turner: What measures he plans to introduce to protect vulnerable witnesses. [74588]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): The Government are committed to improving the treatment of vulnerable witnesses in the criminal justice system. Last June, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published the report of the interdepartmental working group on vulnerable or intimidated witnesses. That made more than 70 recommendations, and those that require legislation are included in the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Bill, which will shortly be making its way to the House.
    Dr. Turner: This is a problem that still figures large in my constituency, where many vulnerable witnesses remain frightened because of the criminals who live among them and the threats that they and their families make if witnesses inform on them. Does my hon. Friend agree that the measures must be followed by the spreading of good practice and that we must ensure that the police
    702
    and magistrates know how to help? Does he further agree that there must be an element of bravery in our communities if we are to rid our estates of the criminals who live among the residents?
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an important point. There is only a limited amount that we can do within the courts. All that we can do, we must do. For example, it will be important to make sure that screens are used and that the courts exercise their new power to clear the courtroom when some witnesses are giving evidence. All those proposals will be implemented. We need to ensure also that there is proper multidisciplinary liaison between the local authority, the police and the Crown Prosecution Service so that people are given the protection that will enable them to give their best evidence.
    It is a question of getting matters right in the courts and giving judges and magistrates the power to regulate their courts in a way that will protect vulnerable witnesses while ensuring that, outside the courts, we focus attention on the needs of victims and witnesses.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: Does the Minister agree that some of the most vulnerable witnesses are those who risk losing their job if they fail to do as their employer asks? Should not the toughest action possible be taken against such employers? Given that close employees have been responsible for giving some of the most damaging witness accounts in a serious case of alleged political corruption in this country, surely the employer concerned should not be granted a British passport, and Mohammed Fayed should be deported?
    Mr. Boateng: The hon. Gentleman demeans a serious debate by seeking to raise this issue in such a way. On reflection, bearing in mind his distinguished service on the Select Committee on Home Affairs, he might wish that he had used this opportunity to make serious points about encouraging employers to ensure that they support their staff when they are called on to give witness in the courts. Significantly, we should ensure also that we support whistleblowers who identify wrongdoing, when they come under pressure from their employer. The hon. Gentleman would have done much better to have devoted the time that he spent on his question to that issue.
    Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Does the Minister agree that one of the great problems in finding the perpetrators of racist attacks and other violent crimes on housing estates is witnesses' fear of coming forward? Will he therefore reconsider the need to expand the professional witness service, whereby people can be neutral observers of anti-social activity on estates and help to catch the perpetrators of racial violence? I am sure that he is aware that such cases that collapse in the court because of a lack of witnesses are seen as appalling victories for racist violence on our estates and make the situation considerably worse.
    Mr. Boateng: My hon. Friend makes an important point based, I know, on first-hand experience of tackling this sort of racist and anti-social behaviour in his constituency and elsewhere. We certainly need to take on board support for tenancy relations officers, estate officers and others and, yes, the role of the sort of witnesses that

    703
    my hon friend describes in addition, we must make the best use of the anti-social behaviour orders that will be introduced as a result of our legislative programme. They give us an opportunity to build strong community action, which is designed to identify and then isolate those who harass people on our estates. That is something that we are committed to doing.
    Sir Norman Fowler: With reference to the protection of vulnerable witnesses, I refer to the Macpherson report. Surely all that was required was for the Home Office to contact the inquiry team and question whether the publication of the names and addresses of witnesses put those witnesses at risk. It had nine days to do that. Will the Minister, even now, concede that that was the proper and sensible course to take?
    Mr. Boateng: No. We had a duty to publish the report in the way that it was presented to us, and we carried out that duty.

    Shopping Centres (Crime)
    Ms Sally Keeble: What steps he is taking to reduce crime in shopping centres. [74589]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr.Mike O'Brien): Crime and the fear of crime are major factors in the success, or otherwise, of town centres. Our new crime and disorder partnerships invite the business sector to participate in the development of strategy. In addition, the retail crime reduction action team, which was set up under the aegis of the Home Office, has recently published a guide called "Community Crime Reduction Partnerships: the Retail Contribution". This provides advice to the crime and disorder partnerships on how further to involve the retail industry in their audit and strategy development work, paying particular attention to town centres.
    Ms Keeble: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. However, does he agree that there is a problem with the displacement of crime from the larger shopping centres, which have security guards or which can afford closed circuit television, to some of the smaller suburban centres, which are highly prized by the local community? Would it be possible for some of the £170 million set aside in the Budget for law and order to go towards improving security in smaller centres through CCTV and other schemes to make people feel safer as they go about their ordinary business?
    Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right to say that there is concern at some shopping centres. In his Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced that an additional £170 million would be made available over the next three years for crime prevention where crime is highest. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will make a further announcement to the House in the light of the Chancellor's statement. The money will be split between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Home Office and will commence in 1999ߝ2000. Bids will be invited through a challenge fund from local crime reduction partnerships.

    Police Personnel
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: If he will make a statement on the number of policemen employed on 31 December 1998. [74590]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): The latest available information relates to 30 September 1998. On that date, there were a total of 126,504 male and female police officers in England and Wales.
    Mr. Letwin: Is the Home Secretary aware that beneath those figures there is a real and growing problem in rural areas? What plans does he have to help people such as my constituents in the Sherborne area who are currently served by rather fewer policemen than were serving their predecessors before the war?
    Mr. Straw: I am, indeed, aware of the pressures on the police service, and I am pleased to say that we have increased police spending in Dorset, the hon. Gentleman's own police area, by £3.7 million, or 5 per cent.—getting on for twice the national average—to take account of exactly those pressures.
    Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Does my right hon. Friend agree that to fight crime, it is not only policemen we need but the necessary equipment? Does he accept that a considerable gap is now beginning to develop between the type of equipment used by, for example, some sophisticated smugglers or corporate fraudsters and that available to police forces? Perhaps it might be a useful investment to upgrade the computers and other services available to the police.
    Mr. Straw: I entirely accept what my hon. Friend says about the need to harness the best of information technology in fighting crime. One of the problems that we faced when we took office was that the police service had as many different information technology systems as there were police forces, and the systems did not communicate properly with other parts of the criminal justice system. One of the things that we are now doing is trying to ensure common and compatible systems for all parts of the criminal justice service.
    Sir Norman Fowler: Does the Home Secretary agree that under the previous Conservative Government the strength of the police service rose by more than 15,000, whereas under this Government the strength of the police service is falling, and complaints are coming in from around the country—from rural areas and city areas—of police forces being left no option but to cut services and manpower?
    Mr. Straw: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman should go on about the Conservatives' record on police manpower. I have the Conservative manifesto for 1992, promising 1,000 extra police officers, and the speech by the then leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), in October 1995, promising an extra 5,000 on top of the original 1,000. What happened? Six thousand extra police officers were promised between—[Interruption.] No, I am talking about the period after the right hon.

    705
    Gentleman left to spend more time with his family, not before. Six thousand extra police officers were promised between 1992 and 1997. That promise was comprehensively broken and instead, the number of police officers, far from rising by 6,000, fell by 469. One of the reasons why the Conservatives lost office was because of their broken promises on police numbers.

    Abnormal Loads (Police Escorts)
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will introduce legislation to enable the police to charge for escorting abnormal loads. [74591]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Kate Hoey): We have no plans to do so.
    Mr. Mackinlay: Will my hon. Friend accept my disappointment? The escorting of heavy loads by professional and highly skilled police officers causes a disproportionate cost to the council taxpayer. It is time that that was reviewed. Can my hon. Friend tell us why the Home Office cannot make available a total figure of the cost to local authorities of escorting heavy vehicles? Such a figure might alert her to the need to review the situation with some expedition.
    Kate Hoey: As my hon. Friend is aware, we recently completed a public consultation on proposals to introduce private escorts for abnormal loads on motorways. Charging is not the answer. Police time should not be taken up escorting such vehicles on motorways. We are trying to find a solution that will ensure that lorries are properly escorted by qualified escorts. The police should not have to do that, except on minor roads. That is what the consultation document was about and what we have been considering. We shall publish proposals soon.
    Mr. David Heath: Does the Minister accept that the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is uncharacteristically wrong? Charges are not the answer. The answer is precisely as the Minister said—relieving police of the duty of escorting heavy loads. Police are for fighting crime, not for dawdling along motorways behind mobile classrooms and grain silos.
    Kate Hoey: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend look closely at the matter of traffic
    706
    policing, particularly in relation to lorries? May we hope that she will introduce a Bill that will deal, for example, with the issue of impounding unsafe lorries? The police may not be required for escorting heavy loads, but they are certainly required to carry out multi-agency checks to ensure that there are no unsafe vehicles contributing to deaths in our communities.
    Kate Hoey: I thank my hon. Friend. We would certainly turn to her for her expertise, and to the Select Committee on Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs that she chairs, before we introduced legislation to do what she has asked.

    Illegal Drugs (Prisons)
    . Mr. Graham Stringer: What measures he is taking to curb the smuggling of illegal drugs into prisons. [74593]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): As part of an overall strategy that I announced on 25 January, a package of measures is to be brought into force from 1 April to deal with visitors and prisoners who smuggle drugs into prisons. Under those arrangements, visitors found smuggling drugs will normally be banned from visiting the prison for at least three months, and prisoners found or believed to be engaging in that activity will normally take all their visits in closed conditions for a period equivalent to a three months' entitlement. A number of improvements are also being made to security arrangements for prison visits.
    Mr. Stringer: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome the measures that he has taken and the fall in the number of recorded drug-taking incidents in prisons. Does he agree that it should be possible within a closed environment to reduce drug taking to almost zero? That would have a symbolic impact on the fight against drugs in society generally. If we cannot control drugs in a controlled environment, it makes it much more difficult symbolically to control drugs in society at large.
    Mr. Straw: I accept entirely that we must aim to achieve a situation in which there is no drug taking in prisons. As long as we allow so-called open visiting in prisons, people are likely—although it is deplorable—to try to smuggle in drugs. That is why I have significantly toughened up the sanctions on prisoners and on visitors, whether they are family or not, who seek to smuggle in drugs.

NHS Modernisation
3.30 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): Much of the national health service that we inherited from the previous Government was run down and shabby. Much of its investment in information technology had been an expensive failure. Much of its equipment was unreliable and let down both patients and staff. Patients waiting on trolleys had become a commonplace feature of the service. That is why one of the top priorities of the new Government is to modernise the national health service, build new hospitals, replace outdated and unreliable equipment and give patients quicker, easier and more modern access to health services.
We are already committed to investing an extra £21 billion in the NHS over the next three years. The biggest hospital building programme in the history of the health service is already under way. This coming year, at least £350 million will be invested in upgrading and replacing outdated equipment.
Today, I can give the House details of an additional £200 million to be invested in the coming year to speed up our programme to modernise the health service. That is made up of £100 million to be invested in modernising accident and emergency departments and, drawing on the example of NHS Direct, in improving rapid access to professional advice and help for patients. The second £100 million will come from the national lottery and will be used to step up the fight against cancer by helping to provide new and replacement equipment, such as linear accelerators, diagnostic machines and scanners, as well as extending the services provided by hospices. What better use could there be for national lottery money?
Earlier this year, I was able to announce that £30 million was to be invested to improve 79 accident and emergency departments around the country. That will be funded from the NHS modernisation fund. Last Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced in his Budget that £430 million from the Government's capital modernisation fund had been earmarked for investment in the NHS, and that £100 million of that would be made available this coming year to modernise the health service. Between £70 million and £80 million of that money will be invested to modernise all those A and E departments that remain in need of improvement.
Those improvements will include special areas for children and easier access to X-ray, pathology and pharmacy services. The layout and furnishing of A and E departments will he improved to make them more pleasant and more secure. Video surveillance and alarm systems will bring greater efficiency and add to the security of both patients and staff. Some modernised A and E departments may incorporate an NHS Direct telephone point. All A and E departments that need improvement will benefit from some or all of those changes.
A survey by the Royal College of Physicians published early in 1997, before the last election, showed that less than half the hospitals with A and E departments had an admissions ward. Since that survey, the number of such hospitals without either an admissions ward or observation unit has been reduced to 22 out of 202. By the end of this initiative, only five will not have an admissions or observation unit—and all five have good hard reasons for not having one.
708
Proposals that are likely to be funded under the new accident and emergency initiative include the extension of the children's service at Royal Liverpool hospital and improvements at Sheffield children's hospital and in children's facilities at North Staffordshire hospital. In Ipswich, a major scheme includes improvements to resuscitation facilities and a separate children's area, and in Luton there are to be more resuscitation facilities and closed circuit television.
A total of £250,000 worth of improvements are intended at the Royal London hospital in the east end and a similar sum is to go to the Mayday hospital, Croydon. Large-scale improvements are intended at Southampton general hospital and a new observation unit and better facilities for the general practitioner co-operative are planned for Frenchay hospital, Bristol. Those are just a few examples of what is planned for hospitals in every part of the country.
This is the biggest programme of investment in accident and emergency services in the history of the NHS and it will cover every part of the country. By April 2000, every A and E department will have been modernised, or work will be well under way. It should ensure that patients are treated more quickly, more effectively and with greater privacy than ever before.
I am determined to ensure that both patients and staff get maximum benefit from the accident and emergency modernisation programme, so it is not just a matter of new buildings, new plant and new equipment. We have to ensure that the new and better ways of organising accident and emergency, such as emergency nurse practitioners and greater use of telemedicine, are taken up throughout the country. We need to speed up the spread of best practice, so I am setting up a team of professionals to spearhead that work. I can announce today that the team will be led by Mike Lambert, accident and emergency consultant at Norfolk and Norwich hospital.
The accident and emergency modernisation programme will be good not only for patients and staff, but for jobs—for builders who do the work on site and for firms that supply building materials and specialist fittings. Let me give just one example. The accident and emergency department at Portsmouth has just been refurbished at a cost of just over £1 million. It used materials that were supplied by more than 20 firms from all over the country. Orders, large and small, included locks from Walsall, paint from Darwen, weather-proofing from Slough, carpets from Swindon, wash basins from Rugeley, partition walls from Loughborough, wall units from Broadstairs—and the specialist security reception desk came from Glasgow. The accident and emergency modernisation programme will reflect such orders a hundredfold in the coming year.
The remainder of the £100 million from the Government's capital moderninisation fund will be invested in improving direct access to the health service. The popularity of NHS Direct, the nurse-led 24-hour helpline, has demonstrated the public demand for rapid direct access to professional advice and help from the NHS. Following the success of the pilot schemes, NHS Direct has already been extended since Christmas to cover 5 million extra people in the black country, Essex, Nottingham and west London, and will cover 20 million people by Easter. Its success has shown that, given the chance, the talented staff of the NHS can do a brilliant

709
job, supplying what the public want. We are now considering an NHS on-line service to provide a website with on-line access to a wide range of health information.
Between £20 million and £30 million is being made available in the coming year to finance capital investment in further developments in direct access to the NHS, including pilot schemes for walk-in services. Those could include services that are provided by GPs or practice nurses located in or near A and E departments, out-of-hours services provided by GP co-operatives, and services in main streets or shopping malls.
As with NHS Direct, we want to work with the professionals to try out direct access, walk-in services in places and at times that are particularly convenient to patients. Some schemes may be confined to providing advice or directing patients to existing services for treatment or care. Others, particularly those associated with A and E departments, may provide treatment and care, there and then. That is intended not to replace general practice, but to augment it. All those ideas will go with the grain of both modern living and what the health professionals are already developing. The new Government are determined to give impetus to all that to help to create a new NHS for the new century.
That brings me to the extra £100 million that will begin to be invested in the coming year to augment existing NHS investment in the fight against cancer. In line with our election promise, we have set up the new opportunities fund to ensure that more money from the national lottery is spent on the causes on which people want it to be spent. Every time there is a discussion about what to do with lottery money, thoughtful people ask why some of it is not being used to combat cancer. Well, from now on it will be. Over the next three years, £150 million from the new opportunities fund will be invested in tackling cancer in the United Kingdom as a whole. In England, we want to make a major start this year by investing in new equipment.
The order making that possible was laid last week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The direction that he issued at the same time makes it clear that the focus of the initiative in England will be on augmenting voluntary efforts to raise funds to provide new and better equipment, including breast-screening units, scanners and linear accelerators, and also on helping hospices and those providing palliative care. The aim is to provide additional equipment and to replace unreliable equipment. The money is likely to help to fund, for example, replacement linear accelerators at Christie hospital in Manchester, or new equipment for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer of the colon at Lewisham hospital, which my right hon. Friend and I visited this morning.
All that money comes on top of the extra funds already announced for the NHS, and will help the NHS in every part of the country to catch up with more modern standards of cancer diagnosis and treatment. The initiative has the strong support of Macmillan Cancer Relief, Marie Curie Cancer Care and the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care Services. It is in addition to the extra £30 million that we have invested in breast and colorectal cancer services over the past 18 months, the further £40 million that we are making available in the coming year to combat breast, colorectal and lung cancer, and our commitment to speeding up specialist attention for people suspected of suffering from cancer.
710
The commitments that I have announced today will speed up the renewal and modernisation of the health service. They will make services more readily available and more dependable. At the same time, they will make it easier for the dedicated staff of the health service to provide quicker and better-quality services. That is possible only because we have a Government who invest public money wisely, and who have the right priorities.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: I feel that the House would appreciate it if, before I deal with the detail of the statement, the Secretary of State explained how yet another of his Department's statements was leaked to the media before being delivered to the House.
Those of us who were up at the time will know that the 6 am news on Radio 5 Live contained a detailed report on the setting up of admissions wards in hospitals, which could have resulted only from a detailed knowledge of the contents of the statement. It also appeared on BBC teletext. The nurses' pay award statement was leaked to the press two weeks before publication. The Ashworth hospital statement was leaked to The Daily Telegraph one day before it was made to the House. The mental health statement was leaked to The Sunday Telegraph two days before publication. The social services statement appeared in The Independent and The Guardian on the morning of publication. The children's safeguards statement appeared in the Evening Standard on the morning of publication. The health spending statement, made in March 1998, appeared in The Times on the morning of its delivery to the House.
Is it not high time that the Secretary of State lived up to the undertaking that he gave the House in November 1998 to find the person responsible for that brazen contempt of Parliament, and to have that person dismissed? Perhaps he could tell us what progress he has made on that one.
In the course of the right hon. Gentleman's statement, he kept referring to the "new" Government. I should say that, after listening to the statement, the "new" Government are looking pretty old: old money recycled as new announcements, and old announcements reannounced. There was very little that was new in the whole statement. Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore tell us how much money has been taken from the so-called modernisation fund to fund the nurses' pay award? Did not the Government's own statement on the modernisation fund, in July 1998, say that the fund was intended for waiting lists, capital investment, education, staff training, primary care and mental health? Why, therefore, is it being used to fund regular expenditure on pay? If he plans on saying that the fund was always designed to do that, will he give the House a simple guarantee—that no project will be delayed that was to be funded from modernisation money in order to pay the nurses' pay award? Will he give us that simple guarantee?
Does the right hon. Gentleman also remember the Labour party's pledge in 1996 to establish a task force on trolleys and to monitor the number of patients forced to wait for treatment in that manner? Why has he broken that pledge? Is he not now essentially telling doctors how to manage their hospitals by requisitioning wards for use as a temporary stopping place for patients? Is he really satisfied that that is the best use of such space, given the strain that our hospitals are under?

711
Would not a better solution to the problem of patients waiting on trolleys be to abandon the right hon. Gentleman's damaging waiting lists initiative, which has resulted in hospitals continuing to admit routine waiting list cases even though accident and emergency wards had patients stacked up on trolleys this winter? Does he agree with the view of Dr. Simon Fradd, deputy chairman of the British Medical Association GPs committee? He said:
"These well-intentioned but ill-informed initiatives put huge pressure on hospitals … there is a downward spiral of reduced resources and increased waiting times"?
Would the right hon. Gentleman care to calculate how many times now he has re-announced the modernisation fund and NHS Direct? Does he agree that he has been forced to do so again because, despite the huge tax take of the past three years, all he has to announce to the House today is an extra £100 million? Is that why we are not getting a proper Budget debate on health?
How many patients were left lying on trolleys because of this winter's health service crisis? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that the dedicated wards that he has announced today will not reduce capacity elsewhere in hospitals? I should like a very clear answer to that question: in setting up those wards, will he be reducing capacity elsewhere?
On 9 November 1998, after the pre-Budget announcement, the Secretary of State announced £200 million expenditure. The NHS Confederation, however, said:
"This is really only next year's money paid early so that we can implement schemes that will save money".
Was it correct? Is the money that is being announced today really new money?
Has the right hon. Gentleman come to any conclusions on how NHS Direct—he has not told us today—will be organised nationally? National centres are likely to be more efficient and lead to more uniform standards, but may reduce co-ordination with local GPs, whereas local centres based in practices may lead to a lack of uniformity in standards. Will he take this opportunity to reassure GPs that the pilot scheme in Northumberland, which routed all out-of-hours calls to NHS Direct, will not be extended—as has recently been speculated—to cover in-hours calls, too? Given that today is, by my calculation, the third time on which he has made a statement on NHS Direct, surely he has now had the chance to form more detailed opinions on how the scheme will work in practice, rather than merely giving us vague words and principles.
Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that any measures that he intends to put in place—including those announced today—to prevent a repeat of this winter's chaotic scenes of patients on trolleys will not, this time, be left until the last moment? Has he finally learned this winter's lesson—that money and schemes announced at the last minute, to grab topical headlines, do not produce much for the NHS? The winter, after all, is predictable.
Does the Secretary of State agree that next winter, trusts will be under greater pressure than ever as they struggle to adapt to his upheaval in primary care? What allowances is he making for that? Will he put money in place to ensure that the burden of extra bureaucracy imposed on the health service by his reforms does not reduce levels of patient care, as his waiting lists initiatives have done?
712
The right hon. Gentleman referred again today to £21 billion of extra money. Will he answer this simple question—so simple that I am sure that he has the answer at his fingertips? What was the total level of spending on the national health service for the financial year 1998–99 and what is the planned level for the financial year 2000–01? What is the difference—I can supply an abacus if he cannot manage the sum—between the two?
The Secretary of State concentrated heavily on the provision of new equipment to combat cancer. Does he agree that one of the main problems is the shortage of radiographers? Why is he concentrating on equipment? What plans does he have to address the shortage of radiographers?
The Secretary of State says that he is drawing his expertise from the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. I seem to recall that that hospital's imaginative solution to the winter crisis was freezer vans in which to stack the dead. He will note that the Portsmouth example that he gave will cost £1 million, yet he claims that the £70 million to £80 million that he has budgeted for will cover all accident and emergency adaptations. Is he saying that there are relatively few such adaptations left to make? If not, how will he afford them from that sum?
Finally, what progress have the Government made towards realising the Secretary of State's target of a maximum two-week wait to see a specialist after an urgent written referral for suspected breast cancer?
Lastly—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Well, finally and in conclusion rather than just finally. As the Secretary of State has mentioned the NHS in shopping malls, will he acknowledge his debt to the private sector, which pioneered that practice?
Mr. Dobson: I shall try to answer as many of the right hon. Lady's questions as I can. She was a trifle inconsistent in her opening remarks, claiming that the matters that I was disclosing today had been disclosed earlier on television and radio and then saying that I had not said anything new. All the money is new money for the national health service because the Treasury funds had previously not been earmarked for the health service. They have now been earmarked. The £100 million from the lottery—to which the right hon. Lady made no reference, unless my ears were deceiving me—is certainly new money for the NHS and will be welcomed by all concerned.
The modernisation fund has many aspects. I announced that part of the nurses' pay award would be funded from the modernisation fund. That is not something that some Tory sleuth managed to spot. I drew attention to the issue myself because we had made prudent allowance for the fact that we needed extra money to pay the nurses to catch up with the pay that they lost during all the years that the Tories were in office.
The right hon. Lady talked about problems with radiographers. Radiographers cannot be trained in 10 minutes; they do not grow on trees. If there is a shortage of radiographers now, it is because they were not trained at any time during the 18 years that the Tories were running down the national health service.
The right hon. Lady appears to think that there is something wrong with wanting every accident and emergency hospital to have an admissions ward. If she wants to quarrel with that, she should talk to all the

713
accident and emergency specialists and to the Royal College of Physicians, whose proposals we are putting into practice. The Tories did not get on with them as quickly as they should have done.
The right hon. Lady referred to the Norfolk and Norwich hospital. It is certainly true that because so many people in the area died, the hospital did not have enough space in its mortuary to keep bodies. It had to do something to cope, and just because some ignorant hysterical newspapers decided that that indicated that something was wrong with the NHS, the right hon. Lady should not go along with it. One of the problems was that private sector undertakers were not burying or cremating people as quickly as they should have been, so the numbers built up.
The right hon. Lady referred to the work carried out in Portsmouth, which cost just over £1 million. Some of the schemes that I have announced today will cost as much, but many will cost much less. We are bringing all the A and E departments up to the necessary standard, in line with what local people want.
The right hon. Lady referred to NHS Direct, which has been a dramatic success story. If the professionals in any locality want the scope of NHS Direct to be extended to involve them more, we are willing to accept that, provided that we are convinced that the local NHS Direct can cope. No Government or Opposition should try to stand in the way of that; nor should any national representative body wish to stand in the way of developments requested by local professionals.
On the point about national or local call centres, my view is that we do not want a national call centre, but a limited number of local, or sub-regional, call centres so that people have a sense of ownership of that part of their local NHS.
I return to the point that the right hon. Lady managed to skirt around—that, as a result of my announcements today, more than £100 million will go into modernising A and E departments, and that £100 million from the national lottery will go into improving the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. I thought that she might have got around to welcoming that.
Mr. Peter L. Pike: Does my right hon. Friend accept that millions of people prefer to hear good news Frank rather than whingeing Ann? Does he recognise the problems in Lancashire at the central hub unit for kidney treatment at Preston, and the satellites in Lancashire? Could additional resources be used to deal with a problem that we inherited from the previous Government?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for his welcome. I know that the local health authority and the trusts in the area are looking at how they can better organise kidney services. When I visited Chorley and Preston, I met people from the Lancashire ambulance service, who operate the call side of the NHS Direct pilot. The nurses in Chorley hospital—who provide the advice—are up for what we are proposing, and they are willing to extend their activities to cover other parts of north Lancashire.
Mr. Simon Hughes: The £100 million more for accident and emergency services, and for accident and emergency
714
admissions wards is welcome. Will all the A and E department wards be extra wards with extra beds, rather than redesignated wards with redesignated beds? Will he undertake to the House that in a year's time, when the programme is complete, there will be enough consultants, doctors and nurses to staff those wards?
We do not give such a welcome to the £100 million for cancer services. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that it is not reassuring but worrying to hear that, instead of what the Government see as a core part of the NHS programme—the treatment of people with cancer—being funded through the taxpayer by secure NHS funding, for the first time core NHS equipment, such as scanners and linear accelerators, will be funded not by the taxpayer, but by an uncertain revenue from the national lottery? Would not it have been better to secure funding for the health service before taking a penny off income tax and making the NHS dependent on insecure funding from national gambling?
Mr. Dobson: That was a limited welcome, I suppose. One of the advantages of modernising A and E departments and giving them full facilities is that it makes life easier for the staff and allows them to do their jobs properly. If an accident and emergency department does not have its own X-ray, or the pharmacy is miles away, or the trauma unit is somewhere else, it is very difficult for staff. We are trying to make departments more efficient and place fewer, not greater, demands on staff.
Whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not—and whether I like it or not—huge amounts have come from the voluntary sector, rather than the national health service, for capital cancer equipment, especially with the development of scanners throughout the country. All that we are saying is that when, as in Lewisham, there is a local campaign trying to get together a few thousand quid to improve the service, we will put some lottery money in to match it or more. If he thinks, as the Conservative Government did, that it would be better to subsidise Eton college boating and athletics facilities or to give 24 million quid to the Churchill family, I will back my judgment that the public prefer our spending on cancer treatment.
Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the people of Slough, who are about to have a new accident and emergency facility, will be thrilled with his announcement? We do not have people waiting on trolleys, because there is not enough room for them in the present accident and emergency department, so they wait in ambulances on the forecourt, causing delays in the local ambulance service. I hope that the extra money will mean that we can have separate accident and emergency facilities for children.
Tory Members sneered when my right hon. Friend spoke about how the work in the Portsmouth accident and emergency department will bring new jobs. Does he agree that people who are employed have better health records than the unemployed and poorer people and that the Government's economic policy, making people more prosperous in work, will give us a healthier Britain?
Mr. Dobson: Indeed; I thank my hon. Friend for her welcome. I hope that the proposals will be implemented swiftly and effectively. I have heard Tory shadow Ministers and Back Benchers ranting on about the loss of

715
jobs in manufacturing industry, but immediately I draw attention to how manufacturing jobs are being created by the investment in the national health service, they are reduced to mockery. Thousands of people throughout the country will get jobs as a result of the modernisation schemes. I am sure that they will welcome them and that, as my hon. Friend says, they will be healthier as a result of having a job and some decent wages in their pocket or handbag.
Mr. Michael Jack: May I endorse what the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said? The time for talking is at an end, and kidney patients in Preston need action.
Will there be a review of the staffing requirements of those accident and emergency departments that will not benefit physically from today's announcement? Pressure on consultants and nursing staff often causes as many problems as inadequate physical capacity.
Mr. Dobson: I repeat what I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike): the provision of kidney treatment in Burnley, including that in the right hon. Gentleman's constituency, is being carefully considered. He mentioned Preston hospital, and the nurse-manager of that hospital was made a dame in the New Year's honours list and is going to the palace today or tomorrow.
Mr. Jack: Answer the question.
Mr. Dobson: I am answering the question. The management of Preston hospital have managed it so well that here has never been a significant shortage of nurses. They have also provided the back up for NHS Direct. They run their hospital rather better than the managements of some of the hospitals nearby. Although there are some problems, it is clear—as even the odd Conservative might recognise—that the quality of management, and whether they involve and encourage their staff, can help to reduce staff shortages. That is what has been done successfully at Preston hospital.
Mr. Eddie O'Hara: Will my right hon. Friend join me in appreciating the excellent work of accident and emergency staff at the St. Helens and Knowsley hospitals, especially Whiston hospital in my constituency? Its new A and E department opened five years ago and, in the recent troubles elsewhere in the region, stood out as a beacon of excellence in coping with the winter problems. However, because of various problems—including closure of nearby facilities and the new accessibility of the hospital as a result of the new Knowsley expressway—extra pressure is already being put on that department. Will my right hon. Friend make funds available, from this tranche of money or the next, to extend the admissions observation ward facilities at Whiston hospital and to provide a care facility for self-referrals, which are adding to the more than 100,000 patients who pass through the A and E department every year?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for thanking the staff at his local hospital for the excellent job that they do. We must ensure that, as circumstances—the layout of
716
motorways, the erection of new houses, or people doing dangerous jobs that cause more accidents—change, we have an accident and emergency system that responds adequately. I will look into the points that he raised about his local hospital.
Mr. Eric Pickles: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned several projects that would benefit from the reallocation. He did not mention Oldchurch. Was that an oversight? Surely, nothing is more deserving than the replacement of Oldchurch hospital, which the Secretary of State himself described as "sub-standard". When will work start on the new hospital for Oldchurch and when is it likely to be completed? We have been waiting six months from the date that we expected to receive an announcement.
Mr. Dobson: Oldchurch hospital did not become sub-standard through the wave of a magic wand on 1 May 1997, nor has it been run down especially since then. It has been run down over a long time, and we will replace it. If the hon. Gentleman possesses his soul in patience a little longer, he will get an announcement.
Mrs. Sylvia Heal: I welcome, on behalf of the health authorities of Dudley and Sandwell, my right hon. Friend's statement. The staff who work in the A and E departments in the local hospitals will greatly appreciate the fact that he has acknowledged their work and the need for extra funding. Will he join me in congratulating the staff of NHS Direct in the black country? I visited the service on Friday—it is part of the West Midlands ambulance service—and discovered that it had taken 3,600 calls in February alone. The commitment and enthusiasm of the nurses who staff the line are greatly to be admired. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he will ignore the Conservatives' comments and continue to provide innovative ways of delivering a national health service to the people of this country?
Mr. Dobson: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments. The Conservative party seems unable to make up its mind whether it likes NHS Direct or not. I like it, and the public like it. It works, and it works better than anything that the Tories introduced.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he referred in his statement to two sums of money? On the first—the £100 million from the capital modernisation fund—will he confirm that page 67 of the "Financial Statement and Budget Report" makes it perfectly clear that that is not new money? Will he tell us how much of that £100 million was intended to be spent in 2000–01, and is, therefore, simply re-phased expenditure rather than new money?
Secondly, on the money from the national lottery, does the Secretary of State agree that everyone will be pleased to see money going into cancer treatment, but that there is a problem over the method of allocation of that money? There is great concern that, because the money is being directed through the NHS, it will not be additional money, while the national lottery should provide extra expenditure. Would it not be better if cancer care charities such as Marie Curie Cancer Care or the Macmillan nurses

717
could provide the means by which to direct that money? If provided in that way, the money would be additional and would provide the multiplier effect on the effort to raise money to which the Secretary of State referred.
Mr. Dobson: The very organisations to which the hon. Gentleman referred have welcomed what we are doing. They will be heavily involved in the allocation of funds, and we want to involve all voluntary organisations that raise money locally. It is not a bad idea to have money going into the health service in line with NHS priorities, and we believe that the method chosen is the soundest way in which to provide it. The money is additional.
The hon. Gentleman's other point was whether the extra £100 million for accident and emergency or direct access services was new money. Simply, it is. That money was not included in the comprehensive spending review for the health service.
Mr. Lansley: It was in the comprehensive spending review.
Mr. Dobson: No, it was not. Some £430 million has been earmarked from the generalised Treasury modernisation fund for use by the health service over the next three years. Of that £430 million, £100 million is being made available this year. That money is additional to the funds that had been announced previously for the health service.
Mr. Syd Rapson: I thank my right hon. Friend for visiting Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth recently. Everyone there praised him for providing money for a refurbished accident and emergency unit. Staff there will take the money, wherever it comes from. It is small minded and churlish not to grab the money with both hands and to welcome it.
My right hon. Friend's visit was hijacked to some extent, however, by the issue of Haslar hospital, Gosport. The hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) is not here, but I am sure that he would say that that hospital's A and E unit also needs extra money following a period of having been run down. I hope that my right hon. Friend can say something in support of that hospital, but we welcome his statement today.
Mr. Dobson: The first hospital that I visited after I became Secretary of State for Health was the Boothroyd centre in Dewsbury, which goes to show, Madam Speaker, what a total creep I can be. The second was Queen Alexandra hospital in Portsmouth, which had a run-down accident and emergency department. It was a disgrace that the staff were expected to perform their valiant service in such conditions. It was there, too, that I met a nurse whose face had been slashed open by a yobbo who attacked her while she was trying to help. That is one reason why I have been so committed to trying to make life more safe and secure for those who work in accident and emergency departments.
Mr. Alan Duncan: So are we.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman may say that, but representatives of the British Medical Association tell me that they stopped talking to the previous Government
718
about doing anything to improve security because Ministers used to tell them, "That's the sort of society we live in these days." [Interruption.] But it is truthful.
My hon. Friend the member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson) referred to the closure of Haslar hospital, which has been decided by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. As I made clear on the day of my right hon. Friend's announcement, we owe it to the people of Gosport to ensure that top-quality services are available for them there. They should not be expected to rely for the bulk of their services on going to Portsmouth, which is a fair stride away if one needs urgent treatment.
Mr. James Paice: How many extra beds will be created in our acute hospitals as a result of the right hon. Gentleman's announcement about the creation of admissions wards? Or is it simply a redefinition of beds that are already there, under another guise?
Mr. Dobson: I cannot tell the hon. Gentleman the figures because all the details have yet to be worked out. In due course, that information will become available. As the hon. Gentleman ought to know, accident and emergency professionals and the Royal College of Physicians think that, even if some beds that were used for something else are used in an admissions ward, they will be being better used and the total benefit to patients will be greater than if they were not so used—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] Some will be entirely new, some will be new and additional and others will not. I am not pretending that everything is additional—I am not as silly as Conservative Members apparently are.
Ms Helen Southworth: In view of the additional resources that my right hon. Friend has announced, may I offer him best wishes not merely for a happy birthday but for many happy returns to this House with more announcements of that type? Is he aware that, in the last few months of the Tory maladministration, ambulances were queuing up outside Warrington hospital with patients inside them waiting for admission to the accident and emergency unit? Will he assure me that Warrington hospital, which provides an accident and emergency service for the entire north Cheshire region and which has no adequate medical assessment unit, will receive some of the resources that he has announced? That would make the people there, who work extremely hard, very happy.
Mr. Dobson: I can say that the proposals for improvements to accident and emergency services at Warrington hospital are among the biggest of the projects that will be covered by my announcement.
Mr. Desmond Swayne: Given the importance that the Secretary of State has rightly attached to expenditure on cancer care, will he confirm that the Government have abandoned the principle of additionality for lottery money?
Mr. Dobson: No. I should explain that this money is additional to the money that the taxpayer is finding for cancer treatment and also additional to the charitable funds collected by all sorts of civic-minded people

719
throughout the country, who want their local services improved. Therefore, it is additional in two respects—additional to taxpayer's money and to voluntary money. Combined with the other two, the additional money will lead to substantial improvements in the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. Most people will agree that that is additionality, and they will welcome it.
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I express my appreciation to my right hon. Friend for his statement and I appeal to him to extend NHS Direct throughout the region so that we can have the benefit of that service. May I also express appreciation on behalf of the people who work at Pinderfields general hospital in my constituency and at the Pontefract general infirmary, which serves my constituency, for the introduction of a scheme that will improve the accident and emergency units in those hospitals? The two units are very good, but I am sure that there is room to extend the facilities to help the patients who use them. Will my right hon. Friend undertake that the admission wards will be single sex? Unisex wards could cause difficulties because people are demanding privacy. Will he take that into consideration?
Mr. Dobson: We are committed to getting rid of, rather than introducing, mixed-sex wards. I hope therefore that all the additional facilities will be single sex. West Yorkshire will go on-line with NHS Direct early in April, and I will be there to do the opening ceremony.
Dr. Peter Brand: There appears to be a further extension of the scope of NHS Direct. Do NHS Direct services have to fit in with the health improvement programme determined by local authorities, to be delivered by primary care groups, or is a parallel primary care system being established? Is NHS Direct so named because it gives patients direct access to the NHS or because it allows the Secretary of State to have direct control over medical services?
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Gentleman—as he is a doctor I shall call him hon. and learned—is usually a bit better than that.
Mr. Duncan: It was a good question.
Mr. Dobson: The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) will be mortified to know that the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) thinks that he asked a good question; he may want to withdraw it. The fact is that NHS Direct gives people direct access at any time of
720
day or night to a professionally qualified nurse skilled in the computer protocols and giving help, advice, reassurance and, in some cases, immediately summoning an ambulance. I am not directing it. I am pleased as Punch that I played a part in introducing it. It is direct access. That is what we believe in. All the other schemes that we are talking about are intended to augment the existing system and are carried out only if local people want them. We want to encourage local initiatives.
For further confirmation, I will say again, as I always do, that the general practitioner system is one of the glories of the NHS and of our approach to health care. We want to maintain and sustain it. All that we are doing is additional. We do not want to get in the way or undermine it. Many of the people who are bringing about those developments are GPs who see them as a way of extending the impact of general practice.
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I congratulate the Secretary of State on doing well in dragging money out of the Treasury to improve accident and emergency departments all over the country. He will also be aware of a problem that exists in the area that he and I have the honour to represent: inappropriate use of accident and emergency services by people who have difficulty in getting on to GPs' lists. They are often homeless or live in hostels or are in housing difficulty of some sort. What is he doing to improve inner-city GP services to ensure that GPs, rather than accident and emergency centres, are the first port of call for people with minor ailments and injuries?
Mr. Dobson: I would make two points. On improving GP services, when Sir Leslie Turnberg, a past president of the Royal College of Physicians, did his report on health care in London, 50 per cent. of inner London GP premises were substandard. The figure is now down to 33 per cent., and we are determined to keep up that progress.
Secondly, I differ with my hon. Friend about his reference to inappropriate use of accident and emergency departments. Feeling off colour may not be an accident or emergency but, as he knows, in many inner-city areas, people in such circumstances have traditionally gone to the local hospital for treatment. We want to ensure that the NHS responds appropriately to their needs by providing GP services, or on-call services at the A and E department, so that it does what local people want and meets local demand without an adverse impact on the provision of accident and emergency services. The health service must meet the needs of people and mould itself to local needs, not insist that local people mould themselves to the NHS.

Points of Order
4.24 pm
Mr. John Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your guidance. Given the importance of maintaining the highest possible standards in public life, have you received any indication from the Prime Minister that he would like to make a statement in the House as soon as possible to correct the factually mistaken comment that he made in the House on Wednesday last week, when he suggested that there was a net £4.5 billion tax cut in the Budget—a claim that has since been comprehensively rebutted?
Madam Speaker: I fear that the hon. Gentleman is attempting to prolong Question Time by referring to last Wednesday's Question Time. The Prime Minister will be here on Wednesday for half an hour, when many Opposition Members will have an opportunity to question him on whether he wishes to correct that statement.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. From your knowledge of the Book of Genesis, the Book of Isaiah and the Gospel According to St. Matthew, you will know that the city of Nineveh is a biblical city that goes back some 6,000 years. The journalist Felicity Arbuthnot, who returned from Baghdad some hours ago, the Jordan Times, which is a reputable newspaper, and others have recounted that Nineveh—the old city—was struck by weapons. May we have a statement on the bombing of the cities of the ancient world in areas where there are said to be no defences; and on the whole human tragedy whereby the Tigris river has half the normal volume of water because of the unprecedented winter droughts that have affected Jordan and Iraq? My point is this: should the House of Commons avert its eyes from a human tragedy?
Madam Speaker: I have had no request from any Minister seeking to make a statement today.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), Madam Speaker. Have you had any request from the Prime Minister or from the Leader of the House to come to the House to make a statement that, henceforth, the enforcement of the ministerial code of conduct should be the responsibility of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards? It is clear from the ministerial code of conduct that a Minister who offers misleading information to the House should come to the House as soon as possible to correct such misleading information, but that has transparently not happened in respect of information and answers to questions relating to the Budget and taxes.
Madam Speaker: I have not had any request to make a statement on that issue, but I see that the most distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges is in his place in the Chamber as usual. No doubt, he will have noted that point of order.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Further to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for
722
Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), Madam Speaker. You will be aware that the 22nd edition of "Erskine May", page 221, states:
"it has been the practice for many years to publish material in amplification of an answer to a parliamentary question or of a ministerial statement".
We all make slips of the tongue from time to time, so I seek your guidance as to whether, if I were inadvertently to describe a tax increase of £7.1 billion as a tax decrease of £4.5 billion, you would be in a position to direct me to ask that Hansard be altered at once, so as to ensure that the correct information was given?
Mr. Gerald Howarth: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I realise that many of the points of order are related today, so may I ask whether the hon. Gentleman's point of order relates to that raised by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)?
Mr. Howarth: It does indeed, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: I might as well hear them all before making a ruling.
Mr. Howarth: It is a pleasure to find you in such a good mood today, Madam Speaker.
Dr. Julian Lewis: She is always in a good mood.
Mr. Howarth: She is in an especially good mood today.
Further to the important point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), Madam Speaker. During the Budget debate on Thursday, I drew attention to the discrepancy between the Prime Minister's remarks and the words that appear in the Red Book. I suggested that the Prime Minister had misled the House, but withdrew that remark, saying that the right hon. Gentleman might want to make a correction in the House in due course, once he had had an opportunity to study the figures in the Red Book. Is it not a matter of concern to people outside that statements made from the Dispatch Box should be truthful and reliable? If a Minister, in the heat of the moment, makes a mistake, there should be provision to enable that Minister to make an apology, and the House ought to be great enough to accept such an apology.
Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Quite frankly, I do not see how the matter can be taken any further. However, we might as well hear all points of order on this subject.
Mr. Davies: Is this not a thoroughly unsatisfactory state of affairs? The House has clearly been seriously misled—even if inadvertently—by the Prime Minister on the question of whether taxes are rising or falling. If the House, and therefore the public, have been seriously misled about such an important matter, it is not satisfactory to expect us to wait for a subsequent

723
Prime Minister's Question Time in the hope that someone might ask a question that will give the Prime Minister an opportunity to set the record straight.
Madam Speaker: I began in a good humour and I intend to finish that way. However, I remind the House that we have before us several hours' debate on the Budget. A Secretary of State is at the Dispatch Box and the Prime Minister will come to this place on Wednesday. I have no authority to require the Prime Minister to come to the House today, but he will definitely hear—certainly by the end of the day—about what has been said. A Secretary of State will open the Budget debate and I ask hon. Members to allow us to make sufficient progress so that I may call that debate.
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I raise a different subject entirely. At the beginning of her contribution, my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) drew the attention of the House to the number of occasions when the Secretary of State for Health, in particular, and other Ministers have openly leaked the contents of statements that were to be delivered in the House of Commons. Matters must be important to justify a parliamentary statement. Before delivering statements, Ministers utter the words "With permission, Madam Speaker." under what circumstances might you deny Secretaries of State that permission? Perhaps it might be denied when they have broken the conventions of the House and leaked information publicly?
Madam Speaker: I would never seek to deny a Secretary of State permission to make a statement in this place. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman: when a Minister rises to make a statement, he always says "With permission, Madam Speaker"; that is now part of our vocabulary. However, no Minister or Secretary of State requires my permission to make a statement.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's substantive point, I repeat how much I deprecate leaks of any kind. I listen avidly to the morning news, including the 6 o'clock news to which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) referred, and every news from then on. I use my Walkman to listen to the news when I take a walk and I hear far too much information that is made public often days before it is revealed at the Dispatch Box. I shall continue to deprecate that practice for as long as it continues.

European Common Fisheries Policy (Referendum)
4.33 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom's participation in the European common fisheries policy; and for connected purposes.
The objective of this Bill is twofold: first, to allow the British people the opportunity to state democratically how they wish Britain's fishing policy to evolve before any new European fisheries regime is established from 1 January 2003; and secondly, to support the statement of fisheries policy by the Marine Conservation Society, which refers to
"the concept of sustainable management of fish stocks whilst recognising the impacts of fishing on the marine ecosystem, in particular the environmental consequences of stock collapse, habitat destruction and the modification of predator-prey relationships".
It must be understood that the European common fisheries policy was never necessary according to the relevant criteria of all-stock conservation or fisheries management. It was introduced in 1970 to allow the vessels of existing common market countries whose own fishing grounds were depleted of stocks to exploit the well conserved waters of the then applicant countries for entry to the European Economic Community: Denmark, Ireland, Norway and the United Kingdom.
Shortly before the conclusion of the accession agreements, the six original European Economic Community members adopted regulation No. 2141/70, which laid down a common structural policy for the fishing industry, and regulation No. 2142/70, on the common organisation of the market in fisheries products. Those became part of the acquis communautaire, to which the United Kingdom had to agree as a condition of admission to the common market.
EEC regulation 2141/70, later replaced by regulation 101/76, required
"equal access to and use of the fishing grounds … for all fishing vessels flying a flag of a Member state and registered in community territory."
Thus was the principle of equal EEC access to a common resource established, the birthright of countless generations of British fishermen given away, and 73 per cent. of the common resource constituted by British territorial waters opened up to the depredations of continental fishermen.
The passage by the then Labour Government of the Fishery Limits Act 1976, which established the United Kingdom's 200-mile or median line exclusive fishing zone, had no effect, as competence for living marine resources had already been handed over to the EEC. That contrasts with the cases of Iceland and Norway, where establishment of 200-nautical-mile exclusive fishing zones had been the key to their sustainable, responsible husbandry for their own stocks, the preservation of employment in their fishing industries and the enhanced prosperity of their peoples.
The Fishermen's Association of Aberdeen, in a memorandum submitted to the EU Council of Fisheries Ministers in November 1998, stated that
"the quota system is responsible for the dumping dead of countless thousands of tons by weight and billions of individual fish"—

725
which is a
"principal cause of the overall reduction of fish stocks and makes a major contribution to pollution".
It goes on to state that the system results in
"highly inaccurate data in official fisheries statistics, thus rendering accurate scientific assessment impossible … It criminalises honest fishermen who are obliged to dump massive quantities"—
or
"to land quota fish illegally … It destroys direct and indirect employment through fleet restructuring and quota restrictions … it is having a devastating effect on the most vulnerable coastal communities … It has resulted in the growth of the trade in quotas, which ensures that ownership of the fleet is concentrated in fewer and fewer hands."
The memorandum also states that
"in the UK at least there is little or no financial aid to upgrade or modernise the fleet".
The Fishermen's Association's subsequent memor-andum to the EU Council of Fisheries Ministers of February 1999 stated:
"The conclusion is that the present community policy on fishing does not exhibit a single positive feature. It is destroying the fishing industry, it is creating economic, social, environmental and ecological havoc, and it violates some of the fundamental principles of the European Union. There is no way that it can be reformed. There is therefore no justification for extending the present system, which should be wound up at the earliest possible moment as a matter of urgency, without waiting for the conclusions of Agenda 2000".
There now approaches a compelling conjuncture, with the imminent enlargement of the European Union and the end of the derogation by 2003 which has permitted sole British jurisdiction over fishing in United Kingdom coastal waters.
Furthermore, since the treaty of European Union, signed at Maastricht and later embellished at Amsterdam, gave the EU sovereignty over fisheries, as against the EEC competence over fisheries products under the treaty of Rome, it will be difficult for the United Kingdom, by ministerial negotiation alone, to secure EU unanimity in support of the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the common fisheries policy, which we require to safeguard fish stocks in the British exclusive fishing zones and to preserve the British fishing industry—let alone to safeguard sufficient resources of fish in our waters to allow traditional access by bilateral agreement to boats of other nations.
Her Majesty's Government, by their commitment to a referendum on possible participation in the euro, have officially endorsed the referendum as the approved democratic determinant of key British policy towards the EU, and rightly so. My Bill proposes the extension of that principle to a referendum to legitimise, by national majority ballot box endorsement, the treaty change necessary to secure the United Kingdom's withdrawal from the European common fisheries policy. Our people will thereby demonstrate their commitment to the ultimate supremacy of the British Parliament and the preservation of the jobs of brave British fishermen who deserve to continue to derive a livelihood from the well managed and well policed territorial seas of the United Kingdom.
4.40 pm
Mr. Ian Cawsey: I oppose the Bill, but in doing so I seek not to divide the House but merely to place the counter-argument on the record so that people may take it into account should the Bill proceed any further.
726
I am not opposed to improving the lot of the fishing industry—I was, after all, born and bred in Grimsby, and have seen at first hand the devastation of the industry. However, the action of a Conservative Government back in the early 1970s cannot now be rectified by our withdrawal from the common fisheries policy. It is therefore wrong to pass a Bill offering false hope through a referendum.
I must make it clear that I am not against the use of referendums. The Government have used them several times since the elections, and they have been widely supported by the electorate. However, all those referendums were based on asking the public whether they wanted to change to a new and specified system. In this case, the reverse is true. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) seems to want a referendum on whether we should leave the common fisheries policy, but does not say what would take its place. In other words, he seems to want to ask people what they do not want rather than what they do want. That is not in the interests of the fishing industry.
The vagueness of that approach is not surprising or, indeed, inconsistent with the current approach to fishing adopted by the Conservative party. Whatever views hon. Members have on the common fisheries policy, it is worth bearing it in mind that it is a treaty obligation. Indeed, at Agriculture questions only last week, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, who is in his seat, was asked:
"What assessment he has made of the prospects of any EU nation unilaterally withdrawing from the common fisheries policy".
He replied:
"Such action would breach European Community treaty commitments and be incompatible with membership of the EC."— [Official Report, 11 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 492.]
I think that the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood knows that very well. The reason he has introduced the Bill is not primarily to do with fishing, but has everything to do with his well known views on Europe. Indeed, if the European Union could collapse on the back of the CFP, he would be a happy man, but it would not be good news for our fishermen; nor would it be in Britain's national interest.
Even if people voted against the CFP in a referendum, how would the Government implement the result? We could do that only with the unanimous agreement of all the other European Union member states, which seems most unlikely. Would it help our fishermen? We would still need to protect fish stocks, and the issue of quotas and the returning of dead fish to the water would remain.
In previous speeches on this subject, the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood has cited Norway as a country that successfully goes its own way, but Norway has only a small fishing industry which has had problems with the management of its stocks and now has a ferocious enforcement regime. I am not sure that our industry would want to follow that course.
The Bill is wholly in line with the stance of Conservative Front-Bench spokesmen as they try to find an Opposition fisheries policy. The Tories, who signed up to the CFP back in 1971 and then reconfirmed it when they signed the Maastricht treaty under the previous Government, now seem, after 28 years of supporting the policy, to want this Bill in order to get out of it—or do they?

727
In a fisheries debate on 15 December last year, the right hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who speaks for the Conservatives on fisheries matters and who is in his place now, made it clear—[Interruption.] Oh, he is not right hon. I am sorry; I did my best. He made it clear that the Conservative party supported withdrawal. He reiterated that fact on 22 February this year, apparently with the support of the Leader of the Opposition. He was even given a supportive editorial in The Daily Telegraph the next day.
Since then, I fear that not all has been well around the kitchen table. The shadow Chancellor, the shadow education spokesman and the shadow agriculture spokesman have all pointed out the folly of this policy. The Leader of the Opposition, who is probably sympathetic to the Bill, nevertheless wrote an article in Fishing News, claiming that the Tories would regain control of our fishing grounds, but dropped any reference to withdrawal from the CFP. Indeed, after 28 years of adhering to the policy, he claims to have
"a completely new approach to fisheries".
If only we had known before what we had to do.
The editorial in Fishing News was withering—certainly not as complimentary as The Daily Telegraph—stating that the Conservatives were up in the air and had no realistic explanation of how they would fulfil their promise. The Scottish White Fish Producers Association said that the response of the Leader of the Opposition was
"a load of waffle which underpins why the Conservatives are in opposition";
and that the true Conservative policy on fishing was "Be vague with Hague." One can imagine the shadow Cabinet sitting round the kitchen table singing, "Fins can only get better".
The hon. Member for Teignbridge clarified the position at MAFF questions only last week. After speaking so passionately for withdrawal from the CFP, he said that the Tories' fisheries policy was that
"we rule nothing in and nothing out."—[Official Report, 11 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 492.]
No wonder the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood has introduced his Bill. He must be exasperated by the antics of those on his Front Bench. Perhaps The Daily Telegraph could run a new readers' game—fantasy fishing league. Everyone could have a guess at what will come next from the Tory shadow Cabinet on fishing.
728
Last week my hon. Friend the Paymaster General accused the Opposition of having a "pick and mix" approach to the Budget. I suppose that we are witnessing the Conservatives' "all you can eat" policy on fisheries.
The Bill is a final attempt to say something—anything—on fishing. It is not realistic, for the reasons that I have outlined. Those of us who served in the Labour party in the late 1970s and early 1980s know what it must be like to be in the modern-day Tory party. We know that the further one gets from power, the more bizarre and unworkable one's policies become. To judge from the opinion polls and the Bill, that rule of thumb still applies.
When considering the Bill, Conservative Members should take heed of this advice:
"Withdrawal from the CFP would require unanimous agreement by EU member states. They would not agree to a 200 mile fishing limit. Even before we joined the Community, we only excluded all foreign fishing vessels from a 6 mile limit. We would pay a heavy price in other areas of EU policy which could damage vital national interests."
Wise words, taken from the Conservative party's policy guide for candidates at the last election, and the policy on which Conservative Members were elected. We could be witnessing a first—an Opposition who break their promises. Old Tory habits die hard.
I hope that hon. Members will reflect on all that has been said today and that the Bill, with all its shortcomings, will fail to make the statute book.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. John Wilkinson, Sir Richard Body, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mrs. Angela Browning, Mr. John Townend, Sir Teddy Taylor, Mr. Richard Shepherd, Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. Michael Fabricant, Mr. Gerald Howarth, Mr. Owen Paterson and Mr. Graham Brady.

European Common Fisheries Policy (Referendum)

  EUROPEAN COMMON FISHERIES POLICY (REFERENDUM)
  Mr. John Wilkinson accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the holding of a referendum on the United Kingdom's participation in the European Common Fisheries Policy; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 April, and to be printed [Bill 63].
  Mr. Wilkinson: As the House knows, 23 April is St. George's day.

Orders of the Day
  WAYS AND MEANS
  Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [9 March].

  AMENDMENT OF THE LAW
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

  (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

  (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or

  (d) for any relief, other than a relief which—

  (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

  (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.—[Mr. Gordon Brown.]

  Question again proposed.

  Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation
  [Relevant documents: The Second Report from the Treasury Committee, Session 1998–99, on the World Economy and the Pre-Budget Report (HC 91-I), and the Fourth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 1998–99, on the Pre-Budget Report (HC 93).]
  4.49 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): Last week, the Chancellor delivered a better deal for Britain with a Budget for a fairer society, built on a strong and stable economy, which will ensure that everyone has the chance to share in rising prosperity by tackling child poverty, promoting work and opportunity and delivering a new £1 billion-package of support for pensioners.
  All that is possible because we are beginning to see the benefits of sound economic management. We are leaving behind the instability—the boom and bust—that plagued businesses, individuals, and families in the past. We took the tough decision to make the Bank of England independent: a decision opposed by the Conservative party. The result is that inflation is low, long-term interest rates are at their lowest for more than 40 years, and mortgage rates are at their lowest level for 30 years. We have kept a tight control of spending, cutting the debts left behind by the Conservative Government. At the same time, we are investing £40 billion more in schools and hospitals.
  The Budget continues to lock in economic stability by keeping public finances under control and delivering targeted tax cuts for enterprise, work and families. The Budget shows how economic efficiency and fairness go hand in hand. We are helping working people who are not wealthy by cutting taxes to reward work, and to make work pay. We are providing better help for parents and their children by cutting taxes, and helping parents when they need it most. We are doing more for pensioners,
  730
  delivering on our promise to ensure that they share in the rising national prosperity being provided by our economic policies.
  The Budget is helping the many, not just the few whom the Conservatives used to help. More than 20 million of the nation's households will gain from this Budget and from the previous one. We are doing all that within tight and prudent spending limits. As a result of our sound economic management and low interest rates, debt interest payments next year have been cut by £2.5 billion from their previous forecast—that is a total of £4 billion over the next three years.
  We said that we would cut the bills of economic failure and re-focus spending on our priorities—schools, hospitals, families and pensioners. We have done that, and we shall continue to do so.
  We are getting social security spending under control. In this Parliament it is growing at half the annual rate compared with that recorded in the previous Parliament under the Conservatives, when social security spending grew at 4 per cent.—in one year alone the increase in spending almost hit 10 per cent. The lower figure for this Parliament includes the working families tax credit.
  Our sound economic policies, and our radical welfare-to-work initiatives, have helped bring unemployment down. Since the election, there are 400,000 more people in work. Long-term unemployment is down by half, as is youth unemployment.
  We are getting spending under control not just by cutting unemployment, but by bearing down on fraud and error. We are confronting the Tory economic and administrative incompetence that we inherited. We are tackling housing benefit fraud and tightening the gateways to the benefits system. We are ensuring that we pay the right amount of benefit, but only to those people who are entitled to it.
  When we came into office, two out of five income support claims were paid without enough evidence. We have changed that. This year alone we have saved £200 million in income support by getting those payments right. During this Parliament, we will save £1 billion by taking the trouble to ensure that we get those payments right first time. That £1 billion will be available to meet the Government's priorities elsewhere. We shall do more to control our spending, and will switch money to meet our priorities.
  In our first two Budgets, and in the comprehensive spending review, we are committed to spending £4 billion a year to help pensioners and families. By controlling our spending we can afford to do more to help those who need it most.
  We are also planning for the future, to ensure that social security spending remains affordable, manageable and effective. We are controlling spending in the long term so that, year after year, Budget after Budget, we can afford to do more for those who need it most—just as we have done in this Budget and the previous one. Our Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill now going through the House offers plans for the long term. Its radical structural reforms will help us to meet the needs that we know we shall face in the future.
  The best way to help people to tackle the causes of poverty and to prevent future poverty is to help people into work. Benefits can treat the symptoms of poverty,

  731
  but they cannot tackle its causes. It is easy to send out a giro, but a giro cannot get people a job, or improve their skills or education. We are tackling the causes of poverty by building a strong, stable and enterprising economy with employment opportunities. We are tackling poverty through our radical welfare reform programme, which is driven by our principle of work for those who can and security for those who cannot.
  That is why we introduced the new deal, which helps to get people back to work, including the young and now the over-50s too. We have introduced a new £750 grant for in-work training, and a new employment credit that is worth £60 a week when people move into full-time work after six months or more on benefit. It guarantees people aged over 50 a minimum income of £175 a week in their first year back at work.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In his speech, the Chancellor made great play of the fact that people on the minimum wage would pay taxes and still qualify for benefit. Under the Government's proposals, how many years will it take for people to be able to earn the minimum wage and not pay tax on it?
  Mr. Darling: The minimum wage will be introduced this April, so everyone will qualify for it from then. The Chancellor made it clear that all our reforms were geared to ensure that people got the best possible return that they could by going into work. That is all part of our strategy to get people back into work, as is the change of culture introduced by the new single gateway, which offers a new contract for people, balancing their rights and responsibilities. The minimum wage will benefit nearly 2 million low-paid workers, two thirds of them women.
  We have launched the first ever national child care strategy to help to overcome barriers to work, and to ensure that parents have access to quality, affordable and reliable child care. Our policies are already making a difference. We are already seeing the benefits of our prudent and sound management of the economy, and of our tax and benefit reforms. The new deals for the young and long-term unemployed have already helped nearly 120,000 people into jobs or training.
  The Budget builds on all that with further tax and benefit reforms that deliver our commitment to make work pay and to help those who need it most. The Government are determined to deliver. This is a Government who have kept their promises on tax which we made at the election.
  We kept our promise to cut VAT on fuel, but we did not do just that. We also introduced extra help with fuel bills for pensioners. We have also helped pensioners with the new minimum income guarantee, the reintroduction of free eye tests and by offering concessions on their bus fares. Of course, we are doing more for pensioners in the current Budget. We have also raised child benefit by a record amount.
  Mr. Francis Maude: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: I will certainly give way to the shadow Chancellor. He believes that our spending is unaffordable
  732
  and reckless. I would be interested to hear whether the Conservatives support our plans to increase help for families and pensioners.
  Mr. Maude: The Secretary of State has just said that the Government have kept the promises on tax that they made before the election. Will he explain how the Prime Minister has kept his promise that he had no plans to increase tax at all?
  Mr. Darling: I would be delighted to relive the general election—for Labour Members, it was an extremely pleasurable experience. Indeed, we cannot see too many action replays of those happy days in April and May 1997, but let me make it absolutely clear that what we said during the general election was that we would not increase the basic or top rate of tax. Despite the fact that the Conservatives tried every day—when they were not squabbling about Europe—to get us to promise more than that, we stuck to the promise that we would not increase the top or basic rate of income tax. We have kept to that promise.
  Mr. Maude: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Darling: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman wants to get to his feet to congratulate us on going further than that: we are reducing the basic rate of income tax.
  Mr. Maude: Will the Secretary of State explain what he understood the Prime Minister to mean when he used the precise words:
  "We have no plans to increase tax at all"?
  How does the Secretary of State interpret that?
  Mr. Darling: As I spent much of the general election campaign listening to the Prime Minister, I know exactly what he said about the top and basic rate of tax. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman should be cautious because, although he was not in the previous Parliament—he unfortunately lost his seat—the Conservatives are in no position to lecture us on keeping promises on tax. We well remember the 22 Tory tax rises—every one of them.
  The right hon. Gentleman should look at the manifesto and the countless interviews that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor conducted during the election campaign. Every time, they repeated the promise that we have kept: we would not increase the basic rate or the top rate of tax. As I said last Tuesday, the Chancellor went even further than that by reducing the basic rate of tax and introducing the lowest starting rate of tax for many years, so we have kept the promises that we made in the election.
  We will deliver on every promise that we made in the manifesto during the election because we are determined to help low and middle-income families—I know that the Conservative party does not know what I am talking about. Helping those families is very important, which is why we introduced the 10p rate of income tax—the lowest starting rate of tax for some 35 years. The basic rate of tax will be at its lowest level for 70 years from next year—it will fall to 22p in the pound—and no family will pay net income tax on earnings of less than £235 a week. We are also introducing and increasing working families tax credit—another measure that the Conservatives oppose,

  733
  and are pledged to repeal. As a result, every family working full-time, with children, is guaranteed a minimum income of £200 a week, or £10,000 a year. The Conservative party is pledged to get rid of that.
  Mr. Michael Jack: What, in money terms, is the Secretary of State's definition of "middle income"?
  Mr. Darling: If that is the best that the right hon. Gentleman can do, it is no wonder that the Conservatives are in their present position. Most people recognise that this Government are helping people on both low and middle incomes as the Conservative party never did—especially people on lower incomes.
  Our reforms of national insurance will help to make work pay. We are giving employees an overall cut in contributions worth £2.5 billion a year. Our reforms will also help to make work pay by lifting 900,000 low-paid people out of national insurance payments altogether, while at the same time protecting their entitlement to benefits. Moreover, we are reforming the national insurance scheme for self-employed people in order to reduce the burden for those with lower profits, encourage the start-up of new businesses and make the system fairer.
  Mr. Steve Webb: As the Secretary of State knows, at present child benefit and family credit are deliberately paid to mothers rather than fathers, in the belief that is of greater benefit to the children. The strategy outlined by the right hon. Gentleman leans heavily on tax credits, which, typically, will go to fathers. Does he worry about that shift from mothers to fathers?
  Mr. Darling: There is no such shift. In the case of family credit, it is possible for parents to choose to whom it should be paid, and in the case of working families tax credit and child care tax credit we have been careful to ensure that will still be possible, because we have anticipated the difficulties to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. He need not be concerned.
  Another of our reforms will also help people to get into work: we shall give lone parents two weeks' income support after they start work. Along with housing benefit, which they can keep for four weeks, that will make it far easier for them to find employment. All these measures are fair, prudent and effective.
  Mr. Maude: The Secretary of State has been keen to seek refuge behind the specific nature of the commitments and promises made on taxes and taxation rates before the election. Does he recall the poster published by Labour—I have a copy here—saying
  "Income Tax Rates Will Not Rise"?
  How does he reconcile that with the decision in the Budget, to which the Chancellor mysteriously failed to refer, that many people's marginal rate of tax should rise from 20p to 23p in the pound?
  Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong about that, as he is about just about everything else. He really will have to do better than brandishing Labour party posters—although I am glad that he has kept them: they may be a salutary reminder to the Conservatives of what they did when they were in power.
  734
  We have introduced a new starting rate of 10p in the pound, and a new lower basic rate of 22p, which will come into force next year. I think most people will recognise at the next election, as they did at the last, that they can trust the Labour Government to tell the truth about tax.
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Darling: One moment, one moment. I understand that the right hon. Gentleman hopes to wind up the debate, if we ever reach that happy point.
  I am pretty sure that most people remember exactly what happened under the last Conservative Government, who made promises about tax which they knew they could not keep and which they wilfully broke in Budget after Budget. During the general election, we made specific promises. We were cross-examined on those promises, quite properly, and we have kept to them. Although this may irk some Conservative Members, I remind them that it is this Government who have reduced the basic rate of tax as part of an overall, coherent tax-reforming strategy.
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Darling: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman once more, but that will be the lot.
  Mr. Maude: The Secretary of State is now alleging that, for his purposes, a pledge made on a poster that was published extensively does not amount to a pledge. Nevertheless, if he will consult the Paymaster General, she would tell him—if she can remember the figures—that because the 20p rate has been abolished, the marginal rate of income tax is now 23p for those whose taxable income is between £1,500 and £4,300, and whose marginal income tax rate is currently 20p.
  Mr. Darling: One has to consider the tax changes in the round, and consider the national insurance payment reductions that we announced at the same time. [Interruption.] I am more than happy that the right hon. Gentleman should brandish that poster, both now and on every day between now and the next general election campaign. People will remember that whereas they could not trust the Tories on tax, they can trust the Labour party on it. We are delivering a tax strategy and a national insurance payment strategy which are designed to help people to get back into work, ensure that work pays, and which are far better and more coherent than their predecessors. He should by all means keep that poster, as he will undoubtedly need it during the next general election campaign.
  Last year, the Chancellor promised a substantial increase in support for children, and the Budget delivers on that promise. It is a scandal—for which the previous Government must bear much responsibility—that, in the final year of the 20th century, a child can still be born poor, live poor and die poor. Every child deserves a decent start in life, and we are determined to ensure that every child gets it.
  We have already begun, with the record increase in child benefit, to tackle child poverty, and radical initiatives such as the £540 million sure start programme will help young children from deprived communities to

  735
  get a decent start. The Budget delivers more help. Next year, we are increasing child benefit by even more—a 3 per cent. increase—which is on top of next month's record increase. From April 2000, for the first time ever, child benefit will be worth at least £15 for the first child and £10 for other children. The Government are therefore delivering big increases in child benefit, to provide help and real security for more than 12 million children and their families. From April 2001, we will deliver a new children's tax credit, with a tax cut—worth up to £416 annually—for 5 million families.
  The combined result of the new children's tax credit and increased child benefit will be that, by April 2001, families who received £11 a week in 1997—at the time of the previous general election—for their first child will be receiving £23 a week. That is more than double what they were receiving under the previous Government.
  Cutting taxes, increasing child benefit and introducing the working families tax credit will significantly boost the incomes of the 1.4 million low-paid working families, thereby helping 3 million children—as we also promised to do at the previous general election.
  Mr. Webb: I welcome extra support for low-paid families. Nevertheless, the Government said in the Budget that, in the medium term, they wanted to develop a streamlined system of supporting families. Now, someone in a low-paid job will receive child benefit, child credit, child care tax credit and working families tax credit. Is that the type of simple system that the Government want? Why did they not introduce a streamlined system now rather than introducing a messy one first?
  Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is an academic and takes a keen interest in these matters. The Chancellor said that he wanted a streamlined system because—as the hon. Gentleman was right to say—the current system is quite complicated and can be difficult to understand. However, there are two problems. First, it always takes time to introduce a new system, as one must be confident that the new system will work and deliver payments most effectively and efficiently. Secondly, if we did nothing before introducing the new system, children growing up would miss out on the help that most of us agree is necessary.
  In all our tax and benefit changes, therefore, we have chosen a judicious policy mix, one consideration driving that decision is the need to provide help as soon as we possibly can, consistent with our prudent management. The second consideration is to make the structural changes necessary to deliver more efficiently all the tax and benefit changes. We are on the case, and we are getting there. However, to do nothing until we have completely re-engineered the system would not be appreciated by those who would lose out meanwhile.
  Another important element of our strategy to help the poorest families is an increase of nearly 30 per cent. in all income-related benefits for children under 11. We want to ensure that all children are looked after properly and that their families have the means of support to ensure that they get the same opportunities as everybody else.
  We are also introducing the new sure start maternity grant to replace the existing social fund maternity payment from next year. That will help 200,000 families
  736
  by doubling the amount that they receive for a new baby from £100 to £200. One in four children born will benefit from that help. We are also doing more to protect the health of pregnant women and their unborn children by extending entitlement for maternity allowance to women on low wages, helping 14,000 mothers each year. From August next year, self-employed women will also benefit from a more generous maternity allowance, which we are increasing by 15 per cent.
  We are helping children today because they need that help today. We are helping 700,000 children out of poverty, delivering on another manifesto commitment. In this Budget, we are ensuring that those children have better prospects, better opportunities and the chance of a better future.
  We are also concerned that we should help pensioners, to ensure that they share in the rising prosperity of the country. We are providing significant new help for pensioners, with a £1 billion package of support. We are determined to do most to help those pensioners in greatest need, so we are delivering on our proposal in the pensions Green Paper that I published last December, by uprating the new minimum income guarantee in line with earnings in April next year. This year a single pensioner will get £75 and a couple will get £116. From next year, a single pensioner will get around £78 and a couple will get £121. That is a significant amount of help for some of the poorest pensioners in the country. From April next year, the poorest pensioner couples could benefit by nearly £800 a year compared with the help that they received from the previous Government. That is a real boost for the incomes of the poorest pensioners. The Government are delivering real security that was not there during the 18 years that the Conservatives were in power.
  Mr. David Rendel: Does the Secretary of State accept that the poorest pensioners are those who are not on income support, who will not benefit from the minimum income guarantee?
  Mr. Darling: As I pointed out to the hon. Gentleman at Social Security questions last week, we made it clear in the pensions Green Paper that we recognise the problem of the nearly poor pensioner—someone with modest capital or a modest income from an occupational pension. We are determined to do more to help those pensioners. In the mean time, we have to tackle a problem that has built up over many years. There are too many pensioners who are very poor. They will benefit from the minimum tax guarantee.
  Mr. Rendel indicated dissent.
  Mr. Darling: There is no point in the hon. Gentleman shaking his head. I understand that he is campaigning for the leadership of his party, so he ought to be aware that at least one member of his party does not agree with him. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) thinks that the minimum pension guarantee is a good thing. That is one vote gone before he starts, unless he can convince his hon. Friend to change his mind. The Government are doing more to help pensioners across the board.
  Mr. Rendel: Not the poorest.
  Mr. Darling: Let me set out what we are doing to help pensioners. We are taking 200,000 pensioners out of

  737
  income tax. By definition, they were not the poorest pensioners, but that will mean that two thirds of pensioners will not pay any income tax. We want all pensioners to share in rising prosperity, so we are increasing the new winter payment to £100. That is a fivefold increase in the amount that they currently get and will benefit 7 million pensioner households. That is a major step in our fight against poverty. More than 10 million pensioners will benefit from the help that this Labour Government are delivering.
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State talks about increasing the winter fuel payment. Why did he not simply increase the basic state pension? Is the price of fuel going to increase by the amount that he has increased the payment, or is there some other reason?
  Mr. Darling: We wanted to deliver a significant payment to every pensioner household during the winter. Many pensioners find that in winter, increased fuel use and other costs mean that they will greatly value the additional single payment of £100. Most pensioners will welcome the additional help, and will recognise that the Government are doing more to meet other priorities as well.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: My right hon. Friend may know that that measure was warmly welcomed by Stella Hague, the mother of the Leader of the Opposition. On income tax, will not the change to a 10 per cent. income tax rate—taken together with the marginal rates of 20 and 23 per cent.—offer a net saving to all taxpayers, because—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. It sounds as though the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) is trying to make a speech.
  Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend made two good points, one of which was that nearly 2 million low-paid people will benefit from the 10p starting rate. That is why it is such a useful addition to the tax regime. On his second point, I have no idea what the mother of the Leader of the Opposition thinks. If she welcomes our pension proposals, perhaps she is urging her son to embark on a reshuffle to get some better quality on the Opposition Front Bench.
  I would be interested to learn, in the next half hour or so, what are the Conservative's proposals. Since the Budget, the Conservatives have been strangely silent—apart from the usual squabbling on Europe. There has not been much talk at the kitchen table over the weekend. I would be interested to know whether the Conservatives still adhere to the line that our spending is unaffordable and that, therefore, they would reverse our spending plans.
  We are giving significant help to families with children and to pensioners. It would be interesting to know where the Conservatives stand on that. We know that they oppose our increased spending on the health service, housing and education. Let us hope that, this afternoon, they will tell us whether they support our proposals to give more help to families and to pensioners, or whether they support our plans to reduce the basic rate of tax—something that they were unable to do for much of the time that they were in office. Perhaps we will hear what the Conservatives would do.
  738
  In contrast to Conservative policies, the Budget will help 20 million households throughout the country. Those households are getting a better deal from the Government because we are promoting enterprise and securing a stronger economic future. We are controlling spending, while providing extra money for schools and hospitals. We are providing a better future for millions by cutting taxes to promote work, to help families find work and to help pensioners and the poorest in society.
  It is a prudent and fair Budget, and it is a better deal for this country. I commend it to the House.
  5.18 pm
  Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: Last Tuesday, the Chancellor produced his third Budget, three features of which I wish to deal with today: first, the way in which the Chancellor mentioned only what he considered to be the good things, preferring to leave unsaid many bad things—changes by stealth; secondly, the ending of the special place of marriage in the tax and benefits system; and thirdly, rising tax.
  I know that the Secretary of State for Social Security does not want to be taken back to this matter, but we will run through it one more time. Last week, the Prime Minister, when confronted by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition about taxes, responded by saying that taxes had been cut. Perhaps he was economic with the truth, or perhaps he was intimated by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who was sitting next to him. One way or the other, even the Prime Minister admitted the week before that taxes are rising; yet a week later, he said something else.
  In the Financial Times of 21 September 1995—this point was made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude)—the Prime Minister said that he had
  "no plans to increase tax at all."
  That is a straightforward pledge, and it is fair that Labour in government should be measured by that pledge. However, the Government do not seem too happy. The fact remains that the two previous Budgets have increased taxes by approximately —40.7 billion over this Parliament, and taxes will rise in the coming year by £7.1 billion. It is the overall burden, not the headline income tax that matters. The overall burden of tax is what the public have to pay, not what the Chancellor wants to publicise. The public are presented with what appears to be a reduction while the Government are busy taking more money out of their pockets.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham said, look how the Chancellor abolished the 20p rate and attacked the public through changes in national insurance. The Chancellor said not one word about any of that in the Budget speech. Budget speeches are presentations by a Government, but it is fair to present both the good and the bad news and give a reasonable idea of exactly what is happening.
  Let us consider what the Chancellor did not say.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the net effect of the changes is a cash reduction in the amount of income tax that people pay?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: As usual, the hon. Gentleman has got it completely wrong. The Red Book shows that the

  739
  tax burden will rise over the Government's period of office. The public do not want to hear nonsense about fiddled cash figures; they want to know what they will actually pay and the reality is that they will pay more tax. If he does not like that, he should not have stood on Labour's manifesto in the general election.
  The Chancellor told us that he was introducing a children's tax credit to replace the married couple's allowance. He did not say that he would get rid of the allowance in 2000–01 but not introduce the children's tax credit until a year later. There was nothing about that in his speech. That manoeuvre nets the Treasury, on Red Book figures, £1.6 billion—a little windfall tax—in that one year. All married couples—with or without children, pensioners, rich or poor—will lose. It is as simple as that.
  In getting rid of the married couple's allowance, the Chancellor did not say that he was getting rid of widow's bereavement allowance as well. I do not recall a word about that in the speech; remember, this comes after the previous Budget's reduction of the allowance by 10 per cent from April 1999.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: Would the hon. Gentleman retain the married couple's allowance at the existing rate if he were in power?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: When we get back into power we will reinstate the special place of marriage in the tax and benefit system. We have an absolute pledge to change what the Government have done. We will deal with specifics when we come into government, but we have made that pledge.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No. The hon. Gentleman had his moment and he lost it, so he can forget it now.
  Getting rid of the married couple's allowance was a major move. The Chancellor did not talk about the national insurance increase, but Library figures show that when all Labour's reforms to employer's national insurance charges have been implemented, thanks to the changes to the upper earnings limit people earning more than £27,000 will be worse off.
  The Chancellor did not tell anyone that the plans for social security spending add another £1 billion to projected totals. Page 159 of the Red Book is clear about that. The Secretary of State and his colleagues failed to add in their little shimmy over the working families tax credit. They increase spending and say that it is a tax reduction of more than £5 billion a year, which is nonsense. We should add that back in, making the figure £6 billion, which is a net increase of £2.5 billion, counting the £1 billion to which I just referred.
  The Chancellor did not tell anyone that the Government expect a rise of at least 400,000 in unemployment benefit claims as a result of the three Budgets. The National Audit Office report makes that clear. The Government know that and have allowed for it. Because of that specific problem, they will have to increase social security spending. We are now in the wonderful position that a Government who talked about lowering unemployment—the Secretary of
  740
  State just mentioned lowering it by 400,000—are planning to increase it by 400,000. Perhaps the most devious way in which the Government have fiddled the figures is their constant pretence that the working families tax credit is indeed a credit, which it is not. The Chancellor mentioned none of that.
  What the Government should have done is to apologise for the raid they made, when they first came to power, on pensioner incomes and savings of £5 billion a year through the abolition of the advance corporation tax dividend tax credit. The National Association of Pension Funds pointed out, even before the Budget, that a pensioner expecting a reasonable income in retirement will find it reduced. The association calculates that someone aged 35, with a starting salary of £10,000 per year rising to £32,000—roughly a 4 per cent. increase per annum—over 30 years, would have retired on a pension of £14,721, but would now retire on a pension of just over £12,000. That is a direct result of the Government's change in their first Budget. I would have congratulated the Government if they had admitted how damaging that tax change has been and had rectified it in this Budget, but they did not take the opportunity to do so.
  The Budget did not contain anything for the saver. For example, while the Government have lowered the basic rate of income tax to 10 per cent. on a very narrow band, they have not done the same for savers, who will continue to pay tax at 20 per cent., rising to 40 per cent.
  The confirmation that the Government will link the minimum pensions guarantee to earnings was announced in such a way as to confuse people. The real result of that change will be a huge increase in means-testing. As the years go by, more and more people will be trapped in the income support line and the disincentive to save will increase rapidly.
  Figures from the Library show clearly that under the current arrangements, the proportion of pensioners on income support could rise from one in five to one in three by 2050. Taking into consideration the projections for the rise in the number of pensioners, those figures also show that the Budget will mean that spending on income support will rise, at today's prices, from just under £4 billion to some £20 billion by 2050. The Budget will do all that, and it will still act as a massive disincentive to saving. That is a huge rise in spending, which will fall on taxpayers, and it comes from a Government who talked about breaking the dependency culture. The Prime Minister did not waste a day before saying that he would change the dependency culture.
  Pensioners did not ask for that change in the Budget. Almost 1 million pensioners do not claim income support, so it is perhaps one of the Chancellor's stupidest decisions to change the pension arrangements in that way. I can think of nothing to recommend it. Furthermore, it now appears that the Government have admitted that they have got it wrong. The Chancellor is fond of saying that the married couple's allowance was neither about married people nor was it an allowance. The minimum income guarantee is not a minimum, nor is it a guarantee. When a Treasury spokesman was asked about that, he said:
  "There will be some pensioners in a position where it doesn't quite do that. They will not get the minimum income guarantee in particular circumstances. That principle is something which is being looked at".

  741
  An official from the Department of Social Security said:
  "There are going to be people"—
  who—
  "have no other form of income other than the state pension … which ministers are aware of."
  All the nonsense about a minimum income guarantee is utter rubbish. It is all about income support and people who will not qualify for it, but their incomes could be lower than the income level that qualifies people for income support.
  Mr. Phil Hope: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that some 113,000 pensioners in Northamptonshire will benefit from the winter fuel payment of £100 for every pensioner household? Why did his Administration, when they were in government, fail to provide any extra assistance for pensioners during the winter, when they have most demands on their income? If the Conservatives were ever to get back into power, would they take away that £100 from pensioners?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: What a total load of nonsense. We changed income support levels for pensioners and the hon. Gentleman knows very well that his allegation is rubbish. He raised the question of winter fuel payments, which I have always thought a cock-eyed way to increase pensioner income. If, as the Secretary of State says, the Government have the means to increase pensioner incomes, why did they choose to do it in that way? Are they telling us that, as a result of their policies, fuel prices have rocketed since they came to power and they have to cover that? I do not believe that they are telling us that, so we must ask why they are acting in this way.
  Age Concern said that it would have been better if increases had been put directly on to the basic state pension. Scope commented, revealingly and interestingly, that if there was a problem about winter fuel payments, why had not the Government done anything about disabled people who are not pensioners but who suffer much the same problem? Scope concluded—as others must have done—that there must be some other reason for the Government's action. If winter fuel payments were a problem, the Government would have sorted out the problem across the board. The difficulty cannot therefore lie in rising fuel prices.
  I suspect that there is another reason for the Government's action, and that if we really probe we will find out what it is. The Government know that if they had put the money on the basic state pension, they would have been locked into a higher base level—and would have to increase the pension from that level—for years to come. The Government would not want that.
  Therefore, the Chancellor tried, very cleverly, to find a way of saying, "We will increase pensioner incomes today, but we will not be locked in for the future." That will allow the Government either to cut the payment or to freeze it in years to come. Dare I say that after the next general election the Government may say, "Look, we have kept fuel prices down and it is much better now than it was, so there is no need for the increased payment and we can freeze it."?
  Mr. Webb: I have a lot of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's point about the winter fuel payments, but he said that income support should not rise in line with
  742
  earnings because that implies more means-testing. However, the previous Government linked pensions to prices, and I assume that the hon. Gentleman sticks by that policy. What, therefore, is his strategy for helping poorer pensioners?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I will reveal my strategy, but not today. [Interruption.] I see no reason to do so, and I have discussed the point with the hon. Gentleman before. When we return to power, we shall ensure that pensioners will be better off. What the Government are doing will not make pensioners better off, but will mean that anyone who tries to save or to get off state assistance will progressively find that there is no point in doing so. That is my point about the link to earnings—there is a better way.
  I shall produce proposals—[Interruption] If the
  Government want to vote for us at the next election, they are more than welcome to do so. I would not blame them for it; I certainly would not vote for the current lot. It seems strange that Labour Members do not even want to vote for themselves but are desperate to find out our policy. They will know it soon enough.
  Mr. Chris Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I want to make some progress.
  The point about winter fuel payments is clear: the Government are engaged in a cynical little game. They know that they have no intention of making that sort of change to the basic state pension. They would much rather see their disincentive hurt some pensioners.
  Mr. Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I am making progress.
  Mr. Quentin Davies: They want to talk about anything but the Budget.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: My hon. Friend is right; they are desperate to talk about anything but what is in their Budget. I am not surprised by that because the Budget is such nonsense. We will talk about it, however.
  Abolition of the married couple's allowance—miserable as that measure is in itself—will also affect pensioners. Existing pensioners will keep the allowance, but another vulnerable group will lose it. Anyone born after 1935 will lose £197 of income, as the Secretary of State has admitted. Over the last few years before they retire, those people's investments are, for obvious reasons, low yielding and low risk. They need a stable fund for investments and annuities. It will be impossible for that group, as they approach retirement, to make the necessary adjustments to recoup their loss. That is compounded by the problem of the falling annuity rate.
  We have warned the Secretary of State about that problem before, and we have asked him to do something about it. The Chancellor clearly had the opportunity to deal with the problem in the Budget, but by doing nothing about the annuity rate and by making certain that those approaching retirement will lose income from the married couple's allowance, he has made the problem worse.

  743
  For example, a couple on a joint income of about £26,000 will find that their income will be cut by about £512 a year as they approach retirement. I asked the Library to run some figures on how the annuity rate problem plus the allowance problems will hurt them. The annuity rate problem alone is serious. The Secretary of State knows that when the Government came to power a man aged 65 with a wife aged 62 who had a £100,000 compulsory pension annuity would have had an annual income of £7,000. That same annuity today would yield less than £5,500. Alternatively, he would need an annuity of £130,000 today to yield £7,000. We have warned the Government that they should do something about that—we will even try to probe them about it in the Standing Committee on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
  Furthermore, from April 2000 the abolition of the widow's bereavement allowance will hurt women pensioners who are widowed. The Chancellor's note to the press on the subject was interesting. He said that widows would be more than compensated by the new widow's allowance in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. He failed to point out that the payment would not be made to women over pensionable age.
  Not a word was said about all of that in the Budget speech—it was locked away in secret—which sends a powerful message from the Government that the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not care for those who choose to save in the long term. In the past two years, the Government have messed up the arrangements for savers with their pension proposals and the ACT dividend tax credit abolition, and have taxed them more and more. The relationship between the long-term saver and the Government is now complex and painful.
  Arguably as important, if not more so in the long term, is the position that the Government have taken on marriage. On the married couple's allowance, the Conservative party disagrees with the thrust of the Government's policy—that is no surprise, given the Secretary of State, his predecessors and his colleagues in Cabinet. Their contempt for marriage is now clear—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Labour Members may go on about that, but their policy is what it is all about. I was particularly interested in two opinion polls. The first appeared in The Guardian on the day before the Budget. When asked whether married couples should have a special tax allowance, almost 70 per cent. of respondents said yes; only 24 per cent. said no. The findings were backed up by a poll in The Mail on Sunday.
  I have said that the Conservative party is pledged, on returning to office, to reinstate the special position of marriage in the tax and benefit system. It is important to recognise that abolishing the married couple's allowance and not replacing it for one year will hurt individuals. A person on a low income of about £6,000 a year, who does not have children, will lose £188. In the first year, a person with a child will lose £167 because they will not have the much-vaunted children's tax credit; a person with two children will lose £152; and so forth.
  Mr. Darling: Will the hon. Gentleman answer two questions? First, if he thinks that the married couple's allowance is so important, why did he cut it substantially
  744
  when he was in power? Secondly, what did the Leader of the Opposition mean when he said last year that,
  "if we were going to phase out the married couple's allowance we should have replaced it at the same time with a new allowance, better targeted on families who really need the help".
  That is what we have done.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: I will come to what the Government have not done. To answer the original question, successive Governments—Labour and Conservative—have got that one wrong. The Secretary of State may have forgotten that I was not a member of the previous Government, although I was in the party that supported it.
  If the right hon. Gentleman had asked his officials to calculate the figures for him, he might have argued with the Chancellor about the allowance. They would have told him that in the 1950s, married couples did not pay tax until they were on about 124 per cent. of manual workers earnings. Before the Budget, such people paid tax at something like 68 per cent. of earnings. It is worse today. The Government may not like it, but is incredible that they should come in saying that they did not like what the previous Government did but justify what they are doing now by saying that the previous Government, or the Government before that, did it. Have they no ideas of their own? Have they no idea of what they are doing? The Government's real reason for the change is that they oppose the structure of marriage.
  Mr. Pond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No; I have taken enough interventions.
  Those who suffer from the change to the married couple's allowance will see just how wrong-headed this policy is. It is nonsense to chase the children with the money without any sense of structure. That has been proved on both sides of the Atlantic by report after report.
  I suggest that the Government read with great interest a book that I have been reading written by one of their own, an intellectual in Princeton who was once at the forefront of the feminist movement, Sarah McLanahan. She wrote about what affects the upbringing of children, and made it clear that the single most important factor that benefits and assists children in the long run is the institution of marriage. The Government simply say that marriage is irrelevant. They will be judged at the next general election, and I will take great pleasure in being one of those calling for them to be judged.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I want to make some progress. The hon. Gentleman keeps putting his foot in his mouth, and I do not want to give him another opportunity.
  If the Chancellor was so certain that he had the money and wanted a change, why did he give the money to children at the expense of marriage? I do not understand that unless there is a clear message.
  Mr. Darling indicated dissent.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: It is at the expense of marriage. The right hon. Gentleman need only look at the Red Book to see how the figures flow. The Chancellor saved some money, but transferred the bulk to the children's tax credit.

  745
  It is interesting that Julian McCrae of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, having considered the new children's tax credit, says:
  "This has all the difficulties that would have been associated with taxing child benefit".
  The Secretary of State will not surprised to find that I agree.
  The Government shied away at the last moment from taxing child benefit, although I suspect that deep in their hearts, they want to do it, and will do it. They tried out another scheme as a run to see whether they can do child benefit later. As the IFS points out, the Government's new means-tested sliding scale means they will get into all the problems that were in over the proposals to tax child benefit. The change will lead to dishonesty for the simple reason that, as the Government know, it will be in people's interest not to declare their relationships so that they can avoid the new tax.
  The change will penalise marriage because those who are honest about their relationship will find the Government bearing down on them. It will particularly hurt single-earner households because of the ridiculous nonsense with the sliding scale, whereby two earners in a household on £30,000 each could end up receiving the money while a single earner on £38,000 got nothing. That is the absurdity of this. It is fraught with difficulties and complexities. The Government have got into a twist. What they really want is a means-tested benefits system. This is only the start; the most important thing is that this is all part of that process. It is not just the abolition of the married couple's allowance; each notch makes marriage that little bit less viable.
  The Government cannot pretend that they were elected on 1 March 1999, as they try to do. They pretend that this is their first Budget—that there were not two Budgets beforehand. They try to disown quietly the tax increases of the first two Budgets. They like to crow about surpluses. In the short term, tax increases create surpluses, but in the long term they have a huge and hard effect on those attempting to work and save.
  Mr. Malcolm Wicks: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan Smith: No, I shall not give way.
  The third Budget gave us a real insight into the heart of the Chancellor and the Prime Minister. It contained a huge attack on marriage, coupled with massive redistribution by stealth from average earners to a state-based, means-tested social security system. The Government try to call those measures tax credits, but they all amount to the same thing: extra taxation, which will make people more, not less, dependent on the state and negate other measures the Government take. The Budget will make marriage break-up more, not less, likely. The Government go along kicking away the supports for the most important structure in the community, but they will be judged.
  Mr. Darling: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously believe that people choose to get married or to separate because of tax considerations? Surely most people marry because of something higher than that.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The Secretary of State says that nobody gets married because of the married couple's
  746
  allowance, but he knows that the greater the pressure piled on, the more difficult it is for married couples to stay together and the less likely it is that unmarried couples will get married—all the figures for the past 30 years show that. The Government are barking mad if they really believe that that is an argument for getting rid of the married couple's allowance.
  The Government appear to understand the price of everything, but the value of absolutely nothing, and they demonstrate less and less interest in saving long term. They will hurt the more positive aspects of life in the community—people saving, working, getting married and attempting to look after their children in the most balanced way. They have all the hallmarks of a Bart Simpson Government: they are set on creating dysfunctional families and a dysfunctional society.
  Labour Members waved their Order Papers in approval on Tuesday, but next year on the same day the British people will be waving their fists, because the Government have broken every single pledge. Mr. Blair's first pledge was not to increase taxes, but he has done so by £40.7 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament. Mr. Blair's second pledge was to reduce the cost of welfare—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows better—Prime Minister is better.
  Mr. Duncan Smith: The Prime Minister—I used his name in case the public did not know it—promised to reduce the cost of welfare, but he will have increased it by almost £40 billion by the time he leaves office. Mr. Blair talked endlessly—[Horn. MEMBERS: "Oh"] It is hard for us to remember that the Prime Minister is a human being, but it will become easier as the years go by. The Prime Minister talked endlessly about supporting marriage, but he kicks away the supports for marriage, increases the taxation of married couples and makes them more dependent on the benefits system.
  The Government say one thing, but do another. Their motto should be:
  "O what a tangled web we weave,
  When first we practise to deceive!"
  After two years and three Budgets, the web has become bigger and more complicated. For a few years, the Prime Minister liked to sound just like a double-headed eagle, but every day he sounds more like a turkey.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that between 7 pm and 9 pm, Back Benchers' speeches will be limited to 10 minutes.
  5.48 pm
  Mr. Robert Sheldon: It is a great surprise to me that the main message from the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) is that he wants to retain the married couple's allowance. The abolition of that allowance is one of the two measures in the Budget that I most welcome.
  This is the first Labour Budget that has been without constraints, either from small majorities or inherited economic crises. In 1964, the Labour Government had a

  747
  majority of five, and in 1974 they did not have one at all; both Governments had to deal with the prospect of an election that could come at any time. Each Government had a five-year programme, but only a matter of months before the electorate had, once again, to give their verdict, so those Labour Governments accelerated their programmes. Instead of preparing their measures during the early years, with the final results coming some years afterward, the measures were all compacted within a few months; but few Government decisions can produce results in so short a time scale. Policies were introduced too quickly and, following subsequent elections, the Governments had to retrench. As a result, they incurred the odium of what has come to be called "tax and spend". The Governments spent too soon before the results warranted such expenditure.
  As well as being the first Labour Budget that is free from the constraints of a small majority, it is the first that is free from commitments by the previous Government. Before coming to office, Labour accepted the most important constraints of both the rates of income tax and the expenditure plans. It is only now, as we move to the plans for the Government's third year, that relative freedom is at hand. As a result, this is the first Budget that I have been able to welcome for more than 30 years—and that includes the Budgets in which I was involved to some extent. I am not one to praise Chancellors of the Exchequer unduly—although the three previous Labour Chancellors were pretty good considering their electoral constraints—but this Budget combines imagination and competence.
  Not all the Budget measures will be free of problems—that is to be expected—but the Chancellor of the Exchequer looks to the long term and seeks sensible solutions, something that I expect to be a continuing feature of this Government. That is particularly true of mortgage interest relief and the married couple's allowance, whose removal required a Chancellor of the Exchequer who was determined to end those two nonsenses. Frankly, I never expected to see those policies introduced. I strongly opposed the decision of Margaret Thatcher to increase mortgage interest relief to £30,000 in 1983. She wanted to be seen as the friend of the property-owning democracy. No one is against that, but Mrs. Thatcher ignited runaway house price inflation.
  Under the Thatcher Government, trading up and buying a more expensive house became a way of making money. It was not a means to a secure, comfortable and enjoyable life, but an investment—and the very best investment for most people in this country. Instead of encouraging productive investment, people were entranced by the notion of living more luxuriously while receiving tax advantages for doing so. Over the years, tax advantage for home occupation multiplied. Schedule A, the capital transfer tax, capital gains tax, the inheritance tax and mortgage relief gave advantages of a kind that should never have been available to that extent. Such expenditure was a form of consumption free from tax. It was a shameful escape from reality that many of those who bought during the big housing boom had cause to regret when the market finally woke up.
  The married couple's allowance is a relic of the pre-war attitude to income tax. Historically, income tax was an imposition only on those with middle and higher incomes.
  748
  It recognised, through the allowances, what were considered the essential costs of such taxpayers. For those in the middle and upper income groups, the costs included the cost of maintaining a wife in a society in which few wives worked. That was the reason for the married couple's allowance. As the income level at which people entered the tax system was lowered, it was discovered that many more married women were working for a living. Under war-time conditions, the allowance was promoted as a means of getting women into work: it was an incentive.
  Now that the normal expectation is for married women to work when their domestic conditions allow it, the measure has become more than an anomaly: it has become further nonsense. To have ended one outstanding or one difficult-to-erase anomaly would have been an achievement, but to have removed both is a tribute to my right hon. Friend. He has brought about a practical reform of the tax system that will advantage all future Chancellors of the Exchequer.
  I welcome the 10p starting rate of income tax. It is an aspect of the more progressive income tax system that I have always wished to see introduced. I understand the arguments of those who call for an increase in personal allowances, but self-assessment provides the opportunity for a fully progressive system along the lines of the American model, with rates increasing with levels of income. Before self-assessment was introduced, a basic rate that applied to most taxpayers was essential for the operation of a complicated system. We now have the opportunity to introduce multiple bands. I accept that we shall have to introduce a higher rate band in due course, and I hope that other intermediate bands will eventually follow also.
  This Budget, like all others, must be viewed in an international context. It is most important to take account of the way in which the world's economy is dependent more upon the United States now than at any time since the 1950s. The United States deficit is keeping many weak economies afloat. The question is: how can we be sure that it will be sustainable? The euro may, in time, come to be an alternative to the United States dollar, with international obligations similar to those that the United States has, to a large extent, borne alone.
  One of the benefits that should eventually follow Britain's entry into the euro is a wider perspective that should flow naturally from the power that the new currency will acquire. For many reasons, our absence from the euro is the greatest issue of this Parliament. I am sure that we shall join eventually, but we could have played a valuable role influencing the shape of current events.
  As to the health service, it is clear that costs will rise faster than the rate of inflation or even growth in the economy. The population is ageing and, as wants are met, health will become perhaps the major area of increased expenditure. The time is coming when we shall need to think more about either private medicine—which I do not favour—or a special national health service tax.
  Anyone who has served in the Treasury has a visceral feeling about hypothecation—the road fund licence still casts its shadow 70 years later. One important weakness of hypothecation is that it does not take account of changing patterns of priorities in expenditure. However, as I have said, one certain aspect of health is that demand

  749
  will increase into the indefinite future. It may be that people will be more willing to accept a national health service tax when they can see the consequences of that expenditure, than other taxes that disappear into the vast generality of public expenditure. The time has surely come to explore sensibly the introduction of such a tax.
  One important question is whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer was right to reduce income tax from 23p to 22p. I believe that he is right to do that both if the world economy turns down and if it does not. In fact, the Chancellor of the Exchequer's actions will be even more justifiable if he should need to maintain demand in the event of a downturn. It would be a case, on the one hand, of the economy being able to afford it and, on the other, of there being good counter-cyclical reasons for introducing it.
  In this Budget, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has made use of his new-found freedom to act. He has had the space to defer the fruits of a Labour Government until they have been earned and he has done what all past Labour Chancellors wished to do. An important consequence of the Budget is that the Chancellor has helped to bring about a reconciliation between traditional Labour and new Labour. That valuable achievement must be added to his many others.
  5.59 pm
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I listened with interest to the speech by the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), and especially to his point about the penny off income tax. If the purpose of that measure is some form of macro-economic demand management, one wonders why the Chancellor announced it a year in advance when he could not possibly have known what the trading circumstances would be. The Chancellor did not refer to the demand role because he announced the measure in the last sentence of the Budget and offered no explanations whatsoever. It will be interesting to see whether the right hon. Gentleman's predictions are correct.
  Last Tuesday's Budget contained some good things—although fewer of them than the Chancellor pretended. There were also rather bad points in the Budget and, naturally, the Chancellor did not give much explanation of them. Never, in my 16 years in the House, have I heard a Budget that was more selective in its facts or misleading on so many issues. It was impressive on the day but, the closer one examines it, the more it unravels. This was a Budget of deception and half-truth. It is in complete contrast to the Chancellor's claims that he wants to promote transparency and openness. In fact, nothing could be more complicated and impenetrable than the details of the Budget.
  We welcome in principle many of the proposals in the Budget—many of which are long-standing Liberal Democrat policies—including the shifting of taxes on to pollution, the raising of the national insurance threshold for the low-paid and the graduation of vehicle excise duty. However, the Chancellor will be forced to admit that the latter was too modest, both in amount and in the level of car size at which it is introduced, to affect people's behaviour or their ability to alter their behaviour.
  Inside and outside the House, I have expressed the view that increasing the personal allowance is a much more effective way of helping people on low incomes than
  750
  introducing the 10p tax rate. The process has made the tax system a great deal more complicated than it was before the Chancellor came to power. He certainly has not simplified the system and, if my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, he will want to draw the attention of the House to more details of that.
  The Secretary of State for Social Security did not appear to understand my intervention about the minimum wage, so I shall clarify it. The Chancellor said that the minimum wage will be introduced at a rate that, at the current level of personal allowances, means that anybody who earns the minimum wage and works full-time will pay tax on that wage and be eligible for benefit. He indicated that he wanted to end that situation.
  I was asking the Secretary of State how many years it would be, under the Government's policies, before people who earn the minimum wage and work full-time would be able to do so without paying any tax. The Secretary of State seemed not to understand the question or to have an answer, partly because, I suspect, the Government's strategy addresses itself not to taking people on the lower end of the scale out of tax, but to creating a complex array of tax allowances that are spread thinly across all taxpayers and leaving people on low incomes paying taxes at levels at which they qualify for benefit.
  I want now to concentrate on other aspects of the Budget—material that has been buried away in the small print—most of which Liberal Democrat Members do not welcome. The Budget was so misleading and economical with the truth that I agree with Conservative Front-Bench Members that not only has it led to the Prime Minister definitively misleading the House, but the House would be entitled to ask for a supplementary Budget statement to allow clarification of many points that are shrouded in mist. I shall endeavour to help the House by pointing out a number of problems that could be put right.
  First, let us consider the Chancellor's growth forecast. He presented the Budget as if he were leaving that forecast unchanged, which he does not. Growth for 1998–99 was revised downwards from 2.25 to 1.75 per cent. That will cut tax revenues by between £3 billion and £5 billion a year over the forecast period. That is a big change, which the Chancellor did not acknowledge in his speech. It would have been helpful if he had done so, because many points flow from that.
  My second point of clarification also relates to growth. While repeating his growth forecast for 1999, the Chancellor neglected to make an important point: the mix of growth will change significantly from the forecast that he made in the pre-Budget statement in November. He has had to acknowledge that, as we have been warning him for a year, manufacturing industry will be in recession in 1999. There was no reference to that in his speech, but the papers and the Red Book make it clear that the central forecast for manufacturing growth decreases from 0 per cent. at best to minus 1.25 per cent. That is interesting, because the Chancellor has, at the same time, revised upwards his forecast of domestic demand growth to about 2.25 per cent. The 1999 export growth forecast has also been cut, to 0.5 per cent., even though British export markets are forecast to grow by 5.75 per cent.
  Those are pretty stark figures. They mean that we have a forecast of a seriously unbalanced economy with exports grinding to a halt in spite of continuing strong growth in

  751
  our export markets. That ought to tell us something. If the Chancellor will not even acknowledge the problem, how can we develop a policy to confront it?
  The Chancellor forecasts that, during 1999, the gap between the growth in manufacturing and the growth in domestic demand will be 3.5 per cent. —in favour of domestic demand, of course. That is the biggest gap since 1986. It means that, since 1996, we shall have had four years in which domestic demand has grown 12.1 per cent. faster than manufacturing output. That is an incredible transformation of our economy, and not for the better.
  Is it not time that the Chancellor woke up to the fact that we have a seriously uncompetitive exchange rate level and that joining the euro involves not only the commitment in principle that the Government are telling us that they have made, but policies in practice to lock in sustainable convergence, including a competitive exchange rate? As I have said on several occasions, even if Britain is not in favour of joining the euro, we still need a competitive rate and we need to reduce our interest rates.
  My third point of clarification relates to the net effect of the Budget. The Chancellor presented his Budget as a giveaway Budget and got all the headlines that he wanted. He implied that everyone was a winner and would benefit. On the other hand, he wanted us to believe that it was a highly prudent Budget. If the Budget was all that the tabloid newspapers said the next day, the Bank of England and the Monetary Policy Committee would presumably be putting up interest rates at their next meeting, but the reverse is the case. In its macro-economic and fiscal stance, this was a conservative Budget. The Chancellor was putting on a double act, according to which audience he was choosing to address. On the day, this was a giveaway Budget but, to the City and the Bank of England, it was a prudent Budget.
  The Chancellor said:
  "I am … able, with my Budget measures today, to boost purchasing power over the next three years by £6 billion".
  I should have thought that, while the Monetary Policy Committee is wrestling with inflation, that was not what it wanted to hear. However, it is of course nonsense. Research by the House of Commons Library reveals that the reduction in current receipts is more than fully offset by a reduction in planned public expenditure of £14.4 billion over three years, so the Chancellor has simply changed the basis of his figures to fit the circumstances. That reduction is all achieved by reducing the annually managed expenditure totals by £14.4 billion.
  That brings me to my fourth point of clarification. The spending reduction of £14.4 billion was not mentioned in the Chancellor's speech, but it explains why there is no fiscal boost in the Budget. Over the next three years, there will be a £14.4 billion reduction in public spending, which is an £11 billion reduction in current receipts and a cut of £4 billion in borrowing. Where is any of that made clear in the Budget statement? One would look long and hard for that.
  Social security spending is mentioned in the statement. The Chancellor said that
  "over the next three years, social security spending, including unemployment … is set to be significantly lower than previously forecast".
  752
  The Secretary of State for Social Security acknowledged in his opening remarks that that is not true. Table B 13 on page 159 of the Red Book shows that social security spending has been revised up by £1.9 billion since November. That tells us that, on my fifth point, the Chancellor is talking plain nonsense about social security spending. To suggest that it is going down, when the Secretary of State for Social Security has now admitted that it is going up, is pretty deceitful.
  Taxation is the sixth point on which I seek clarification. According to the Prime Minister, this was a tax-cutting Budget. According to the Prime Minister, taxes are coming down for all families. According to the Prime Minister, the tax burden will rise more slowly under Labour than was planned under the Tories. Well, each and every one of those claims by the Prime Minister is in fact false.
  The Chancellor is on record as saying many of the things that the Prime Minister said. He said:
  "this Budget will cut tax rates".
  He also said that the Budget delivers tax cuts. Is that really true? I am grateful to the Library for clarifying the matter, because the Budget does not cut taxes. Many of the items in table 1.3 of the Red Book are spending measures, not tax changes.
  According to the Library, a couple of days after the Chancellor's statement, the Budget adds £100 million net to taxation over the next three years. That is the Library' s analysis of the Chancellor's own figures. It is not a tax-cutting Budget. Of course, that ignores completely the council tax, which is due to go up by £1 billion next year or, even allowing for inflation, by £700 million.
  What of the Prime Minister's claim that taxes are falling for all families? This is my seventh point. Taxes over this Parliament will be £41.8 billion higher on a cumulative basis as a result of all Labour Budgets and, so far, £2.9 billion higher in respect of council taxes. Those are taxes that all families pay, so the claim that all taxes are coming down for all families is not sustainable. That claim is, frankly, utter rubbish.
  As a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency, involved in debates on the Scottish elections, I find the Government's lectures to those of us who want an honest debate about taxation priorities wholly unacceptable. The Government preach honesty and openness and claim that they are cutting taxes while they are in fact putting them up. They then complain about people who want an honest debate and genuine presentation of priorities. Those of us who have addressed those issues head on, and are prepared to debate them with the people of Scotland, will take no lessons on taxation from the Labour party. The Government are going to have to do better if the debate is to be conducted on a genuine choice of priorities between parties offering different programmes that are honestly presented and honestly costed.
  The issue of the tax burden—point No. 8—is one that has been kicked around several times, but I have had an analysis of it done by the Library. It shows that the Government's presentation of the figures does not compare like with like because of the treatment of the working families tax credit and the upward revision of the size of the economy on which, of course, the burden of taxation is based.
  The adjusted series produced by the Library shows that the pre-Labour, or previous Conservative Government's, planned tax burden would be 36.8 per cent., compared

  753
  with 37.6 per cent. now, on a comparable basis. That is an increase in anyone's book—so much for the Government's claim about taxation.
  The Government are wrong to pretend that taxation has not been rising. In the previous Parliament, the Conservatives effectively told people to vote for them because they would cut public expenditure to cut taxes, but what actually happened was that taxes went up and public expenditure went up even more, and the national debt doubled. Labour came to power, saying that it would not put up taxes but would boost public expenditure. What has actually happened is that the burden of taxes has continued to rise at more or less the same rate, while the increase in current expenditure on public services in this Parliament is half that delivered by the Conservatives. In other words, the extra taxes are being used to sort out the structural deficit inherited from the Conservatives, and are not delivering either the public spending levels that the Conservatives attack as profligate, or the spending levels that the Government seem to believe will sort out the problems in health and education—far from it.
  While the tax burden has risen by 4 per cent. of gross domestic product since 1992, the amount of public spending as a share of GDP is falling fast. Under the Tories, spending as a share of GDP averaged 43.1 per cent. over the previous Parliament. In this Parliament, it is expected to average 39.6 per cent. of GDP—a difference of nearly 4 per cent. Taxes are rising as a share of GDP and spending is falling, the difference being used to close the huge structural Budget deficit. The incompetence and dishonesty inherited from the Tories has been continued for two years on the same basis by Labour. In fact, I wonder whether the time is right to start asking which twin is the Tory in terms of presentation.
  A Budget leaflet was to be distributed by the Government as part of their campaign for more openness on taxation and spending. In principle, the Liberal Democrats favour the idea of a tax contract if it is about telling people what taxes they are paying and what services they are getting. What we are not in favour of is party propaganda funded by the taxpayer, controlled by the Government and not independently tested.
  What happened to the Government's tax leaflet, which we were expecting to be told about on Tuesday? Why was it not even mentioned? Clarification of this—point No. 9—came on Friday, when a Treasury official inadvertently admitted to my office that the leaflets had had to be withdrawn because of inaccuracies. Fifty thousand leaflets paid for by the taxpayer are apparently to be pulped. That is a shambles. I am not in favour of the Government issuing untrue statements, but I suspect that it is only the difference between the untruths that is at issue, rather than the fact that the leaflets were untrue. If the Government cannot produce objective information that has been independently audited, it might be better if they pulped the whole idea. There should be a genuine objective assessment of what is going on, not a tax-funded propaganda exercise.
  The final point of clarification relates to public services. The Chancellor said that he would
  "announce more money and more capital investment in schools, hospitals, transport and fighting crime."—[Official Report, 11 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 173–78.]
  In fact, there was no new money, only allocations from an existing fund. Instead of announcing a genuine boost to schools and the health service, the Chancellor decided
  754
  to spend his largest allocation of Budget money—more than £5 billion over two years in the second half of this Parliament—not on the hard-pressed health service or on investment in education, but on cutting the basic rate of income tax. That is the Government's priority, and it is exactly the same as that of the previous Government, whom we threw out.
  The measure was presumably designed to wrong-foot the Tory party, although I cannot see the point of wrong-footing a party that has two left feet—or should that be two right feet?—and cannot walk in a straight line. No one is listening to the Tory party, but people are listening to the Government. The Chancellor had the scope to spend more money on education and health within existing public spending totals. We know that because he took £4.4 billion off the spending totals.
  Labour Members will no doubt flood in to support the Budget at 10 pm but, if they think that what the Government have done in their first two years and what they plan to do for the next two or three years of this Parliament will sort out the atrocious mess in our public services, they will be deeply disappointed and will have a hell of a job convincing their constituents that a Labour Government made the difference that they had hoped. People will know that the Labour party decided to abandon its commitment to education, education, education and its commitment to rescue the health service from crisis and decided to go for Tory-style tax cuts. Ministers seem to have been persuading themselves that the problems of health and education are sorted. I advise Labour Back Benchers to be very careful when they have to defend cuts in services or failure to develop services over the next two or three years.
  After two years of Tory cuts, it is possible that there will be some improvement over the next two years. It is possible that some of the pledges of the early years will be delivered in the late years of this Parliament, but is that the height of the Labour Government's ambition for those services? Is that all that we shall get? Surely we need more ambition if we want to rebuild a world-class education system. Surely the NHS needs more than crisis management and the odd windfall from the lottery when the Government feel that they need a headline.
  When the Chancellor invites us to vote for a 1p cut in the standard rate of income tax, rather than investment in health and education, we will certainly vote against it. We are quite clear about our response to the Government's policies. Yes, we need to raise the take-home pay of the very low paid, but there are much more efficient ways of doing that than a 10p tax rate. Yes, we need environmental taxes that will alter people's behaviour, but that will not be delivered if people do not understand the tax system because the Chancellor is making it infinitely more complex.
  Above all, we need a Government who recognise that health and education need investment first, before we go for tax bribes and tax cuts that cannot be justified because the education and health services have not had the investment and development that they need. That is why the Liberal Democrats oppose this deceitful Budget.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. Terry Rooney: I support my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's Budget, including many of the significant changes that he has made in

  755
  social security, especially on the theme of making work pay. The Budget builds on the minimum wage, which is to be introduced in a couple of weeks. It will benefit some 2 million people by an incredible amount—as much as two thirds—which just shows the poverty pay that has existed in this country for far too long.
  The Budget also builds on the wonderful success that has been achieved for the 18 to 24-year-old group through the new deal. The 53,000 youngsters who are now in work were previously offered an alphabet soup of training schemes, but no real prospect of employment.
  The working families tax credit will be a significant monetary and behavioural advance on the failings of the old family credit system. It will improve not only people's prospects, but the way in which they view work and apply themselves when seeking work. It is to the credit of the Chancellor and the Department of Social Security that it has been agreed that those who receive maintenance will have that disregarded in the computation of working families tax credit. It was one of the greatest failings of the Child Support Agency from the outset that people with children who received benefit got no benefit from any maintenance paid. I welcome that important change.
  The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) made some interesting but illusory observations about whether a 10p tax rate was a good or a bad thing. Throughout the 1980's the people whom I represent saw that the tax burdens of people on high incomes were substantially reduced, while the tax burden of those on low incomes increased every year. If the people whom I represent can get some of that cake back, fair enough—and about time, too.
  Thank goodness we have seen the back of the failed disability working allowance, with the advent of the disabled person's tax credit. In nine or 10 years, the number of claimants of disability working allowance rose to the superb figure of 13,000. What a miserable effort that was. With the simplicity of the disabled person's tax credit, people with disabilities will have an incentive to go to work and to stay in work, because they will get the financial reward due to them.
  Single parents on income support who move into work will keep their income support for the first two weeks, on top of any earnings. That is another significant incentive, which will help people over the difficult initial period between benefit ending and the first pay cheque arriving.
  The best thing about the Chancellor's proposals to make sure that work pays is that they raise hopes and expectations. For far too long, people believed that it is better to be on benefit than in work. Sadly, that was often true, because of the poverty pay over the past 20 years. Now we are raising hopes and expectations. Like many of my hon. Friends, I represent estates where two, three or four generations have never worked. It is accepted as the norm. It is not seen as unusual that brothers, sisters, uncles, aunts, grandparents, mother and father do not work.
  The Budget abolishes not just poverty of income, but poverty of expectation. If we can raise our young people's expectations, the effect on our society will be dramatic—not least the effect on the crime rate.
  With respect to the changes affecting children, I particularly welcome the change in maternity allowance. It has been a scandal that low-paid women received no
  756
  maternity allowance at all because their income was below the arbitrary lower earnings level. I am slightly disappointed that the new rules apply only to those earning more than £30 a week, but I expect that my right hon. Friend is saving any improvement on that as a bonus for next year, when the lower limit will be abolished. I see a smile from my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle) on the Front Bench—I live in hope.
  The maternity grant was set at £100 in 1988 and has never changed since. Anyone who has any experience of children knows that the cost of kitting out a new baby is greatly in excess of £100, so I warmly welcome the doubling of maternity grant. In addition, under the proposals in the Employment Relations Bill, 2.3 million women will benefit from the extension of maternity leave from 14 weeks to 18 weeks. The reduction in the qualifying period from two years to one will benefit another 1.4 million women. At last that aspect of work is being addressed.
  I welcome the new children's tax credit. I find it incredible that anyone could suggest that people's decision to get married or divorced would be based on anything as trivial as the married couple's allowance. Not only because of the reduction in the rate and the tax benefit over the years, but because of the anomalies built into the system as regards who qualifies for the allowance and who does not, it is time the Chancellor got rid of it.
  The Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith), spoke about the stresses and strains on families. The biggest strain on a family occurs when children arrive and one wage is lost. The Budget puts money back into people's pockets to encourage them to deal with those issues when they arise. When they have children and their earning power is reduced, the Government's measures will assist them.
  I have always found pensioners the most difficult group to please. I have been staggered over the past week to discover how widely welcomed the Budget has been. The minimum income guarantee is now well understood, which was not the case last year. It is well understood that it will be earnings-linked, so the poorest pensioners will gain from the increase in the national wealth, which has not occurred since 1981.
  Some 17,000 pensioners in my city, Bradford, will benefit from the £100 winter fuel payment. The Chancellor has wisely made efficient use of resources to help those who need it most. The payments could have been spread a lot thinner, to benefit every single pensioner, but there would have been much less jam for each household that genuinely needs it.
  That measure builds on the significant proposals in the Green Paper on the state second pension and on stakeholder pensions, which will target resources on those with the lowest earning capacity. The state second pension is a significant redistribution of resources and will help the lowest earners throughout their working lives.
  In the past few years, we have rightly had debates and statements about pensions mis-selling. It is time we focused on the performance of life assurance companies and their investment records. Mention was made earlier of annuity rates, which are going down, as happens at a time of low inflation. However, there is a 32 per cent. difference between the best and the worst performing

  757
  annuity providers. That is far more damaging to people's pension prospects than anything else that is happening at the moment.
  The difference between the performance of the best and the worst with-profits policies is 27 per cent., and for stand-alone, with-profits policies it is 50 per cent. The best unit-linked policies are eight times better than the worst. When people invest their money, they need to know that it is being invested wisely and with the best investment houses. The Financial Services Authority should examine the performance records of the different providers over a given period—the longer the better—and if their investment policies are as bad as that, they should be ruled out of the market. People need to know that they will get a decent and sensible return on their investments, instead of the miserable performances that far too many of these investment houses are producing.
  I welcome the Chancellor's statement about a code of practice on mortgages, but it is sad that mortgages are still excluded from any of the regulatory bodies. Mortgages are the biggest single investment that people make in their lives, and they should have far greater statutory protection. Codes of practice are fine, but we have seen in the past that they are torn up by unscrupulous people. The sooner the mortgage framework comes under the FSA' s remit, the better.
  May I make a plea to the Secretary of State for Education and Employment? Too many of us are completely ignorant of financial matters, whether it be pensions, investments or mortgages. [Interruption.] It is sad that some hon. Members act as though they are still at school. There is space in the national curriculum, particularly in the fifth and sixth forms, for our children to receive some basic education on the principles of investments, lending rates, annual percentage rates, mortgages and so on. Too often we expect people to leave school, go to work and start to make these decisions without any knowledge to back them up.
  This Budget, like many others, seeks to influence people's behaviour. It is my firm belief that this is a good Budget. It will help to make work pay and to provide better opportunities, particularly for younger and poorer people—the people whom I represent in Bradford, North. I am delighted with the measures that the Chancellor announced last week, and I look forward to seeing them implemented.
  6.33 pm
  Sir David Madel: I have an industrial constituency that is heavily dependent on motor vehicle manufacturing and on suppliers to that industry. I was particularly interested in the comment of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 10 March:
  "First, we must invest in British capabilities—in particular, our world-class science and engineering base and our skills."—[Official Report, 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 409.]
  That view is in the background when the Government wrestle with the problem of deciding whether they should give grant aid to the Rover plant at Longbridge for the new model. I know of the difficulties in deciding whether to give grant aid, but if it were given to Longbridge there would be a free-for-all in the car industry in applications for grant aid. I assure the Government that, if that were the case, we in south Bedfordshire and Luton would regard ourselves as part of the "all".
  758
  Further questions arise over the problems at Longbridge. Have we got the boundaries right, whereby some areas of the country qualify for grant aid and some do not? Can we be sure that we have got it right? Should we give money just to keep a factory going or should we give it for a specific purpose, such as to launch a new model or a new engine? If we do that, we need to know whether it is within European Union rules.
  Ministers' speeches in the Budget debates have been littered with references to science and the environment. In my view, grant aid should be available in the drive for cleaner and more fuel-efficient engines for the car industry, regardless of where a company is situated in the United Kingdom. That would, at long last, provide a level playing field for the motor industry.
  On the changes in vehicle excise duty, of course a cut in duty for small cars is welcome. That will be introduced on 1 June. In my view, however, there has been faulty thinking in the Treasury and by the Inland Revenue about the engine size that should benefit from the £55 cut. The Government have fixed it at 1100 cc, but I believe that it should have been 1400 cc, for two reasons. First, 1400 cc is recognised by the Treasury as a ceiling above which higher taxation kicks in for the purposes of taxing free fuel provided to employees by employers. Secondly, the Treasury has admitted that the size of the engine is a poor guide to environmental performance. Surely the Government want to get more people to drive super-minis—not souped-up minis—and 1100 cc is an unrealistic engine size. The Government should think again about this measure—they have time before 1 June—and go for cars up to 1400 cc.
  That leads me inevitably to the 6 per cent. increase in the fuel escalator, which, decoded, means steeply rising annual petrol prices. I shudder to think what we would be paying if world oil prices were not as low as they are now. The Government have been incredibly lucky, because there is now an abundant supply of oil, whereas in the 1970s we thought that oil was in permanently scarce supply. We all know how unstable the middle east is: if a Government are overthrown or there is a violent change of Government in the middle east, supplies may suddenly be reduced or cut off. That was certainly the case in Iran in 1979 when the Shah was overthrown. The Government must think again about the fuel escalator, which I believe has outlived its usefulness and is fundamentally wrong.
  The Government are being unrealistic if they go on thinking that the bus can replace the private car. I am beginning to get the impression that far too many people in this country do not want ordinary people to own a car. The most realistic public-private partnership—we hear a lot about that—is to make it as easy as possible for people to drive in their car to a station and get on a train. I accept that that cannot be done all over the country, because we cannot cover the country with railways.
  It is wrong of the Government to think that, somehow or other, the bus can magically replace the private car. In 1963, Professor Colin Buchanan, in his report on traffic in towns, said that the majority of journeys by car in this country are relatively short journeys, and cannot be done by bus. That is as true now as it was in 1963.

  759
  I should like to say a word about the Government's attitude to business and their desire to help business. In the Budget last year, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said:
  "For 12 months from July, first year capital allowances for small and medium-sized businesses will be set at 40 per cent., continuing our commitment to boosting long-term investment."—[Official Report, 17 March 1998; Vol. 308. c. 1101.]
  That statement took us to July 1999. It was repeated this year: the 40 per cent. allowance will go on to July 2000. Beyond that, we do not know what will happen. That is an avoidable uncertainty for business. The Government should make it clear what they will do on capital allowances for the rest of the Parliament. They made it clear in 1998 what they would do for one year. They have it made clear again. They should now go further.
  On page 41 of the Red Book, the Government say something interesting under the grand title "Helping businesses to succeed." We all wish business to do so, but at paragraph 3.45 the Government say that they believe that they also have
  "a role to play in supporting small businesses through the provision of advice and in particular by helping them to minimise the cost of complying with regulations."
  The way in which to reduce business costs is to reduce the number of regulations. That is what business wants more than anything else. It would like a couple of other things, too. It would like the road-building programme to stop being slashed and to be restored, so that businesses would find it easier to get their goods to market. It would also like local planning authorities to take a more friendly attitude towards businesses that want to set up shop in various parts of the country. That is the sort of practical help that can be given to businesses. It is missing from the Budget.
  I end with a point in relation to the Red Book that underlines the Government's philosophy and worry over the Budget. On page 99, there is a rather nervous statement on income tax in 2001–2002:
  "In the Treasury's view, an amendment of the Scottish Parliament's tax-varying powers is not required as a result of these changes"—
  in other words, the changes that the Government are making in income tax. It is interesting to note that cutting the basic rate to 10p is a repeat of what the then Chancellor, Mr. Norman Lamont, did in 1992: he introduced a lower rate of tax.
  The language being used now is exactly the same as was used by the late John Smith, but for John Smith substitute the Scottish National party. It is now saying what John Smith said in 1992, but the climate is different. There is a huge demand for more money to be spent on health and education. The Chancellor is taking a colossal gamble in what he is doing on income tax north of the border; he may come badly unstuck.
  6.42 pm
  Mr. Jim Cunningham: I remind the Opposition that the Government are spending at least £40 billion on education and the national health service. Most Opposition Members seem to have forgotten that. More important, I should like to support the Chancellor and his Budget. Indeed, for the first time in a long time,
  760
  we will see a surplus of £4 billion this year and a net public borrowing requirement of £1 billion. Compare that with the £28 billion deficit that we inherited and we are starting to move, certainly from my perspective, in the right direction.
  Nor should we forget what happened to families under the Tories. What they called free markets only broke local economies and smashed families. This is a strong family Budget that builds on previous initiatives and puts families and children at the heart of our policies; it builds on the working families tax credit, child care tax credit, the minimum wage and the fairness at work proposals. I am sure that many people will view the Budget as a step in the right direction.
  Many people will welcome the second increase in child benefit—to £15—the continuation of benefit on entering work, and the raising of the minimum income guarantee to £200 a week. Again those are strong measures to deal with poverty. Incidentally, those measures have been endorsed by the Low Pay Unit and the Child Poverty Action Group, so there is some support somewhere for the proposals, even if not among Opposition Members.
  We need stable families. They form the bedrock of a successful childhood and consequently better attainment at school, by building on sure start, special educational needs and the rebuilding of crumbling schools. Those are vital, too, in relation to quality of life.
  I warmly endorse the £100 million for inner-city schools: a vital part of rebuilding the fabric of our inner cities. We will also give £2,000 to each school to buy books. There will be 1,000 computer learning centres and an initiative to train 370,000 teachers in computing. Those are quite radical programmes.
  We can see that the Government have started to build some secure foundations step by step, so that our society can improve. It was often said that we could not have both environmental concern and economic growth. The Chancellor has shown how we can look at, and do something about, both. Corporation tax will be cut to 30p from April. The small business rate will also be cut. In my constituency, many small business people will welcome that. Given that these are tough times, the Chancellor is prepared to take tough action to tackle business problems, rather than let business flounder, as it did with the hollowing out of our economy in two major recessions under the Tories.
  The environment was often neglected by Tory Governments. Labour Members welcome the new, revenue-neutral incentives to cut carbon dioxide and, importantly, the special packages that the Government are prepared to introduce for high users. We particularly welcome, especially in my constituency of Coventry, South, the one thing that marks the Budget out as a truly reforming and modernising Government's Budget: the research and development tax credit.
  The Government are prepared to underwrite one third of R and D. That is welcome relief in Coventry, which has major employers such as Jaguar, Peugeot and GEC. That will greatly benefit and underpin our manufacturing economy for the long term. I am sure that many hon. Members will remember what happened 10 or 15 years ago under the previous Government. Unemployment in Coventry was between 15 and 18 per cent. It was once known as a boom town.

  761
  For small companies that often find it difficult to fight court cases, the strengthened powers of the Office of Fair Trading are particularly welcome—something that the Conservative party, despite all its protestations, failed to secure in 18 years of rule.
  Additionally, many older people will be grateful for the Budget. Already, we have had a cut in VAT on fuel, the minimum income guarantee of —75 and better regulation of the utilities. I welcome the attempts to do something for pensioners, particularly the raising of the minimum income guarantee to £78 and £121 for couples, the linking of the minimum income guarantee to earnings and the increase in winter fuel payments to £100— 500 per cent. Increase—not to mention the removal of most old age pensioners from income tax. Clearly, it is a Budget for the most vulnerable in society—the very same people whom Conservative Members spent 18 years walking all over and doing nothing about.
  The Budget did not stop there. It made provision for hard working people throughout the country—those who are in low-paid work, or who were thrown on the scrap heap by the Tories. Building on the new deal for the young and long-term unemployed, the Budget has introduced a 10p starting rate, helping people not next year, but next month. There is a cut in the basic rate of income tax. In addition, the Government's proposals for ESOPs—employee share ownership plans—will give workers a stake in their firms. The generous tax incentives will put a long-term bias into our sometimes short-termist economy.
  Most important for many former industrial workers, certainly in my constituency—the issue has been raised many times with me—there will be a new deal for the over-50s, guaranteeing £170 per week. Contrary to what Opposition Members have said, the new deal has worked and will continue to work for that particular group.
  We are getting down to the nitty-gritty by concentrating on education for all. Thus I welcome the individual learning accounts with tax-free contributions and £100 supplements for basic skills. That will mean a new start for many people and it will underpin the new deal by helping people in the long term.
  May I ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security to have another look at occupational pensions and the contributions as they affect genuinely disabled people? If he cannot look at the subject again, will he at least review it yearly to see how the system works out?
  We have a Government who listen, learn and put into practice what Britain needs. The Chancellor has delivered a family Budget, a pensioners Budget, a workers Budget and an enterprise Budget.
  6.50 pm
  Mr. Michael Jack: When I asked the Secretary of State to tell me how he would define "middle income", he was unable to answer—having chastised Conservative Members for not being in touch with the "middle income" group. That was interesting; it reveals just how in touch Ministers are. The fact that the right hon. Gentleman could not answer such a basic, simple question showed that, in reality, Ministers are out of touch.
  The Budget clearly demonstrates that the arcane art of smoke and mirrors that typifies the Treasury's activity in producing any of its documents is as alive and well as it
  762
  ever has been—although I think that the Chancellor must have consulted Mr. David Copperfield, the well-known illusionist, on how to put his Budget together. There were plenty of clever tricks, and some people are still wondering how they were performed; but performed they were, and earlier speakers have demonstrated that financial pigeons will come home to roost.
  This Budget struck me as one produced by a man who liked fiddling with things—a man who liked "toys for the boys". This man could not put the financial machine down; he had to fiddle with lots of things in an attempt to secure the headline the next day. The Budget lacks coherence, purpose and direction. I always want to know what the Chancellor's philosophy is, but, in this instance, I was struggling. Was it a philosophy of long-term tax-cutting? Was it a philosophy of long-term growth? Was it a philosophy to control Government expenditure in relation to gross domestic product at a particular percentage? Was it a philosophy to simplify the tax system? I do not think that it was any of those. As some commentators have observed, this Budget looked more like an accountants charter, given the complexity and the variations that it brought to play. There was a little bit of an allowance here, and a little bit there. This Budget is very difficult to understand.
  The ordinary citizen will wonder what happened to the Government's support for the reform of the tax law rewrite. The Budget was silent about any progress that has been made, and we can see why: the Chancellor was embarrassed by the added complexity that he was incurring.
  The headline that appeared in, I think, The Sun—"Every One a Winner"—was a triumph of spin, but also a triumph of inaccurate reporting. The Budget featured a grand lack of transparency. There is the way in which the 20p tax band was dispatched: it was not mentioned. There is the fact that the Chancellor stood up in the House of Commons and said that the 10p rate of corporation tax would affect companies that made a profit of up to £50,000. That was true, but the Chancellor forgot to add that the benefit stopped at £10,000. Finally, there is the wonderful statement that old age pensioners, if they are married, will be able not to pay tax on £15,000. When we look at the fine print, we find that it is necessary to add together two personal allowances and a married allowance, and still to have the flexibility within the marriage to move income about, to take full advantage of that provision. As I said at the outset, this takes the arcane art of smoke and mirrors to new heights.
  The Chancellor should take some of his own advice. This is the Chancellor who told us, to justify his fiscal rules, that he would have everything audited by the National Audit Office. I challenge Ministers, including the Chancellor—if the Chief Secretary makes a note of this, I may receive an answer at the end of the debate—to agree to submit an audit of those promises before the Budget is published, so that, when the public want to understand what is in a Budget, they will have a clear statement of its implications. The Chancellor should not be frightened of that proposal. If he has good news and believes in his own philosophy, transparency should be the watchword.
  It is difficult to digest and understand all the proposals. Given that the Government have said that they will produce a freedom of information Act, now is the time for the charade that we have seen in the Budget to stop. There should be audits and transparency revealing

  763
  the winners, the losers and the implications of the Chancellor's measures. After all, this is not the Chancellor's Budget; it is our Budget. It is the Budget for the people of this country, and they deserve better than they were given this year.
  One argument that will doubtless ping-pong back and forth for some time concerns the level of taxation. "Budget 99", the Treasury publication, suggests an inescapable mathematical outcome. If we look at the tables presenting the results—still to come—of previous Budgets' tax increases and netting them against what the Chancellor claims to be reductions in the current Budget, we find that in the financial year 1999–2000 there will be £2.6 billion in extra tax, that in the following financial year there will be –3.6 billion extra tax, and that in the year after that there will be £4 billion extra tax. Never mind about the percentage of GDP, or other such considerations; those are the cash increases that will be taken out of the UK economy in the form of extra tax. For the Chancellor or, indeed, the Prime Minister to equivocate for a moment on that is for them to defy simple mathematics. Those are the tax-raising facts.
  It is interesting to observe what happens when it comes to telling the truth about this Budget. Much was made of the newspaper headline that I quoted earlier, but the Library and the Institute for Fiscal Studies confirm that some 4 million households will lose from the Budget.
  Another thing worries me about the transparency of the Government. On 11 December 1996, when I was Financial Secretary to the Treasury, I had to answer an embarrassing and difficult parliamentary question. It was embarrassing and difficult because it showed some of the problems with which we were grappling when we were in government. The question—which can be found in column 190 of Hansard—concerned the effect of that year's Budget, account being taken of gross earnings, national insurance contributions, income tax payable, VAT, other indirect taxes and that awkward thing for this Government, the council tax, on the real take-home pay of the citizenry.
  When the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) tabled the same question recently, the Government shuffled their feet. They said, "We want to see how we should construct our answer." They enjoyed the answer. The present Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), tabled the question every year following 1981. It went to the heart of how the Budget affected people with incomes varying from 50 per cent. of average earnings to 2000 per cent.
  Will Ministers reinstitute the answer to that question? It is the most telling analysis that I know of the effect of the Budget on the individual citizen. If Ministers will not do that, will they tell the House why they will not answer the question? We want to know what the effect of the Budget is, but it is clear from their refusal to answer the question as originally tabled that Ministers now find it deeply embarrassing.
  I also hope that Ministers will come clean about some of the Chancellor's huge assumptions, to which other hon. Members have drawn attention. Half a per cent. off his growth figures means that public sector net borrowing will rise by £6 billion, current expenditure will be £1 billion higher and current receipts will be £5 billion lower. We hear little from Treasury Ministers about that.
  764
  This was supposed to be a Budget about employment and investment. Given all that the Government have said about investment criteria, will the Minister who replies to the debate explain why chart A6, on page 141 of the Red Book, shows that business investment up to the year 2001 is on a falling track? That does not seem to show a great deal of confidence on the Government's part in their own measures to stimulate investment. There are some cyclical explanations in the body of the text, but the document should have told us what the effect of the Budget would be on business investment. The Government have already been rumbled by some of today's speakers, who have pointed out that key factors such as our exchange rate competitiveness and interest rate levels have far more effect on investment than any of the Budget's window-dressing measures.
  The Government talk about helping small and medium-sized enterprises to raise money. I should be intrigued to learn why Ministers did not go further—as the British Venture Capital Association suggested in its Budget submission—by providing some encouragement to companies that wish to raise money by means other than straightforward borrowing from a bank. The British Venture Capital Association made an interesting case that the use of equity finance or other forms of debt finance could help in raising capital. Why have Ministers rejected that idea? If they really want to ensure availability of long-term capital funding for investment and provide help in raising funds, particularly for small and medium-sized enterprises, they should have acknowledged the association's sensible proposal.
  Labour Members have made much of the so-called help that the Budget will give to the elderly. I am concerned about the many hundreds of thousands of people who fall on the other side of eligibility for state help—the pensioners who are trying desperately to look after themselves by using their own means, or those who are trying to plan for their retirement.
  Annuity rates have been mentioned in the debate. However, many of the pensioners I am talking about will gain little comfort from the extra money that they will receive in heating allowance, as that will simply compensate them for loss of tax credit on the modest savings that they have already put away. They will discover that the savings they still have will be subject to a 20p tax rate, not the much-vaunted 10p starting rate. Eventually, widows will find that the changes in the state earnings-related pension scheme reduce their income.
  Most importantly, pensioners seeking to capitalise on the equity in their homes will find that abolition of mortgage interest relief at source—MIRAS—greatly increases the cost of home income plans. Currently, people who are able to obtain MIRAS in home income plans receive tax relief at 23p—not at the reduced 10p rate, the rate at which current non-pensioner householders receive MIRAS. The Government seem to be kicking very hard against those who have saved hard and want to use their own resources to look after themselves. The Government failed to look after them in those Budget measures.
  Much has been made about those who have children. However, an interesting article in The Daily Telegraph confirmed that the Budget will have some delayed effects. Earlier in the debate, I asked the Secretary of State for

  765
  Social Security if he knew the definition of "middle income" precisely because of that article, which considered the case of the Fellowes family.
  David and Kirsten Fellowes have an income of £35,000 and two children. It is perfectly true that, in tax year 1999–2000, the Budget's combined changes to tax, national insurance, MIRAS, child benefit and petrol duty will leave them better off by £191. However, in 2000–01, when the changes to higher rate national insurance take effect, the picture will change dramatically, and the Fellowes will be £240 a year worse off.
  The case of the Fellowes demonstrates the dishonesty for which the Budget caters. On the basis of Budget headline figures, people might think, superficially, that they will be better off. However, once they start examining the Budget's detail, they will discover that they will be worse off.
  Among the millions of householders who will be worse off are married couples—who are losing the married couple's allowance and MIRAS—who have no children. Perhaps such couples have a dependent relative whom they look after. Where in the Budget is there help for those people? Help is there none. They will feel that the Government' s tax treatment of them has well and truly kicked them in the teeth.
  The Government talked in the Budget about helping to create employment opportunities. It is ironic that, on the last day of the Budget debate, the organisation Manpower published a survey stating:
  "The survey shows that the economy has the worst job prospects for six years, which does not bode well for the coming year."
  Yet, Ministers tell us that the 10p starting rate will be the saviour in addressing those issues. I tell them that it is wrong to use the tax system to try to stimulate employment. We should have raised the personal allowance to remove some people completely from tax liability.
  Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) spoke eloquently and correctly about the inappropriateness of the Government' s proposals on vehicle excise duty. The proposals are wrong. Ministers should have provided much greater incentives for manufacturers to produce environmentally beneficial cars, and not have opted merely for a sneaky way of raising even more money from motorists. Today's duty reduction on cars with engines no larger than 1100 cc is the precursor to big tax rises for those owning other types of cars.
  The Budget kicked the rural economy very hard, and dashed any claim that Labour might make to be the friend of the countryside. Not only will increased diesel costs increase the cost of transport in rural areas, but any measure in the Budget to address the issue of farm costs went completely by the board. Rural Britain is suffering—probably worse than anywhere else—because of the Government and the Budget.
  As I said, worse is round the corner for the British economy. It is a great pity that the Budget was not more transparent about the real prospects for our economy.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches has now come into operation.
  7.6 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: If we were to go outside the House and ask people to tell us what they believe should be the core values of our society and what they think are the basic needs of people in our society, I believe that at the top of their list, or very close to it, would be shelter: access to a home for all those who want one. I should like to concentrate on the Budget's consequences for housing policy.
  First, however, I should like to say how very much I disagree with Opposition Members who complain about lack of transparency in the Budget. Perhaps they think that, last Tuesday, the Chancellor should have stood at the Dispatch Box and read out the Red Book, so that no detail was left unmentioned. I welcome the openness that the Chancellor has introduced into the Budget process, just as I applaud the Government's code for fiscal stability, the golden rule on investment and the sustainable investment rule. I welcome the Government's publication of pre-Budget reports. I also remind Opposition Members that, this year, there have been two detailed consultation papers, on the proposed business energy tax and on the variable vehicle excise duty.
  The accent in this year's pre-Budget report was on productivity measures. In most of the first 30 minutes of the Chancellor's Budget speech, he concentrated on enterprise and business. He announced in his speech yet further consultation on new measures, such as the all-employee share ownership scheme. It is therefore not right for Opposition Members to complain of a lack of transparency or openness.
  In the world of housing, we do not seem to use the term "boom and bust" which is so popular in the world of economics. Why not? Was not one of the legacies of the previous Tory Government a great boom and bust in housing, in the late 1980s and early 1990s? Was there not a huge house price explosion at the end of the 1980s, followed by a great recession—in which people lost their homes, with record numbers of mortgage repossessions and cases of negative equity?
  Almost 70 per cent. of households are owner-occupiers, who welcome economic stability, just as businesses do. The Budget made little mention of housing, and two specific provisions were probably unwelcome to people in the housing world—the end, next year, of MIRAS and higher stamp duty for the few who buy houses worth more than £250,000. However, there are countervailing forces at work on those measures. The interest rate cuts of the past six months have already brought substantial gains to those with variable rate mortgages. With higher stamp duty comes greater price stability at the higher end of the market, avoiding the excessive price increases of the past. The surveys by the Halifax and the Nationwide for the past year disagree, putting house price inflation at 4.4 per cent. and 7.4 per cent. respectively. Looking forward to this year, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors forecasts house price inflation of 4 per cent. The Council of Mortgage Lenders and the Association of British Insurers made an announcement shortly before the Budget speech about an accord on what I might call MPPI 2—a second variation of the mortgage payment protection insurance policy that has been in circulation for some time. I hope that the scheme will be widely taken up and will protect more people from losing their home when they lose their employment.

  767
  In the Red Book and the second of the two press notices from the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions came the announcement of a forthcoming Green Paper on housing policy. That is welcome, because although the Government introduced the capital receipts initiative soon after coming to office, providing a boost for housing finance, there has been a lack of debate about the direction of housing policy. I think that there is a lot to look forward to in and outside the Green Paper. For local authorities, there is the duty to achieve best value, the difference that resource accounting might bring to housing finance and the new housing inspectorate. For the registered social landlords sector there will be a change to rent structures. I sincerely hope that there will also be an increase in the grant rate for building new homes for rent. We know what the Government are likely to announce on the funding of supported housing. We have seen a Government consultation paper on modernising the buying and selling process for homes. I hope that during this Parliament we shall achieve justice for all leaseholders. Lastly, the most knotty problem to overcome is the reform of housing benefit. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a significant announcement the day after the Budget that comparative information will be published for customers on mortgages and those on other credit.
  That might sound like a list of positive measures, but there is no reason for complacency. Last year there were 59,700 mortgage repossessions and 31,000 households in the social and private rented sector suffered eviction orders. Homeless households continue to present themselves to local authorities at a rate of 100,000 a year. Hidden homelessness is probably much greater.
  Against that background, spending on housing has been encouraging, but not great. In revenue terms, Government spending on local authorities and registered social landlords is about £2 billion a year. Housing benefit costs the Government about £11 billion a year. Income support mortgage interest payments cost the Government about £500 million a year. MIRAS will cost the Government £1.4 billion next year. On top of that, the capital receipts initiative will raise £5 billion for spending during this Parliament. The comprehensive spending review brought £3.9 billion extra for the next three years. However, it is a pity that the announcement of the end of MIRAS does not coincide with an announcement on additional resources for housing.
  My pessimism increased when I read the weekend news reports that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is leading the drive to reduce spending on housing benefit. I hope that the Chief Secretary will deal with that point when he replies to the debate. We all expect the crackdown on housing benefit fraud to continue, but I hope that the Green Paper also leads to several desirable outcomes for those at the sharp end of reduced investment in housing. The attack on homelessness that was set out in the social exclusion unit policy on rough sleepers should be driven home relentlessly. I want wider choice to enable people to have the housing that they want. That means that local authorities and registered social landlords will have to build more homes. We need greater flexibility of tenures. I sincerely hope that there will be greater provision of social housing in rural areas. I also hope that
  768
  housing finance will be reformed to end the current labyrinthine systems. We need more transparency, so that we can see where we get value for money.
  I hope that there will be a change to housing benefit so that it supports the Government's welfare-to-work policies rather than hampering them. We need changes that protect the lowest income households from the risk of losing their home. Those are the developments that I hope for in the housing policy Green Paper later this year. I urge the House to ensure that housing policy gets its fair share of time in this place, reflecting the priority that I believe that the public give to it.
  Finally, I should like to stray from the subject of housing to a more general consideration of the effect of the Budget. The hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) rightly identified that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.17 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), because housing is very important. I shall deal later with the need for adequate resources for housing renovation, which is a considerable problem in many areas, particularly the old industrial areas.
  The Budget is a parson's egg that pretends to be an Easter egg. It is, to say the least, a scrambled egg. It is difficult to see the various parts of any egg that has been scrambled so comprehensively; only after adequate scrutiny do bits of the egg become more apparent. As matters become clearer, the worst parts of the parson's egg will become more evident.
  There are some measures in the Budget that everyone welcomes, including the winter allowance, the provision to help small businesses and the support for renewable energy. However, there is a fundamental dishonesty in the way in which the Budget has been put together—or at least in the way in which it has been projected. We heard the Chancellor predicting increasing current surpluses year on year. The Red Book shows increases in public expenditure of £30 billion or £40 billion a year. The Prime Minister has claimed that there is a £4.5 billion net tax cut. Those three factors cannot simultaneously be true. They do not add up. We are comparing different aspects of the figures that are not comparable. That will catch up with the Government sooner or later.
  There appears to be a fundamental shift in new Labour's philosophy away from an emphasis on public services towards the Tory policy of lower direct taxes. We do not find that attractive. The proposed reduction in income tax from 23 to 22 per cent. will cost £2.2 billion. That money could have been better spent on other areas. To compensate for that, indirect taxes are being raised by enough to reduce the national debt. However, there is a higher calling for that money than using it to reduce the national debt.
  If every Member of the House put his hand on his heart, he would say that it was difficult to remember people coming to his constituency surgeries over the past two years to press him for a reduction in the standard rate of income tax. Equally, he would know that, in every surgery, every week, people asked for assistance with

  769
  student fees or grants, help for pensioners and disabled people, improvements to the health service and increased expenditure on housing renovation.
  Spending is required on a plethora of desperately needed services. The £2 billion represented by a reduction of 1p in income tax could have been much better spent on those matters. That would be the priority of my constituents, and we would rather that the £1.8 billion used to introduce the 10 per cent. tax rate had taken people out of tax altogether.
  The proportion of gross domestic product represented by general Government expenditure is still 1 per cent. below the level under the last Tory Government. In 1996–97, the figure was 40.4 per cent. For the coming year, it is projected to be 39.4 per cent. That 1 per cent. difference represents £8 billion, which is needed for health, education, housing and other services in my constituency. It would have been much better had that money been used to avoid taking £700 million a year away from disabled people, as is implicit in the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill.
  I wish to refer to the way in which the Budget will impact on rural areas, such as mine. The great increase in petrol prices will be the last straw for many rural areas, particularly those areas where there are low incomes. In the western part of Wales—the old counties of Gwynedd and Dyfed, for example—income per head stands at 75 per cent. of European GDP per head. In these scattered communities, people must travel far to find work and to find shops. The increased fuel charges will mean increased costs in the shops, exacerbating the problems in rural areas in a way that could have been avoided. This year, it is one step too far.
  We need some thinking on how to improve transport and to get transport that is environmentally acceptable for rural areas, rather than using a tax mechanism that hits the poorest hardest, and makes it more difficult for them to find work.
  I am concerned also about the effect of the Budget on the parity of the pound. My worry is that the value of the pound will remain too high. We know what that has done to manufacturing, tourism and agriculture—all three of which are the bases of the economy in my area. The Bank of England guidelines need to be broadened so that employment, as well as inflation, is taken on board.
  How will the Budget help the economy of the poorest areas? I am thinking of those areas awaiting an announcement on objective 1 status within the new EU structural funds—an announcement which may come later this month, although it may be delayed until May. Are we to get objective 1 status for the western part of Wales and the old coalfield areas? That is justified, as Wales has the lowest GDP of any country or region in Britain, but it has not yet had objective 1 status. To take advantage, it will be necessary to get matched funding—as will be the case for Merseyside, South Yorkshire or Cornwall.
  Unless there is additional Treasury money, in terms of the EU additionality rule, to provide that matched funding—or at least a good proportion of it, as we cannot look to the private or voluntary sectors to raise more than a small proportion—we will not be in a position to take up the objective 1 funding that may be available. Between 2000 and 2006, as much as £1.5 billion to £2 billion may be available for Wales, and equal sums may be available
  770
  for the other areas to which I have referred; yet we will not be able to take it up if we cannot find the matched funding.
  The Treasury has consistently refused to show a willingness to find that matched funding, and we need a statement that the Budget's provisions are adequate to meet those requirements. The money is needed to increase living standards and incomes per head in some of the poorest areas of these islands.
  Equally, we need a statement on the implications of the Budget in terms of regional assistance. We know that the Department of Trade and Industry is reconsidering its regional map, and we need to know how that will work, what assistance will be available for companies and whether those companies in objective 1 areas will be eligible for full development area status. Again, that will have implications for the Treasury and for the Budget.
  In Wales, the Budget will be judged on how it helps to create new jobs; at present, we are losing jobs. The Budget will be judged on how it helps to increase GDP per head; it is not clear how that challenge will be met. It will be judged on how it secures greater social fairness and equity; there are some small moves in the Budget towards that, but I would have liked more far-reaching moves. There is a question also about the way in which the Budget will sustain and develop effective public services, and that is where the priorities have been wrong.
  There is much that remains to be proven in the Budget. When the National Assembly assumes responsibility in Wales from 6 May, these questions will come home to roost, and we will have to live with the consequences of an inadequate Budget for this year.
  7.26 pm
  Dr. Desmond Turner: I must take issue with the curmudgeonly remarks of Opposition Members about what was a carefully crafted Budget. Officially, we are not supposed to call it a redistributive Budget, but it is wonderful to see how many people at the lower end of the income scale are benefiting from it—people who, throughout 18 years of Conservative government, were robbed year after year by Tory Chancellors, who took money directly out of their pockets and gave it to higher-income earners. This Budget has reversed that process without skinning anybody. That is quite an achievement, on which I commend the Chancellor.
  The Chancellor has proposed measures that will underpin growth and stability within the British economy. It is a totally different kind of Budget—it is integrated, and hangs together—from those we were used to from Tory Chancellors, which might have been written on the back of a fag packet.
  The first matter which I wish to raise is not remotely concerned with social security, for which I apologise—it is the climate change levy. I wonder how consistent the scale of the levy is with the £50 million identified for promoting the use of alternative and renewable sources for producing energy. Government policy is that we should be aiming to produce 10 per cent. of our energy from renewable sources. However, the Budget proposes that 3 per cent. of the money to be taken by the climate change levy should promote replacement by renewable sources. I wonder whether the Chancellor will wish to review that matter in future Budgets, as a further

  771
  stimulation of the commercial advantage to producers using renewable sources would help to achieve that policy aim.
  The implications of the royal commission's excellent report on continuing care for the elderly will have a considerable price tag. The royal commission tackled a problem that had defied some of the best brains in the country, and tried to find a rational answer to the totally unsustainable situation left to us by the implementation of the care in the community legislation in 1993, taking the burden of domiciliary or residential home care for the elderly away from the Exchequer and handing it to local government, with inadequate resources, making individuals pay, even if their means were modest.
  The transfer of responsibility was the worst poisoned chalice ever received by local government from central Government. I was involved in implementing the change in my local council, and it was an horrendous job. Many stresses and injustices were exposed. It got to the point where there were so many problems that in some areas there was a race between the undertaker and the social worker; sometimes the undertaker won because there were not sufficient resources. Local government was made to do a deeply unpleasant job of rationing which it was not set up to do.
  If we adopt the royal commission's main recommendations, we will return to the principle to which we have adhered for most of the post-war years—tate paying for the care of elderly people. There is a great deal of justice in that. The report is excellent in its analysis and demonstrates conclusively that there is no way in which the problems can be tackled through private insurance—res simply do not stack up, and the premiums would be insupportable—, if the burden is spread across the state and paid for from general revenues, the system will be sustainable, affordable and just.
  It is essential that the Government adopt the principal recommendation that personal care, as opposed to board and lodging, be paid for from general revenues. That has a cost, which the royal commission estimated at between £800 million and£1.2 billion a year.I do not have total confidence in those estimates, because they seem to be calculated from the premise of existing service levels, which I know are inadequate.
  The eligibility criteria are unsustainably tight, and some extraordinary things have happened. In some authorities, before a person can receive a care package or residential placement they have to wait for someone else to die. There is an extraordinary policy of one out, one in. I do not know of a social services authority whose community care budget is not overspent, however harshly it rations the care that it delivers.
  A more realistic assessment of the likely cost of providing an adequate and sustainable service would be £2 billion. Given my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's magnificent capacity for finding money in the back pocket, that is peanuts, but it has to be found. Society can and must afford it. We must find the means. A society may be judged by the way in which it treats its sick and elderly, and we must face up to that challenge.
  One way in which extra revenue could be raised, should it be necessary—drastic measures may not be needed—is to reconsider the ceiling on national insurance
  772
  contributions, which was set when marginal rates of taxation on high earners were extremely punitive. Was there not a time after the war when the income tax rate was 19s 6d in the pound? In those days, there was some justification for capping national insurance contributions.
  I am not making specific suggestions, but I ask my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to re-examine the national insurance system. If the cap were removed, the blow could be softened by reducing the percentage contribution, but making it payable across the whole income spectrum. It is just a thought that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time is up.
  7.36 pm
  Mr. John Bercow: Last year's Budget was a triumph of style over substance. In this year's Budget, the Chancellor has progressed in the former and regressed in the latter. I want to focus on tax, regulation and tobacco smuggling, for their handling of which the Government deserve a triple condemnation.
  It is clear that Ministers believe that the British people are taxed too little, although they did not say that before the general election. The Labour party manifesto explicitly stated:
  "How and what governments tax sends clear signals about the economic activities they believe should be encouraged or discouraged, and the values they wish to entrench in society."
  From the record of his first three Budgets, the Chancellor has given a people's performance of a very curious sort. They have been people's Budgets: people who have mortgages, people who are married, people who own cars, people who put petrol in cars, people who have pensions, people who acquire savings, people who buy houses and people who run businesses all face a higher tax burden as a direct consequence of the Government's decisions.
  Let us scotch once and for all the absurd untruth peddled by the Prime Minister at Question Time last week that the Budget represents a net tax cut of £4.5 billion. It does nothing of the kind. Anatole Kaletsky is not ordinarily a supporter of the Conservative party, but in The Times he described that prime ministerial utterance as a straightforward untruth.
  By the end of this Parliament, there will be an additional £40.7 billion in tax and regulatory costs. In the coming financial year alone, the tax burden will be £7.1 billion higher as a result of the Chancellor's decisions. The cumulative impact of his Budgets is that, at the end of this Parliament, people will pay about £19 billion a year more than at the end of the previous Parliament. That is the reality, as distinct from the propaganda with which Ministers regularly favour us.
  I want to draw attention to two especially acute and serious examples. The first is the savage increase in excise duty on petrol. That will hit people in rural areas especially hard, not least in my Buckingham constituency, and my constituents have not been slow to make their protests heard about the Chancellor's move. I quote from one letter from an 81-year-old constituent, Mrs. Zettl, from Buckingham, who wrote to me:
  "Those of us who are lucky enough to run a car suffer so much from the constant increase in petrol. Without my car I would have to get rid of my dogs as I cannot take them for a walk in a built-up area. I would have no social life as my friends are scattered round

  773
  the villages. At 81 years old I am too old to bicycle or wait in draughty unheated bus shelters for buses which run at the wrong time, if at all, and in this violent age, I do not like to walk in lonely places in the dark."
  She adds that she works voluntarily for two small charities, neither of which can afford to reimburse her petrol costs, and in pursuing her duties for them she is obliged to visit people in remote and outlying areas. She is the sort of person who will be affected. She has been clobbered by the Budget and she is very angry about it. The gas guzzling Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions may not be too bothered and the Chancellor may be insouciant about the effects of what he has done, but my constituent is angry and she has not hesitated to tell me so.
  The second significant measure that will be damaging is the colossal rise in national insurance contributions for self-employed people, amounting to £240 million a year. The Government have the brass neck to introduce that damaging change under the chapter in the Red Book entitled "Increasing Employment Opportunity". This is a tax-raising Government and £533 million of the additional tax take during this Parliament will be paid by the people of the county of Buckinghamshire.
  It is clear that the Government believe that this country is under-regulated. Before the election, the then shadow Chancellor said that Labour would not impose burdensome regulations on business because it understood that successful businesses must keep costs down. The right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) said:
  "we have no intention of introducing any legislation that presents a burden on business and reduces the competitiveness of British firms."—[official Report, 25 November 1998; Vol. 321, c. 214.]
  But that is what the Government have done. Some 2,400 additional regulations have been introduced. For example, the fiendishly complex working time directive regulations alone take up 72 pages of A4 paper and the national minimum wage regulations, until amended, take up 112 pages of A4 paper.
  What have Ministers had to say about regulation during the Budget debates? There was nothing about it in the Chancellor's speech, nor in the statement on competition by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry or in his 36-minute speech on Wednesday in the continuation of the Budget debate. Instead, he talked about the establishment of the Small Business Service. The biggest service that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could do for small businesses is to get out of the way, let them make their products, market their products, sell their products and be successful.
  To cap it all, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said to the House, in what should have been a joke but apparently was not:
  "I am reviewing arrangements for business rescues".—[Official Report, 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 367.]
  That might be wise, in view of the likely exponential increase in the number of candidates for rescue. Small businesses will need rescuing from the sea of regulation under this Government, which is now deeper and more hazardous than any that British companies have previously had to negotiate. The Government are increasing regulation.
  Finally, I turn to the subject of tobacco smuggling. The tobacco industry in this country is important and it yields substantial revenue of some £10.25 billion a year,
  774
  £8.5 billion of which is excise duty. The Government are pursuing a damaging and ineffective policy. In opposition, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), who is now Paymaster General, castigated the then Conservative Government for closing their eyes to the implications of their tobacco taxation policy which, she said, was providing opportunities for tobacco smuggling. She said that the Labour party had made clear its views on the health issues involved, but the problem could not be tackled by taxation. Now she has performed a complete tergiversation. The effect is that the Exchequer is suffering to the tune of £1.5 billion a year, foreign tobacco industries are prospering and international crime syndicates are thriving at the expense of British industry.
  The Budget will not create jobs, it will destroy them. It will not boost competitiveness, it will sap it. It will not make this country richer, it will make it poorer. It is a bad, thoughtless and damaging Budget. Above all, for those of us concerned about standards in public life, it is a dishonest Budget and it deserves to be rejected by the House tonight.
  7.46 pm
  Kali Mountford: I had intended to confine my remarks to the effects of the budget on women and children; however, having heard some of the comments in the debate, I wish to widen my scope a little, even though time is short. Listening to some of the contributions from Conservative Members, one would think that they had completely forgotten their record in Government. As the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) was speaking, I remembered the many cuts his Government made in pensions in general, and SERPS in particular, and in help for people on income support. I was alarmed by the hon. Gentleman's comments on pensions and the help that the Government are giving to pensioners, because he seemed to reject some of the boldest and most imaginative changes to pensions that we have seen since the war.
  In particular, Conservative Members have mentioned the minimum pension guarantee. In my constituency, in the local authority area of Kirklees, 210 couples and 920 single pensioners are on income support. All those pensioners will benefit from the increase in the minimum pension guarantee. Conservative Members have not told the House what they would do. They seem to be saying that they would take away that money from pensioners, but we did not hear what they would do for pensioners or what their record was when in office. I would like to hear an explanation of why they did nothing about the uptake of income support. When they discussed what was wrong with the minimum pension guarantee, their only resort was the shortfall in the take-up of pensions. It is true that the second state pension, when it is introduced, will get around the problem of uptake, but we need to do something about it today.
  This Government are doing something about the 23 pilot areas examining the problem of take-up of pensions. However, when I visited a Benefits Agency office recently, one member of staff asked me, "Why is there so much talk about the poorest pensioners? After all, we can do nothing for them." While we have that attitude, we will not be able to do anything, but at least we now have a Government who have started to reverse that trend.
  We also heard some talk about philosophy from Conservative Members. However, the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) gave us a list of measures,not

  775
  a philosophy. This is a Budget for the long term, but it is not a philosophy. It is a set of measures. The right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) also said that this was not a Budget of philosophy, but he referred to particular measures that he would like to see. In my opinion, the philosophy of the Budget is its implementation of the values of this new Labour Government. Those values consist of support for people who need it at the time when they need it most, and in whatever situation they find themselves. The philosophy is an old one: help for those who need it most, and contribution from those most able to make it.
  Of course, the people most able to contribute are those who are in work. The Budget encourages work, enabling work to flourish. In considering how to make work pay, we must first think about jobs, and this is a Budget for jobs. The textile industry has declined over the past 15 years in my constituency, so measures for research and development and for product development are of great benefit. One problem with the textile industry is that its product is often not wanted in the marketplace. Any help for investment in new capital or for research and development must benefit my constituents.
  My constituency has a flourishing small business sector, but I would like it to flourish further. The measures to help small businesses to start up and to develop must create a trend towards new jobs. My constituency is in a rural area, and new jobs will greatly benefit people who live in large travel-to-work areas. The extra £20 million a year for rural transport will also benefit them because levels of pay mean that many cannot afford a car. People depend on rural buses and trains, the kind of service completely undermined by the previous Government's privatisation programme.
  My main subject, however, is women and children. I wanted to hear some gratitude from Conservative Members for the help offered through child benefit. However, I am not surprised that they do not welcome either universal benefits or the increase in them. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) provided an example of their thoughts during the Second Reading of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, when he said:
  "Why do we hand out child benefits to everyone, irrespective of income? Why do we not make parents responsible? Why do we allow young people to become a charge on the state?"—[Official Report, 23 February 1999; Vol. 326, c. 268–69.]
  That remark signals the philosophy of Conservative Members. They talk about marriage as though it were the only thing that a Budget should protect. However, the main feature of a family that requires our protection is children.
  Marriage is a good institution, and I support it—I am, after all, actively engaged in it myself. However, I did not marry in order to get the married couple's tax relief or any other allowance. I got married because I was in a happy partnership and I wanted to continue it and to build a safe and secure family. Families consist of children—the focus of marriage, and the focus of the Budget. Vulnerable children deserve society's support, and they should be able to expect it. An increase in child benefit helps both mothers and families. In particular, it helps the poorest children, and surely everyone must welcome that.
  Also welcome must be increases in the children's tax credit, which replaces the married couple's allowance and which shifts the focus of society on to a philosophy that
  776
  we should support—the philosophy of the family. The country's resources are being targeted at those who most need them—the most vulnerable and those least able to have a say in what society spends its money on.
  If we should not spend our money on children, what does deserve our resources? Children, especially those who live in poverty, should be our focus. Consider a child's progress from birth. The Government are investing more money in the maternity benefit denied to the poorest women for too long. A woman on an income of only £30 a week will be entitled now to maternity benefit, and that must help her health and her expectation of returning to a job and a proper income. It must be welcome.
  I am surprised that Conservative Members have not welcomed our support for the child. Nor have I heard them welcome sure start for children. Yet children's early years are those in which they must benefit the most to thrive. No child will thrive in school who has suffered total deprivation—not even a proper diet—in his or her early years. Sure start gives mothers and children an opportunity to flourish. The Government's philosophy is clear in their focus on children, and I hope that the House will support that philosophy.
  7.56 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: The nature of Budgets has changed radically in recent years. Until recently, they were about the problems of managing boom and bust and about macro-economics. By a combination of good luck and, to a degree, good management, the monetary and fiscal outlook is more stable, and the character of the Budget has changed. Budgets now are essentially about changing people's behaviour—using taxes to encourage savings, investment, long-term investment, environmentally sustainable behaviour, hard work, getting back to work and so on.
  That is all very well up to a point. Some tax incentives perform a useful role. The Budget contained small measures that have not really been noticed, such as the lifting of employees' national insurance contributions at the bottom end as an incentive to work. The Government have not had a great deal of credit for some positive initiatives, such as incentives for the over-50s to go back to work. Good behavioural changes are being introduced through budgetary means. However, the problem of that approach to a Budget by a hyperactive Chancellor is that the tax system is becoming increasingly complex and full of contradictions. I should like to highlight just a few in my 10 minutes.
  First, it is clear that the Government understand the importance of marginal rates of tax as an incentive. That is why we no longer live in a world in which there are 98p rates at the margin on savings and unearned income. That is why the Government claim to disapprove of the Liberal Democrat proposal for a income tax rate of 50p in the pound on taxable income over £100,000. They argue that it would be a disincentive.
  The Government do not seem to appreciate, however, that the Budget is creating high rates of marginal tax at key rates in the tax range. There is a specific point—about £28,000 to £30,000—at which a single earner in a family with children will start to pay the 40 per cent. higher rate of tax, but will simultaneously lose the child's tax credit, which tapers out at that point. That person will also pay a higher rate of employee's national insurance contributions because of the lifting of the upper limit.

  777
  Such people are the type about whom the Government claim to be concerned—the middle-income middle managers, heads of schools or junior doctors—but who will pay very high marginal rates of tax. I believe that those high rates have crept in unintended, but they result from complicated over-manipulation of the system.
  Another example may illustrate the same point. There were big cheers on Budget day when the Government introduced a 10p rate of corporation tax. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) has already made the point that that rate is illusory in that it applies only to the first £10,000. However, the situation is more complicated even than that. Between £10,000 and £50,000, the marginal rate will be higher than the rate that applied previously—it will be 22.5 per cent. rather than 20 per cent.
  The disincentive to risk and entrepreneurship is being increased among precisely the type of people whom the Government are supposedly trying to help. It has been done by accident, but the various interventions and incentives being given through tax mean that practices such as those are becoming progressively greater.
  A second example that, at first sight, appears to be a bold and positive innovation in the Budget, is the new energy tax, which will come into effect after a delay. In principle, many of us like the idea of taxing pollution and using the revenues to offset against the cost of employment. Having helped to write the Liberal Democrat party's policy on the subject five years ago, I am tempted to claim that imitation is a form of flattery. However, when one looks at the detail—or the detail that there is, as the Red Book does not give much—the measure is clearly not imitation. The tax has the potential for enormous problems, which will come back to haunt the Government in time.
  Most people who have applied themselves to designing carbon taxes say that, first and foremost, such a tax must be applied upstream and kept simple: tax a barrel of crude oil or gas at the upstream end, tax a tonne of coal from the mine, and let the market do the rest. Tax energy once. The Government desperately want to avoid being accused of taxing household energy, so they have introduced their carbon tax at the downstream end. Every company, large and small, will be taxed on its energy use, which could become a nightmare. There will be numerous points of taxation and many companies run different types of business—some will be charged at a higher and some at a lower rate.
  Consider the practical problems that will arise when the Government try to tax electricity use in a typical company—electricity is the main form of energy used by many. Uncomfortably, electrons do not arrive with little labels, saying, "I come from a nuclear power plant," or, "I come from a coal plant," which one can hand to the Inland Revenue. Electricity will be charged at a uniform rate. People who use electricity from renewable sources or gas plants, which use relatively little coal, will be charged at the same rate as people who use electricity from coal-burning stations, and that is ludicrous. The purpose of the carbon tax, which is hailed as an effort to contribute to preventing climate change, will be nullified.
  Furthermore, the Government state in the Red Book that energy-intensive industries will be taxed less heavily than others. The situation is potentially ludicrous: companies will be penalised for using renewable energy and for not being energy intensive, which is the opposite
  778
  of what the tax is designed to achieve. All the problems stem from the attempt to hedge around households and protect them from energy taxation.
  The third point is the impact of the Budget on savings. I want the Government to answer a simple question at some point during this debate. Have they worked out the impact of this Budget on personal savings? I had hoped that, as the Secretary of State for Social Security opened the debate today, he would have said what the Government propose to do about the savings disregard in the social security system, something that is a massive disincentive to saving for people at the bottom end of the scale.
  At present, the Inland Revenue and the Department of Social Security assume that savings can produce yields of about 10 per cent., and that is totally unrealistic. The savings disregard needs to be lifted enormously if people are to be encouraged to save. We have seen no Government initiative on that.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde described how the 20p rate applies to small savings from unearned—that is, interest—income. Next year, people will be hit by the double whammy. They will be hit by the 20 per cent. rate on small interest income combined with the loss, from last year, of the tax credits on dividends—that was one of the most deplorable features of last year's Budget. The Government even acknowledged the fact that they had made a mistake, but were technically unable to unravel it.
  Low-income savers will be hit by both measures at once. Also, pensioners and small savers will find the savings tax regime complicated. Those who have interest income from building societies on top of their state pension will be paying their 20p. Another group who have superannuation schemes from their companies will be paying 10p and 23p. Some pensioners will face a combination of the two. All pensioners, however lowly, will be strongly advised to get a tax accountant to sort all of that out.
  That is one of the central lessons of the Budget. A whole set of measures, which in isolation might be well conceived, when put together will create a nightmare of complexity in which the only ultimate beneficiaries will be accountants rather than the taxpayer.
  8.4 pm
  Mr. Stephen Hesford: So far, the debate has been confusing. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Kali Mountford). It begs the question, is the debate about measures or philosophy? I want to deal with the philosophy behind the Budget.
  Some members of the Labour party—I certainly know some in my constituency party—ask whether this is the first Budget of a real Labour Government. I can understand why. I ask the House and the wider public to look at the Budget as the third Budget of this new Labour Government. One has to see it in that context, not taken out of context, or fiddled about with as, with respect, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) fiddled about with various measures. He did not seem coherent about what he wanted from policy.
  The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) asked what was the coherence and purpose behind the Budget, and that is the question that I hope to answer. When my right hon. Friend was created Chancellor, he found a deficit of

  779
  £28 billion—a public spending black hole. He found that social security spending was heading out of control, much because of fraud. Those are the issues that we have begun to tackle in a series of Budgets and other measures. What he found created a difficulty. For the first two years, we had to live within inherited spending plans. There were severe restraints in certain areas, which caused alarm to Labour Members. The public asked what the new Labour Government were about.
  The history of previous Labour Governments—certainly those of recent memory in the 1970s—was optimism when the party came to power, optimistic social policy spending at the beginning of the Government, followed by the brake, which was applied half way through the term in office or towards the end in a storm of economic uncertainty. This country could not have repeated that and that is what we had to avoid at the beginning of this Parliament. I suggest that we are doing so.
  That is the backdrop to what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor calls prudent management of the economy—the traditional Labour aim. The history of the party has not, of course, always been favourable in that regard. We have not always attained economic stability. We are doing so now and we will do so for the next two to three years until the next election. The value of sterling has not crashed. Interest rates are falling and we are weathering the storm of the south-east Asian difficulties while 40 per cent. of the world is in recession. Inflation is stabilising at the target rate of 2.5 per cent., Government borrowing is under control and coming down at less than 40 per cent. of gross domestic product and is due to fall in the next two years at an annual rate of 2.5 per cent. per annum. That is stability and it is the backdrop to the Budget.
  As Labour Governments—and the country—have found to their cost, the Labour party cannot achieve anything if there is an economic crash or a perceived or actual lack of economic confidence and that it is then voted out of office. If we are out of office, we cannot put in place the measures that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have already mentioned.
  I want to put the Chancellor's measures in the context of his Labour predecessors and set the scene about what has gone wrong in the past with a brief review of four Labour Chancellors. The response of the Labour Chancellor in the 1929 Government to the economic crash was simply to ask for cuts in unemployment benefit. That split the party, and it took almost a generation for it to recover from that mismanagement. Stafford Cripps in the 1945–50 Government applied a credit squeeze and rationing from 1948. Roy Jenkins, now Lord Jenkins, applied a credit squeeze in 1969 and 1970. In the 1974–79 Government, Denis Healey, now Lord Healey, famously said that he would tax the rich until their pips squeaked. Those measures were attempted, but we ended up going to the International Monetary Fund cap in hand, followed by the winter of discontent.
  In summary, two former Labour Chancellors ended up in different parties, while two, indirectly or directly, split the party. Three presided over financial crises, Lord Jenkins having taken over from Lord Callaghan, who devalued in 1967. In effect, all lost the following election, two losing majorities of 96 and around 140. That is not good for the country and certainly not good for the party.
  780
  There is a coherent philosophy behind many of the measures that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor outlined in this and previous Budgets.
  What do the Opposition say about the Budget? The Liberal Democrats' bladder continues to ail them: they want to spend the 1p again and again. Unfortunately, that condition is often accompanied by excessive wind, some of which we heard tonight.
  The Tories are against the rise in petrol duty. The Conservative party is the polluter's friend. They are hypocritical into the bargain because it was they who set the measures in train in the previous Government. The Tories are against the £40 billion increase in spending on the health service and schools. What do they want to put in its place? That is a rhetorical question. They are against the new deal. Many of my constituents across the range—the young and single mothers, and now the disabled and the over-50s—are benefiting from it.
  The Tories ask where the £8 billion that the Chancellor was able to save against previously forecast social security spending came from. It came in part from the Government's success in putting people back to work: 400,000 jobs created since 1997. Thousands of people in my constituency continue to benefit from those measures. It is an £8 billion improvement on what we would have got under the previous Government because they would not have embarked on those measures. They would not have had the money to play with. That is how my right hon. Friend will pay for many of the measures on families and the elderly, to which I shall come shortly.
  Conservative Members want to continue their policy of grinding the 6 million senior citizens on basic pay, many on income support, into poverty. They do not want the linked minimum pension—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. John Randall: Last week's Budget was greeted by Labour Members with much enthusiasm, but rather like a boozy night out, what seemed like a good idea at the time has been followed by a nasty hangover. The Red Book makes less than pleasant reading. All Chancellors tend to gloss over the bad news and hide the detail, but this one has turned the practice into a veritable art form. That makes it more difficult for the ordinary public fully to grasp the overall implications of the Budget for themselves and for the economy.
  In opposition, the Government said that they wanted to simplify the tax system. That would have reduced the earnings of accountants and lawyers and made the cost of government clearer to taxpayers. Unfortunately, the opposite has happened. There are now no fewer than 54 personal tax rates compared with four 10 years ago. We have become more reliant than ever on experts to filter out the truth.
  Let me turn to the Budget's consequences for some of the things that directly impinge on many people's everyday lives. It has made petrol the most expensive in the developed world when oil prices have fallen to an historic low. Since 1997, pump prices have risen by 15 per cent. while the price of crude has fallen by a third. The average price of petrol in Britain is 68.6p per litre, compared with 15.9p in America and 41.1p in Greece.

  781
  I know that the Chancellor has defended that as an environmental measure, but, sadly, he is treating the motorist as a cash cow for the Treasury.
  Since the above-inflation duty escalator was introduced in 1993, car traffic has grown by about 2 per cent. a year. It is failing in its primary function of reducing the number of journeys made. Millions of drivers depend on their cars. This tightening of the screw particularly affects the elderly, the disabled and those who live in the country. Such people have no alternative to using the car. There will be Labour Members who say that the Government are only continuing the strategy of their predecessors, but if something clearly is not working, it is not working, whoever was responsible for its introduction. In case I am accused of being too partisan, may I say that I welcome the tax break for employers and employees who encourage use of public transport? I believe that it is time for more carrot and less stick.
  In addition to the high cost of petrol, several concerns have been raised about the decision to provide a £55 road tax discount for the 8 per cent. of cars with engines below 1100 cu cm. According to the Automobile Association, many such cars have less environmentally friendly engines than bigger, more modern cars. That will give drivers a perverse incentive to hold on to less eco-friendly cars. An AA spokesman said:
  "This £55 could mean the difference between scrapping the car and putting it through one more MOT."
  What at first sight seems to be an environmentally friendly measure turns out on closer examination to have precisely the opposite effect.
  On top of the high cost of petrol for the ordinary motorist, there is the increased burden on the road haulage business. The vehicle excise duty increase will push the duty on a 38-tonne, five-axle lorry from £3,310 to £5,750 a year, compared with £296 in Spain, £459 in France and £651 in Holland. The European average is £1,100, compared with £5,750 here in the UK.
  It is not difficult to see the impact that such large tax differentials are having on our road haulage industry. British hauliers currently carry 1.65 billion tonnes of goods a year—about 81 per cent. of domestic freight. That can only be threatened by the punitive tax regime being created by the Government.
  The Road Haulage Association has launched flagging out packages to its members, to encourage them to register their vehicles abroad. The Freight Transport Association has warned that up to 53,000 jobs could be at risk as a result of the combined increases in duty on diesel and excise. Already, some estimates put the loss in revenue to the Treasury at £400 million, rising to £1 billion by 2002, as a result of hauliers buying their fuel in mainland Europe. The combination of taxes and fuel duty is slowly but steadily strangling the road haulage industry.
  Another sector of the economy that is suffering is the tobacco and drinks trade. Duty on tobacco and alcohol continues to fan the flames of the black market for cigarettes and alcoholic drinks. It is estimated that 1.5 million pints of beer are smuggled into the UK every day, which damages the long-term prospects for the brewing industry, especially small independent brewers. High duties are helping to fuel the black market and attract the involvement of organised crime. It would be helpful if the Minister gave the House some indication of the long-term approach to tobacco and alcohol duty.
  782
  It may be that the case against tobacco is a foregone conclusion; the only problem is that the current strategy appears not to be working. As for alcohol, and barring this year's freeze in duty apart from on sparkling cider—a matter that was ignored in the Chancellor's speech—the general upward trend in duty will continue. Most people enjoy a glass of beer or wine, but resent having to pay so much in duty while the unscrupulous engage in criminal activity through smuggling.
  Why should the Government continue to use the drinker as a sitting duck, squeezing more and more from every pint of beer or glass of wine drunk? It might not be politically correct or fashionable to champion the British drinker or driver, but given that many of our constituents fall into those categories, I feel that it is right and proper to air their concerns tonight.
  8.22 pm
  Mr. Paul Goggins: The principal challenge facing any Member who speaks at nearly 8.30 pm on the fourth day of the Budget debate is to find something different to say or a new point to make. I have concluded that that is probably impossible, although I have noticed that those who speak today have one advantage, which is that they speak after the weekend, having had a chance to get away from the politics and punditry of Westminster and hear what their constituents think about the Budget.
  I shall talk about two particular groups of people who have spoken to me over the past few days while I have been in my constituency. The first group are the pensioners whom I met on Friday and Saturday. They are fairly typical of the 21,000 pensioners who live in my constituency. Many will benefit from the Government's commitment to uprate the minimum income guarantee in line with earnings. It is worth remembering that the single rate of £78 and the couple's rate of £121 announced in the Budget mean that there has been an increase of nearly £10 for single pensioners and £16 for pensioner couples on the equivalent rate when the Labour Government entered office.
  Some of the pensioners in my constituency will benefit from the tax changes, including the new tax threshold which raised 200,000 pensioners out of tax altogether; but all the pensioners to whom I spoke were agreed on one point: the high point of the Budget was the £100 extra help with their heating costs that they will receive next year and in subsequent years. They did not expect such an announcement and they were absolutely delighted to hear it. Pensioners in my constituency view that, along with free eye tests, the reduction in VAT on fuel and the extra money that they know is going to the national health service, as a clear indication that the Government are serious when they say that they want to help today's pensioners as well as set a framework for future pensioners.
  The second group are the parents and teachers in the three schools in my constituency that I visited on Friday. At each school, I met parents who were delighted with the announcement on child benefit—from next year their oldest child will qualify for £15 each week, and each subsequent child for £10 each week. Likewise, teachers were delighted with the announcement that every school is to receive £2,000 next year to purchase new books. The drive to literacy is extremely important and teachers are crucial to that effort, but without new books they cannot succeed in the task.

  783
  Like other hon. Members, I read the more abstract analyses of the Budget over the weekend. As I mulled over some of the millions of words that have been written about the Budget since last Tuesday, I was struck by the way in which many commentators used two words—"fairness" and "redistribution"—as though they were interchangeable. In fact, they are quite different: fairness is a value and a political objective, whereas redistribution is a method or means of achieving that political objective—at least, it can be. I say "can be" because redistribution can go in either direction, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Dr. Turner) said. I well remember the 1988 Budget, which took £4 billion out of benefits and fed it back through the tax system as a reward to the better-off.
  That and similar policy decisions had, by the middle of the 1990s, led to one in four people in this country living in a household that had less than half the average income, and one in three children being born and brought up in poverty. By that time, with the exception of New Zealand, ours was the most unequal industrialised society in the world. The impact on the community in terms of crime and ill health was plain for all to see. It is right that progressive redistribution has been an element in the three Budgets of this Parliament, because the better-off should shoulder a fairer share of their responsibilities.
  I welcome the announcements on national insurance, such as the increase in the upper earnings limit to £575 a week. I also welcome the zero rating of earnings between £64 and £87 a week, which means that many low-paid, part-time workers will receive benefits without having to make contributions for them. It is a positive step that maternity allowance is being extended to women workers earning £30 a week or more. On tax, I welcome the new 10p starting rate. No one who is working and bringing up a family will pay tax until he or she earns at least £235 a week. It is also right that higher earners will not gain from the children's tax credit, and that the maximum benefit of that new tax credit will go to those on low and middle incomes—an extra £8 a week for those groups.
  Redistribution is only one method of trying to deliver fairness. Another route to fairness is better public services. The Budget makes a commitment to investing £1 billion more in information technology, in improved accident and emergency facilities in our hospitals and, crucially, in measures that will sustain community safety. It is also important to improve employment prospects. That is a focus of the Budget, which strengthens the new deal for under-25s and introduces employment credits for unemployed workers over 50. There is the minimum income guarantee for pensioners, the guarantee of £200 a week take-home pay for workers with families, and a guarantee of £170 for older workers as they move off benefit and into work.
  Fairness requires not that everyone be treated the same, but that everyone is included in the equation. As The Economist pointed out this weekend:
  "Fairness is a Brown phrase which Conservative Chancellors did not much use."
  Curiously, The Economist also accused the Chancellor of being
  "obsessed with getting people off welfare and into work."
  784
  I say three cheers for the Chancellor's obsession. Probably the most moving letter that I have received since my election to the House was from the father of a 21-year-old woman who had never had a job and lacked confidence in her own abilities. She went on new deal and is now working in a nursery. She is fulfilling her potential and contributing to society. She wanted to do both, and that is now possible through the new deal.
  One of the Government's finest achievements so far is the way they have halved long-term and youth unemployment. This Budget takes us much further not only through the measures that I have mentioned, but through encouragement to small business, which will create many new jobs. The extension of benefits to lone parents for their first two weeks of employment after coming off benefit is crucial. The Budget fits neatly with many of the other initiatives that the Government are pursuing, particularly the single work-focused gateway, which reconnects to the workplace the one in five families with no one in work.
  The Budget raises two long-term issues that I must mention in passing: national insurance and means-testing. The Chancellor moved in the Budget closely to align national insurance contributions and income tax. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) described some of those changes as complex, but I believe that they introduce greater fairness and transparency. It is right to smooth out the system in that way, but it is also right to keep the national insurance and income tax systems separate. That is necessary, first, for practical reasons—for example, most pensioners receive national insurance benefits but do not make national insurance contributions—and secondly, because keeping them separate reinforces the important connection between work, contribution, entitlement and benefit. That is especially important when we are trying to overcome barriers to work and tackle the issue of mass unemployment.
  We must face the fact that we need to modernise the national insurance system. The Beveridge principle of flat-rate benefits for flat-rate contributions no longer works. Income differentials have widened and many more people in society are relatively better off. While it is important to keep the two systems apart, it is right that more progressive payments should be made.
  As to means-testing, I am amazed at the bare-faced cheek of Opposition spokespeople. The previous Government introduced changes that, over 18 years, led to an increase of 5.5 million in the number of people on means-tested benefits. Some 2.3 million children were dependent on income support—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman's time has expired.
  8.33
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I declare two interests: the first that I am the father of a son who is a self-employed letter cutter and stone carver; and, secondly, that I am of pensionable age. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Mr. Goggins) about the hour at which we both find ourselves speaking. I made my maiden speech on this day of the Budget debate in March 1977, and I think speaking at this hour in this debate—just before the winding-up speeches—is worse than making my maiden speech.

  785
  On that occasion, I was speaking about the Budget introduced by the noble Lord Healey. I do not have a single drop of Scottish blood, which distances me somewhat from the present Chancellor, but the one eighth of my blood that is English is Yorkshire blood. I therefore say with some pride that one could always rely on the noble Lord Healey to give one bad news straight and not allow one to find it out in the watches of the night, the Red Book or in the Budget tables.
  There has been some remark about the Budget—perhaps derived from the phenomenon that I have just mentioned—that it does not smell as sweet today as when the Chancellor sat down last Tuesday. The late lain Macleod's law about Budgets—those that are well received on Budget day are less kindly regarded in the autumn—is true in this case, although the process has clearly speeded up.
  In his speech in the Budget debate last week, the hon. Member for Halton (Mr. Twigg) said that it was "an excellent performance". The hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) called the Budget a "resounding success". The hon. Member for Lincoln (Gillian Merron) quoted the judgment in the headline "Flash Gordon", and the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) said that it was "another excellent Budget". "An outstanding Budget" was the verdict of the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward). The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) began:
  "What a great Budget! … a fantastic media reception".—[Official Report, Wednesday 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 450.]
  The hon. Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Mr. Wyatt) began by saying:
  "I should like to say how brilliant the Budget is".—[Official Report, 11 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 591.]
  This week's letter column in The Times is led by a letter by the director general of the Freight Transport Association, signed also by the CBI, the Federation of Small Businesses, the United Road Transport Union, the British Chambers of Commerce, the National Farmers Union and the Road Haulage Association Ltd., all commenting pithily on the major disadvantages that the Budget confers on their industry. As I spent last Thursday's debate in the Standing Committee considering the Greater London Authority Bill being told by Ministers how well the new Government understand business, I shall re-read Hansard with the letter from the Road Haulage Association by my side.
  All that said, it would be churlish not to remark on those aspects of the Budget where the Chancellor is maintaining Conservative policies. Given his reluctance to come clean and be upfront about his bad news, it should not surprise us that he makes no reference to the golden legacy that we bequeathed him which even commentators with no partiality towards our party acknowledge is the bedrock of his success. Not for him the fate of some of his Labour predecessors, to whom the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Mr. Hesford) referred, who came into office under economic conditions similar to those that, when I was working in New York, caused The Wall Street Journal to remark on its front page:
  "The economic recession has become so severe that the mafia have had to lay off two judges in New Jersey."
  786
  Before any Labour Members intervene with their selective crib sheet, I repeat last week's observation by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) that
  "Britain is the only major country to have reduced the overall burden of debt as a proportion of gross domestic production in the period from 1979 to 1997."—[Official Report, 11 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 589.]
  I served as a junior Treasury Minister under my noble Friend Lord Lawson of Blaby for almost four years, during which time part of the national debt was repaid by the then Government for the first time since 1968. However, an essential difference between those years and these is that my noble Friend, year after year, simplified and made clearer the tax arrangements of this land, whereas, in the three Budgets since 1997, the present Chancellor has complicated them and made them more opaque.
  Throughout my four years with my noble Friend, I also served on the Budget Council of the European Union. It may be that it is euro enthusiasm that has contaminated the Treasury under the present Administration. The EU budget consisted of small programme after small programme in penny packet after penny packet. That made negotiation between the Council of Ministers and the Parliament a nightmare, because the house of cards constructed in Strasbourg was so delicate a piece of fiscal architecture that one could not withdraw a single card without bringing the whole structure slithering down on the table. As a process, it shared another characteristic with the Government's conduct of public expenditure, in that no one ever went back rigorously to test whether the programme had delivered the goods that were claimed for it.
  The process was also distorted by being spread over several years. The manner in which the Government chronologically set out their expenditure and taxes may be a political paradigm, but it is a three-dimensional mathematical monkey puzzler. That may have more to do with getting a Government elected than with good government itself. Those who went on to the Terrace at lunchtime today to visit the science, engineering and technology reception will have noticed a billboard entitled "Predictions of Pressure Fluctuations over Stealth Aircraft". Had one amended "aircraft" to read "taxes", the title would still have been meaningful.
  Nine months ago, we had a long, late-night debate on heritage issues in the Report stage of the Finance Bill, and the present Paymaster General made soothing noises, saying that we were wrong in predicting a flood of art treasures coming on the market because of the Bill's measures on inheritance-protected objets. It is bad luck for the Government that today should see the threatened flood returning to the pages of The Times at precisely the moment the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport has, in his own words, raided the lottery, thus robbing the heritage lottery fund of the capacity to keep those treasures in the country.
  I want, before closing, to draw attention to one serious omission from the Budget—the issue of small and medium-sized companies not being able to get access to equity capital in the markets. The FTSE 100 is spectacularly well funded. I recall a figure of £57 billion going from the markets to our largest companies. It is now commonplace that, in about 37 of the 40 years up to the early 1990s, the small companies sector outperformed the

  787
  FTSE 100 share market or its equivalent, but, in nine of the past 11 years, that sector has under-performed it. However, in five of the past six years, the earnings of small companies have grown more rapidly than those of larger companies. Nor has the market under-performance come about as a result of the FTSE 100 growing more rapidly than small companies. Between 1984 and 1998, turnover of all companies in the FTSE 100 share index showed little growth in real terms. An article in the Financial Times a few months ago put the small company sector at its lowest relative market rating since the early 1960s.
  The Bank of England, which led such valuable work on improving the financing of small companies since the last recession, is seized of the problem and its consequences and implications, but the reason for mentioning it in this debate is that attention will have to be given to capital gains tax, let alone bed and breakfasting, if we are to find a solution to the problem that I am describing. We have to find ways of increasing liquidity for small companies.
  The Government should not regard my words as being a Trojan horse. In 1997, capital gains tax in the Republic of Ireland stood at 40 per cent., with tax proceeds of £131 million. In 1998, capital gains tax in the Republic was halved to 20 per cent. and proceeds jumped to £193 million, an increase of 47 per cent.
  I am not surprised that the Chancellor has been able to find producer groups to applaud his penny-packet programmes. His colleague the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport had no difficulty in finding similar producer groups to applaud his raid on the lottery. I have long treasured C. S. Lewis's aphorism that, if one hears of someone going around doing good to others, one can always tell the others by their hunted look. One can always rely on producer groups not to look a gift horse in the mouth. However, that does not mean that it will be a good use of taxpayers' money or, indeed, of our money.
  I began with 1977, and I reached my noble Friend Lord Lawson in the middle of my speech. In 1977, business men were taking decisions in response to the tax system. In 1987, they were taking decisions because they were the right decisions to take, in their own interests as seen by them. It is sad that, since 1997, we have been going back to tax-driven decisions—alas, the man in Whitehall never knows best.
  8.42
  Mr. Gerald Bermingham: As someone said a moment ago, it is difficult to find something to say after all these days of debate and after having read carefully in Hansard what has been said, so I decided to be honest and say how I look at the Budget.
  I get married and the married couple's tax allowance is removed; I buy a house and MIRAS is taken away, so I began to feel very pessimistic. But I read on, and I began to see that there was in the Budget the seedcorn of development and growth. To a constituency like mine, development and growth is the elixir of life, but we have had so little of it.
  St. Helens has been a deprived area for the 16 years that I have represented it, and certainly for many years before that. We lost the glass industry, the mining
  788
  industry, a large part of our chemical industry and the pharmaceutical industries. What did we have in return? Between 1983 and 1987, we got very little of anything. We were always, as it were, outside the pale. Since 1997, we have slowly begun to grow again. Slowly, we are beginning to get the development that we need, but does the Budget hurt or help? The answer is that it helps.
  The Chancellor decided not to pursue the policy with regard to aggregate tax. We are grateful for that, because it would of course have hurt the glass industry. I know that there will have to be further discussions, and I understand the environmental argument on the one hand and the needs of the glass industry and other industries on the other. It is a fine balance, because what to one person can appear to be a great advance can cause pain and trouble to another.
  I hope that the Government will look again at the issue of diesel fuel costs and the duty levies on lorries. I have in my constituency one of the biggest haulage companies in England—Suttons—and were it to send even half its lorries abroad, the effect on St. Helens would be disastrous. I say that quite openly. There is always a natural balance between the interests of both sides.
  I can understand the need to restrict motorists and to push people to use public transport. I fully endorse that, and of course we want to encourage the haulage industry to move freight by rail rather than road. However, the minute we do that, there is a backlash in the other direction. There must be a middle way. I hope that when the Finance Bill goes through Committee, such matters will be considered.
  I also noticed in the Budget the provisions for pensioners. When I was in St. Helens over the weekend, such matters were brought back to me time and again. For once a Government seemed to understand the needs of the elderly. The £20 increase in winter fuel payment to £100 may not seem much to many of us, but to the old it means an awful lot. The increase in the pension itself and the new tax arrangements may mean little in financial terms, but to the people concerned, they mean an awful lot. If the Government are pleasing an awful lot of people, they are getting something right.
  One aspect of the Budget has caused me concern, because I think that we must drive harder and deeper at it. I declare an interest as a practising lawyer. There has been much talk in the House about the smuggling of tobacco. It has been estimated that the trade is worth about £1 billion. Whoever produced that estimate did not know Monday from Friday, because the figures are much, much higher. I know that from my personal knowledge of what is going on.
  I know of the vast volume that is being smuggled through. I know that 70 per cent. of all the rolled tobacco in the south-east, the midlands and the north is smuggled. It comes in costing virtually nothing, it is sold at virtually nothing, and honest traders buying legitimately are losing their livelihoods.
  There are several ways in which we can tackle that problem. I suggested to the Home Secretary some months ago that we should start bilateral conversations with the Belgians about the matter. Where is the tobacco bought? It is bought in Antwerp, Bruges and so on. There are warehouses—I have seen them—where the lorries drive in, load up with rolled tobacco, drive out and drive back to the UK. There are bus-loads of people and car-loads of

  789
  five or six people going across on "day trips" to get that tobacco. They are flooding through Dover, hour after hour.
  The trade is so profitable that, it is said, even the drug dealers of old find it a much more convenient way to make their crooked money. The profits from importing tobacco are greater, the risks are lower and the penalties are far smaller.
  How can the smuggling be conquered? All we have to do is to say to the Belgian authorities, "Come on, we are both in the European Common Market. This is wrecking our home trade. There is a way to solve it. If we find that a warehouse"—there are seven in Antwerp, which I can name—"is involved in the smuggling of tobacco, the warehouse owners will be deemed to be part of a conspiracy to defeat the United Kingdom importation rules under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979."
  We must get the Belgians' co-operation. They should agree that we can extradite the warehouse owners to stand trial in the United Kingdom. The Belgians will not let that happen. I know from professional experience of case after case in which we know the source of supply, but there is nothing that we can do to stop it because we do not have the co-operation of the Belgian authorities.
  The latest scam is the export of cigarettes to Benidorm and one or two other places. They go out entirely legitimately and come back totally illegitimately. Our major cigarette companies say that there is nothing to worry about—they are just exporting to Benidorm. It is surprising how many packets come back to the UK. Why do we not simply insist that any packet of cigarettes exported from the UK has stamped on it in thick red, black or green—the colour matters not—"Made in the UK"? If such packets come back, they will stand out like beacons on the shelves of superstores and everywhere else that they are sold.
  In practical ways like that, we can begin to cut the illegal trade. Similarly, bottles of alcohol should be stamped. There have been cases where the villains, if I may use that word, bought their own distillery, so that they could have their own whisky bottled, exported and brought back. That product is on the supermarket shelves of southern England. When the problem is as bad as that, how much is the Treasury losing?
  We need practical measures, such as an agreement with the Belgians. and we need more Customs officers. When people drive through Dover, who is there to check for drugs, fags or booze? I do not blame the Government for that. I remember speaking in the House many years ago when I criticised the removal of the cutter barges and the reduction in the number of Customs officers, yet here we are 10 years later paying the price in billions of pounds. What could we do with those billions if we had them?
  It is a good Budget. Two little matters tweaked me, but I realise what the Government are doing for pensioners. I am getting near to pension age, so I shall no doubt go off into the sunset with a wonderful pension for my retirement. That will not be for a while yet, so before I go perhaps I can impress on Treasury Ministers that positive action is needed to stop the smuggling. That would pour billions into the Government's coffers, and then perhaps the hospitals and schools in St. Helens would get more money, over and above what we have generously been given, and perhaps we could have some industrial
  790
  grants to get factories into the constituency and thus reduce the problem of long-term unemployment among the over-50s.
  It is not a bad Budget. I give it nine out of 10. I cannot think of anything the Government could have done better.
  8.51
  Mr. David Ruffley: Among the many deficiencies in the Budget is the absence of a clear statement of gratitude from the Chancellor to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) for his brilliant stewardship of the British economy in the previous Parliament. My right hon. and learned Friend bequeathed a legacy of falling borrowing, historically low inflation, low interest rates and record exports.
  In the past three Budgets, the Chancellor has done his best to squander that legacy. The principal means by which he has done that has been to load tax on to taxpayers and business. Statistics produced by the House of Commons Library—rather than anyone else—clearly show that during this Parliament £40 billion extra tax has been loaded on to the British economy.
  That fact is underscored in table B9 in the Red Book, which clearly shows that the tax burden has been rising. In 1996–97, the last year of the Conservative Government, the share of gross domestic product accounted for by net tax and social security contributions was 35.4 per cent. That figure was given in a written answer provided by the Chief Secretary two weeks ago. In the first year of this Parliament, 1997–98, the relevant figure is 36.6 per cent. In the last year of this Parliament, 2001–02, the figure will be 37 per cent. That is proof positive that the tax burden is rising under this Government. Conservative Members would like to hear the Chief Secretary apologise for denying that the tax burden is rising under the Government in the lifetime of this Parliament over the five financial years to which I have referred.
  The Budget was received with a certain amount of euphoria, but since last Wednesday there has been a cascade of critical commentary to the effect that the Budget was produced with smoke and mirrors; that it gave with one hand and took with another; that it was a pick-pocketing Budget; and that it was not all that it seemed. But Ministers on the Treasury Front Bench are still as smug and self-satisfied as they were on Tuesday. They remind me of a bunch of arrogant confidence tricksters who think that the punters are so stupid that they will not realise that they have been taken for a ride. The punters to whom I refer are the people of middle Britain. When they look at the abolition of the married couple's allowance, they understand not only that will it be abolished in April 2000, with an alleged replacement coming in one full year after, but that a recognition of marriage has been abolished from the tax system. They also understand that there are anomalies in the new system. The children's tax credit—some £400 per annum—will be available, for example, to a two-earner couple on £32,000 a year, which is just under the top-rate threshold. But a single-earner couple on more than £38,500 a year will not get that, or any compensation, in lieu of the abolition of MCA. That is a ridiculous anomaly, but the people of middle Britain are spotting it.
  Those people also understand that the pensioners who were told that they would keep their MCA will not keep it. If an individual is unlucky enough to turn 65 after

  791
  April 2000 and does not have any dependent children in the household, he will receive no credit and no compensation for married couple's allowance being abolished.
  Furthermore, middle Britain understands full well that national insurance contributions, the direct tax that that represents, will be increased for them; the increase in the upper earnings limit to £575 a week represents nearly an 18 per cent. increase in direct tax. In addition, self-employed individuals, some typically on £20,000 per annum, will pay around £110 a year more in NICs as a result of the Budget.
  As a result of the abolition of MIRAS, the mortgage payments of middle Britain will go up. It is no use Ministers talking about the fall in interest rates. We all know that interest rates went up in the first 18 months that the Government were in power as a direct result of the botched transfer of control of monetary policy to the Bank of England, leaving interest rates higher than they need have been.
  Business has borne the brunt of the £40 billion tax increase. We know that businesses are important. As John Kay and Mervyn King have described in their classic text "The British Tax System", there is no such thing as a tax on firms. The incidence of tax is always on individuals in the end.
  The president of the Confederation of British Industry said the day before the Budget that some £20 billion had been loaded on to industry. Of course, since then, more taxes have been loaded on to it, the energy tax and the diesel tax being the two biggest hits on manufacturing industry in particular.
  Small businesses in my constituency derive no benefit from the Budget. They wanted a cut in business rates. A correspondent from Stowmarket, a small market town in my constituency, said, "What we want is a cut in the business rate burden. Without that, the future of village shops and small businesses is in grave danger," but there is nothing in the Budget to help hard-pressed village shops.
  Those shops also face higher delivery costs as a result of the fuel duty increase. The corner shop tax is looming as a result of the future levy to help to set up the Food Standards Agency.
  The Government need a better understanding of rural areas. There has been a savage and brutal increase in the cost of motoring for rural dwellers. Labour has given us the £3 gallon of petrol. That burden falls disproportionately on rural areas such as the one in Suffolk that I represent.
  In the face of higher fuel duties, the prospects for rural areas are not good. The people of middle England, who reside in shire counties, will not be able to afford a Mondeo upgrade. They will be scratching around to see whether they can buy a second-hand Sierra, given the burden that the Government have put on them in the Budget.
  I draw attention to the hubris of the Budget. It is strong on hype and spin, but it will do nothing for wealth creation, although it tinkers around with redistribution. It will do nothing to increase the long-term growth potential of the United Kingdom's economy. The fanciful forecasts
  792
  for GDP growth are overblown; everyone knows that. The independent survey forecast predicts that this year the economy will grow by 0.6 per cent., rather than the 1 to 1.5 per cent. predicted by the Red Book. The Treasury forecast of growth of between 2.25 and 2.75 per cent. next year is contradicted by a 1.8 per cent. forecast by the independent surveys.
  This Budget will do little for middle Britain in terms of families, enterprise and work. It is a Budget for hubris—a Budget that courts nemesis at the hands of middle Britain. Middle Britain will be disaffected and disillusioned, which is why the Budget deserves to be opposed and fought in the Lobby tonight.
  9.1
  Mr. David Rendel: I want to speak mainly about pensioners, but first I shall make some general points.
  Along with many of my hon. Friends, I find it depressing that the Government have finally decided to make wealth creation a more important objective than wealth redistribution. We believe that this Government were elected by the people of Britain to produce a fairer society, and to return justice and opportunity to all our people; we are sorry that they seem to have rejected that aim.
  The Budget illustrates what has been happening. It is a Budget for tax cuts, while it should have been a Budget for investment in public services and to support the weakest and most vulnerable of our fellow citizens. I have lost track of how often I have heard the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Social Security rail against the social security system. They are, of course, right to blame the system for trapping people in poverty—that is what it does—but they are wrong to blame it for failing to alleviate poverty. Indeed, sometimes it seems that only our social security system stands between the poorest members of society and real penury—homelessness and starvation.
  The Prime Minister can repeat the mantra "work for those who can, security for those who cannot" as often as he likes, but the real need is to create full-time jobs that pay a living wage. After all, the one thing for which the Department of Social Security cannot be blamed is unemployment. Part of the solution to the problem of poverty and inequality in Britain must lie in our economy. Welfare reform will come to very little if there is no work for people to do: we cannot tell them to go back to work, when no jobs are available.
  In this Budget, there is, at last, something for pensioners, and we welcome that; but, although an increase in the winter fuel payment for all pensioner households may look good on the surface, there are various problems. Using the money to add £2 a week to the weekly state pension payment would have saved nearly £14 million in advertising and administration costs. As it is, the huge cost of organising an audit every year to establish which households are pensioner households is a terrible waste of money—money that could have been given directly to the pensioners involved.
  The winter fuel payments are intended to help vulnerable elderly people to stay warm and therefore healthy, but a much more effective way of dealing with that aspect of fuel poverty would have been spending the

  793
  money on insulation and energy-efficient housing. The problem of fuel poverty involves much more than simple economics.
  This is not a good way of targeting money at the poorest pensioners. Better-off pensioner households—some of whom, last year, gave their winter fuel payments to charity because they were so well off—will receive an extra £80 or £90, compared with just £50 for pensioner households on income support. The Secretary of State's claim that he was increasing fivefold the amount that pensioners were receiving may apply to the better-off, but it does not apply to the poorest, who should have been targeted.
  The winter fuel payment increase is administratively expensive. It fails to target fuel poverty and the poorest pensioners properly. Although Liberal Democrat Members welcome more being spent on pensioners, we wish that the Government could have spent it more sensibly and effectively.
  From April 2000, the minimum income guarantee—the Government's other great claim to be doing more for pensioners—will be linked to earnings, rather than prices. Although the measure is very welcome, it comes with a sting in its tail, just as the minimum income guarantee does. The widening of the gap between the basic state pension and the higher income support levels inherent in the income guarantee will bring ever more people on to means-tested benefits.
  The Government know, from their own research, how the more elderly people in our society are often embarrassed by the idea of applying for income support. That is why the minimum income guarantee is a shameful deceit. It is not an increase in the basic state pension, but it is guaranteed that many of the poorest pensioners will never get extra. Earlier in the debate, when I made that point to the Secretary of State for Social Security, he could not deny it.
  Currently, 700,000 pensioners are not claiming the benefits to which they are entitled. Some of them do not do so because they are too proud to claim what they think is state charity, and others do not because they find the forms simply too complex to fill in.
  Moreover, 600,000 pensioners are disqualified from the minimum income guarantee because they have too much in savings. They are the ones who were brought up to think that it was a good thing to save money for their old age and for a rainy day, or to put aside a bit to pass on to their descendants. Now, they are penalised for doing just that. The Government really have to get their act together on that issue—to save or not to save. People are asking that question, but the Government have given them no answer.
  Mr. Tony McNulty: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Rendel: No. I should continue if I am to leave time for other hon. Members to speak.
  I hope that, in replying to the debate, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury will deal with the anomaly of pensioners who rely on income from savings—some of whom will find themselves in the bizarre tax situation of being within the 10p rate for income tax, but still paying 20p tax on each pound of income from savings. It is a bizarre situation to be in, and I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Government will do about it.
  794
  I noticed that the Chancellor, in his speech, mentioned a chaotic, even counter-productive system of child support. Had I not been paying full attention, I might have thought that he was attacking the Child Support Agency once again, and that he was going to tell us that he would not continue with the pale imitation of the CSA with which the Government are trying to replace it. He was really, of course, talking about supporting families with children.
  Extra money for families is always welcome, and Liberal Democrat Members strongly support such provision. However, as with winter fuel payments, there are problems with how that support is distributed. As a tax credit, it will go to the household's main earner, who is usually the man. However, it is vital that funds for the care of children should go to the person with the primary care responsibility, who is usually the woman.
  The Government have fallen into the trap of directing those funds—like money from the working families tax credit—from the purse to the wallet. We all know that there is usually precious little hope of getting money back intact from the wallet to the purse. Although the Secretary of State for Social Security said earlier today that choice in the matter would be given to each family, we know that the only families in which there is real choice are those who do not need the choice, as the earner is prepared to give the money to the other partner regardless. The families in which there is no choice are those who really need choice, as the father is not prepared to give the money to the mother.
  Therefore, as with pensioners' money, the measure adds a level of administrative complexity without helping the weakest in our society. It seems to be an attempt to tax the Government's support for the children of higher-rate taxpayers while pretending that that is not happening.
  To sum up the Budget, we welcome the new money that the Chancellor has offered to pensioners and children, but what a pity it is that it is going mainly not to the very poorest, but to those just above that level. Perhaps the Government feel that the poorest and most vulnerable are likely either to vote Labour anyway or not to bother to vote. That fits with their benefit cuts for widows, the sick and the disabled. The most vulnerable no longer seem to be cared for by the Government. We are proud to care for those people and target our policies at them. That is why we support a policy of £3 extra for the over-75s and £5 extra for the over-80s. We believe that the Government should support that policy. I very much hope that the Minister will accept the policy tonight.
  9.10
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I find it very strange that the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) thinks that it will be an administrative nightmare to pay pensioners £100 per household. If we can distinguish between £50 and £20 per household for pensioners, why will it be more difficult for all households to receive £100? I am mystified by his argument.
  I welcome most of the Budget. It would be naive and wrong for anyone to say that they loved every part of it. There will always be some aspects that we like and questions about other aspects that we do not like, but we have to consider the Budget in its entirety. It is a quality Budget which has been welcomed throughout the country.
  Education is important to all. Each school will benefit from £2,000 for new books. I do not remember much of that during the 18 years of the previous Government

  795
  They were quiet on education. There is a lot of noise from the Conservatives now that they are in opposition, but they were not very positive towards education and schools when they were in government.
  We are all concerned about pensioners, but, during the 18 years of the previous Government, pensioners were not top of the list. In fairness to the new Government, they have realised that pensioners count and are an important part of our society—a part that cannot be left and neglected as it has been. I am pleased to tell the pensioners of Chorley that the Government are listening and delivering and will continue to look after them. I have had very positive feedback from the pensioners of Chorley and a good response is coming through the mailbag.
  The Conservatives are always saying that they were the party to cut taxation and that they are the party of businesses. It has been up to this Government to ensure a cut in tax and continued support for small business—not just talking about it, but delivering on election promises. That is why I am proud to be a Labour Member of Parliament. I am proud to be able to tell my constituents what the Government are doing for them and what the previous Government did not do for them.
  My constituency has low unemployment. That will continue, thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who will ensure that companies will benefit. The good-quality companies and the small and medium-sized enterprises to which this country will look for the future are being supported by positive actions. It is all well and good for the Conservatives to say what they would do, but, when they had 18 years to deliver, they failed. They must be embarrassed. Is their leader not now saying that they should stand up and say what was wrong and how they let the people down? After 18 years, he has realised that they failed. The leader of the Conservatives is now admitting that they were wrong. Yet, now that they are in opposition, they think that they are right. I do not understand their hypocrisy. That is a strange way to work.
  The Chancellor has given to the good people of Chorley, ensuring that companies such as Scottish and Newcastle in my constituency will benefit, because there will be no further taxation on beer this year. That is good news not just for the employees of Scottish and Newcastle, but for all the public houses in Chorley and all the jobs related to the brewing industry. Those jobs will be secured, and that is a bonus. Before the Budget, Conservative Members were on the radio saying that my right hon. Friend would hit beer and whisky, and that those employed in the drinks industry would be affected. That did not happen, and I am pleased about that. Those jobs are now more secure than they have ever been.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend takes on board the problem of drink smuggling, which is beginning to hit all parts of the country. We need to take further action because of the loss of duty and the knock-on effect on jobs. People are using artics to smuggle—we are not talking about people with loading up their cars—and criminals are flooding the country from Scotland to Cornwall. Nowhere is free from the effects of smuggling.
  We have heard about tobacco smuggling, which is also affecting jobs—and tobacco will continue to be smuggled. My right hon. Friend must try to stop smuggling, as it is
  796
  crucial that we do not lose good jobs. My right hon. Friend has supported the brewing industry, and we must protect jobs in it.
  If there was a downside to the Budget—it was hard to find one—it was in the provisions affecting the haulage industry. The industry is suffering, and is on the back foot. I will be writing to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to address the plight of the haulage companies in my constituency, and to ask him to see what support we can give. Many jobs could be at risk.
  The concern is not just about companies from France or Germany, but about companies from the former eastern bloc, which will be sending poorer-quality trucks into the UK and undercutting haulage companies here. That is why I ask for a special case to be made for the industry, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor will look at that.
  Accelerated fuel duty was introduced by the Conservatives, but we did not hear a whisper from them at that time—then, they had no worries about the haulage industry at all. In fact, the industry was attacked year on year. I am pleased to say that this was a good Budget.
  The Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry, my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney), came to Chorley on Friday to open phase 2 of the Chorley business and technical centre, which is 50 per cent. full already. That proves the success of the Government, and their commitment to those companies. We are ensuring not only that each day new companies start, but that they are flourishing and expanding in Chorley. That is why phase 2 is so important. It was a pleasure to see my right hon. Friend opening the new centre.
  Following the Budget, we will see the development of a brown-field site that will be second to none in this country—an area of 800 acres that will benefit from the Chancellor's proposals to ensure that new businesses come in and deliver jobs for central Lancashire. This is a strategic site—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot have so many conversations in the Chamber. The hon. Gentleman is addressing the House.
  Mr. Hoyle: Obviously, Conservative Members do not want to listen to the truth, but that is not a worry.
  I was talking about new jobs for Chorley and a new commitment to Chorley, and the use of a brown-field site—not a green-field site—as a flagship for the north-west. We believe that the site will generate 15,000 jobs in the next five years—jobs lost at Royal Ordnance as a result of the previous Government's lack of commitment to defence.
  Throughout the 1980s and into the 1990s, we suffered from the lack of commitment to and investment in British jobs in defence. Jobs went down the pan, but the Conservatives do not care to remember that they were in government at that time. They failed the people of Chorley, of Lancashire and of the United Kingdom. Their shame and embarrassment prevent them from congratulating my right hon. Friend the Chancellor on a good Budget and thanking him for what he has done for all our constituencies. They are not man enough to accept the truth. They throw away their cheap remarks and ensure that the only voice that is heard is noise without constructive comment. I welcome the Budget.
  9.20
  Mr. Francis Maude: For the avoidance of doubt, and for the benefit of Labour Members who take an excessive interest in such matters, I declare the modest interests disclosed in the register, in case anyone thinks that they are relevant.
  We have just heard a tirade from the hon. Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) about listening to the truth. That is a plea of which we want to take notice, because we have not heard much in the way of truth in the presentation of the Budget. It is probably the most dishonest Budget in living memory.
  The only thing that mattered to the Chancellor last Tuesday was the next day's headlines. He claimed that it was a Budget for families while abolishing the last recognition of marriage in the tax system, and then had the insolence to claim that the married couple's allowance is not a recognition of marriage. He claimed that it was a Budget for enterprise, while increasing tax on business by £3.2 billion. He claimed that it was a Budget for tax cuts, when taxes go on rising by stealth.
  The Chancellor even spent taxpayers' money writing a propaganda leaflet that was meant to explain the Budget to ordinary people but failed even to mention that the 20p tax rate had been scrapped and MIRAS abolished. The only surprise is that only 50,000 of the leaflets had to be pulped. That gives a whole new dimension to the phrase "pulp fiction".
  The Chancellor is guilty of Budget mis-selling and the Budget did nothing to reverse Labour's huge tax increases. Labour's lies on tax will catch up with them. Those people who drive, save, are married, have mortgages, are self-employed, have company cars, want to buy a house or smoke will all lose. People from all walks of life will lose from the Budget and will soon feel betrayed by a Government who claim that taxes are going down when they know that they are going up and who deliberately say that families are paying less tax when they know that they are paying more. A week on and, sure enough, the Budget is coming apart at the seams.
  Let us look at what the experts are saying. The Automobile Association says that the Chancellor's tax plans are based on
  "spurious arguments that do not stand up to scrutiny."
  The Freight Transport Association described the Budget as "crass" and "crazy". The Federation of Small Businesses said that it
  "completely missed the target where the majority of small firms were concerned."
  Anatole Kaletsky—not a supporter of the Conservative party, and frequently a supporter of the Government—said in The Times:
  "The feverish expectations created by the headlines are going to be disappointed once people open their pay slips and penetrate the veils of deception so skilfully flourished by Mr. Brown. And when people discover that they have been deceived they are apt to get angry."
  Graham Searjeant in the same newspaper said:
  "The fatal flaw in Mr. Brown is behind the cloying parade of virtue, he is just another clever confidence trickster … the last Budget of the millennium was made by the last great conman of the millennium."
  The British Chambers of Commerce warned of a
  "£20 bn penalty from the 'smoke and mirrors' Chancellor".
  798
  The BBC's economics correspondent said:
  "this much is clear. Labour has increased taxes and are continuing to raise them. It's in black and white in the … Treasury Budget documents".
  It was not in the Chancellor's speech.The Economist's description of the Chancellor's addiction to meddling with, and complicating, the tax system was
  "Bubble, bubble, toil and muddle".
  That point was made very well by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). The article continued:
  "The biggest losers under Mr Brown have been businesses and pension funds".
  Even the New Statesman, the Government's house journal, said that, under this Government, there is
  "no taxation without stealth … Behind the glittering presentation he gave us an almost neutral Budget".
  Of course, taken with the past two Budgets, that means that taxes are going up.
  The first piece of dishonesty was that the Chancellor concealed the massive increase in the overall level of tax under Labour. The Prime Minister does not want us to remember it now, but, before the election, he promised the country that he had
  "no plans to increase tax at all".
  What did he mean by that? What did the Chancellor take him to mean by that? Labour's first two Budgets increased taxes by more than £40 billion over the course of this Parliament. It is now clear that, behind the gimmicks and headlines, the Budget did nothing to reverse those big tax increases.
  We commissioned the Library to calculate how much higher taxes will be over the course of this Parliament. The answer is £40.7 billion.[Interruption.] That seems to be a surprise to Labour Members. It is not surprising that they did not know that, because the Chancellor said nothing about it.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot have any shouting in the Chamber. I am looking at Mr. McNulty. You have to be quiet, Mr. McNulty. I do not want to hear you.
  Mr. Maude: Taxes were up by nearly £6 billion in the first year of the Government and by nearly £8 billion in the second year. They will be up by £7.1 billion this coming year, by £10.5 billion in 2000–01, and by £9.3 billion in the year after that. The Government are giving a little with one hand while they take back much more with the other. Every tax reduction announced by the Chancellor with such a fanfare was cancelled out by a stealth tax increase hidden away in the fine print.
  Taxes will be £7.1 billion higher next year as a direct result of Labour, but the Government will not admit it. The Prime Minister was asked a simple question by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on Wednesday, the day after the Budget. He asked:
  "what is the total tax increase for the coming year"?
  I am not surprised that the Chancellor casts his eyes up to heaven, because he knows that the Prime Minister got it wrong and misled the House. The Prime Minister should come back to the House and put the record straight.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to say that any hon. Member misled the House. Perhaps he will reconsider that.
  Mr. Maude: I am sure that, if the Prime Minister has inadvertently misled the House, he would want to come

  799
  back and set the record straight. I am not aware of any attempt by the Prime Minister to make a personal statement and set the record straight, as the ministerial code of guidance requires. He is responsible for that code. Where is he? Why has he not come back to the House to set the record straight? We all know that what he said was incorrect. If it was inadvertently incorrect, let him come back and put us straight.
  The answer to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition—easily arrived at—was £7.1 billion. The Prime Minister responded:
  "There is a net tax cut of £4.5 billion."—[Official Report, 10 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 358.]
  That is utter rubbish. It is so far out of line with the truth that it makes one wonder whether the Prime Minister actually understands the figures at all.
  Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No. I have little time. I cut my time to allow the hon. Member for Chorley to speak, and that was a mistake.
  Anatole Kaletsky in The Times wrote of the Prime Minister's answer:
  "this was simply false. As shown unambiguously in the Government's own Budget statement, taxes have risen in each of the past two years and will rise even more in the next financial year".
  It is not only true that taxes are going up under Labour. The Budget also failed to come clean on the fact that many more people will pay income tax in the coming financial year as a direct result of measures taken by the Government.
  The gain that people make from the introduction of the 10p rate is partially clawed back by the scrapping of the 20p rate. Why did the Chancellor not mention the scrapping of that rate? Overall, the changes mean that most people will gain only £60 a year from that move, a small gain that will be completely swamped by the loss of mortgage interest tax relief and the married couple's allowance, both of which will be abolished next year.
  We must not let the Government make their feeble claim that the child tax credit will replace married couple's allowance. There is a year's gap between the two. What kind of replacement is it when there a year's gap between abolition of one thing and the introduction of another? What a con.
  Yvette Cooper: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I am not going to give way.
  What comfort is there for people approaching retirement? They are being told that, for the crime of being born after 1935, there will be no married couples allowance for them, and nothing to replace it, even if they still support children. They can forget it.
  Yvette Cooper: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
  Mr. Maude: No.
  800
  That is not the complete story. Not only will people pay more income tax and other tax under Labour, but many people on low incomes will also pay a higher marginal rate of income tax. We asked the Secretary of State for Social Security how he squares the commitment not to raise income tax rates at all with the fact that the marginal rate of income tax has been increased for a large number of people. That increase is in clear contravention of Labour's direct pledge. Many people who previously paid a marginal rate of 20 per cent. will now have to pay income tax at a marginal rate of 23 per cent.
  What price the posters everywhere that said that income tax rates would not be increased at all? Under the new system, people will start to pay income tax when their earnings reach nearly £6,000. Under the old system, that would not have happened until their earnings reached £8,600. For people between those income levels, there are higher marginal income tax rates under Labour. There was nothing about that in the promises before the general election, and no mention of it in the Chancellor's Budget statement. It is a disgrace.
  Higher marginal rates of tax are bad because they reduce incentives. People are less likely to work for a pay increase if they know that a greater proportion of every extra pound they earn will be taken in tax. The increased rate is a complete betrayal of the Prime Minister's clear promise before the election that he would not increase income tax rates. About 4.3 million people have been let down by Labour's breach of that election promise.
  Income tax is not the only one going up. National insurance is going up for many people. One might be forgiven for missing that fact, because it was not in the Chancellor's statement last Tuesday. We welcome the reforms that abolish the 2 per cent. entry fee, and we welcome the alignment of the national insurance contributions threshold with the income tax threshold. However, as ever, what Labour has given with one hand, it is taking back with the other.
  In a move that merited just eight words in the Chancellor's speech, the Budget increased the upper earnings limit for employees' NICs to £575 a week. That amounts to a huge stealth tax increase on middle Britain. The net effect of the Government's changes to national insurance will be that many middle-income workers will be worse off because the gains that they make from threshold alignment and the abolition of the entry fee will be more than offset by the increase in the upper earnings limit.
  Yvette Cooper: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I am not going to give way.
  When all Labour's reforms to employee NICs have been implemented—
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: Labour Members ought to listen. I am talking about precisely the sort of people whom the Prime Minister was at such pains to claim he was going to protect.
  When all Labour's reforms to employee NICs have been implemented, anyone who earns more than £27,000 a year will be worse off. Those people are by no means

  801
  rich and there are plenty of them—another 4 million, on top of the 4.3 million who were let down by Labour's previous pledge on income taxes—
  Mrs. Campbell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Is this not supposed to be a debate and should not the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) give way when hon. Members seek to intervene?
  Madam Speaker: It is up to the hon. Member who has the Floor to determine whether to give way. I understood the right hon. Gentleman to have indicated that he would not do so. Is that correct?
  Mr. Maude: Yes.
  Madam Speaker: In that case, hon. Members should not persist.
  Mr. Maude: Although it was a great mistake, I have already cut my speech short to accommodate the hon. Member for Chorley, who wasted the time of the House.
  Business taxes are up too. The Chancellor and his right hon. Friends like to pose as the friends of business. Last Tuesday, the right hon. Gentleman told the House that he was announcing tax cuts for business—that is not how they look now. The Budget will increase tax on business by £3.2 billion in the next three years—we did not hear too much about that—on top of the £5 billion a year in extra taxes imposed in the Government's first two Budgets.
  Those are not my figures but those of the British Chambers of Commerce. It took a few days for them to see through the vacuous gloss of the Chancellor's speech, but, by last Thursday, they were denouncing the right hon. Gentleman as a "smoke and mirrors Chancellor", who has increased tax on business, while pretending to cut it. The chambers of commerce calculate that
  "Business will be a grand total of £6 billion worse off each year for the next three years than they were before the last election".
  The Budget offered some small tax breaks for investment, but those reductions are hugely outweighed by the increased cost of doing business under Labour: stealth taxes, regulation and red tape. It is no wonder that the Federation of Small Businesses has denounced the changes, stating:
  "the real entrepreneurs and risk takers—the sole traders—will miss out on the corporation tax changes, but will be hit by increases to national insurance contributions".
  On top of that, we must consider the effect of the swingeing 11 per cent. increase in diesel tax. No one heard the Chancellor announce that increase, which is hitting hauliers throughout the country and leading to a flood of people saying that they will leave. The words, "11 per cent." did not pass his lips, but that is what the price of diesel is going up by and that is why jobs will go. Even some of the right hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends are now pointing out the damage that is being done to serious British businesses. Business is being driven offshore by a Chancellor who does not care.
  Perhaps the most discreditable part of the Government's policy has been their record on savings. Given the attack on pension funds and on dividend tax credits for the poorest pensioners and the abolition of tax-exempt special savings accounts and personal equity
  802
  plans—to be replaced by measures introduced by the former Paymaster General as his swan song—it is not surprising that the savings ratio has plummeted by nearly a third.
  The Budget has made things worse. By committing himself to increasing the minimum income for pensioners in line with earnings, the Chancellor will increase dependency and discourage savings. People who save hard throughout their lives in an effort to remain independent of the state might as well not have bothered. It is not surprising that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) has borne that out and that the response of the savings industry to the Budget has also been scathing.
  What did the Budget say about the economy? We have the first official confirmation that manufacturing will be in recession next year. The Treasury now expects a fall in manufacturing output. If the Government had listened to what they were being told earlier and stopped heaping on the damage, the higher taxes and the extra regulation, that recession might have been avoided, but it is too late now, as the Treasury has finally admitted. That means thousands more lost jobs. We read today that job prospects are at their bleakest for a long time.
  The Chancellor's forecasts for growth are wildly unrealistic—[Interruption.]
  Madam Speaker: Order. This House must come to order. It is far too noisy.
  Mr. Maude: This is a Budget that is shot through with dishonesty from beginning to end. This is not spinning; this is deception. Taxes are rising in plain breach of the Prime Minister's solemn pledge. This is a bad and a dishonest Budget. I urge the House to reject it.
  9.40 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): I have rarely seen a senior politician in a debate as important as this refuse to give way to hon. Members on both sides of the House. It makes me wonder what the shadow Chancellor has to hide.
  We have had an important debate over the past few days. Last Tuesday, the Chancellor delivered a Budget that will deliver an enterprise economy and a fair society. The one sustains the other. We cannot have a successful economy without a fair society in which the talents of all our people are deployed to the full.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Can he solve a problem and admit to everyone that the Budget has brought in £7.1 billion in extra taxes? At least we would have some honesty from him.
  Mr. Milburn: Perhaps the shadow Chancellor was right not to give way. As usual, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. The Budget cuts taxes by £4 billion.
  Mr. Ruffley: I am most grateful to the Chief Secretary. Can he explain why table B9 of the Red Book clearly demonstrates that the tax burden will be higher in the last year of this Parliament than in the first year?
  Mr. Milburn: The tax burden will fall next year and will continue to be broadly flat over the remainder of this Parliament. More important, it is lower than the Tories had planned for if they had been in government.

  803
  Our approach to tax is symbolised by the two new low starting rates of taxes introduced in this Budget. There is a new 10p starting rate of corporation tax to help companies create the wealth to sustain the investment to create the jobs that a fair society needs. There is also a new 10p rate of income tax to help people move from welfare to work, to harness their potential to stimulate the productive economy that our country demands.
  These are Budget measures to create wealth and opportunity, as my hon. Friends the Members for St. Helens, South (Mr. Bermingham) and for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) rightly pointed out. The point was also made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), who welcomed the Budget. He said that it was the first in 30 years, most of them under the Conservatives, that he could wholeheartedly welcome. I am grateful to him for his support. He is in good company, because the Budget has been warmly welcomed by pro-business organisations and anti-poverty groups alike.
  I have a word of advice for the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor. If they are serious about the Budget, they should practise what they preach and go out and listen to the people of Britain. They should listen to the British Retail Consortium, which said that the Budget would
  "give a tremendous boost to small retailers."
  They should listen to the Institute of Directors, which welcomed the reductions in company taxes, and to the Child Poverty Action Group, which welcomed the measures to tackle child poverty. It was even welcomed by the chairman of Asda himself, a well known and respected member of the Conservative party and of this House. He would be a fitting person to sit round the kitchen table that the Leader of the Opposition is so concerned about.
  Wearing not his politician's hat but his business man's hat on Budget day, what did the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman) have to say?
  "We'd welcome the help for small businesses. I think that's good. We'd welcome the reduction in corporation tax and lower corporation tax for smaller businesses. That's good. As I said, we welcome, particularly in Asda … we're very keen on employee share ownership. I think everyone in the country is dead keen on it, and that's good."
  "Overall," he concluded,
  "not a bad business budget".
  Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to the Chief Secretary for giving way on that point. In light of the remarks that he has just quoted, how does he explain the fact that, in a 70-minute Budget speech, a 10-minute statement on enterprise and competition and a 36-minute speech in Wednesday's debate on the Budget, neither the Chancellor nor the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said anything about the need to reverse the burden of slothful regulation on the industry and commerce of this country? Might it be that they want to impose regulation on the productive businesses of this country?
  Mr. Milburn: I say to the hon. Gentleman in all candour that if he had been listening on Budget day, as I
  804
  am sure he was, he would have heard my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announce cuts in taxes on small companies.
  This Budget is the product of this Government's sound and prudent economic management—a point that was reinforced only a week ago by the IMF. When we entered office, we inherited a national debt that had doubled, inflation was back in the system and the public finances were spiralling out of control. While the Conservative party is only now owning up to its mistakes, we have been busy putting them right: inflation is under control, unemployment is down and employment up, long-term interest rates are at their lowest for many years and mortgages are cheaper than they have been for thirty years.
  The Budget continues to lock in the stability that we are creating by keeping the public finances under control, while at the same time giving a £6 billion boost to the economy at just the right time in the economic cycle. The platform of stability that we are creating allows us to tackle the fundamental problem facing our country—how to raise our productivity performance. Therefore, in the Budget we introduced major reforms for a new, knowledge-based enterprise economy open to all.
  There is to be a new research and development tax credit for firms with the brightest ideas and the best potential. There are to be new allowances for smaller businesses to help to bridge the investment gap between Britain and our competitors—just as the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) called for in his useful contribution. There are to be new rewards for the best entrepreneurs and new incentives for the best inventors. Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) emphasised, there are to be new company tax cuts that will help two in three of all firms that pay corporation tax. The right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) said that that measure would help only companies making profits of up to £10,000 a year, but he was wrong; it will help two in three of all companies paying corporation tax—those earning up to £50,000 a year in profits.
  Mr. Jack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Milburn: This Government have already created the lowest company taxes of any major country in Europe. When, on Tuesday, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said that we are now to give small British firms the lowest starting rate of company tax of any major industrialised country in the world, I swear I could almost hear the blood draining from the faces of the Conservatives, especially the Leader of the Opposition. The new 10p corporation tax will leave more money in the hands of those who are best placed to create wealth and jobs.
  Mr. Jack: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Milburn: Because of our prudent approach, there will be more money for our essential public services. Next month, an extra—
  Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
  Madam Speaker: I suspect that I have heard it before, but go ahead.
  Mr. Bercow: May I ask for your guidance, Madam Speaker? Is it not a matter of the grossest discourtesy for

  805
  the Chief Secretary—[Interruption.] If the right hon. Gentleman will hear the point, he might be able to offer an intelligible answer. Is it not the grossest discourtesy for the Chief Secretary directly to refer to a right hon. Member, but to fail to take his intervention in response?
  Madam Speaker: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the response I made a moment ago. He was here, so he knows what I am talking about.
  Mr. Milburn: Thank you, Madam Speaker. There will be more money than ever before for our public services, but for some, more is never enough. As the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce) confirmed, the Liberals will vote against the 22p rate of income tax, because the record £19 billion that we are putting into schools in a month's time is inadequate—this from the party that promised only £2 billion more for education: £4.5 billion less than we will spend each year.
  The more Labour delivers, the more the Liberals demand. They have proved once again that they have an insatiable appetite for spending other people's money. If they had their way, the Liberals and the nationalists alike would land the average family with higher tax bills. This Budget cuts taxes for low and middle-income families.
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce: Will the Chief Secretary confirm that the increase in current spending on health and education across the Parliament will be half the rate it was under the Conservative Government? Is that true or false? If it is true, how does the Chief Secretary think he will solve the problems of health and education?
  Mr. Milburn: I know that the hon. Gentleman has a reputation for torturing the statistics until they confess, but this is a record investment in our health and education services. There will be £40,000 million more for our hospitals and schools—more than the Liberals promised the British people at the last general election.
  This Budget cuts taxes for low and middle-income families, but it does even more than that. The independent Institute for Fiscal Studies says that people in every decile group—from top to bottom—will gain. The average household will be £380 a year better off, and the tax burden on the average family will fall to below 20 per cent. for the first time in more than 20 years.
  This is not just a tax-cutting Budget, but a tax-reforming Budget too. These are tax cuts for a purpose: to reward work, enterprise and families. For years, successive Governments have taken too much tax from those who work hard but are by no means wealthy. Middle-income families who are self-reliant have been penalised for being so. The working poor, who have faced marginal tax rates of up to 100 per cent., have been penalised for moving off benefit. Families, who have seen their tax burden rising for three decades, have been penalised for having children.
  This Budget begins to put things right: it will lift people up, not tie them down. It does so, first, by making sure that work pays.
  Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I have already given way.
  Madam Speaker: Order. Is the Chief Secretary giving way?
  Mr. Milburn: No, Madam Speaker. I have given way four times, which is 400 per cent. more than the shadow Chancellor managed.
  This Budget makes sure that work pays. The new 10p starting rate will halve the tax bills of 2 million people. Our reforms to national insurance will lift almost 1 million people out of paying any contributions at all. Our pensions tax guarantee will help take 200,000 pensioners out of the tax bracket altogether. Our extension of the new deal to the over-50s will give a new lease on life and hope to thousands who had been written off. From April next year, every basic-rate and top-rate taxpayer will benefit from our 1p reduction in income tax.
  Secondly, the Budget will provide most help to those who need it most when they need it most: families who are bringing up children. The new children's tax credit will put more than £400 into the pay packets of families with children. On top of that, there will be record increases in child benefit for all families.
  So, as Opposition Members enter a new era of what can best be described as "confessional Conservatism", let me remind them about the extent of their past mistakes. In case they have forgotten, the Conservatives are the party that froze child benefit; we are the party that increases it. The Conservatives were wrong to put value-added tax on fuel and they were wrong when they tried to double it. It is right that we have cut VAT on gas and electricity and it is equally right that we will now help pensioners to cut their winter heating bills too.
  This Budget delivers on our manifesto commitments. We said that we would cut VAT on fuel, and we have. We said that we would introduce a 10p starting rate of income tax, and we have. We said that we would give more help for pensioners, and we have. We said that we would make work pay, and we have. We said that we would give more support for families, and we have. By the end of this Parliament, the amount given to every child will have doubled from £11 to £23 and the extra help for pensioners will have increased dramatically. All that is opposed by the Conservative party.
  When the Tories criticise the Budget, they do so not because of what we have done but because of what they did. We have kept our tax promises, but they broke theirs. They said in 1979 that they had no plans to increase VAT, but within a year they had doubled it. The Prime Minister said in 1992 that the Tories had no plans to extend VAT, but within a year they had put VAT on people's heating bills. Now they say that they want to put their past mistakes behind them, but by opposing the Budget, they are making new mistakes for the future that would cost the British people dear.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. The Chief Secretary has indicated that he is not giving way.
  Mr. Milburn: I shall gladly give way once more.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Madam Speaker: Shall I select who it should be?
  Mr. Paul Keetch: I am grateful to the Chief Secretary for giving way. I apologise for missing the first two minutes of his speech, but I did hear him say that he was supporting a Budget for small business and shareholders. What is his message to the British cider industry? The only duty increase is on cider, which will affect jobs in Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Gloucestershire and Somerset. Is he not merely following the Tories' misguided policy? Should he not be supporting a truly English drink?
  Mr. Milburn: Well, Madam Speaker, the hon. Gentleman was fastest on the draw. The cider industry, like all the industries that will benefit from our cuts in corporation tax, stands to benefit this evening.
  The Tories and Liberal Democrats are making mistakes not only for the past but for the future because the mistakes that they will make by opposing the Budget tonight would cost the British people dear. Their actions would cost the British people the new 10p starting rate of tax, which is the lowest in 35 years. They would cost them the new 20p rate of income tax, which is the lowest in 70 years. They would cost them the extra help for families, children and pensioners. They would cost them the extra cash for schools, hospitals, rural transport and the fight against crime.
  Already isolated in Europe and determined to be further isolated in Britain, the Tories will tonight set their face against a Budget that is good for our country and good for the people. This Budget debate has staked out the new dividing lines in British politics: the Tories consigned ever more to the margins; the Liberals and the nationalists exposed as the parties of tax and spend; and new Labour confirmed as the party of fairness and enterprise. The Government are delivering on our promises, step by step, building a stronger economy and a fairer society and offering a better deal for all Britain's people.
  Madam Speaker: I shall now put the Question on the Amendment of the Law motion.
  Sir Peter Tapsell rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. There is one minute to go. I call Sir Peter Tapsell.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: It is 9.59 pm, so I am entitled to ask a question.
  Madam Speaker: I am calling the hon. Gentleman.
  Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the Chief Secretary say whether it is true that the three Budgets of the Labour Government have increased the overall tax take by £40 billion?
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to amend the law with respect to the National Debt and the public revenue and to make further provision in
  808
  connection with finance; but this Resolution does not extend to the making of any amendment with respect to value added tax so as to provide—

  (a) for zero-rating or exempting a supply, acquisition or importation;

  (b) for refunding an amount of tax;

  (c) for varying any rate at which that tax is at any time chargeable; or

  (d) for any relief, other than a relief which—

  (i) so far as it is applicable to goods, applies to goods of every description, and

  (ii) so far as it is applicable to services, applies to services of every description.

  MADAM SPEAKER then, pursuant to Standing Order No. 51(3) (Ways and Means Motions), put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the further motions.

  2. SPARKLING CIDER (RATE OF DUTY)
  Motion made, and Question put, That

  (1) In section 62(1A)(a) of the Alcoholic Liquor Duties Act 1979, for "£45.05" there shall be substituted "£161.20".

  (2) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 9th March 1999.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 195.

  Division No. 96]

  [10.1 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Burden, Richard

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Burgon, Colin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Allen, Graham

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ashton, Joe

  Canavan, Dennis

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caplin, Ivor

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Casale, Roger

  Austin, John

  Caton, Martin

  Banks, Tony

  Cawsey, Ian

  Barnes, Harry

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Barron, Kevin

  Chaytor, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Beard, Nigel

  Clapham, Michael

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Benton, Joe

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Best, Harold

  Clelland, David

  Betts, Clive

  Clwyd, Ann

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blizzard, Bob

  Coleman, Iain

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Connarty, Michael

  Boateng, Paul

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Borrow, David

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Cranston, Ross

  Crausby, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cummings, John

  809

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Illsley, Eric

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dobbin, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dowd, Jim

  Kemp, Fraser

  Drew, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kidney, David

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Efford, Clive

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Etherington, Bill

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fisher, Mark

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Levitt, Tom

  Flint, Caroline

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Follett, Barbara

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lock, David

  Galbraith, Sam

  Love, Andrew

  Galloway, George

  McAllion, John

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McCabe, Steve

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godsiff, Roger

  Macdonald, Calum

  Goggins, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grocott, Bruce

  McNulty, Tony

  Grogan, John

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Marek, Dr John

  Heppell, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hill, Keith

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hinchliffe, David

  Martlew, Eric

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Maxton, John

  Hoey, Kate

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Home Robertson, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Hope, Phil

  Miller, Andrew

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Mitchell, Austin

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Hurst, Alan

  Mountford, Kali

  Hutton, John

  Mudie, George

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Mullin, Chris

  810

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Snape, Peter

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Soley, Clive

  Olner, Bill

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  O'Neill, Martin

  Spellar, John

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stevenson, George

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pike, Peter L

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Plaskitt, James

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stott, Roger

  Pond, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pope, Greg

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stringer, Graham

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Purchase, Ken

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rapson, Syd

  Timms, Stephen

  Raynsford, Nick

  Tipping, Paddy

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Todd, Mark

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Touhig, Don

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Vaz, Keith

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Roy, Frank

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Ruane, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ruddock, Joan

  Watts, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  White, Brian

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Salter, Martin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sawford, Phil

  Winnick, David

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wise, Audrey

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Woolas, Phil

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Worthington, Tony

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wyatt, Derek

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. David Hanson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Allan, Richard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Amess, David

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Burns, Simon

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Burstow, Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Butterfill, John

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Baker, Norman

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cash, William

  Beggs, Roy

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (chipping Barnet)

  Bercow, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Chidgey, David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Boswell, Tim

  Clappison, James

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Brake, Tom

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Breed, Colin

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  811

  Cotter, Brian

  Luff, Peter

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Madel, Sir David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Maples, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Faber, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fabricant, Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fallon, Michael

  Moore, Michael

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Moss, Malcolm

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Oaten, Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Page, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Paterson, Owen

  Gill, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prior, David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Randall, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gorrie, Donald

  Rendel, David

  Gray, James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Damian

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Ruffley, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hammond, Philip

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Salmond, Alex

  Harvey, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayes, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Heald, Oliver

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

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

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Horam, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Steen, Anthony

  Hunter, Andrew

  Streeter, Gary

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Swinney, John

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Syms, Robert

  Johnson Smith,

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Keetch, Paul

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Key, Robert

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tredinnick, David

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Trend, Michael

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Tyler, Paul

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wallace, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Walter, Robert

  Letwin, Oliver

  Wardle, Charles

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Webb, Steve

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Wells, Bowen

  Livsey, Richard

  Welsh, Andrew

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Whittingdale, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  812

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wilkinson, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Willetts, David

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Willis, Phil

  Wilshire, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Mr. Tim Collins and

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Mr. James Cran.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  3. HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES (RATES AND REBATES)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That—

  (1) In section 6(1A) of the Hydrocarbon Oil Duties Act 1979—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for "£0.4926" there shall be substituted "£0.5288";

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "£0.4299" there shall be substituted "£0.4721"; and

  (c) in paragraph (c), for "£0.4499" there shall be substituted "£0.5021".

  (2) In section 8(3) of that Act, for "£0.2113" there shall be substituted "£0.1500".

  (3) In section 11(1) of that Act—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for "£0.0218" there shall be substituted "£0.0265"; and

  (b) in each of paragraphs (b) and (ba), for "£0.0282" there shall be substituted "£0.0303".

  (4) In section 13A(1A) of that Act—

  (a) in paragraph (a), for "£0.0050" there shall be substituted "£0.0055"; and

  (b) in paragraph (b), for "£0.0527" there shall be substituted "£0.0567".

  (5) In section 14(1) of that Act, for "£0.0218" there shall be substituted "£0.0265".

  (6) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 9th March 1999.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 329, Noes 196.

  Division No. 97]

  [10.14 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Borrow, David

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Allen, Graham

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Austin, John

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Banks, Tony

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Barnes, Harry

  Browne, Desmond

  Barron, Kevin

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Burden, Richard

  Beard, Nigel

  Burgon, Colin

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Benton, Joe

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Casale, Roger

  Best, Harold

  Caton, Martin

  Betts, Clive

  Cawsey, Ian

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chaytor, David

  Blizzard, Bob

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  813

  Clapham, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hoey, Kate

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Crausby, David

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hutton, John

  Cummings, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Illsley, Eric

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Drew, David

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kidney, David

  Efford, Clive

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Lock, David

  Galloway, George

  Love, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAllion, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCabe, Steve

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Goggins, Paul

  Macdonald, Calum

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  MacShane, Denis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Harman, Fit Hon Ms Harriet

  McWalter, Tony

  814

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sawford, Phil

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Snape, Peter

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Spellar, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stevenson, George

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mudie, George

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stott, Roger

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stringer, Graham

  Olner, Bill

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Neill, Martin

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson, Ian

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Plaskitt, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pond, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Pope, Greg

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Truswell, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Vaz, Keith

  Radice, Giles

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rammell, Bill

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Rapson, Syd

  Wareing, Robert N

  Raynsford, Nick

  Watts, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  White, Brian

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Winnick, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Wise, Audrey

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Woolas, Phil

  Rowlands, Ted

  Worthington, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wyatt, Derek

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Salter, Martin

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Allan, Richard

  Ballard, Jackie

  Amess, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Body, Sir Richard

  815

  Boswell, Tim

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brake, Tom

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Breed, Colin

  Johnson Smith,

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Keetch, Paul

  Burns, Simon

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Burstow, Paul

  Key, Robert

  Butterfill, John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cash, William

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Chidgey, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clappison, James

  Lidington, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Livsey, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Cotter, Brian

  Loughton, Tim

  Cran, James

  Luff, Peter

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Madel, Sir David

  Duncan, Alan

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Malins, Humfrey

  Evans, Nigel

  Maples, John

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Faber, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fabricant, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fallon, Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Moore, Michael

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Moss, Malcolm

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Oaten, Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fraser, Christopher

  Ottaway, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Page, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Paice, James

  Gibb, Nick

  Paterson, Owen

  Gill, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Prior, David

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Randall, John

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gorrie, Donald

  Rendel, David

  Gray, James

  Robathan, Andrew

  Green, Damian

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Greenway, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Ruffley, David

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Hammond, Philip

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Salmond, Alex

  Harvey, Nick

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hayes, John

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Heald, Oliver

  Shepherd, Richard

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

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

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Horam, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Steen, Anthony

  816

  Streeter, Gary

  Webb, Steve

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wells, Bowen

  Swinney, John

  Welsh, Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Whittlngdale, John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Wilkinson, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Willetts, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Willis, Phil

  Wilshire, David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tredinnick, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Trend, Michael

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tyler, Paul

  Yeo, Tim

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Wallace, James

  Walter, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wardle, Charles

  Mr. Tim Collins and

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  4. HYDROCARBON OIL DUTIES (DRAWBACK)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about the drawback of excise duty on hydrocarbon oil.

  5. TOBACCO PRODUCTS DUTY (RATES)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That—
  (1) For the Table of rates of duty in Schedule 1 to the Tobacco Products Duty Act 1979 there shall be substituted—

  TABLE

  1. Cigarettes

  An amount equal to 22 per cent. of the retail price plus £82.59 per thousand cigarettes.

  2. Cigars

  £122.06 per kilogram.

  3. Hand-rolling tobacco

  £87.74 per kilogram.

  4. Other smoking tobacco and chewing tobacco

  £53.66 per kilogram.

  (2) This Resolution shall have effect as from 6 o'clock in the evening of 9th March 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 380, Noes 143.

  Division No. 98]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beard, Nigel

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Allan, Richard

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Benton, Joe

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Best, Harold

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Betts, Clive

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Blizzard, Bob

  Austin, John

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Baker, Norman

  Boateng, Paul

  Ballard, Jackie

  Borrow, David

  Banks, Tony

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Barnes, Harry

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brake, Tom

  817

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Breed, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Efford, Clive

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Browne, Desmond

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fisher, Mark

  Burden, Richard

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Burgon, Colin

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Burstow, Paul

  Flint, Caroline

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Follett, Barbara

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Canavan, Dennis

  Galloway, George

  Caplin, Ivor

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Casale, Roger

  Gerrard, Neil

  Caton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Cawsey, Ian

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Chaytor, David

  Godsiff, Roger

  Chidgey, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Grogan, John

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clelland, David

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clwyd, Ann

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Coaker, Vernon

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Harvey, Nick

  Coleman, Iain

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Connarty, Michael

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Heppell, John

  Corbett, Robin

  Hesford, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hill, Keith

  Cotter, Brian

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Crausby, David

  Hoey, Kate

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Home Robertson, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cummings, John

  Hope, Phil

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hurst, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dawson, Hilton

  Illsley, Eric

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Denham, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  818

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Oaten, Mark

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Olner, Bill

  Keetch, Paul

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Öpik, Lembit

  Kemp, Fraser

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pearson, Ian

  Kidney, David

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pike, Peter L

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Plaskitt, James

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pond, Chris

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Pope, Greg

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Laxton, Bob

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Levitt, Tom

  Purchase, Ken

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Linton, Martin

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Livingstone, Ken

  Radice, Giles

  Livsey, Richard

  Rammell, Bill

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rapson, Syd

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lock, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Love, Andrew

  Rendel, David

  McAllion, John

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  McCabe, Steve

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Rooker, Jeff

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonnell, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Roy, Frank

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Ruane, Chris

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McNulty, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  MacShane, Denis

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Salmond, Alex

  McWalter, Tony

  Salter, Martin

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mallaber, Judy

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sawford, Phil

  Marek, Dr John

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Martlew, Eric

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Maxton, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Moore, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Spellar, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morley, Elliot

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mudie, George

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  819

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Tyler, Paul

  Stott, Roger

  Vaz, Keith

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wallace, James

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stringer, Graham

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Watts, David

  Swinney, John

  Webb, Steve

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Welsh, Andrew

  White, Brian

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wlliams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Willis, Phil

  Timms, Stephen

  Winnick, David

  Tipping, Paddy

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Todd, Mark

  Wise, Audrey

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Woolas, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Worthington, Tony

  Trickett, Jon

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Truswell, Paul

  Wyatt, Derek

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Greenway, John

  Amess, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Beggs, Roy

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hayes, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Horam, John

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Burns, Simon

  Hunter, Andrew

  Butterfill, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cash, William

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Johnson Smith,

  Chope, Christopher

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Clappison, James

  Key, Robert

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cran, James

  Leigh, Edward

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Lidington, David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Loughton, Tim

  Evans, Nigel

  Luff, Peter

  Faber, David

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fabricant, Michael

  MacGregor, Ftt Hon John

  Forsythe, Clifford

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Madel, Sir David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Malins, Humfrey

  Gibb, Nick

  Maples, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gray, James

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Green, Damian

  Ottaway, Richard

  820

  Page, Richard

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Prior, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Randall, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Trend, Michael

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Walter, Robert

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Wardle, Charles

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Wells, Bowen

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Whittingdale, John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Wilkinson, John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wilshire, David

  Soames, Nicholas

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Woodward, Shaun

  Spring, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Steen, Anthony

  Streeter, Gary

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mr. Tim Collins and

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  6. POOL BETTING DUTY (RATE)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) In section 7(1) of the Betting and Gaming Dirties Act 1981, for "26.50 per cent." there shall be substituted "17.50 per cent."
  (2) This Resolution has effect in relation to bets the stake money on which is paid on or after 28th March 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  7. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (INCREASE IN GENERAL RATE)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, for "£150" there shall be substituted "£155".
  (2) This Resolution has effect in relation to licences issued after 9th March 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  8. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (SPLITTING OF GENERAL RATE)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) In sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, for the word "The" at the beginning there shall be substituted "Except in the case of a vehicle having an engine with a cylinder capacity not exceeding 1,100 cubic centimetres, the".
  (2) After that sub-paragraph there shall be inserted the following sub-paragraph—
  "(2A) In the case of a vehicle having an engine with a cylinder capacity not exceeding 1,100 cubic centimetres, the general rate is £100."
  (3) In sections 13(3)(b), 35A(5)(b) and 36(3)(b) of that Act, and in section 13(4)(b) of that Act as substituted under paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 to that Act, for the words "paragraph 1 of Schedule 1", in each place where they occur, there shall be substituted "paragraph 1(2) of Schedule 1".
  (4) This Resolution has effect in relation to any licence taken out for a period beginning on or after 1st June 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  Revenue weight of vehicle

  Rate

  (1) Exceeding

  (2) Not exceeding

  (3) Two axle vechicle

  (4) Three axle vechicle

  (5) Four or more axle vechicle

  kgs

  kgs

  £

  £

  £

  3,500

  7,500

  160

  160

  160

  7,500

  12,000

  300

  300

  300

  12,000

  13,000

  470

  490

  350

  13,000

  14,000

  650

  490

  350

  14,000

  15,000

  840

  490

  350

  15,000

  17,000

  1,320

  490

  350

  17,000

  19,000

  1,600

  850

  350

  19,000

  21,000

  1,600

  1,020

  350

  21,000

  23,000

  1,600

  1,470

  510

  23,000

  25,000

  1,600

  2,320

  830

  25,000

  27,000

  1,600

  2,340

  1,470

  27,000

  29,000

  1,600

  2,340

  2,320

  29,000

  31,000

  1,600

  2,340

  3,360

  31,000

  44,000

  1,600

  2,340

  4,400

  (4) In paragraph 9A(3), for "£4,670" there shall be submitted "£4,670".
  (5) For the Table in paragraph 9B there shall be substituted—

  Revenue weight of vehicle

  Rate

  (1) Exceeding

  (2) Not exceeding

  (3) Two axle vechicle

  (4) Three axle vechicle

  (5) Four or more axle vechicle

  kgs

  kgs

  £

  £

  £

  3,500

  7,500

  155

  155

  155

  7,500

  12,000

  155

  155

  155

  12,000

  13,000

  155

  155

  155

  13,000

  14,000

  155

  155

  155

  14,000

  15,000

  155

  155

  155

  15,000

  17,000

  320

  155

  155

  17,000

  19,000

  600

  155

  155

  19,000

  21,000

  600

  155

  155

  21,000

  23,000

  600

  470

  155

  23,000

  25,000

  600

  1,230

  155

  25,000

  27,000

  600

  1,340

  470

  27,000

  29,000

  600

  1,340

  1,320

  29,000

  31,000

  600

  1,340

  2,360

  31,000

  44,000

  600

  1,340

  3,400

  9. VEHICLE EXCISE DUTY (RATES FOR GOODS VEHICLES ETC.)
  Resolved,
  That Schedule 1 to the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 be amended as follows—

  (1) In sub-paragraph (2A)(b) of paragraph 6, for "£4,670" there shall be substituted "£4,170".

  (2) In sub-paragraph (3) of that paragraph, for "38,000 kilograms" there shall be substituted "41,000 kilograms".

  (3) For the Table in paragraph 9(1) there shall be substituted—

  (6) For the Table in paragraph 11(1) there shall be substituted—

  Revenue weight of tractive unit

  Rate for tractive unit with two axles

  Rate for tractive unit with three or more axles

  (1) Exceeding

  (2) Not exceeding

  (3) Any number of semi-trailer axles

  (4) 2 or more semi-trailer axles

  (5) 3 or more semi-trailer axles

  (6) Any number of semi-trailer axles

  (7) 2 or more semi-trailer axles

  (8) 3 or more semi-trailer axles

  kgs

  kgs

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  3,500

  7,500

  160

  160

  160

  160

  160

  160

  7,500

  12,000

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  300

  12,000

  16,000

  460

  460

  460

  460

  460

  460

  16,000

  20,000

  520

  460

  460

  460

  460

  460

  20,000

  23,000

  810

  460

  460

  460

  460

  460

  23,000

  26,000

  1,190

  590

  460

  590

  460

  460

  26,000

  28,000

  1,190

  1,130

  460

  1,130

  460

  460

  28,000

  31,000

  1,740

  1,740

  1,090

  1,740

  660

  460

  31,000

  33,000

  2,530

  2,530

  1,740

  2,530

  1,000

  460

  33,000

  34,000

  5,170

  5,170

  1,740

  2,530

  1,470

  570

  34,000

  35,000

  5,170

  5,170

  2,840

  2,530

  2,100

  860

  35,000

  36,000

  6,750

  6,750

  2,840

  2,530

  2,100

  860

  36,000

  38,000

  9,250

  9,250

  3,210

  2,820

  2,820

  1,280

  38,000

  41,000

  9,250

  9,250

  5,750

  4,250

  4,250

  2,500

  41,000

  44,000

  9,250

  9,250

  5,750

  7,250

  7,250

  1,280

  (7) In paragraph 11A(3), for "£4,670" there shall be substituted"£4,170"

  Revenue weight of tractive unit

  Rate for tractive unit with two axles

  Rate for tractive unit with three or more axles

  (1) Exceeding

  (2) Not exceeding

  (3) Any number of semi-trailer axles

  (4) 2 or more semi-trailer axles

  (5) 3 or more semi-trailer axles

  (6) Any number of semi-trailer axles

  (7) 2 or more semi-trailer axles

  (8) 3 or more semi-trailer axles

  kgs

  kgs

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  3,500

  7,500

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  7,500

  12,000

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  12,000

  16,000

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  16,000

  20,000

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  20,000

  23,000

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  23,000

  26,000

  190

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  26,000

  28,000

  190

  155

  155

  155

  155

  155

  28,000

  31,000

  740

  740

  155

  740

  155

  155

  31,000

  33,000

  1,530

  1,530

  740

  1,530

  155

  155

  33,000

  34,000

  4,170

  4,170

  740

  1,530

  470

  155

  34,000

  35,000

  4,170

  4,170

  1,840

  1,530

  1,100

  155

  35,000

  36,000

  5,750

  5,750

  1,840

  1,530

  1,100

  155

  36,000

  38,000

  8,250

  8,250

  2,210

  1,820

  1,820

  280

  38,000

  41,000

  8,250

  8,250

  4,750

  3,250

  3,250

  1,500

  41,000

  44,000

  8,250

  8,250

  4,750

  6,250

  6,250

  280

  (9) Subject to the following paragraphs of this Resolution, the preceding paragraphs apply in relation to licences taken out after 9th March 1999.
  (10) Paragraph (11) below applies where—

  (a) a pre-commencement licence was taken out for a goods vehicle at a rate applicable to a vehicle with a revenue weight falling within a specified range of weights; and

  (b) the revenue weight of the vehicle at any time on or after 17th April 1999 (though still within the specified range of weights mentioned in paragraph (a) above) is one which, for the purposes of taking out a licence for that vehicle after 9th March 1999, would fall in a range of weights attracting a rate of duty higher than that attracted by the vehicle's licensed weight.

  (11) For the purposes of section 15 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 any use of the vehicle on a public road at a time on or after 17th April 1999 when its revenue weight falls within paragraph (10)(b) above shall be treated as a use of the vehicle so as to subject it to a rate of duty higher than that at which the pre-commencement licence was taken out.
  (12) Paragraph (13) below applies where—
  (8) For the Table in paragraph 11B there shall be substituted—

  (a) pre-commencement licence was taken out for a goods vehicle at a rate applicable to a vehicle with a revenue weight falling within a specified range of weights;

  (b) the revenue weight of the vehicle is increased at a time after 9th March 1999; and

  (c) the revenue weight of the vehicle immediately after the increase (though still within the specified range of weights mentioned in paragraph (a) above) is one which, for the purposes of taking out a licence for that vehicle after 9th March 1999, would fall in a range of weights attracting a rate of duty higher than that attracted by the vehicle's licensed weight.

  (13) For the purposes of section 15 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 any use of the vehicle on a public road after the increase in its revenue weight shall be treated (if it would not otherwise be so treated by virtue of paragraph (11) above) as a use of the vehicle so as to subject it to a rate of duty higher than that at which the pre-commencement licence was taken out.
  (14) In this Resolution—
  "licensed weight", in relation to a vehicle, means the revenue weight of the vehicle at the time when the
  pre-commencement licence for that vehicle was taken out; and
  "pre-commencement licence" means a licence taken out on or before 9th March 1999 and in force after that date.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  10. DRAWBACK OF EXCISE DUTY ON GOODS SHIPPED AS STORES ETC.
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about the drawback of excise duty on goods shipped as stores or warehoused in an excise warehouse for use as stores.

  11. VALUE ADDED TAX (GOLD)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about value added tax in respect of supplies or importations which relate to gold.

  12. VALUE ADDED TAX (BAD DEBT RELIEF: ASSIGNMENT)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) In section 36 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, for subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
  "(3) In subsection (2) above 'the outstanding amount' means—

  (a) if at the time of the claim no part of the consideration written off in the claimant's accounts as a bad debt has been received, an amount equal to the amount of the consideration so written off;

  (b) if at that time any part of the consideration so written off has been received, an amount by which that part is exceeded by the amount of the consideration written off;

  and in this subsection 'received' means received either by the claimant or, except in such circumstances as may be prescribed, by a person to whom has been assigned a right to receive the whole or any part of the consideration written off."
  (2) Until such day as the Commissioners may specify in regulations made under section 36 of that Act, Part XIX of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, except regulation 171, shall be read as if a reference to a payment being received by the claimant were a reference to a payment being received either by the claimant or by a person to whom a right to receive it has been assigned.
  (3) This Resolution has effect for the purposes of the making of any refund or repayment after 9th March 1999, but does not have effect in relation to anything received on or before that day.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  13. VALUE ADDED TAX (BAD DEBT RELIEF: REGULATIONS)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending section 36(5) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

  14. VALUE ADDED TAX (GROUPS OF COMPANIES)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about groups of companies in relation to value added tax.

  15. VALUE ADDED TAX (REPAYMENT SUPPLEMENT)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) Section 79 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (2)(b), for the words "the period of 30 days beginning on the date of the receipt by the Commissioners of that return or claim" there shall be substituted "the relevant period".
  (3) After subsection (2) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) The relevant period in relation to a return or claim is the period of 30 days beginning with the later of—

  (a) the day after the last day of the prescribed accounting period to which the return or claim relates, and

  (b) the date of the receipt by the Commissioners of the return or claim."

  (4) In subsections (3) and (7), for "subsection (2)(b)" there shall be substituted "subsection (2A)"; and regulations under subsection (3) shall be construed accordingly.
  (5) This Resolution has effect in relation to returns and claims received by the Commissioners on or after 9th March 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  16. VALUE ADDED TAX (MEANING OF "BUSINESS")
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for the repeal of section 94(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

  17. INCOME TAX (STARTING RATE)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That—
  (1) The following shall be substituted for section 1(2)(aa) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988—
  "(aa) in respect of so much of an individual's total income as does not exceed £1,500, at such rate as Parliament may determine to be the starting rate for that year;".
  (2) The following shall be substituted for section 1(2A) of that Act—
  "(2A) The amount up to which an individual's income is by virtue of subsection (2) above chargeable for any year at the starting rate shall be known as the starting rate limit."
  (3) In section 1(3) of that Act, for "lower rate" there shall be substituted "starting rate".
  (4) Section 1(4) of that Act, so far as it relates to section 1(2)(aa), shall not apply for the year 1999–00.
  (5) In section I (6A) of that Act, for "lower rate" there shall be substituted "starting rate".
  (6) The following shall be inserted before section 1A(2) of that Act—
  "(1B) In relation to any year of assessment for which income tax is charged the lower rate is 20 per cent. or such other rate as Parliament may determine."
  (7) The following shall be inserted after section 1A(6) of that Act—
  "(6A) Where income tax at the basic rate has been borne on income chargeable at the lower rate any necessary repayment of tax shall be made on the making of a claim."
  (8) In sections 547(5)(c) and 550(3) of that Act, for "lower rate" there shall be substituted "starting rate".
  (9) In sections 549(2), 699(2) and 819(2) of that Act, for "at the lower rate by virtue of section 1(2)(aa)" there shall be substituted "at the starting rate".
  (10) In section 832(1) of that Act—
  (a) the following shall be substituted for the definition of "lower rate"—
  lower rate', in relation to the charging of income tax for any year of assessment, means the rate of income tax specified in or determined in pursuance of section 1A(1B);", and
  (b) the following shall be inserted after the definition of "Schedule A business"—
  "`starting rate', in relation to the charging of income tax for any year of assessment, means the rate of income tax determined in pursuance of section 1(2)(aa), and any reference to the starting rate limit shall be construed in accordance with section 1 (2A);".
  (11) In section 7(6) of the Taxes Management Act 1970, for "or the lower rate" there shall be substituted ", the lower rate or the starting rate".
  (12) In section 91(3)(c) of that Act, for "or the lower rate" there shall be substituted ", the lower rate or the starting rate".
  (13) The preceding paragraphs apply for the year 1999–00 and subsequent years of assessment.
  (14) Nothing in this Resolution shall require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 before 18th May 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 334, Noes 40.

  Division No. 99]

  [10.43 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Alexander, Douglas

  Caplin, Ivor

  Allen, Graham

  Casale, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Caton, Martin

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cawsey, Ian

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Chaytor, David

  Austin, John

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Banks, Tony

  Clapham, Michael

  Barnes, Harry

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clelland, David

  Benton, Joe

  Clwyd, Ann

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coaker, Vernon

  Best, Harold

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coleman, lain

  Blizzard, Bob

  Connarty, Michael

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Boateng, Paul

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Borrow, David

  Cooper, Yvette

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Corbett, Robin

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cranston, Ross

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Crausby, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cummings, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dalyell, Tam

  828

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jamieson, David

  Darvill, Keith

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Doran, Frank

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drew, David

  Keen, Alan (Fettham & Heston)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Efford, Clive

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kidney, David

  Etherington, Bill

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fisher, Mark

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Flint, Caroline

  Laxton, Bob

  Follett, Barbara

  Leslie, Christopher

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Levitt, Tom

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Galbraith, Sam

  Livingstone, Ken

  Galloway, George

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lock, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Love, Andrew

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McAllion, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Goggins, Paul

  McCabe, Steve

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonnell, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Grogan, John

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hanson, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McNulty, Tony

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heppell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marek, Dr John

  Hill, Keith

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Home Robertson, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Maxton, John

  Hope, Phil

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Hurst, Alan

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Hutton, John

  Morley, Elliot

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  829

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Snape, Peter

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Soley, Clive

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Olner, Bill

  Spellar, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Stevenson, George

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pearson, Ian

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Plaskitt, James

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Pollard, Kerry

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Pond, Chris

  Stringer, Graham

  Pope, Greg

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Swinney, John

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (NW Leics)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Purchase, Ken

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Radice, Giles

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rammell, Bill

  Timms, Stephen

  Rapson, Syd

  Tipping, Paddy

  Raynsford, Nick

  Todd, Mark

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Touhig, Don

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Trickett, Jon

  Truswell, Paul

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Rooney, Terry

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Vaz, Keith

  Rowlands, Ted

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Roy, Frank

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Ruane, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Ruddock, Joan

  Watts, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  White, Brian

  Salmond, Alex

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Salter, Martin

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Sawford, Phil

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Winnick, David

  Sheerman, Barry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Wise, Audrey

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Woolas, Phil

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Worthington, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Singh, Marsha

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Allan, Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Harvey, Nick

  Baker, Norman

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Brake, Tom

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Keetch, Paul

  Breed, Colin

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Burstow, Paul

  Livsey, Richard

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Chidgey, David

  Moore, Michael

  Cotter, Brian

  Oaten, Mark

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Öpik, Lembit

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Rendel, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Gorrie, Donald

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

  830

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Willis, Phil

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Tyler, Paul

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Edward Davey and

  Webb, Steve

  Mr. Adrian Sanders.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  18. INCOME TAX (CHARGE AND RATES FOR 1999–00)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) Income tax shall be charged for the year 1999–00, and for that year—

  (a) the starting rate shall be 10 per cent.;

  (b) the basic rate shall be 23 per cent.; and

  (c) the higher rate shall be 40 per cent.

  (2) Nothing in this Resolution shall require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 before 18th May 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  19. INCOME TAX (PERSONAL ALLOWANCES FOR THOSE AGED 65 OR MORE)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) For the year 1999–00 the amounts specified in subsections (2) and (3) of section 257 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be taken to be £5,720 and £5,980, respectively.
  (2) Accordingly, section 257C(1) of that Act, so far as it relates to the amounts so specified, shall not apply for the year 1999–00.
  (3) Nothing in paragraph (1) of this Resolution above shall require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of that Act before 18th May 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  20. INCOME TAX (OPERATIVE DATE OF INDEXATION FOR PAYE)
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) In section 1 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, after subsection (4) there shall be inserted—
  "(5A) Subsection (4) above shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 during the period beginning with 6th April and ending with 17th May in the year of assessment."
  (2) In section 257C of that Act, after subsection (1) there shall be inserted—
  "(2A) Subsection (1) above shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 during the period beginning with 6th April and ending with 17th May in the year of assessment."
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  21. RATES OF CAPITAL GAINS TAX
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about the rates of capital gains tax.

  22. CORPORATION TAX (CHARGE AND RATE FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2000)
  Resolved,
  That, for the financial year 2000, corporation tax shall be charged at the rate of 30 per cent.

  23. RELIEF FOR INTEREST PAYMENTS (LIMIT FOR 1999–00)
  Resolved,
  That, for the year 1999–00, the qualifying maximum defined in section 367(5) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be £30,000.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  24. INTEREST ON LOANS FOR LIFE ANNUITIES (WITHDRAWAL OF RELIEF)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That—
  (1) In section 365 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, in subsection (1), before paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—
  "(aa) that the loan was made before 9th March 1999;".
  (2) After subsection (1) of that section there shall be inserted the following subsection—
  "(1AA) Where—

  (a) a loan made on or after 9th March 1999 was made in pursuance of an offer made by the lender before that date; and

  (b) the offer was either in writing or evidenced by a note or memorandum made by the lender before that date,

  the loan shall be deemed for the purposes of subsection (1)(aa) above to have been made before that date."
  (3) The preceding paragraphs have effect for the year 1998–99 and subsequent years of assessment.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 191.

  Division No. 100]

  [10.56 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Borrow, David

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Allen, Graham

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Austin, John

  Browne, Desmond

  Banks, Tony

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barnes, Harry

  Burden, Richard

  Barron, Kevin

  Burgon, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Caplin, Ivor

  Benton, Joe

  Casale, Roger

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Caton, Martin

  Best, Harold

  Cawsey, Ian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Chaytor, David

  Boateng, Paul

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  832

  Clapham, Michael

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hoey, Kate

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Home Robertson, John

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Connarty, Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corbett, Robin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cranston, Ross

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Crausby, David

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hutton, John

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cummings, John

  Illsley, Eric

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jamieson, David

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Doran, Frank

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Drew, David

  Kemp, Fraser

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Khabra, Piara S

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Kidney, David

  Efford, Clive

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Etherington, Bill

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Fisher, Mark

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Laxton, Bob

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Leslie, Christopher

  Flint, Caroline

  Levitt, Tom

  Follett, Barbara

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Lock, David

  Galloway, George

  Love, Andrew

  Gerrard, Neil

  McAllion, John

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McCabe, Steve

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Godsiff, Roger

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Goggins, Paul

  Macdonald, Calum

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McDonnell, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Grogan, John

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hanson, David

  McWalter, Tony

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  833

  Mallaber, Judy

  Salter, Martin

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Marek, Dr John

  Sawford, Phil

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Martlew, Eric

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Maxton, John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Singh, Marsha

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Snape, Peter

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Soley, Clive

  Morley, Elliot

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'harn Yardley)

  Spellar, John

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mountford, Kali

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mudie, George

  Stevenson, George

  Mullin, Chris

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stott, Roger

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Olner, Bill

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stringer, Graham

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Pearson, Ian

  Pickthall, Colin

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pike, Peter L

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Plaskitt, James

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pond, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Tippinq, Paddy

  Pope, Greg

  Todd Mark

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Touhig, Don

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Purchase, Ken

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Radice, Giles

  Vaz, Keith

  Rammell, Bill

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Rapson, Syd

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Raynsford, Nick

  Wareing, Robert N

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Watts, David

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Rooker, Jeff

  Winnick, David

  Rooney, Terry

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wise, Audrey

  Rowlands, Ted

  Worthington, Tony

  Roy, Frank

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Baker, Norman

  Allan, Richard

  Ballard, Jackie

  Amess, David

  Beggs, Roy

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Bercow, John

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Body, Sir Ricard

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Boswell, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  834

  Brake, Tom

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Johnson Smith,

  Breed, Colin

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Keetch, Paul

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Burns, Simon

  Key, Robert

  Burstow, Paul

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Butterfill, John

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Cash, William

  Leigh, Edward

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chidgey, David

  Lidington, David

  Chope, Christopher

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clappison, James

  Livsey, Richard

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Uwyd, Elfyn

  Collins, Tim

  Loughton, Tim

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Luff, Peter

  Cotter, Brian

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cran, James

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maples, John

  Day, Stephen

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Duncan, Alan

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Moore, Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Moss, Malcolm

  Faber, David

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fabricant, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paice, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paterson, Owen

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prior, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Garnier, Edward

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Rendel, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Ruffley, David

  Gray, James

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Green, Damian

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Greenway, John

  Salmond, Alex

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sanders, Adrian

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hammond, Philip

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

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Harvey, Nick

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hawkins, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Hayes, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Heald, Oliver

  Spring, Richard

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Steen, Anthony

  Horam, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Swayne, Desmond

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Swinney, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Syms, Robert

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  835

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Whittingdale, John

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wilkinson, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Willetts, David

  Trend, Michael

  Willis, Phil

  Tyler, Paul

  Wilshire, David

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Wallace, James

  Woodward, Shaun

  Wardle, Charles

  Yeo, Tim

  Waterson, Nigel

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Webb, Steve

  Wells, Bowen

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Welsh, Andrew

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  25. CARS AVAILABLE FOR PRIVATE USE
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That—
  (1) Schedule 6 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 2(1)—

  (a) for "in the year concerned" substitute "in a year", and

  (b) for "the amount ascertained under paragraph 1 above, reduced by two thirds" substitute "15 per cent. of the price of the car as regards the year".

  (3) In paragraph 2(2)—

  (a) for "in the year concerned" substitute "in a year", and

  (b) for "the amount ascertained under paragraph 1 above, reduced by one third" substitute "25 per cent. of the price of the car as regards the year".

  (4) For paragraph 4(a) substitute—
  "(a) paragraph 2(1) above shall have effect as if for '15 per cent.' there were substituted '25 per cent.'"
  (5) In paragraph 5, for "one third" substitute "one quarter".
  (6) The preceding paragraphs have effect for the year 1999–00 and subsequent years of assessment.
  (7) This Resolution shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 before 18th May 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 372, Noes 137.

  Division No. 101]

  [11.8 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Allan, Richard

  Benton, Joe

  Allen, Graham

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Best, Harold

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Boateng, Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Borrow, David

  Austin, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Baker, Norman

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Banks, Tony

  Brake, Tom

  Barnes, Harry

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Barron, Kevin

  Breed, Colin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Beard, Nigel

  836

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fisher, Mark

  Browne, Desmond

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Flint, Caroline

  Burden, Richard

  Follett, Barbara

  Burgon, Colin

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Burstow, Paul

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Galbraith, Sam

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Galloway, George

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Canavan, Dennis

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Casale, Roger

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caton, Martin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Cawsey, Ian

  Goggins, Paul

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Chaytor, David

  Gorrie, Donald

  Chidgey, David

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Grogan, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hanson, David

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clelland, David

  Harvey, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Connarty, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Heppell, John

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Corbett, Robin

  Hill, Keith

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoey, Kate

  Cranston, Ross

  Home Robertson, John

  Crausby, David

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hope, Phil

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cummings, John

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Darvill, Keith

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hurst, Alan

  Davidson, Ian

  Hutton, John

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Illsley, Eric

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Denham, John

  Jamieson, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dobbin, Jim

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Efford, Clive

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Etherington, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  837

  Keetch, Paul

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kemp, Fraser

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Khabra, Piara S

  Pike, Peter L

  Kidney, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pollard, Kerry

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pond, Chris

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Pope, Greg

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Laxton, Bob

  Purchase, Ken

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Levitt, Tom

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Radice, Giles

  Linton, Martin

  Rammell, Bill

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rapson, Syd

  Livsey, Richard

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Rendel, David

  Lock, David

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Love, Andrew

  McAllion, John

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCabe, Steve

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rooney, Terry

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Rowlands, Ted

  McDonnell, John

  Roy, Frank

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruane, Chris

  McIsaac, Shona

  Ruddock, Joan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McNulty, Tony

  Salmond, Alex

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Salter, Martin

  McWalter, Tony

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mallaber, Judy

  Sawford, Phil

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Marek, Dr John

  Sheerman, Barry

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Martlew, Eric

  Singh, Marsha

  Maxton, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Miller, Andrew

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

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

  Moore, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Soley, Clive

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Spellar, John

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Morley, Elliot

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stevenson, George

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mudie, George

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mullin, Chris

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stott, Roger

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Oaten, Mark

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Stringer, Graham

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Olner, Bill

  Swinney, John

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, Fit Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Öpik, Lembit

  838

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Watts, David

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Webb, Steve

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Timms, Stephen

  White, Brian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Todd, Mark

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Touhig, Don

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Willis, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Winnick, David

  Truswell, Paul

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Wise, Audrey

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Woolas, Phil

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Worthington, Tony

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tyler, Paul

  Vaz, Keith

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Wallace, James

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hammond, Philip

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hayes, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Beggs, Roy

  Horam, John

  Bercow, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Body, Sir Richard

  Hunter, Andrew

  Boswell, Tim

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Key, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Butterfill, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Cash, William

  Lansley, Andrew

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Chope, Christopher

  Lidington, David

  Clappison, James

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Loughton, Tim

  Collins, Tim

  Luff, Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Day, Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Duncan, Alan

  Maples, John

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Evans, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Faber, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fabricant, Michael

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fallon, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Ottaway, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Page, Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Paice, James

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paterson, Owen

  Fraser, Christopher

  Pickles, Eric

  Garnier, Edward

  Prior, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Randall, John

  Gill, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Robathan, Andrew

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gray, James

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Green, Damian

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Greenway, John

  Ruffley, David

  Grieve, Dominic

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Shepherd, Richard

  839

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Wardle, Charles

  Soames, Nicholas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Steen, Anthony

  Wilkinson, John

  Streeter, Gary

  Willetts, David

  Swayne, Desmond

  Wilshire, David

  Syms, Robert

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Trend, Michael

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I understand that it will be convenient for the House to take motions 26 to 42 together.

  26. TAX TREATMENT OF REVERSE PREMIUMS ETC.
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made with respect to the tax treatment of payments or other benefits received in consideration of, or in connection with, a transaction being entered into under which the person receiving the payment or other benefit, or a person connected with that person, becomes entitled to an estate or interest in, or a right in or over, land.

  27. VOCATIONAL TRAINING RELIEF
  Resolved,
  That—
  (1) For subsection (2) of section 32 of the Finance Act 1991 there shall be substituted—
  "(2) The individual shall be entitled to relief under this subsection in respect of the payment for the year of assessment in which it is made; but relief under this subsection shall be given only on a claim made for the purpose, except where subsections (3) to (5) below apply.
  (2A) Where an individual is entitled to relief under subsection (2) above in respect of any payment made in a year of assessment, the amount of his liability for that year to income tax on his total income shall be the amount to which he would be liable apart from this section less whichever is the smaller of—

  (a) the amount which is equal to such percentage of the amount of the payment as is the basic rate for the year; and

  (b) the amount which reduces his liability to nil.

  (2B) In determining for the purposes of subsection (2A) above the amount of income tax to which a person would be liable apart from this section, no account shall be taken of—

  (a) any income tax reduction under Chapter I of Part VII of the Taxes Act 1988 or under section 347B of that Act;

  (b) any income tax reduction under section 353(1A) of the Taxes Act 1988;

  (c) any relief by way of a reduction of liability to tax which is given in accordance with any arrangements having effect by virtue of section 788 of the Taxes Act 1988 or by way of a credit under section 790(1) of that Act;

  (d) any tax at the basic rate on so much of that person's income as is income the income tax on which he is entitled to charge against any other person or to deduct, retain or satisfy out of any payment."

  (2) This Resolution has effect in relation to payments made on or after 6th April 1999.
  (3) This Resolution shall not require any change to be made in the amounts deductible or repayable under section 203 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 before 18th May 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  28. SETTLEMENTS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending section 660B of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  29. ENTERPRISE INVESTMENT SCHEME
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending Chapter III of Part VII of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 and Schedule 5B to the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

  30. VENTURE CAPITAL TRUSTS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending Schedule 15B to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  31. COURT COMMON INVESTMENT FUNDS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for the purposes of income tax and corporation tax about common investment funds established under section 42 of the Administration of Justice Act 1982.

  32. DISCOUNTED SECURITIES ETC.
  Resolved,
  That provision (including provision having retrospective effect) may be made—

  (a) amending paragraph 3 of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act 1996, paragraphs 19 and 20 of Schedule 15 to that Act and sections 64 and 65 of the Finance Act 1993; and

  (b) modifying section 116 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992.

  33. CHARGEABLE GAINS (VALUE SHIFTING)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about value shifting in relation to the taxation of chargeable gains.

  34. CHARGEABLE GAINS (CONCESSIONS THAT DEFER A CHARGE)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about cases where, after a relief in respect of a chargeable gain has been obtained in reliance on a concession, a charge to tax would arise if the concession were an enactment to the corresponding effect.

  35. PENSION SHARING
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made, for purposes connected with the sharing of pensions between ex-spouses, with respect to pensions and annuities.

  36. PURCHASED LIFE ANNUITIES
  Resolved,
  That section 657(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 shall have effect, and shall be deemed always to have had

  841
  effect, with the substitution of the following paragraph for the "or" at the end of paragraph (d)—
  "(da) to any annuity purchased under or for the purposes of a scheme approved by virtue of section 591 or in pursuance of any obligation imposed, or offer or invitation made, under or in connection with any such scheme;".
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.

  37. EXTRA-STATUTORY ARRANGEMENTS FOR INSURANCE GROUPS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made, in relation to accounting periods beginning on or after 1st January 1999, about disposals of assets the acquisition cost of which has been disregarded on a previous occasion under extra-statutory arrangements relating to groups of insurance companies.

  38. LLOYD'S
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about rights under syndicates held by a member of Lloyd's under a members' agent pooling arrangement.

  39. ADVANCE PRICING AGREEMENTS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made for the effect in any person's case of paragraphs 6 and 7 of Schedule 28AA to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 to be modified by an agreement to which he is not a party.

  40. CONTROLLED FOREIGN COMPANIES
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made amending Part I of Schedule 25 to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  41. GROUP RELIEF (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISION)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made with respect to the consequences of a reduction in the amount available for surrender by way of group relief.

  42. INHERITANCE TAX (GIFTS)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made as to the circumstances in which gifts of land are gifts of property subject to a reservation for the purposes of inheritance tax.

  43. STAMP DUTY (CONVEYANCES AND TRANSFERS ON SALE)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That the following provisions shall have effect for the period beginning with 16th March 1999 and ending 31 days after the earliest of the dates mentioned in section 50(2) of the Finance Act 1973—
  (1) Section 55 of the Finance Act 1963 and section 4 of the Finance Act (Northern Ireland) 1963 shall each be amended in accordance with paragraphs (2) and (3) below.
  (2) In subsection (1)(d), for "£2" there shall be substituted "£2.50p".
  (3) In subsection (1)(e), for "£3" there shall be substituted "£3.50p".
  (4) This Resolution applies to instruments executed on or after 16th March 1999, except where the instrument in question is executed in pursuance of a contract made on or before 9th March 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of section 50 of the Finance Act 1973.
  The House divided: Ayes 365, Noes 137.

  Division No. 102]

  [11.20 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Coaker, Vernon

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coleman, Iain

  Alexander, Douglas

  Connarty, Michael

  Allan, Richard

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Allen, Graham

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Corbett, Robin

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Austin, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Baker, Norman

  Cranston, Ross

  Ballard, Jackie

  Crausby, David

  Banks, Tony

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Barnes, Harry

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Barron, Kevin

  Cummings, John

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Darvill, Keith

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Boateng, Paul

  Denham, John

  Borrow, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brake, Tom

  Doran, Frank

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Breed, Colin

  Drew, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Efford, Clive

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burden, Richard

  Etherington, Bill

  Burgon, Colin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Burstow, Paul

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Canavan, Dennis

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Galbraith, Sam

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Galloway, George

  Chaytor, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chidgey, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Clelland, David

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  843

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McAllion, John

  Grocott, Bruce

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Grogan, John

  McCabe, Steve

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hanson, David

  McDonnell, John

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harvey, Nick

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hesford, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hoey, Kate

  Marek, Dr John

  Home Robertson, John

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hope, Phil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Martlew, Eric

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Maxton, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Miller, Andrew

  Hurst, Alan

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hutton, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moore, Michael

  Illsley, Eric

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jamieson, David

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Morley, Elliot

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Mudie, George

  Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Olner, Bill

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  O'Neill, Martin

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Keetch, Paul

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pearson, Ian

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pike, Peter L

  Khabra, Piara S

  Plaskitt, James

  Kidney, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pond, Chris

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pope, Greg

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Purchase, Ken

  Laxton, Bob

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Leslie, Christopher

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Levitt, Tom

  Radice, Giles

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rammell, Bill

  Linton, Martin

  Rapson, Syd

  Livingstone, Ken

  Raynsford, Nick

  Livsey, Richard

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Rendel, David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Lock, David

  Love, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  844

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rooker, Jeff

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rooney, Terry

  Swinney, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Roy, Frank

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Ruane, Chris

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Timms, Stephen

  Salmond, Alex

  Tipping, Paddy

  Salter, Martin

  Todd, Mark

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Touhig, Don

  Sawford, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Tyler, Paul

  Singh, Marsha

  Vaz, Keith

  Skinner, Dennis

  Wallace, James

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Webb, Steve

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Snape, Peter

  White, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Willis, Phil

  Stevenson, George

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Wise, Audrey

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Woolas, Phil

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stott, Roger

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Amess, David

  Evans, Nigel

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Fallon, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Body, Sir Richard

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fraser, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Garnier, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gibb, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Cash, William

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Gray, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Green, Damian

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Collins, Tim

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Cran, James

  Hammond, Philip

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Hayes, John

  Day, Stephen

  Heald, Oliver

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Duncan, Alan

  Horam, John

  845

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Ruffley, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shepherd, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Letwin, Oliver

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lidington, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Syms, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maples, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Waterson, Nigel

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Wells, Bowen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whittingdale, John

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Page, Richard

  Willetts, David

  Paice, James

  Wilshire, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Prior, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Randall, John

  Yeo, Tim

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robathan, Andrew

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  44. STAMP DUTY AND STAMP DUTY RESERVE TAX
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made in relation to stamp duty and stamp duty reserve tax.

  45. RING FENCE PROFITS
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about persons carrying on activities which fall within any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of subsection (1) of section 492 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988.

  46. PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX (ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made restricting the expenditure that is allowable for the purposes of petroleum revenue tax.

  47. PETROLEUM REVENUE TAX (ASSESSMENTS)
  Resolved,
  That provision may be made about the times when an assessment may be made to petroleum revenue tax.

  48. LANDFILL TAX
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That—
  (1) In section 42 of the Finance Act 1996 (amount of landfill tax), in subsections (1)(a) and (2), for "£7", in each place where it occurs, there shall be substituted "£10".
  (2) This Resolution has effect in relation to taxable disposals made, or treated as made, on or after 1st April 1999.
  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 142.

  Division No. 103]

  [11.33 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clelland, David

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Alexander, Douglas

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Allan, Richard

  Coleman, Iain

  Allen, Graham

  Connarty, Michael

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cooper, Yvette

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Corbett, Robin

  Austin, John

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Baker, Norman

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cotter, Brian

  Banks, Tony

  Cranston, Ross

  Barnes, Harry

  Crausby, David

  Barron, Kevin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Beard, Nigel

  Cummings, John

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Darvill, Keith

  Benton, Joe

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Davidson, Ian

  Best, Harold

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dawson, Hilton

  Blizzard, Bob

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Boateng, Paul

  Denham, John

  Borrow, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brake, Tom

  Doran, Frank

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Dowd, Jim

  Breed, Colin

  Drew, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Efford, Clive

  Browne, Desmond

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Etherington, Bill

  Burden, Richard

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Burgon, Colin

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Burstow, Paul

  Fisher, Mark

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Flint, Caroline

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Follett, Barbara

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Canavan, Dennis

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Casale, Roger

  Galbraith, Sam

  Caton, Martin

  Galloway, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chaytor, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chidgey, David

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clapham, Michael

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Goggins, Paul

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  847

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Grocott, Bruce

  McDonnell, John

  Grogan, John

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hanson, David

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McNulty, Tony

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heppell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marek, Dr John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Martlew, Eric

  Hope, Phil

  Maxton, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moore, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keetch, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pond, Chris

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pope, Greg

  Khabra, Piara S

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Radice, Giles

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Laxton, Bob

  Rapson, Syd

  Leslie, Christopher

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rendel, David

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Livsey, Richard

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lock, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McAllion, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCabe, Steve

  Roy, Frank

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ruane, Chris

  848

  Ruddock, Joan

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Sanders, Adrian

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Timms, Stephen

  Sawford, Phil

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Todd, Mark

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Touhig, Don

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Trickett, Jon

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Truswell, Paul

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Singh, Marsha

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wallace, James

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Snape, Peter

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Soley, Clive

  Wareing, Robert N

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Watts, David

  Spellar, John

  Webb, Steve

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  White, Brian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stevenson, George

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Willis, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Winnick, David

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stott, Roger

  Wise, Audrey

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Woolas, Phil

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Worthington, Tony

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and Mr. Keith Hill.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fallon, Michael

  Amess, David

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Beggs, Roy

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Bercow, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Boswell, Tim

  Gibb, Nick

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gill, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Goodlad, Ftt Hon Sir Alastair

  Burns, Simon

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Butterfill, John

  Gray, James

  Cash, William

  Green, Damian

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Greenway, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Chope, Christopher

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Clappison, James

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hammond, Philip

  Collins, Tim

  Hawkins, Nick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hayes, John

  Cran, James

  Heald, Oliver

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Horam, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Day, Stephen

  Hunter, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Evans, Nigel

  Key, Robert

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Faber, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  849

  Lansley, Andrew

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Leigh, Edward

  Shepherd, Richard

  Letwin, Oliver

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lidington, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Spring, Richard

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Loughton, Tim

  Steen, Anthony

  Luff, Peter

  Streeter, Gary

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Swayne, Desmond

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Swinney, John

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Maples, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Tredinnick, David

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Trend, Michael

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Page, Richard

  Welsh, Andrew

  Paice, James

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Paterson, Owen

  Whittingdale, John

  Pickles, Eric

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Prior, David

  Wilkinson, John

  Randall, John

  Willetts, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wilshire, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Yeo, Tim

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ruffley, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Salmond, Alex

  Sir David Madel and

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  49. INSURANCE PREMIUM TAX (STANDARD RATE)
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That—
  (1) In section 51(2)(b) of the Finance Act 1994, for "4 per cent." there shall be substituted "5 per cent."
  (2) Paragraph (1) above has effect in relation to a premium which falls to be regarded for the purposes of Part III of the Finance Act 1994 as received under a taxable insurance contract by an insurer on or after 1st July 1999.
  (3) Paragraph (1) above does not have effect in relation to a premium which—

  (a) is in respect of a contract made before 1st July 1999, and

  (b) falls to be regarded for the purposes of Part III of that Act as received under the contract by the insurer on a date before 1st January 2000, by virtue of regulations under section 68 of that Act.

  (4) Paragraph (3) above does not apply in relation to a premium which—

  (a) is an additional premium under a contract,

  (b) falls to be regarded for the purposes of Part III of that Act as received under the contract by the insurer on or after 1st July 1999, by virtue of regulations under section 68 of that Act, and

  (c) is in respect of a risk which was not covered by the contract before 1st July 1999.

  (5) In the application of sections 67A to 67C of that Act in relation to the increase under paragraph (1) above and the exception under paragraph (3) above—
  850

  (a) the announcement for the purpose of sections 67A(1) and 67B(1) shall be taken to have been made on 9th March 1999,

  (b) the date of the change is 1st July 1999, and

  (c) the concessionary date is 1st January 2000.

  And it is hereby declared that it is expedient in the public interest that this Resolution should have statutory effect under the provisions of the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act 1968.
  The House divided: Ayes 350, Noes 140.

  Division No. 104]

  [11.44 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clelland, David

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Coleman, lain

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Connarty, Michael

  Austin, John

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Baker, Norman

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Corbett, Robin

  Banks, Tony

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Barnes, Harry

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Barron, Kevin

  Cotter, Brian

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cranston, Ross

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Benton, Joe

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Best, Harold

  Darvill, Keith

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davidson, Ian

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Boateng, Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Borrow, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Denham, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Dismore, Andrew

  Brake, Tom

  Dobbin, Jim

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Breed, Colin

  Doran, Frank

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Dowd, Jim

  Drew, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Browne, Desmond

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Efford, Clive

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Burden, Richard

  Ennis, Jeff

  Burgon, Colin

  Etherington, Bill

  Burstow, Paul

  Feam, Ronnie

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Flint, Caroline

  Canavan, Dennis

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Galloway, George

  Chaytor, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chidgey, David

  Gerrard, Neil

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Clapham, Michael

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  851

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Goggins, Paul

  Lock, David

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Love, Andrew

  Gorrie, Donald

  McAllion, John

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McCabe, Steve

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Grocott, Bruce

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Grogan, John

  McDonnell, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Hanson, David

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  McNulty, Tony

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Heppell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Marek, Dr John

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hoey, Kate

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Home Robertson, John

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Martlew, Eric

  Hope, Phil

  Maxton, John

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moore, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hutton, John

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Illsley, Eric

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mudie, George

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Oaten, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keetch, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Plaskitt, James

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Pond, Chris

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pope, Greg

  Khabra, Piara S

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kidney, David

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Radice, Giles

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Laxton, Bob

  Rapson, Syd

  Leslie, Christopher

  Raynsford, Nick

  Levitt, Tom

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rendel, David

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Livsey, Richard

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  852

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Rooker, Jeff

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rooney, Terry

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Roy, Frank

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Ruane, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Ruddock, Joan

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Timms, Stephen

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Todd, Mark

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Sawford, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Sheerman, Barry

  Truswell, Paul

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tyler, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wallace, James

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Watts, David

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

  Webb, Steve

  Snape, Peter

  White, Brian

  Soley, Clive

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Spellar, John

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Willis, Phil

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Winnick, David

  Stevenson, George

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Wise, Audrey

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Woolas, Phil

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Worthington, Tony

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stott, Roger

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  Stringer, Graham

  Mr. Keith Hill.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Evans, Nigel

  Amess, David

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Faber, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Beggs, Roy

  Fallon, Michael

  Bercow, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Boswell, Tim

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Fraser, Christopher

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Garnier, Edward

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gibb, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Cash, William

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Gray, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Green, Damian

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Collins, Tim

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Cran, James

  Hammond, Philip

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Hayes, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Heald, Oliver

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Day, Stephen

  Horam, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Hunter, Andrew

  853

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Salmond, Alex

  Key, Robert

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Soames, Nicholas

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Leigh, Edward

  Spring, Richard

  Letwin, Oliver

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Steen, Anthony

  Lidington, David

  Streeter, Gary

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Swayne, Desmond

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Swinney, John

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Syms, Robert

  Loughton, Tim

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Luff, Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tredinnick, David

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Trend, Michael

  Maples, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Wardle, Charles

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Waterson, Nigel

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Wells, Bowen

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Whittingdale, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Page, Richard

  Wilkinson, John

  Paice, James

  Willetts, David

  Paterson, Owen

  Wilshire, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Prior, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Randall, John

  Woodward, Shaun

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Yeo, Tim

  Robathan, Andrew

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Sir David Madel and

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  50. RELIEF FROM TAX (INCIDENTAL AND CONSEQUENTIAL CHARGES)
  Resolved,
  That it is expedient to authorise any incidental or consequential charges to any duty or tax (including charges having retrospective effect) which may arise from provisions designed in general to afford relief from taxation.

  PROCEDURE (VAT LIABILITIES OF GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS)
  Resolved,
  That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain provision (including provision having retrospective effect) for allowing deductions to be made in respect of value added tax liabilities before the receipts of a Government department are paid into the Consolidated Fund.

  PROCEDURE (FUTURE TAXATION)
  Resolved,
  That, notwithstanding anything to the contrary in the practice of the House relating to the matters which may be included in Finance
  854
  Bills, any Finance Bill of the present Session may contain the following provisions taking effect in a future year—

  (a) provision about indexation of the limits for rates of income tax;

  (b) provision for corporation tax to be charged for the financial year 2000;

  (c) provision as to the rates at which corporation tax is charged;

  (d) provision for the introduction of a tax credit in respect of children;

  (e) provision about married couple's allowance;

  (f) provision for and in connection with the abolition of widow's bereavement allowance and additional relief in respect of children;

  (g) provision about maintenance payments and other annual payments;

  (h) provision relating to income tax relief for interest payments;

  (i) provision amending section 548 of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988;

  (j) provision abolishing vocational training relief under sections 32 and 33 of the Finance Act 1991;

  (k) provision amending section 48(2)(a) of the Finance (No. 2) Act 1997.

  FINANCE [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put,
  That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to finance, it is expedient to authorize—

  (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of sums required by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue and the Commissioners of Customs and Excise in order to secure that, if the United Kingdom were to move to the third stage of economic and monetary union, they would be able to exercise their functions relating to taxes and duties (including agricultural levies of the European Community);

  (b) any increase attributable to any provision of that Act relating to the Debt Management Account in the sums payable out of or into the National Loans Fund or the Consolidated Fund; and

  (c) any payments out of or into that Account.

  The House divided: Ayes 351, Noes 132.

  Division No. 105]

  [11.56 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benton, Joe

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Alexander, Douglas

  Best, Harold

  Allan, Richard

  Betts, Clive

  Allen, Graham

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Armstrong, Ms Hilary

  Boateng, Paul

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Borrow, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Austin, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Baker, Norman

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ballard, Jackie

  Brake, Tom

  Banks, Tony

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Barnes, Harry

  Breed, Colin

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Beard, Nigel

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Browne, Desmond

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Buck, Ms Karen

  855

  Burden, Richard

  Galloway, George

  Burgon, Colin

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Burstow, Paul

  Gerrard, Neil

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Goggins, Paul

  Canavan, Dennis

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gorrie, Donald

  Casale, Roger

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caton, Martin

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Chaytor, David

  Grocott, Bruce

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Grogan, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hanson, David

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Coleman, lain

  Hesford, Stephen

  Connarty, Michael

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hill, Keith

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Corbett, Robin

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hoey, Kate

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Home Robertson, John

  Cotter, Brian

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Cranston, Ross

  Hope, Phil

  Crausby, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cummings, John

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cunningham, Ms Roseanna (Perth)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Dafis, Cynog

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Dalyell, Tarn

  Hurst, Alan

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Hutton, John

  Darvill, Keith

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Illsley, Eric

  Davidson, Ian

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jamieson, David

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jenkins, Brian

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Denham, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Drew, David

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Efford, Clive

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Keetch, Paul

  Etherington, Bill

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kemp, Fraser

  Feam, Ronnie

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fisher, Mark

  Kidney, David

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Follett, Barbara

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  856

  Laxton, Bob

  Radice, Giles

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rammell, Bill

  Levitt, Tom

  Rapson, Syd

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Linton, Martin

  Rendel, David

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)

  Livsey, Richard

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lock, David

  Rooker, Jeff

  Love, Andrew

  Rooney, Terry

  McAllion, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCabe, Steve

  Roy, Frank

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Salmond, Alex

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sanders, Adrian

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNulty, Tony

  Sawford, Phil

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mallaber, Judy

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Marek, Dr John

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Singh, Marsha

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Maxton, John

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Shefld Heeley)

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Milbum, Rt Hon Alan

  Snape, Peter

  Miller, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  Mitchell, Austin

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Spellar, John

  Moore, Michael

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Stevenson, George

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mountford, Kali

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mudie, George

  Stott, Roger

  Mullin, Chris

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Oaten, Mark

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Swinney, John

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, David (NWLeics)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Öpik, Lembit

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Tipping, Paddy

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Todd, Mark

  Pearson, Ian

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Pickthall, Colin

  Touhig, Don

  Pike, Peter L

  Trickett, Jon

  Plaskitt, James

  Truswell, Paul

  Pollard, Kerry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Pond, Chris

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pope, Greg

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Tyler, Paul

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Vaz, Keith

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wallace, James

  Purchase, Ken

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Wareing, Robert N

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Watts, David

  857

  Webb, Steve

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Welsh, Andrew

  Wise, Audrey

  White, Brian

  Woolas, Phil

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Worthington, Tony

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Willis, Phil

  Jane Kennedy and

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Amess, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gray, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Damian

  Beggs, Roy

  Greenway, John

  Bercow, John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Boswell, Tim

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Hammond, Philip

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Burns, Simon

  Hayes, John

  Butterfill, John

  Heald, Oliver

  Cash, William

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Horam, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Chope, Christopher

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Clappison, James

  Hunter, Andrew

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Key, Robert

  Cran, James

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Day, Stephen

  Lansley, Andrew

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Leigh, Edward

  Duncan, Alan

  Letwin, Oliver

  Duncan Smith, lain

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Evans, Nigel

  Lidington, David

  Faber, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Fallon, Michael

  Loughton, Tim

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Luff, Peter

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fraser, Christopher

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Garnier, Edward

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Gibb, Nick

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Gill, Christopher

  Madel, Sir David

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Maples, John

  858

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Streeter, Gary

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Swayne, Desmond

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Syms, Robert

  Moss, Malcolm

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Paterson, Owen

  Tredinnick, David

  Pickles, Eric

  Trend, Michael

  Prior, David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Randall, John

  Wardle, Charles

  Waterson, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wells, Bowen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Whittingdale, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Wilkinson, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Willetts, David

  Ruffley, David

  Wilshire, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Woodward, Shaun

  Shepherd, Richard

  Yeo, Tim

  Soames, Nicholas

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Spring, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

  Steen, Anthony

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Secretary Prescott, Mr. Secretary Straw, Mr. Secretary Blunkett, Mr. Secretary Dobson, Mr. Secretary Darling, Mr. Secretary Byers, Mr. Alan Milburn, Dawn Primarolo, Mrs. Barbara Roche and Ms Patricia Hewitt do prepare and bring it in.

  FINANCE BILL
  Mrs. Barbara Roche accordingly presented a Bill to grant certain duties, to alter other duties, and to amend the law relating to the National Debt and the Public Revenue, and to make further provision in connection with Finance: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time this day, and to be printed [Bill 62].

  Chess
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
  12.8 am
  Dr. Evan Harris: I am pleased to raise in this Adjournment debate the important issue of the future funding and support for chess in the United Kingdom. I am delighted to welcome the Minister for Sport to the debate. He was recently "outed" in a national newspaper as an intellectual, when he declared his support for chess in The Independent's question and answer section. Those of us who follow such issues recognise that the Minister has long been a supporter and true friend of chess in this country. It is with such sporting challenges in mind that I challenge him tonight—if only it were over a game of chess—to agree with me on the future funding and support for chess in the United Kingdom.
  The campaign for Government support for chess has been a long one. I am especially pleased to see the hon. Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins) in her place. She has been a strong advocate for chess in the House and she tabled early-day motion 1609 in the previous Session, which deserves to be read into the record. It states:
  "That this House recognises that chess is a sport at which the United Kingdom really excels; notes that the United Kingdom is the second strongest chess nation in the world after Russia and currently European champions, and that there is a possibility of a British world champion with both Michael Adams and Nigel Short amongst the top dozen players in the world; notes it is played by four million people in this country with no cultural or physical boundaries, being played by children and adults of all ages; further notes that the Government spends £49,000 compared to Greece which spends £337,000 per year; further notes that the World Chess Federation is the second largest sporting association in the world, second only to FIFA, with the vast majority of countries recognising chess as a sport; notes also the extensive and numerous academic research that has shown the high educational and social impact of chess when available at school; further notes that chess teaches children co-ordination, concentration, social and interactive skills, to plan ahead, and most importantly to take responsibility for their decisions; notes the Marguiles Report conducted in the United States of America which showed improved learning in children who were taught chess compared with those who were not; and that in consequence numerous states have put chess on the curriculum; further notes the Minister of Sport's previous statements about his support for the game of chess; and calls upon the Minister to encourage the Sports Council to recognise chess."
  Our debate is about the inadequacy of current funding and the failure of chess to be able to access alternative sources of funding, such as the Foundation for Sport and the Arts and the national lottery sports funds. That is due to the collective decision of the UK Sports Councils not to recognise chess as a sport and, therefore, as a suitable recipient of funds.
  Other sources of funds that might be available—such as the lottery's new opportunities fund for schools—are, by their nature, limited, given all the other bids for that funding. The situation is bad for chess as a sport, bad for chess players, bad for children's education and bad for this country's reputation.
  My earliest memory of chess—as perhaps is the Minister's—is of the dramatic 1972 world championship when Boris Spassky failed to defend his title against the extrovert, maverick American genius Bobby Fischer.
  860
  I remember that British chess grew in the ensuing years following the publicity around that event. Schools chess grew in particular, and the UK began to have its own grandmasters and international masters—Tony Miles, Raymond Keene, Michael Stean, William Hartston and John Nunn, who were followed in due course by Nigel Short, Julian Hodgson, David Norwood—against whom I used to play as a school player—Michael Adams and Malcolm Pein from Liverpool, where I grew up.
  Since then, we have consistently been, for around a decade, one of the top two or three countries in the chess world. That has happened in spite of the facilities for chess, not because of them. I certainly enjoy playing chess, as many people do. I enjoyed it for the pure fun of taking part. Actually, if I am honest, I enjoyed winning and hated losing—perhaps that is why I am Liberal Democrat.
  I was lucky. My state school had a teacher—Ken Champion—who was interested and who gave up enormous amounts of his time to drive minibuses around the north-west so that we could play other schools. I feel that chess developed my intellect. It certainly developed my team work and my ability to plan. Chess also imbued one with a sense of responsibility that came from being part of a team. I was lucky enough to be spotted by a well-known chess club—Atticus—which was well known both in the region and nationally. I had the good fortune to play for that club for many years, although in only the third or fourth team.
  I once played against a formidable woman opponent from Formby chess club, and she later became the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle), although it may have been the Under-Secretary of State for Social Security, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Angela Eagle)—then, more than now, it was difficult to tell them apart. I was fortunate to scrape a draw.
  In 1997–98, Government funding was £49,000—a direct grant from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to the British Chess Federation. Because of the pressures of public expenditure, there was a real terms cut in 1998–99 as the amount stayed at £49,000. For next year, there will be a further real terms cut as the increase has been only 2 per cent., welcome though that is.
  Spending by the BCF from those limited funds will be £14,000 or thereabouts in schools, which puts the federation in a difficult position. As better players emerge, they need funding to go to international tournaments abroad, which squeezes the funds available from the grant for schools. Although, the BCF works hard to develop coaching and training opportunities for young people and to promote links between schools and chess clubs, it is difficult to see how it can be done on such a small budget.
  Mr. Phil Willis: The news that the entire European Commission has resigned broke a few minutes ago. Does my hon. Friend feel that that will affect the future of chess in Europe?
  Dr. Harris: Obviously, my hon. Friend will be pleased to have got that on the record. I will mention comparisons with Europe later. In many ways the Europeans are ahead of us in this matter, although perhaps not on the issue that he mentioned.
  British chess has had to rely on getting by with other funds. Obviously, British chess—in particular schools chess—is grateful to sponsors who had supported a

  861
  recreation and, I believe, a sport that does not get the television exposure that it deserves. In that context Saitek, which has recently funded junior chess, will be joining many hon. Members in the House at an event in the next few days to publicise the superb quality of schools chess and should be thanked for its support. There has been an explosion in chess in schools, but that is not due to, but despite, the lack of investment. Educationally, chess is recognised to be very good. Indeed, it used to be looked after by the Department for Education and Employment.
  The hon. Member for Moorlands obtained a written answer recently from the Minister for School Standards in which she said that the Government very much welcome the opportunities which many schools provide for their pupils to take part in such activities. With reference to chess she said that it was open to schools to offer such activities as extra-curricular options, which the Government see as an important part of a broad and balanced education. However, as budgets are squeezed and as pressure on teacher's time increases, it is hard to see how that sort of activity can prosper.
  Women's and girls' chess is strong in this country. Recently, I was pleased to meet the world under-18 champion, Ruth Sheldon, at a tournament in Oxford. She will shortly become my constituent when she comes to Oxford university, which I am afraid to say was soundly beaten by another university in the recent Varsity match.
  Charlotte Atkins: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the organisation of women's chess is in an appalling state? The achievements of the 11-year-old Jessie Gilbert, the youngest women's amateur world chess champion and Ruth Sheldon, the world junior under-18 female champion, are even more spectacular given the limited organisation of women's chess. Obviously, we have tremendous talent, but we do not have the organisation to allow those people to realise their full potential.
  Dr. Harris: I agree. I am pleased that in Oxford we have our own chess prodigies in the Hunt siblings, Adam and Harriet, who have been British champions at various ages.
  Indeed, the Minister is aware of the problem of women's access to sport and recreational activity. Following the debate on sport for all in July 1997, which he will remember, he wrote to the hon. Member for Garston to point out that he wanted women to be actively involved in all sports and he said that the national lottery sports fund was an important mechanism to level the playing field and to develop women's sport—in particular, sports that had been male dominated. For that reason, as with all other sports, it is important that chess can access the funds that have been made available by the lottery.
  As the Minister knows, lottery funding is not available because the English Sports Council does not consider chess to be a sport. He has said that schools may be able to access the new opportunities fund for after-school activities. I would be interested to know whether he has any data on whether schools have been successful in getting such funding for chess because of all the other pressures from schools on the fund and the need to have good facilities for after-school clubs.
  There is a feeling that the sports establishment does not want chess to compete for scarce public funds, or that there is a philistine prejudice against the so-called "nerds"
  862
  and "anoraks" who are deemed to play chess. I stand before the House as proof that it is not only nerds and anoraks who play; my hon. Friends are all nodding in agreement.
  The Minister has often identified the problem. I hope that he will develop it in his answer to the debate. The UK Sports Councils are public bodies set up by royal charter. As such, they enjoy a certain independence from the Government. They have developed a system of recognition to decide which activities and organisations should be eligible for support to ensure that public funds are distributed as efficiently and effectively as possible, as they see it. In several letters, he has pointed out to hon. Members that they deem that suitability for recognition includes requirements for physical skills and effort. Elsewhere he has talked of physical skills, effort and challenge. In other places, he has mentioned other words. I hope that the Minister agrees that in many ways, chess is a challenge, and a physical and mental effort. It certainly qualifies as a sport by almost every definition.
  The Minister knows that other European countries are increasingly recognising chess as a sport. Austria, Finland, Germany, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain all recognise it as a sport. In many cases, chess is part of the national Olympic body. Soon, it may be that the International Olympic Committee will recognise it as a sport while the English Sports Councils do not. I know that he supports the case, so I do not believe that the sports councils can hold out much longer in their old-fashioned view that chess, a sport in which we excel, should not be considered a sport.
  Given that I hope that the Minister will agree that there is a cogent case for recognising chess as a sport to enable it to access the lottery funds that it desperately needs for development, for its support in schools and for the development of women's chess, the only barrier to getting such recognition may be legislative. If it is, I would be grateful if he could clarify that. This is a doing Government. If it is a question of Government action, I know that chess players will not have to wait long. In this campaign, I hope that we are truly in the end game and that he will deliver from the Dispatch Box tonight the check mate.
  12.23 am
  The Minister for Sport (Mr. Tony Banks): I congratulate the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) on securing this debate, but he chose a wretchedly inconvenient evening. For me, it completes a day between the Scylla of dodgy boxing results and the Charybdis of chess recognition. I have total sympathy with his case, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Charlotte Atkins).
  Chess is a sport in which there are no barriers of physical ability or between the sexes. Both counts commend it to me. I have received many representations from hon. Members, to some of which the hon. Gentleman referred. I have publicly expressed my support for chess to be recognised as a sport, and I gladly reaffirm that. The question of what is or is not a support is vexed. It is not a matter of semantics, but a crucial decision. Once recognition is given, sports can receive funding from the Sports Councils and the lottery and certain tax advantages, especially in respect of VAT. Regrettably, as he noted, recognition is not in the gift of the Government.

  863
  Personally, I think it should be, because I am very much a hands-on Minister, but responsibility for deciding what is or is not a sport currently resides with the Sports Councils.
  We have 112 recognised sports in this country, but the Sports Councils use a definition of what constitutes a sport, the system for which is based on several principles that broadly relate to physical skill, physical effort, accessibility, rules, organisation and so on. My officials have discussed the difficulties that arise in connection with activities such as chess, but predominant among the criteria against which the councils assess suitability for recognition remain requirements for physical skill and physical effort.
  I believe that the definition used is too restrictive. It appears to be rooted in a belief that mental activity does not require physical effort. That is an old-fashioned notion, based on the caricature that I experienced when I was a kid at school, that the bright ones read books and the thickos play sport. I read the article by Jon Speelman in The Independent today, in which he describes Nigel Short losing a stone in weight during a week-and-a-half match. It is clear that top chess players, if they want to excel at technical level, need to be physically fit to do that; the two cannot be divided.
  The main barrier in terms of definition appears to be the Physical Training and Recreation Act 1937. The legal advice received by my Department concludes that chess does not fall within the meaning of the words "physical training and recreation" in section 3(1) of that Act. My Department has invested nearly £150,000 over the past three years to help the British Chess Federation to promote the development of chess, and we recently committed a further £50,000 per annum over the next three years. My Department makes over that money to the BCF under the annual Appropriation Acts because of the restrictions imposed by the 1937 Act.
  It cannot be sensible in 1999 to have the issue of recognition tied to a definition struck in 1937. The world of sport and our attitudes toward sport have changed dramatically during the intervening 62 years. As if the 1937 Act were not enough of a problem, there is worse to come: chess does not fall within the meaning of the word "sport" in the context of the Sports Councils' current royal charters; and it appears unlikely that chess would be regarded as a sport under the National Lottery etc. Act 1993.
  Let me set out the problems facing us. First, to gain recognition for chess, we would need primary legislation to change the 1937 Act; secondly, we would need to amend the royal charters, which would need to promulgated by the Sports Councils themselves; and, thirdly, we would probably need primary legislation to amend the National Lottery etc. Act 1993. Think about that. Who was it who said that the job of the Minister for Sport was all about free tickets and lager? However, do not despair—I have a cunning plan, which I shall announce in due course.
  When I answered readers' questions in The Independent recently, I said, inter alia, that I wanted recognition for chess because we are very good at it. As the hon. Gentleman said—and this was in the early-day motion tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Moorlands—
  864
  we are the second nation in the world after Russia in terms of chess success. In this country, 4 million people play chess, and in England alone 50,000 children in some 3,000 clubs play it. As my hon. Friend said, we have some spectacular young chess players; she mentioned 11-year-old Jessie Gilbert from Croydon, who became the youngest winner of an adult world title by winning the women's gold medal at the world amateur chess championships in January. We are extremely proud of what Jessie Gilbert has achieved for chess and for this country.
  We could go on to talk about the great double triumph in Croatia, where the England men's team became European champions ahead of the Russians, and the England women's team took the bronze medal. We are talking about a big sporting success story in a country that wants sporting success, enjoys that success and at times feels deprived of it. That makes our failure to grant recognition all the more absurd. Yet, while we have imprisoned ourselves in our own legislation, other countries have forged ahead: 98 nations worldwide recognise chess as a sport; and 37 European countries do so, of which eight are partner members of the European Union.
  As I said, recognition is not an academic issue: it would bring tangible benefits for the development of chess. Therefore, I can inform the House that the Secretary of State has proposed to broaden the scope of the 1937 Act to enable chess and other mind games to be funded by the UK Sports Council. We will do that as part of the new cultural framework Bill for which we are seeking legislative time. Once that is achieved, the Sports Council, in turn, will need to promulgate the appropriate amendments to its royal charters, which I feel certain it will want to do following our amendments to the 1937 Act. That would secure the recognition of chess.
  However, we would still be left with the problem of the 1993 lottery Act. It would require primary legislation to amend if chess is to receive funding through the lottery sports fund—unless we can find a way around it. At the moment, all I can say is that I must consider the matter carefully and consult on it. As I understand it, if we can reach an agreed definition of sport, we will not need to change the 1993 Act via primary legislation.
  Dr. Harris: May I take this opportunity to welcome the Minister's words warmly, which will be well received by many chess players in the country at large? I am also grateful to the Minister for explaining the problems that we face. I hope that I am not pushing the boat out too far by also putting in a plug for bridge, to which many of the arguments also apply. I hope that the proposed legislation will cover bridge as well.
  Mr. Banks: The hon. Gentleman could seek to secure another Adjournment debate on the subject of bridge—perhaps at a more convenient time of day. The fact is that the amendment to the 1937 Act would include mind games.
  We must arrive at a definition of sport that is agreeable and acceptable, and, with good will, we will achieve it. It is currently a nonsense situation and, quite frankly, I do not like presiding over nonsense situations. I intend to consult on the matter to see whether we can achieve an agreed definition of sport. If we can, we might not have

  865
  to jump the third hurdle that I described: amending the 1993 lottery Act. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new opportunities fund. It is not just a matter for schools: the British Chess Federation is eligible to apply for lottery funding to promote chess in after-school clubs using the new opportunities fund. I hope that it will do so.
  I congratulate the hon. Gentleman and other right hon. and hon. Members—particularly my good friend the hon. Member for Moorlands—who have campaigned assiduously for chess to be recognised as a sport. I think
  866
  we will see the end of this match and that, with good will on all sides, we can achieve the objectives that we have set ourselves. I hope that, with tonight's Adjournment debate, we have started the process that will bring this country into line with so many other European Union nations and countries around the world that recognise the superb game of chess as a real sport.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to One o'clock.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council if she will list those Ministers in her Department who were present at the recent Brit Awards in an official capacity, indicating the organisation acting as their sponsor or host. [76649]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Neither I nor the Parliamentary Secretary attended the Brit Awards.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Ministerial Statements
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what steps she proposes to take to ensure that copies of ministerial statements and accompanying documents are available in the Vote Office at No 7 Millbank on the day of the statement. [76576]

  Mrs. Roe
  The Vote Office endeavours to arrange distribution of ministerial statements throughout the Parliamentary estate on the same afternoon that such statements are made, where considerations of security, timing and the quantity of documents make this possible. However, it would be impracticable for the Vote Office to undertake always to distribute unknown quantities of documents which often arrive very late (or even sometimes after a statement) unless a van was made permanently available to the office, which would not be economic.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Budget (Contributions)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in respect of possible increases in United Kingdom contributions to the EU budget which do not involve modifying the Fontainebleau rebate procedures. [75059]

  The Prime Minister
  The UK is arguing that spending on the existing Union should be stabilised at its present levels by 2006. This will ensure that the present member states can afford the additional costs of enlargement to central and eastern Europe. Stabilisation will help to keep down the largest net contributions, including the UK's "Co-financing" and other reforms of the CAP also have a role here.

  Even with these measures the Fontainebleau arrangements will remain justified. Even after the rebate the UK's net contribution will remain much larger than those of some more prosperous states.
  440

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his answer of 1 March 1999,Official Report, columns 527–28, on economic and monetary union, if he will list the microeconomic reforms he has put in place which will contribute to the passing of the five economic tests for joining the euro. [75164]

  The Prime Minister
  The Treasury's assessment of the five economic tests, published in October 1997, concluded that"weaknesses remain in the UK which make it unclear that we are ready to be able to cope adequately with potential shocks that might arise in EMU, especially in the early years. The Government's welfare to work programme and the agendas for improving skills and competition will help to remove the underlying weaknesses that remain and improve the prospects of being ready to meet the flexibility test in years to come".

  Chernobyl
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to the Ukranian Government regarding future power production at Chernobyl; and if he will make a statement. [75938]

  The Prime Minister
  Last year, in my capacity as G7 Chairman, I wrote to Ukranian President Kuchma on three occasions. These letters covered a number of issues relating to the G7/Ukraine Memorandum of Understanding on the closure of Chernobyl, including the safety improvements being carried out at the plant, the importance of power sector reform in Ukraine and the proposed financing package for the completion of the Khmulnitsky 2 and Rovno 4 nuclear power reactors. In particular, I consistently stressed the need for Ukraine to honour its commitment to close Chernobyl by the year 2000, as agreed under the Memorandum.

  EU Fraud
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the steps taken to work with the European Commission in countering fraud at EU level; and if he will publish the memoranda submitted by Her Majesty's Government to the President of the European Commission. [76199]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: The Government believe that there must be a policy of zero tolerance to fraud and have consistently supported the European Commission in initiatives to fight fraud against the EC budget.

  At the January ECOFIN Council, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor called for a strong, independent head of fraud investigations, reporting to an independent management board. These ideas are being used in discussions currently taking place on how to strengthen internal fraud investigations. Following this, the Government offered practical assistance to the Commission, specifically offering to share UK experience of best practice on codes of conduct for behaviour in public life. I am pleased to say that this offer was welcomed and officials have been in contact to take this forward. It is among the issues that will be covered in joint training with Commission officials and officials from other Member States starting in September of this year.
  441
  The Government have not submitted a memorandum to the European Commission regarding countering fraud at EU level.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements he plans to make for the appointment of special advisers following devolution for Scotland and Wales. [77193]

  The Prime Minister
  An amendment has been made to the Civil Service Order in Council to allow for the appointment of a limited number of Special Advisers to Ministers in the Scottish Parliament and Assembly Secretaries in the National Assembly for Wales. The amendment takes account of the new ministerial arrangements that will apply in Scotland and Wales following devolution, and sets out the terms and conditions under which they can be employed including an upper limit on the numbers that can be appointed. A copy of the amended Order has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent discussions he has had with the Prime Minister of Spain about Gibraltar with particular reference to(a) frontier delays and (b) the allegations made by the Spanish Foreign Minister about criminal activity in Gibraltar; and if he will make a statement. [76659]

  The Prime Minister
  In the last month, I have discussed the delays at the Gibraltar/Spain border twice with the Spanish Prime Minister, Sr. Aznar, most recently on 25 February. I made it clear that we regarded the delays as unacceptable and unjustifiable.

  The Spanish Foreign Minister's remarks were made after my meeting on 25 February. I have not discussed them with Sr. Aznar. Sr. Aznar's staff handed over on 26 February a paper referring to some alleged cases of criminal activity in Gibraltar. We have been looking into these allegations, together with the relevant Gibraltar authorities, and expect to respond very shortly.

  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Prime Minister what reasons underlie the length of time taken to grant to Gibraltar the ability to passport financial services. [76581]

  The Prime Minister
  In June 1997, after discussion with the Department of Trade and Industry, the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission was authorised to "passport" Gibraltar-based insurance companies to operate in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in the European Union. Authorisation for "passporting" in the fields of banking and investment services will be granted when the relevant financial services regulatory authorities in the United Kingdom are satisfied that Gibraltar has introduced the necessary legislation and regulatory structure and procedures.

  British-Irish Council
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Prime Minister when the British-Irish Council will be established; and if he will make a statement. [76999]
  442
  The Prime Minister
  The British-Irish Council (BIC) will be established immediately on entry into force of the Good Friday Agreement reached at Belfast on 10 April 1998. Membership of the BIC will comprise representatives of the British and Irish Government, of the devolved institutions in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, and the Isle of Man, Jersey and Guernsey. Its secretariat will be provided by the British and Irish Governments in co-ordination with officials of each of the other members. I have asked the Minister for the Cabinet Office to take responsibility within the British Government for matters relating to the BIC, including the necessary preparatory work.

  Intelligence Service
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will review the access that the Foreign Affairs Committee has to appropriate intelligence material and witnesses from the Secret Intelligence Service. [71827]

  The Prime Minister
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office gave the Foreign Affairs Committee unprecedented access to key official documents for the purpose of its inquiry on Sierra Leone. It is the Government's view that the Intelligence and Security Committee, set up by the previous Government under the Intelligence Services Act 1994, is the appropriate forum for Parliamentary oversight of the Intelligence Agencies. The Intelligence and Security Committee has been conducting its own inquiry into Sierra Leone. No previous Administration has ever agreed to witnesses from the Secret Intelligence Service appearing before Select Committees.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Asset Management
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what assessment the Commissioners have made of the cost benefit of co-ordinating management of assets with churches of other Christian denominations in England. [76043]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Church Commissioners act as trustees for the management of their own endowment and have no general power to offer investment management for others. However, they are always willing, with their partners in the Archbishops' Council, to consider ways of furthering co-operation with other Churches.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  David Arundel
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Attorney-General if, when deciding whether to refer back to the Court of Appeal the sentence imposed on David Arundel for causing death by dangerous driving (T980326), he had access to a transcript of the judge's summing up. [76024]

  The Attorney-General
  When I consider cases in the context of part IV of the Criminal Justice Act 1988 (unduly lenient sentences) I am provided with all the necessary case papers. Ordinarily, this will not include a transcript of the judge's summing up and I did not have
  443
  such a transcript when considering the sentence imposed on David Arundel. I did have a transcript of the judge's remarks regarding sentence made on 9 June 1998 and a transcript of the judge's sentencing remarks on 3 July 1998.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Task Forces
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will publish a list of (1) task forces and (2) policy reviews established by his Department since May 1997 which(a) had external members recruited by way of public advertisement, and details of any person so appointed and (b) engaged in public consultation exercises, and the form that these took. [74468]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The following task forces and policy reviews have been established since May 1997:

  1. Task forces

  (i) Creative Industries Taskforce.

  (ii) The Football Taskforce.

  (iii) The Film Policy Action Committee.

  (iv) A group of sponsorship experts assisting sports currently in receipt of tobacco sponsorship to find replacement sponsors.

  2. Policy Reviews

  (i) Review of Film Policy.

  (ii) Review of arrangements for celebrating the Millennium.

  (iii) Review of the National Lottery leading to the White Paper.

  (iv) Review of Policy on admission charging by National Museums (Subsumed into the Departmental Spending Review).

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

  (vi) Review of the future of the Royal Opera House and the English National Opera (Eyre Review).

  (vii) Review of the future funding of the BBC.

  (viii) Review of the efficiency and effectiveness of Government sponsored museums and galleries.

  (ix) Working Group on review of Legal Deposit.

  (x) The Library and Information Commission's public library network implementation Committee.

  (a) Most task forces and reviews are short-term bodies established to give thorough consideration to important and difficult issues. External members are invited to sit on some reviews and task forces because they are able to contribute specific experience and expertise. In such cases, public advertising would be inappropriate and disproportionate. None of the appointments to the task forces and review groups listed above were made by way of external advertisement.

  Since 1 October 1998, appointments to those task forces which qualify for classification as advisory NDPBs have come within the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments.
  444
  (b) Public consultation exercises took place with the following:

  (i) The Football Taskforce—Regional roadshows allowed football supporters to give their views directly.

  (ii) Review of Film Policy—An industry consultation on the work of the Film Policy Review Group took place in 1997. The consultation period was for 2 months and replies were received in writing, in addition to being submitted orally.

  (iii) Review of the National Lottery—The public was asked for views on the proposals in the White Paper.

  (iv) Eyre Review—The Department issued a press release inviting written views from the public.

  (v) Review of the future funding of the BBC—The Department issued a press release inviting written views from the public.

  (vi) Review of policy on admission charging by National Museums, subsumed into the DSR consultation—The Department issued a consultation document on 24 July 1998 inviting public views.

  World-class Performance Programme
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the level of the proposed reduction in the allocation from the Sports Council for the World-class Performance Programme following the apportionment of money from the National Lottery to the New Opportunities Fund. [75336]

  Mr. Banks
  There will be no reduction to the World-class Performance Programme. I can confirm that the amount of Lottery money available to sport has not reduced. In fact it has increased. When the Lottery was launched, the good causes expected to receive £9 billion in total over the licence period which ends in September 2001: that is £1.8 billion for each good cause, including sport. The National Lottery is now set to raise £10.6 billion for good causes over the current licence period. On this basis Sport will receive an extra £50 million over this period.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which World-class Performance Programme grants will be reduced following the apportionment of money from the National Lottery to the New Opportunities Fund; and which sports will be affected. [75337]

  Mr. Banks
  The amount of money available to sport has not reduced but will increase over the current licence period on the basis of current projections.

  The allocation Lottery funding to sports and individuals who are in the World-class Performance Programme is a matter for the Sports Councils to decide at the moment on the basis of the forward plans submitted by the national governing bodies of sport and of the competing priorities. The hon. Gentleman may be assured that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I are determined to support our athletes. My right hon. Friend will announce shortly what share of the Lottery Sports Fund we propose the United Kingdom Sports Council should distribute in support of excellence in UK sport and other good causes.

  After-school Sports
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government have to increase the availability of after-school sports provision. [75721]
  445
  Mr. Banks
  There are a range of initiatives designed to increase the availability of after-school sports provision.

  Through the New Opportunities Fund (NOF) we have committed £400 million of National Lottery money to out of school hours activities during the current licence period to September 2001. Of this, £180 million has been committed to education activities, £200 million to child care, and £20 million to projects combining child care and education. Out of school hours education projects should involve at least half of all secondary schools, at least a quarter of all primary schools, and at least half of all special schools by 2001. Out of school child care projects should provide places for 865,000 children by 2003.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has also announced an extra £400 million for the New Opportunities Fund between now and 2001. We have consulted on how this money should be spent and have proposed that part of the additional amount should be committed to an expansion of the existing out of school hours initiative, to enhance the contribution made by summer schools not only to literacy, numeracy but also opportunities for sport.

  The Policy Directions issued to NOF ensure that it takes into account relevant national and local strategies in relation to each initiative. For out of school hours learning this includes "Extending Opportunity: a national framework for study support" (in England) and any similar guidance produced elsewhere. Study support is learning activity outside normal lessons and embraces many activities, including sports, games and adventurous outdoor activities.

  The National Lottery Act 1998 required NOF to draw up a strategic plan containing its assessment of needs and its priorities in dealing with them, on which it must consult the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. This ensures that there is a proper strategy for distributing Lottery proceeds. No specific targets have been allocated to NOF for providing physical exercise opportunities at after-school clubs, but in reviewing NOF's strategic plan we shall ensure that the projects it supports promote young people's well-being through a range of activities, including sport and creative activities.

  The TOP programmes are continuing to prove a valuable resource in enhancing the games element of the PE curriculum. Sport England, together with the Youth Sport Trust, are working with 126 Local Education Authorities and have put equipment and education/training into 10,000 schools. Sport England has provided funding of £1.8 million to support this delivery.

  In addition to its extensive range of revenue programmes for young people, Sport England is committed to the Community Sports Co-ordinators. The Co-ordinators will act as a catalyst to assist young people to take maximum advantage of continued participation in sport by substantially improving the network between school, club and community.

  The Lottery Awards for All, a unique small grants scheme, will be focused on groups who have missed out in the past. It will allow all distributors to give out grants of between £500 and £5,000 for capital revenue projects which involve people in their community and encourage school-club links. It will bring people together to enjoy sports and other activities.
  446

  Sports Grounds (Access)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what measures the Government are introducing to increase access to football and other sports grounds for people with disabilities. [75790]

  Mr. Banks
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Efford), on 15 February 1999,Official Report, columns 470–71.

  World Cup (2006)
  Mr. Pendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what future support the Government plan for England's bid to host the 2006 World Cup. [75792]

  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. I will continue to meet members of the FIFA Executive when they visit this country and will accompany the 2006 Bid team abroad when requested.

  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.

  Local Authority Grants
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the types of information collected centrally by his Department on local authority grants to(a) arts organisations, (b) museums and (c) libraries. [75568]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 9 March 1999]: Although the bulk of the information my Department uses on local authority expenditure is collected by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my Department has, since 1998, required all library authorities to provide it with Annual Library Plans, containing structured information about their services and forward strategy and solicits, in a number of individual cases, detailed information on library expenditure.

  Rugby World Cup
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many meetings he has had with the officials of(a) the International Board and (b) the Welsh Rugby Union to discuss contingency plans if the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff is not ready for the Rugby World Cup. [75855]

  Mr. Michael
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have had no such meetings.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many meetings he has had with the Welsh Rugby Union to discuss the pricing of tickets for the Rugby World Cup. [75854]

  Mr. Banks
  Neither my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nor I have had any meetings with the Welsh Rugby Union to discuss the pricing of tickets for the
  447
  Rugby World Cup. However, in response to recent questions in the House, I have made written representations to Keith Rowlands, Chief Executive of Rugby World Cup 1999, supporting their pricing policy for the pool matches which is aimed at broadening public access, whilst expressing concern about the cost of tickets for the semi-final and final tickets. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales is in the lead for the Government on matters relating to this competition.

  Libraries (Cumbria)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will make a statement on Cumbria's first Annual Library Plan. [76160]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has sent every library authority, including Cumbria, both an overall appraisal of all the 1998 Annual Library Plans and individual feedback about their own. The individual feedback is confidential, but each authority can publicise their own if they wish.

  Libraries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list, by local authority, those local authority supported libraries which are proposed for closure; and if he will make a statement. [76390]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: I am aware of possible library closures in a number of authorities and I am looking in detail at these proposals. Some of them are part of a wider restructuring and modernisation of services, but in all cases my concern is to ensure that library authorities continue to meet their statutory responsibility to provide a 'comprehensive and efficient' service. It could be prejudicial to my inquiries to name the authorities concerned.

SCOTLAND

  Dance and Drama Courses
  Ms Roseanna Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the possible impact on Scottish colleges of new scholarship arrangements in England for students of further and higher education courses in dance, drama and stage management; what plans he has for similar arrangements in Scotland; what body will have responsibility for accrediting dance schools in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [70362]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 11 February 1999]: The new arrangements reflect the special and significant role that private institutions have in delivering dance and drama provision in England. All EU citizens will be able to apply for assistance under the new arrangements, including the small number of Scottish students who have traditionally gone to England for specialist courses. There is no evidence that there will be an adverse impact on Scottish colleges from the new arrangements, but we are monitoring the position. Further education colleges in Scotland are already eligible for grant-in-aid support from the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department budget for dance and drama activity, and are encouraged
  448
  to develop provision in response to demonstrated needs and demands. We have no plans at this time to introduce any new arrangements in Scotland.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 14 January 1999,Official Report, column 232, 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. [71023]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]: A total of £14,000 was spent on market research and £25,000 on publications and publicity. The expenditure was incurred by the Scottish Office Education and Industry Department (Parents Focus Group); the Scottish Office Agriculture, Environment and Fisheries Department (Rural Water Review); and the Scottish Office Department of Health (Acute Services Review).

  Overseas Travel
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 10 February 1999,Official Report, column 280, if he will estimate the total expenditure on all forms of travel by his Department, its agencies and public bodies for (a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98, (d) 1998–99, (e) 1999–2000 and (f) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [71751]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: Travel expenditure incurred by my Department and Executive Agencies is set out in the table. Information relating to other public bodies is not held centrally. Budgets at this level of detail are not yet available for future years.

  Year

  £

  1995–961

  3,310,000

  1996–971

  3,570,000

  1997–981

  3,916,000

  1998–992

  3,126,000

  1 Actual

  2 Estimated outturn

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

  Working Time Directive
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effect the Working Time Directive will have on the provision of emergency medical and fire services on the smaller islands of Argyll and Ayrshire. [72262]

  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The EU Working Time Directive does not apply at present in the maritime sector and therefore has no impact on the provision of emergency services to the islands.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  449

  Hospital Waiting Times
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate outpatient waiting times for the quarter ended December 1998; and if he will make a statement. [74889]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Provisional figures for the quarter ending 31 December 1998 show that the percentage of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within 9 weeks and 18 weeks following referral by a General Medical Practitioner/General Dental Practitioner was 63.6 per cent. and 88.0 per cent. respectively.

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

  NHS in Scotland: Cancellations of hospital admissions1 by Health Board: Quarters ending 31 March 1997 to 31 December 1998

  1997

  1998

  Health Board

  31 March

  30 June

  30 September

  31 December

  31 March

  30 June2

  30 September2

  31 December2

  Argyll and Clyde

  231

  231

  134

  108

  201

  242

  192

  172

  Ayrshire and Arran

  44

  49

  49

  45

  98

  42

  1

  31

  Borders

  74

  97

  25

  94

  56

  74

  11

  86

  Dumfries and Galloway

  13

  13

  22

  2

  62

  —

  2

  21

  Fife

  303

  151

  238

  218

  270

  201

  152

  189

  Forth Valley

  68

  76

  80

  39

  88

  57

  40

  81

  Grampian

  488

  340

  301

  333

  458

  489

  529

  426

  Greater Glasgow3

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Highland

  227

  156

  220

  139

  172

  204

  163

  162

  Lanarkshire

  56

  45

  21

  16

  11

  54

  69

  70

  Lothian

  837

  501

  474

  438

  465

  510

  671

  511

  Orkney

  13

  23

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Shetland

  6

  1

  10

  3

  2

  1

  —

  10

  Tayside

  288

  248

  232

  194

  263

  211

  190

  261

  Western Isles

  4

  2

  —

  —

  2

  —

  5

  —

  Scotland

  2,652

  1,933

  1,806

  1,629

  2,148

  2,085

  2,026

  2,020

  1 Cancellations made by hospital of admission of patients from the waiting lists.

  2 Provisional

  3 Information is not available in the Greater Glasgow Health Board area.

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland

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

  Hospitals (Payphones)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will issue instructions to hospitals that normal BT call charges should apply to all payphones within their hospitals. [76150]

  Mr. Galbraith
  No. The provision of a telephone service for use by patients and visitors, including the choice of provider, is a matter for individual trusts. Detailed guidance on the setting of fees and charges by NHS trusts is contained in the Treasury publication "The Fees and Charges Guide". Where a service is to be provided by a third party, trusts, should ensure best value both for the hospital and the user by seeking tenders from potential operators.

  From 1 July, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  450

  Operations (Cancellation)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will place in the Library figures by(a) health board area, (b) region and (c) Scotland, for the number of operations cancelled on the day of, or the day after, admission to a hospital, and the numbers of those patients not readmitted within a month, by quarter for the last two years. [74996]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: Information on cancellations of hospital admissions at the level of detail requested is not held centrally. Details of cancellations of planned admissions for in-patient and day case treatment for each Health Board in Scotland for the period requested is provided in the table. Information on cancellations of hospital planned admissions is published annually in the NHS in Scotland Annual Report, copies of which have been placed in the Library.

  Health Authority Finances
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the estimated surplus or deficit of each health authority in 1998–99. [74993]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: The following table provides the information requested for Health Boards and Special Health Boards. The table identifies forecast underspends for each of the Health Boards for 1998–99, and is prepared on a cash basis.

  £000

  Health Boards

  Underspend

  Argyll & Clyde

  920

  Ayrshire & Arran

  2,000

  Borders

  610

  Dumfries & Galloway

  1,140

  Fife

  0

  Forth Valley

  855

  Grampian

  2,065

  Greater Glasgow

  0

  451

  £

  Health Boards

  Underspend

  Highland

  0

  Lanarkshire

  0

  Lothian

  5,500

  Orkney

  0

  Shetland

  70

  Tayside

  2,100

  Western Isles

  0

  Total

  15,260

  State Hospital

  0

  CSA

  1,739

  Scottish Council for Post Graduate Medical and Dental Education

  1,200

  Total

  18,199

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

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the salaries (1) with and (2) without pension contributions for the chief executives and chairmen of each NHS trust in Scotland for the years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [76144]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Discussions are currently underway with HM Treasury on revised pay arrangements for general and senior managers. Details of the revised

  ME Finance: Retained surplus/(deficits) since financial year 1992–93

  £000

  NHS Trusts in Scotland

  (a) 1992–93

  (b) 1993–94

  (c) 1994–95

  (d) 1995–96

  (e) 1996–97

  (f) 1997–98

  Aberdeen Royal NHS Trust

  2,707

  696

  1,466

  (240)

  469

  327

  Angus NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  896

  151

  349

  384

  Argyll and Bute NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  732

  (197)

  373

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,021

  883

  81

  186

  213

  Borders Community Health NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  387

  33

  113

  Borders General Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  610

  90

  (538)

  Caithness and Sutherland NHS Trust

  n/a

  319

  319

  413

  49

  7

  Central Scotland Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  975

  n/a

  (726)

  233

  79

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  433

  746

  411

  207

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Health Services NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  327

  55

  101

  Dundee Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,120

  276

  191

  (295)

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,284

  990

  3,115

  1,404

  (2,497)

  East and Midlothian NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,215

  267

  164

  183

  Edinburgh Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  2,332

  516

  876

  708

  Edinburgh Sick Children's NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  230

  87

  79

  61

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  985

  241

  (808)

  24

  Fife Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,365

  (1,085)

  (2,369)

  2,158

  Glasgow Dental Hospital and School NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  204

  48

  55

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  2,559

  611

  610

  293

  Grampian Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  3,546

  2,799

  176

  (534)

  2,530

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,701

  (1,169)

  718

  (6,675)

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  625

  0

  57

  5,195

  Highland Communities NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  592

  259

  209

  (20)

  Inverclyde Royal NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  699

  790

  531

  111

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  731

  1,013

  106

  186

  Lanarkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1,373

  580

  996

  Law Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  877

  307

  214

  2,002

  452
  arrangements will be published in the usual way once agreement has been reached. Remuneration for new Trust Chairmen is also under review but is likely to be around £600,000 in total for 28 Trusts in Scotland for each of the years requested; this is approximately £250,000 less than current annual remuneration. Chairmen's remuneration is non-pensionable.

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

  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the financial targets set for each NHS trust in Scotland and the surplus or deficit incurred in each year since 1992–93. [76145]

  Mr. Galbraith
  NHS Trusts in Scotland are required by the NHS in Scotland Management Executive to achieve three financial targets.

  These financial targets are to break even on the Income and Expenditure Account, after payment of interest and dividends taking one year with another; to produce a 6 per cent. return on net relevant assets before interest and dividends; and to achieve it's External Financing Limit as set.

  The table shows the surplus and deficits (after payment of interest and dividends) incurred by each Scottish NHS Trust in the years (a) 1992–93, (b) 1993–94, (c) 1994–95, (d) 1995–96, (e) 1996–97 and (f) 1997–98. Surplus and deficit figures are not yet available for 1998–99.

  The deficits incurred by Trusts often arise as a result of the losses on disposal of fixed assets in-year.
  453

  ME Finance: Retained surplus/(deficits) since financial year 1992–93

  £000

  NHS Trusts in Scotland

  (a) 1992–93

  (b) 1993–94

  (c) 1994–95

  (d) 1995–96

  (e) 1996–97

  (f) 1997–98

  Lomond Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  520

  98

  78

  Monklands and Bellshill Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  904

  936

  989

  497

  220

  Moray Health Services

  n/a

  354

  139

  (83)

  198

  (89)

  North Ayrshire and Arran NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,593

  1,713

  1,286

  1,350

  97

  Perth and Kinross Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,449

  247

  432

  133

  Queen Margaret Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,292

  361

  365

  49

  Raigmore Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,171

  815

  576

  87

  171

  Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,634

  402

  170

  82

  Royal Alexandra Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,114

  860

  (458)

  601

  295

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  2,850

  288

  209

  194

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  n/a

  n/a

  214

  826

  291

  147

  South Ayrshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  480

  727

  516

  189

  122

  101

  Southern General Hospital NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,106

  1,345

  993

  (368)

  284

  Stirling Royal Infirmary NHS Trust

  n/a

  899

  824

  216

  52

  5

  Stobhill NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,190

  346

  201

  60

  Victoria Infirmary NHS Trust

  n/a

  526

  (5,646)

  839

  (1,762)

  5,298

  West Glasgow Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  2,233

  1,194

  (4,233)

  (430)

  West Lothian NHS Trust

  n/a

  1,612

  989

  521

  206

  393

  Western General Hospitals NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  1,061

  154

  163

  (901)

  Yorkhill NHS Trust

  n/a

  601

  925

  722

  507

  (785)

  Total

  3,187

  18,448

  38,156

  19,590

  2,940

  11,683

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

  PFI Project, Greenock
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when the contract will be signed anent the PFI project at Larkfield, Greenock; and if he will make a statement. [76228]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The Renfrewshire Healthcare NHS Trust is confident that it is within weeks of signing the PFI contract for the facility for Elderly and Young Physically Disabled at Larkfield Road in Greenock.

  NHS in Scotland: Number of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within 9 and 18 weeks of referral

  Quarter ending 31March 1997

  Quarter ending 30September 1997

  Quarter ending 31March 1998

  Quarter ending 30 September 19981

  Within 9 weeks

  166,633

  173,591

  180,054

  161,275

  Within 18 weeks

  214,889

  239,326

  237,783

  224,256

  1 Provisional

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland

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

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if the guidance which excludes clinical services from Private Finance Initiative projects includes clinical staff who do not fall under the term, professions allied to medicine. [76117]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The services which may be included within Private Finance Initiative projects will be restricted to the provision of facilities management and non-clinical services.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  454

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 3 February 1999,Official Report, columns 657–58, on waiting lists, how many patients received a first outpatient appointment within (i) nine weeks and (ii) 18 weeks of referral for (a) March 1997, (b) September 1997, (c) March 1998 and (d) September 1998. [76119]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information on the number of patients who received a first outpatient appointment within nine weeks and within 18 weeks following a General Medical Practitioner/General Dental Practitioner referral during the quarters requested, is provided in the table.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the implications of the precautionary principle enshrined in the Biosafety Protocol for the Government's policy on the planting of(a) trial genetically modified crops and (b) commercial genetically modified crops. [72575]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: Throughout the recent negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol in Cartagena, the EU maintained its strong support for the inclusion of the precautionary principle in

  455
  the preamble to and in the objectives of protocol. This approach is consistent with the European Community legislation controlling the release and marketing of genetically modified organisms and with the Government's general policy on the planting of trial and commercial genetically modified crops. Rigorous scientific risk assessment, carried out as part of the strict regulation of GM crops, identifies appropriate risk management measures to ensure that risks are reduced to a minimum. In the UK, field trials of GM crops may require risk management such as pollen barriers or isolation distances. In respect of the commercial planting of GM crops, the Government support a programme of managed development involving farm scale evaluations with full ecological monitoring. The Government believe that this approach offers sufficient safeguards to ensure that large-scale plantings do not proceed until there is sufficient evidence that a particular crop does not harm the environment.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason at the recent Biosafety Protocol meeting in Colombia the UK opposed the creation of an enabling provision to allow countries to take socio-economic factors into account in determining whether or not to import GMOs. [75092]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: The UK, as a Member State of the European Union, broadly supported the text of the Protocol put forward by the Chair of the Working Group to the extraordinary Conference of the Parties which included an enabling provision on socio-economics. The compromise package put forward by the EU in the final stages of the negotiations did not seek to amend that provision.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list by title the unpublished reports into aspects of genetic modification which are held by his Department. [75100]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: My Department endeavours to publish all the final reports of the research contracts it funds to underpin the assessment of applications for consent to release or market genetically modified organisms. Reports are published after the research contracts are completed and when a satisfactory report has been submitted. Research contractors may also publish papers in peer reviewed scientific journals describing the work funded by my Department.

  The following reports have very recently been published:

  Safety of Plant Viral Inserts

  Investigation of Feral Oilseed Rape Populations

  Review of Parasitic Nematodes for Biological Control of Invertebrates

  The following reports are currently being printed and will be available shortly:

  Environmental Impact of Genetically Modified Crops (Proceedings of a Workshop sponsored by the Department)

  Genetically Modified Bioinsecticides

  A report on the outcome of monitoring releases of Plant Genetics System's hybrid oilseed rape, which was carried out by the National Institute of Agricultural Botany (NIAB) is being prepared for publication. My Department aims to publish this by July this year.
  456
  Copies of all the reports listed above will be made available for the House of Commons Library.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has undertaken into the impact on water companies' ability to meet individual pesticide and herbicide limits in drinking water of the application of glufosinate and glyphosate to genetically modified crops. [75901]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 1989 prescribe an extremely strict standard of 0.1 microgrammes per litre for individual pesticides. Since 1989 water companies have been obliged to enter into legally binding programmes to install pesticide removal processes whenever water supplies have exceeded the standard.

  The pesticide removal programmes have been completed and in 1997, around 99.96 per cent. of all analyses for pesticides complied with the standard.

  Glufosinate and glyphosate both degrade rapidly in the environment, but, were they present in water sources, they would be removed by the treatment processes that have been installed.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make available the locations of genetically modified trial crops to water companies. [75900]

  Mr. Meacher
  Water companies may obtain information on the locations of genetically modified crop trials from the statutory public register, held in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Information on the location of trial sites is also available on the Department's website.

  Applicants for consent to release genetically modified organisms must advertise locally where the release will take place. This is a public notice in a local newspaper. If the proposed release may have an impact on any controlled waters, then the Environment Agency is notified.

  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he has taken to improve the regulation of genetically modified crops. [74097]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: The release of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) is governed by EC Directive 90/220. The European Commission published its proposal to amend the Directive in February 1998 and since then the UK Government have played an active role in negotiating the draft amending Directive. The Commission's proposal seeks to make a number of significant changes to the Directive, such as strengthening provisions on environmental risk assessment and monitoring, streamlining some procedures, ensuring greater transparency and better labelling requirements, and providing for the consultation of EU ethics and scientific committees. The Government have been active in their support for revision of the Directive to ensure full protection for human health and the environment.
  457
  In the Government's view the amendment should be taken forward seriously and rapidly. At the Environment Council this week, I intend to press the German Presidency to devote time to this dossier with a view to securing common position at the June Council.

  Pending the revision of the Directive, EU Environment Ministers agreed in December 1998 to use the flexibility within the existing Directive to introduce new principles on risk assessment and monitoring. These new requirements, based on provisions in the draft amending Directive, were adopted as a direct result of public concerns about GMOs and the European Parliament's call for action. The new principles on risk assessment and monitoring will allow a clearer picture to be built up of the direct and indirect, and immediate and delayed, effects of GMOs on the environment.

  On top of the new EC requirements, my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and I announced before the House of Lords Select Committee on 21 October 1998 that the Government have reached agreement with the plant breeding industry for a managed development programme for herbicide tolerant GM crops. Farm-scale evaluations will ensure that first commercial plantings of herbicide tolerant GM crops will be strictly limited and monitored for ecological effects alongside comparable plantings of conventional crops. The Government are funding ecological studies of the diversity and abundance of plants and invertebrates associated with the management of GM and non-GM crops to test whether there are any significant differences, initially over a four year period. This will assist consideration of what effects GM crops may have on higher species and our agricultural landscape. If ecological monitoring reveals adverse effects then appropriate action will be taken.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will set out the negotiating position of the UK delegation to the biosafety protocol discussions in Cartagena, Colombia; what support Britain gave to proposals from the Miami Group; and at what stages Britain supported moves which would exempt genetically modified ingredients from the clear labelling and advance notification proposals. [73980]

  Mr. Meacher
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 9 February 1999,Official Report, columns 153–54, which set out the UK's negotiating line for the meeting. The EU maintained its agreed position throughout the negotiations in Cartagena, and the UK remained firmly within that position. The UK, together with European colleagues, attempted to build a bridge between the positions adopted by most developing countries and the Miami Group. The EU did not support any proposals that would have exempted living modified organisms (LMOs) within the scope of the protocol being subject to a requirement for documentation and clear identification. An EU compromise package introduced in the final stages of the negotiations with a view to achieving consensus included a provision enabling the first Meeting of the Parties to decide whether and how the protocol's procedures would apply to the transboundary movement of LMOs for
  458
  intended direct use as food or feed or for processing. This compromise package received widespread support, but proved unacceptable to the Miami Group.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions for what reason the UK at the recent Biosafety Protocol meeting in Colombia did not support inclusion of the precautionary principle in the operational articles of the Protocol. [75091]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: The UK goal was to secure reference to the precautionary principle in the Protocol. We therefore strongly supported the EU submission prior to the penultimate meeting on the Biosafety Protocol to include a reference to the precautionary principle in the Preamble, and in the Objective of the Protocol. The latter provides the fundamental underpin for all the provisions of the Protocol.

  While these proposals were retained in the draft negotiating text for the Colombia meeting, there was considerable opposition to the inclusion of references to the precautionary principle in the last round of negotiations. In the final stages, the EU put forward a compromise package based on the text put forward by the Chair of the Working Group. The package included retaining a reference to the precautionary approach in the Preamble and in the Objective of the Protocol. In an attempt to achieve consensus, the EU was prepared to agree to delete wording based on the precautionary principle in the article dealing with the decision procedure if the reference to the precautionary principle remained in the Objective and a formulation of it was contained in general principles section of the risk assessment annex: all notifications under the Protocol would have required a risk assessment. Hence, the operational provisions of the Protocol would have been based on the precautionary principle.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what actions his Department has taken to improve road safety in(a) Staffordshire and (b) the West Midlands. [74552]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  As part of the New Deal for Transport, the Government will be setting new national casualty reduction targets, underpinned by a road safety strategy. These will be published later this year.

  It is for Staffordshire County Council and other local authorities in the region to promote and implement, with partners, schemes to improve road safety in their area. Local safety schemes, which are low cost engineering schemes which address known accident blackspots, are a very successful means of reducing accidents, funded through the annual Local Capital Transport Settlement. In 1999–2000 the West Midlands region has been awarded £5.992 million of which £0.450 million has been allocated to Staffordshire. This represents an increase of 18% and 45% respectively over the 1998–1999 settlement year and is expected to save 671 road accident casualties per annum.
  459
  The County Council has also been awarded two new transport packages this year, the Tamworth Package and the Safe Routes to School Package. Both of these packages will provide additional measures to improve road safety in the Tamworth area.

  Biological Resources
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his Department's policy in respect of the forthcoming review of Trade, intellectual property, Food and biodiversity clauses on the protection of biological resources. [74849]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: My Department will work with others involved in the review of the World Trade Organisation's Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, taking into account emerging experience of the implementation of the Agreement and bearing in mind the needs of existing and future members. We are particularly concerned to ensure that developing countries are allowed sufficient flexibility, within internationally agreed boundaries, to implement IPR regimes appropriate to their individual circumstances.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in respect of their impact on the global environment, what assessment his Department has made of the compatibility of Article 27 of Trade, intellectual property, Food and biodiversity and Articles 8, 15 and 16 of the UN Convention on Biological Resources. [74845]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]: We consider that the World Trade Organisation's Trade Related aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) are compatible, but we need to ensure that they are implemented in a mutually supportive way. My department, in collaboration with others with an interest, will continue to participate in international efforts to clarify the relationship between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement, including at the inter-sessional meeting to be held under the Convention from 28 to 30 June. Our aim is to safeguard both intellectual property and the world's biodiversity.

  Discretionary Grant (Worcestershire)
  Mr. Lock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list (i) the names of the beneficiaries of all the discretionary grants awarded by his Department to organisations within Worcestershire during 1998, (ii) their monetary value, (iii) their total value and (iv) the proportion that that total sum comprises of the total sums awarded by his Department in discretionary grants in 1998. [75253]

  Mr. Meale
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. In 1998–99 the following resources were awarded by the Department.
  460
  1. Grants are paid under the Single Regeneration Budget as follows:

  Recipient

  Value (£)

  Scheme

  Hereford & Worcester Chamber of Commerce Training and Enterprise (H&W CCTE)

  90,000

  Improving Labour Market Flexibility

  H&W CCTE

  420,000

  H & W Job Creation

  H&W CCTE

  20,000

  Ethnic Minorities in Worcester

  Malvern Hills

  216,800

  Malvern Hills Science Park

  Redditch

  1,286,430

  Redditch Community Works

  Percentage of West Midlands Regional Total

  13.3%

  1 Of West Midlands SRB total

  2. The Department provides for the local authorities under Housing Investment Programme (HIP) allocations and resources under the Capital Receipts Initiative (CRI) to support housing improvements as follows:

  Local authority

  HIP (£)

  CRI (£)

  Bromsgrove

  482,000

  577,000

  Malvern Hills

  505,000

  0

  Redditch

  961,000

  905,000

  Worcester

  1,135,000

  678,000

  Wychavon

  552,000

  0

  Wyre Forest

  1,118,000

  838,000

  Percentage of West Midlands Regional Total

  5.7%

  4.8%

  3. The Cash Incentive Scheme is a scheme designed to assist council tenants or licensees to purchase their own home in the private sector there by releasing their council accommodation for others in housing need.

  Local authority

  Cash Incentive Scheme (£)

  Bromsgrove

  65,000

  Redditch

  50,000

  Worcester

  60,000

  Percentage of West Midlands Regional Resources

  4.8%

  4. The Capital Challenge programme is a 3 year pilot programme begun in 1997–98 to test the challenge/bidding approach to any and all aspects of capital across all services for which local authorities are responsible.

  Local authority

  Value (£)

  Scheme

  Worcester City Council

  350,000

  Dines Green Community Centre

  Worcestershire Council

  617,500

  Primary School at Warndon

  Redditch

  550,000

  Arrow Valley Environmental Education and Watersports Centre

  Percentage of West Midlands Regional Total

  5%

  461
  5. Grants are paid to local authorities in Worcester under the Bellwin scheme of emergency financial assistance.

  Local authority

  Value (£)

  Wychavon

  10,294

  Worcester City Council

  7,164

  Total Bellwin payments for West Midlands in 1998/99

  84,540

  Percentage of West Midlands Regional Total

  21%

  6. Transport Supplementary Grant is paid to local highway authorities in England in support of road projects:

  Local authority

  Value (£)

  Worcestershire

  1,565,000

  Total Transport Supplementary Grant for West Midlands

  21,984,000

  Percentage of West Midlands Regional Total

  7%

  7. Grants paid through the Housing Corporation to Registered Social Landlords (RSLs):

  Approved Development Programme (Social Housing Grant)

  £

  Registered Social Landlord (RSL)

  Amount of grant paid

  Advance

  78,750

  Bourneville Village

  72,690

  Bromford

  188,186

  Bromford Charitable

  65,319

  Bromsgrove United

  65,975

  Droitwich Spa

  192,422

  Elgar

  135,416

  Evesham & Pershore

  63,414

  Guinness Trust

  12,808

  Harden

  118,474

  Housing 21

  12,641

  Jephson Homes

  54,855

  Sanctuary

  52,264

  Waterloo

  169,332

  Worcestershire

  224,105

  Total

  1,506,651

  Note:

  Percentage of West Midlands Regional Total is not readily available

  Supported Housing Management Grant

  £

  Registered Social Landlord

  Amount of grant paid

  Advance

  97,420

  Bromford

  38,400

  Bromford Charitable

  13,875

  Droitwich Spa

  36,900

  Elgar

  18,000

  Evesham & Pershore

  38,696

  Focus

  20,544

  Friendship Housing

  10,800

  Harden

  20,156

  Midland Area

  12,640

  Redditch YMCA

  46,400

  Sanctuary

  123,812

  Stonham

  193,677

  Worcestershire

  52,368

  Total

  723,688

  Note:

  Percentage of West Midlands Regional Total is not readily available
  462

  Retail Developments
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make money available to local authorities to help them to enable shopping centres in town and cities to compete equally with designated out-of-town shopping areas. [75277]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government's policy is to encourage retail development in the centre of towns and cities rather than at out of town locations. This was set out in our Response to the Select Committee report on Shopping Centres [Cmnd 3729], which also reaffirmed our commitment to Planning Policy Guidance note 6 (PPG6): Town Centres and Retail Developments. Through our funding of the Association of Town Centre Management and the Civic Trust, we have been assisting local authorities to promote town centre management by preparing and disseminating good practice.

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many(a) out-of-town shopping mall and (b) superstore planning applications in England have been refused, and on what principal grounds, on appeal in the past year. [75504]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning permission has been refused, on appeal, in respect of two applications for superstores in England, in 1998, primarily on the grounds that they failed the policy tests in PPG6.

  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make it his practice to publish lists of(a) all outstanding planning permissions for superstores, (b) all superstore planning appeals that have been approved in the past five years, with a summary of the reasons for the approval and (c) all superstore planning appeals that have been refused in the past five years, with a summary of the reasons for the refusal; and if he will make a statement; [75779]

  (2) if he will list all superstore planning appeals that have been (a) approved and (b) rejected in the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [75688]

  (3) if he will list all the outstanding planning permissions for superstores; and if he will make a statement. [75689]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Most decisions on planning applications for retail developments are taken by local planning authorities. They provide statistical returns on applications which they handle under the general category of "major retail, distribution and servicing". The information requested in respect of appeals is not held centrally over the timescale requested. It is, therefore, not feasible to assemble the information requested, except at disproportionate cost. We have no current plans to publish such lists.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if he will make a statement on measures necessary to ensure millennium compliance in the systems for which the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is responsible; when millennium compliance will be achieved; and what the latest date is by which millennium compliance must be achieved in order to remain fully operational; [75476]
  463
  (2) if the systems for which the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency is responsible are millennium compliant. [75475]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: Like all other Government Departments and Agencies, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency submits quarterly reports to CCTA on progress towards millennium compliance. These reports are analysed by the Cabinet Office and from the basis of my right hon. Friend the President of the Council's reports to Parliament. It would not be appropriate for me to anticipate her next statement, but, when it is made, a copy of DVLA's report will be placed both in the Library and on the Internet. Reports will be accompanied by a series of tables that illustrate how well departments and agencies are doing against a number of specific performance criteria.

  Housing Finance
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to reform housing finance; and if he will make a statement. [75635]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In December 1998 we issued a consultation paper "A New Financial Framework for Local Authority Housing: Resource Accounting in the Housing Revenue Account" seeking views on proposals for changes to local authority housing finance. The proposals would introduce a form of resource accounting for the Housing Revenue Account (HRA). It is also proposed to remove expenditure on rent rebates from the HRA leaving the account as a landlord account reflecting the cost of providing housing at below market rents. The aim of the proposed New Framework is to make housing accounts easier to understand for both councils and their tenants and to enable better-informed decisions about the management of housing assets. Consultations are not yet complete and there will be an announcement about our plans in due course. A copy of the consultation paper is in the Library.

  Carlisle Airport
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the contribution of Carlisle Airport to the economic development of Cumbria and the Scottish Borders. [75521]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  A "North of England Regional Air Services Study" has been commissioned by my Department. It is part of a number of such studies across the UK. The North of England Study is expected to report this summer, so my hon. Friend will understand that I cannot comment at this stage on the contribution of Carlisle Airport to the economic development of the Region or Cumbria and the Scottish borders until the findings of the study are known.

  Brown-field Sites
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what statistics his Department collects on the number of brown-field sites in town centres redeveloped for residential use. [75511]
  464
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Land Use Change Statistics published by my Department provide information on the area of land changing to residential use that was previously developed for urban uses. (Urban uses comprise residential, transport and utilities, industry and commerce, community services, previously developed vacant land and derelict land). Numbers of new dwellings built on previously developed land (excluding conversions of existing dwellings) are also recorded. This information provides statistics for the proportion of new residential development that takes place on previously developed land.

  Some previously developed land is located in rural areas. My Department has developed the analysis of land use change to identify separately changes that occurred inside and outside urban areas as defined for the 1991 Census. At present it is not possible to distinguish those land use changes that occurred within town centres, but this might become possible following research under way to define the boundaries of town centres for statistical purposes.

  The latest results of the Land Use Change Statistics, together with more information about how they are compiled, were published in the statistical bulletin "Land Use Change in England No. 13", a copy of which is in the House of Commons Library.

  Maritime Rescue Subcentres
  Mr. Alan Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many watch-keeping staff were in post on 30 September 1998 at Tyne Tees Maritime Rescue subcentre; and what was the(a) monthly and (b) daily officer incident rate. [75829]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  On 30 September 1998 there were 13.5 watch keeping staff in post at Tyne Tees. The(a) monthly officer incident rate was 2.84 and (b) the daily officer incident rate was 0.09.

  A596/A597, Workington
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will include proposals for an improvement at the A596/A597 junction at Workington as a priority scheme under the programme of network enhancement projects. [75414]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Mr. Lawrie Haynes, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Nutt to Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours, dated 15 March 1999:
  The Transport Minister, Glenda Jackson, has asked Lawrie Haynes to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the improvement of the A595/A597 junction at Workington. I am replying on Lawrie's behalf in his absence.
  We have drawn up our programme of Local Network Management schemes for 1999/2000. In doing so we have had to consider competing priorities across the trunk road network. As a result, I am sorry to have to tell you that at present we are unable to include the improvement of the A596/A597 junction in the programme.
  As you know, the A596 is one of the trunk routes in Cumbria identified as non-core and which it is proposed to detrunk as part of the Government's integrated transport policy. I understand that you are aware that a delegation from Cumbria County Council and Copeland Borough Council made representations about the

  465
  detrunking proposals at a recent meeting with Transport Ministers, Dr. John Reid and Lord Whitty. Those representations are being considered together with others, and a final decision by Ministers on the split of the network into core and non-core routes will be announced as soon as possible.
  If the A596 is confirmed as a non-core route to be detrunked then from 1 April 2000 the Agency will only initiate further improvements that it considers necessary to keep the route in a safe and serviceable condition. It will be for Cumbria County council to consider the need for other improvements in the context of their Local Transport Plan. Provisional plans covering the period 2000/01–2004/05 are due to be submitted by the end of this July.

  SSSIs
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to take further measures to protect sites of special scientific interest. [76379]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are further developing proposals put forward in the Government consultation paper, Sites of Special Scientific Interest—Better Protection and Management, taking account of the issues raised in the 562 responses. We will seek to implement legislative measures when Parliamentary time permits, but will also take forward procedural and administrative improvements at the earliest opportunity.

  Planning Applications
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of appeals to the planning inspectorate by applicants against decisions taken by(a) the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, (b) the London Borough of Wandsworth and (c) the City of Westminster were successful in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [76270]

  Mr. Caborn
  I have asked the Chief Executive, of the Planning Inspectorate, Mr. Chris Shepley, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from David Hanchet to Mr. Iain Coleman, dated 15 March 1999:
  As he is away from the office at present, I am writing on behalf of Chris Shepley who has been asked by the Secretary of State to reply to your Question about planning appeals in Hammersmith and Fulham, Wandsworth, and Westminster in 1997 and 1998.

  For appeals decided in each year, the percentages allowed were:

  Percentage

  1997

  1998

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  24

  29

  Wandsworth

  21

  33

  Westminster

  29

  35

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many planning applications were called in by the Secretary of State in(a) the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and (b) the London Borough of Wandsworth and (c) the City of Westminster in (i) 1997 and (b) 1998. [76269]

  Mr. Caborn
  None in Hammersmith and Fulham, one in Wandsworth in 1997 and one in Westminster in 1998.
  466

  Contaminated Land
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) acreage and (b) location of contaminated land in the County of Durham. [76249]

  Mr. Meale
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what advice he has given to local authorities in respect of compiling and maintaining a contaminated land register within their boundaries; and if he will make a statement. [76247]

  Mr. Meale
  My department will be carrying out further consultations shortly on regulations and statutory guidance necessary to implement the contaminated land regime contained in Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995).

  Local authority functions under Part IIA include compilation of a register which will provide details about regulatory action and remediation on land formally identified as contaminated land.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the local authorities in the Northern Region which hold a detailed contaminated land register; and if he will make a statement. [76248]

  Mr. Meale
  There is no statutory requirement for local authorities to keep registers of contaminated land. Individual authorities may maintain records about land contamination, but there is no information held centrally about which authorities do so.

  South Downs
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to publish proposals for the future management of the South Downs; and if he will make a statement. [76370]

  Mr. Meacher
  We are still looking very carefully at the issues. We hope to announce some conclusions soon.

  Packaging Industry
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what discussions he has had with representatives of the packaging industry on the recovery targets set for the packaging industry up to 2001; what assessment he has made of the ability of the industry to achieve such targets; and if he will make a statement; [76215]

  (2) when he plans to make a statement on the future operation of the Packaging Waste Recovery Notes System; [76216]

  (3) what is his estimate of the number of businesses in the packaging industry that will be exempt from the packaging waste obligations as a result of a change in the financial turnover cut-off threshold to £2 million. [76217]

  Mr. Meacher
  A consultation paper was published on 30 July 1998 which included proposals to increase the interim business recovery and recycling targets in 1999
  467
  and 2000 and over 350 responses were received. The UK packaging recovery rate is expected to have reached approximately 32 per cent. in 1998 and the interim business targets are designed to enable the UK to achieve the mandatory EC Directive recovery and recycling targets in 2001. Industry itself has reported that there was an oversupply of reprocessing capacity in 1998 compared with the targets that had to be met and this was damaging the market. The increase in the interim business recovery and recycling targets should therefore generate the necessary momentum to enable sufficient activity to be carried out to achieve the 2001 targets. A further consideration was the need for sufficient resources to be directed at generating the necessary collection and reprocessing capacity that will be needed to meet targets in 2001. With this additional infrastructure in place, the UK should be able to meet these mandatory targets.

  I expect to make a statement about the future operation of the Packaging Waste Recovery Note System very shortly.

  The Department's current estimates suggest that some 4,500 smaller businesses will be excluded from the scope of the Regulations as a result of the change to the financial turnover cut-off threshold in 2000.

  Pensioners' Housing
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what evidence is provided by the English House Conditions Survey and the Survey of English Housing on the quality of housing of pensioners aged over 80 years in relation to that of other pensioner households. [76099]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: The table from the 1996 English House Condition Survey indicates that pensioners aged over 80 years are much more likely to live in poor quality housing than pensioners below that age. The likelihood of the latter living in poor quality housing is on average not that much different from the population as a whole.

  Percentage of pensioners in poor quality homes, by age group

  Percentage of people in each age group:

  (a) living in

  (b)

  i. unfit homes1

  ii. poor housing2

  without central heating

  Pensionersaged 81+

  9

  23

  18

  Pensionersaged 80 or less

  5

  14

  12

  all ages

  6

  13

  11

  1 Unfit homes refer to properties assessed as unfit according to the standard defined by Section 604 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989.

  2 Poor housing refers to homes that are either unfit, in substantial disrepair or requiring essential modernisation.

  Footpaths
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the appeal by St. Leonard's and St. Ives Parish Council against the refusal of Dorset County Council to modify the definitive map to add five footpaths at Lions Hill, St Leonard's was made; and on what date he expects it to be determined. [76470]
  468
  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: This appeal was received by the Government Office for the South West in January 1997. The determination process has now reached an advance stage and the decision should be issued by the end of this month.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many employees of the Government Office for the South West are allocated to the determination of appeals involving footpaths. [76471]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 12 March I999]: The Government Office for the South West has a team of eight staff dealing with the determination of appeals including rights of way cases.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the earliest date of a case involving a footpath appeal which is still awaiting determination by the Government office in Bristol; and how many more recent cases are awaiting determination. [76469]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: The earliest footpath appeals awaiting determination are a group of nine interlinked appeals which completed the necessary procedural stages in January 1997. There are 21 more such cases awaiting determination.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many right of way appeals are currently outstanding in each of the Government's regional offices. [76468]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: The number of appeal cases currently outstanding in each of the Government's regional offices is shown in the table.

  Regional Office

  No. of appeals

  North West

  5

  North East

  4

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  10

  East Midlands

  2

  West Midlands

  5

  Eastern Region

  3

  South West

  53

  South East (incl. London)

  18

  Total

  100

  Short-haired Bumble Bee
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998,Official Report, column 632, on the short-haired bumble bee, if he will make a statement on the preparation of the plan for the short-haired bumble bee. [76630]

  Mr. Meale
  An action plan for the short-haired bumble bee was included in Tranche 2 Action Plans, Volume IV—Invertebrates which was published by the UK Biodiversity Group on 8 March.

  Public Rights of Way
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what(a) percentage and (b) length of public rights of way

  469
  are open to (i) horseriders and (ii) cyclists in each county in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [76882]

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

  England and Wales have an estimated total of 130,000 miles (209,000 km) of rights of way, of which over 38,000 miles (61,000 km) or 29 per cent. may be used lawfully by horseriders and cyclists.

  Planning (Class A3)
  Mr. Ian Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will further restrict transfers of business between pubs and restaurants under the A3 planning category. [76086]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: We have no immediate plans to amend Class A3 of the Use Classes Order 1987. However, we have received representations to introduce planning controls for certain changes of use within existing Class A3 and we are currently considering these.

  Trading Credit Approvals
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what information his Department collects centrally on local authority bids for trading credit approvals in 1998–99. [76448]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: A record of applications for credit approvals outside established programmes, for 1998–99 and other years, is held by my Department.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 8, if he will list the local authorities that made trading credit approval applications in 1998–99 indicating (a) the value of each application and (b) the purpose for which the trading credit approval was sought. [76447]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: Requests by local authorities in connection with Trading Credit Approvals (TCAs) considered in 1998 were:

  £ million

  Sheffield City Council

  Sheffield waste incinerator

  17.0

  Plymouth City Council

  Unrestricted TCAs for self-financing schemes

  n/a

  Harrogate Borough Council

  Upgrading of conference centre facility

  6.6

  Road User Charges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy that the net proceeds from road user charges and the workplace parking levy are treated as additional to central Government funding for transport in London. [76472]
  470
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  It is already government policy that any revenues from charging schemes brought forward by the Mayor or boroughs will be additional moneys for spending on measures which support the Mayor's transport strategy.

  The Greater London Authority Bill will require charging authorities to maintain separate income and expenditure accounts for each charging scheme. These accounts will be published annually. This will guarantee transparency, and make it clear to Londoners that charging revenues are additional moneys.

  Sewerage Works (Windermere)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the programme to improve sewerage works announced by the Minister for the Environment on 1 March will include repairs to the sewerage system at Windermere in Cumbria. [76667]

  Mr. Meale
  The English and Welsh water company improvement programmes announced on 1 March include improvement schemes to be carried out at three North West Water sewage treatment works affecting Lake Windermere; at Windermere, Near Sawrey and Ambleside. These schemes will protect and improve the designated bathing water at Windermere and water quality in the River Rothay.

  The Environment Agency is currently investigating recent pollution incidents at Lake Windermere in liaison with North West Water and South Lakeland District Council. The Agency will continue monitoring the situation to see whether additional action is necessary.

  Rents (Research)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what research he has conducted to(a) current rent levels and (b) market rent levels in each London borough in the past year. [76231]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Corporation's January 1999 publication Guide to Local Rents (Source Research 32) sets out a comparison of average housing association, local authority and private sector rents in each local authority area, including the London boroughs. A copy has been placed in the House of Commons Library. In addition, my Department routinely collects information on average rents for all authorities for Housing Revenue Account subsidy purposes.

  Road Deaths
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people died in road accidents(a) nationally and (b) in each region in each of the last three years. [76042]
  471
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of fatalities in road accidents is shown in the following table:

  Fatalities in road accidents: by Government office region and severity: 1995–97

  Number

  1995

  1996

  1997

  England

  2,995

  3,024

  3,001

  Scotland

  408

  358

  377

  Wales

  218

  216

  221

  Northern Ireland

  144

  142

  144

  United Kingdom

  3,765

  3,740

  3,743

  English Government office regions

  North East

  152

  157

  135

  North West/Merseyside

  418

  389

  376

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  345

  324

  324

  East Midlands

  378

  329

  357

  West Midlands

  286

  319

  338

  East of England

  374

  370

  350

  South East

  470

  517

  508

  London

  214

  251

  276

  South West

  358

  368

  337

  Source:

  Road Accidents Great Britain 1997: The Casualty Report

  Ministerial Visits
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer of 4 March 1999,Official Report, column 845, whether notification of the visit by the Minister for London and Construction to Bromsgrove to the hon. Member for Bromsgrove was made on departmental notepaper. [76763]

  Mr. Raynsford
  No. As I made clear to the hon. Member in my reply of 4 March, this was a Labour Party campaign visit.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity, indicating the organisation acting as their sponsor or host. [76656]

  Dr. Reid
  Neither I nor any of my Ministerial colleagues in this Department attended the recent Brit awards.

  Land (Access)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish the legal advice which his Department has received on whether the plans to provide a statutory right of access to land would create a right to general compensation under the Human Rights Act 1998. [76451]

  Mr. Meacher
  It is not the practice for the Government to publish legal advice which they receive, and it is not proposed to publish any such advice in this case.

  High-sided Vans
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he 472
  has to prohibit high-sided vans from using the outside lane on motorways with three lanes or more in one direction. [76229]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Goods vehicles with a maximum laden weight exceeding 7.5 tonnes are banned from the outside lane of motorways with three or more lanes. We believe a ban by weight is the appropriate measure and have no plans to amend the regulations to apply height restrictions.

  Trains (Punctuality)
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will ensure that trains re-timed to arrive later than as shown in the Great Britain passenger railway timetable are included as late trains in the statistics published on punctuality. [76230]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Franchising Director's office currently publishes information from train operators' Passenger Charters in its Quarterly Bulletin. Charter punctuality information does not normally include trains on Sundays, or trains delayed for reasons outside the control of the industry. This is likely to mean that the majority of trains with extended journeys from planned engineering works or following major incidents are excluded. The Franchising Director is currently consulting on improved public performance measures.

  Mayor of London
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what conclusions he has reached concerning the types of planning application on which the new Mayor for London should be consulted by the local planning authorities as being of potential strategic importance; and if he will make a statement. [77234]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Under the proposals set out in the White Paper, A Mayor and Assembly for London, and reflected in the Greater London Authority Bill currently before Parliament, London boroughs and the City of London will remain the planning and development control authorities for their areas. However, their Unitary Development Plans must be in general conformity with the Mayor's Spatial Development Strategy. The Mayor must also have a means of representing the broader pan-London view for individual planning applications where issues of genuine strategic importance are concerned. The Mayor will therefore become a statutory consultee for a limited number of applications of potential strategic importance, to be defined in secondary legislation. He or she will also have a fall-back power to direct the refusal of planning permission in these cases where this is considered necessary on strategic grounds. The applicant would then have the normal right of appeal to the Secretary of State, who will also continue to be able to call in applications for his own decision where appropriate.

  Last August the Government issued a consultation paper setting out our initial proposals for the categories of development on which the Mayor is to be consulted. A summary of the responses received is being placed in the Library.
  473
  Having considered the responses, we have decided that the broad categories set out in the consultation paper will be retained, but with changes to some of the sub-categories and thresholds proposed.

  In summary, the categories will be:

  (i) Very large scale development including:

  (a) major residential developments (over 500 units or 10 ha);

  (b) very large new buildings or structures (over 30,000 m2 in the City of London; 20,000 m2 in the rest of central London; 15,000 m2 elsewhere);

  (c) tall buildings (25m fronting the Thames; elsewhere—75m in the City of London and 30m in other areas).

  (ii) Major new infrastructure projects, including:

  (b) mining operations (sites of more than 10 ha);

  (c) large new waste facilities (more than 50,000 tonnes capacity);

  (d) new transport facilities, i.e., runways, air terminals, heliports, rail or tram lines, bus or coach stations, large freight depots, piers and river crossings on the Thames.

  (iii) Applications likely to affect key strategic policies, including:

  (c)the loss of housing (more than 200 units) or designated housing land (more than 4 ha);

  (d) the loss of land (more than 4 ha) in use or designated for employment purposes;

  (e) the loss of land (more than 2 ha) in use or designated as a playing field;

  (f) development of more than 1,000 m2 in the green belt or on designated Metropolitan Open Land;

  (g) development affecting a designated strategic view;

  (h) Substantial development in locations not identified in the development plan for such uses: (i) residential use (more than 150 units); (ii) commercial uses and other uses likely to generate significant new travel (more than 2,500 m2);

  (i) the provision of more than 200 car=parking spaces for non-residential purposes.

  (iv) Any development on a key sit of strategic importance as designated in a consultation direction made by the Secretary of State.

  A paper setting out the proposed definitions in more detail, and showing the main changes from the consultation draft, is being placed in the Library, and is available from the Government Office for London.

  We believe this package represents an appropriate balance. It will ensure that the Mayor is able to have a say in key planning applications in support of his or her Spatial Development Strategy, whilst recognising that the vast majority of planning applications are properly a matter for the local planning authorities. Setting clear thresholds will provide certainty and minimise the scope for dispute. We expect that between 150 and 250 planning applications out of some 70,000 submitted in Greater London each year will fall into the categories identified above.

  The Mayor will be consulted in parallel with other statutory consultees, and will have no power to delay the taking of a decision by the local planning authority. He or she will, however, have a further period of 14 days after the local planning authority has reached a view within which to use the fall-back power of direction.

  Subject to Parliamentary approval, it is intended that the Order defining these categories of applications will come into effect when the Mayor begins work in July 2000. It will be subject to review and, if necessary,
  474
  amendment in the light of experience and following publication of the Mayor's first Spatial Development Strategy.

  London Underground
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress London Underground has made with their planned Public-Private Partnership. [77233]

  Dr. Reid
  London Underground are today sending a progress report on the Public-Private Partnership to those who responded to a "market sounding" consultation on the project held last year. The report sets out how the project is to be taken forward, and should help potential bidders prepare themselves before London Underground invite formal expressions of interest. A notice alerting other interested parties to the progress report will appear in the Official Journal. A copy of the report has been deposited in the Library.

  Donaldson Report
  Mr. Ainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will publish Lord Donaldson's report on Salvage and Intervention and their Command and Control; and if he will make a statement. [77085]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  I am today publishing Lord Donaldson's report of Salvage and Intervention and their Command and Control and placing a copy of the Government's interim response to each of his 26 recommendations in the Library.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 1 March 1999, c. 517–18]: There have been no official visits by DETR Ministers to Zimbabwe since May 1997.

  There have been three visits by officials:
  In June 1997 four Departmental officials, together with delegations from other Government Departments, the Joint Nature Conservation Committee and the Royal Botanic Gardens Kew, visited Harare for the 10th Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) Conference at which a range of issues concerning trade and endangered species were discussed.
  In January 1998 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.
  Also in January 1998 two Departmental officials visited Zimbabwe's Director of Civil Aviation, Mr. A. Marawa, to discuss the possibilities for extra services to Zimbabwe by British scheduled and charter airlines.
  475

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Controls
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answers of 2 February 1999,Official Report, columns 581–82, what steps he is taking to ensure the recovery of the sums paid in claims by the ECGD to manufacturers but not recovered from defence buyers in (a) Algeria and (b) Jordan [75809]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: Algeria and Jordan are repaying the debt, arising from ECGD claims payments in respect of civil and military export contracts, under Government to Government Agreements. Both countries are meeting their obligations under the Agreements in full.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the representations received by his Department from Scottish local authorities regarding the review of assisted area status. [75915]

  Mr. Wills
  Representations were received from the following Scottish Local Authorities:

  Aberdeen City Council

  Aberdeenshire Council

  Angus Council

  Argyll and Bute Council

  Clackmannanshire Council

  Dumfries and Galloway Council

  Dundee City Council

  East Ayrshire Council

  East Lothian Council

  Edinburgh City Council

  Falkirk Council

  Fife Council

  Glasgow City Council

  Highland Council

  Inverclyde Council

  Midlothian Council

  The Moray Council

  North Ayrshire Council

  North Lanarkshire Council

  Orkney Council

  Perth and Kinross Council

  Renfrewshire Council

  Scottish Borders Council

  Shetland Islands Council

  South Ayrshire Council

  South Lanarkshire Council

  Stirling Council

  West Dumbartonshire Council

  West Lothian Council.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to make his recommendations on the review of assisted area status known to (i) the Scottish Office and (ii) the European Commission. [75914]
  476
  Mr. Wills
  The review of Assisted Area status is being carried out in consultation with other Government Departments including the Scottish Office. Under the European Guidelines a new Assisted Areas map for the UK must operate from 1 January 2000. Changes to the Assisted Areas map must be agreed with the Commission, and they have asked for proposals from Member States by 31 March. Ministers are currently considering which proposals they will put forward.

  Debt (Late Payment)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the response by business to the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act 1998. [76433]

  Mr. Wills
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander), on 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 261–62.

  Special Representative on the Digital Economy
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the job description of the Special Representative on the Digital Economy. [76197]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: The Special Representative on the Digital Economy (the e-Envoy) will have two roles:

  1. To spearhead the implementation of the strategy, set out in the Competitiveness White Paper, for:

  a) achieving the Government's goal of making the UK, by the end of this Parliament, the best environment in the world in which to trade electronically

  b) ensuring that UK businesses and consumers fully realise the potential this opens up

  2. To advise the Secretary of State and Prime Minister on future development of the strategy. In particular:

  Monitoring progress on implementation of the strategy, and keeping the strategy under regular review in the light of international developments.

  Reviewing existing Government policies and activities relevant to the goals set out at No. 1, with a view to identifying gaps and areas for accelerated effort.

  Executive responsibility for implementing the agreed strategy will principally lie with relevant departments, but the e-Envoy will also take on specific functions where agreed by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister. In particular, the e-Envoy will act as public figurehead for the Government on e-commerce issues in international discussions; promote the UK as a centre for e-commerce business and investment; and publicly champion e-commerce in the UK, spreading awareness and promoting uptake by businesses and consumers.

  Fixed Capital Formation
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the current rate of fixed capital formation(a) nationally, (b) in each region and (c) in other OECD countries. [76041]
  477
  Mr. Wills
  The answer is as follows:

  (a)

  Table 1: Gross fixed capital formation, expressed as a percentage of GDP, in the United Kingdom

  Year

  Percentage of GDP

  1997

  16.7

  1998

  17.3

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics (ONS). Derived from figures in First Release ONS (99) 69

  (b)The ONS do not publish estimates of fixed capital formation covering all economic activity on a regional basis. The ONS do publish regional estimates of gross domestic fixed capital formation for a range of industries. The latest figures are for 1995.

  Table 2: Gross domestic fixed capital formation, as a percentage of gross domestic product for selected industries, in Standard Statistical Regions in 19951

  Region

  Percentage of GDP1

  North

  15.1

  North West

  15.9

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  17.1

  East Midlands

  13.5

  West Midlands

  14.4

  East Anglia

  12.8

  South East

  16.3

  South West

  14.0

  England

  15.4

  Wales

  17.9

  Scotland

  14.2

  Northern Ireland

  18.2

  United Kingdom

  15.5

  1 Figures cover only Agriculture, hunting, forestry and fishing, Mining, quarrying (inc. oil and gas extraction), Manufacturing, Electricity, gas and water, and Transport, storage and communication

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics (ONS). Derived from figures in Economic Trends (June and January 1998)

  (c)

  Table 3: Gross fixed capital formation, expressed as a percentage of GDP in 1997, in OECD countries

  OECD member

  Percentage of GDP

  United Kingdom1

  15.6

  Australia

  21.5

  Austria

  24.1

  Belgium

  17.8

  Canada

  18.8

  Czech Republic

  30.7

  Denmark

  20.1

  Finland

  16.9

  France

  17.1

  Germany

  19.9

  Greece

  20.0

  Hungary

  21.0

  Iceland

  18.8

  Ireland

  18.7

  Italy

  16.7

  Japan

  28.3

  Republic of Korea

  35.0

  Luxembourg

  22.4

  Mexico

  19.6

  Netherlands

  20.0

  New Zealand

  19.9

  Norway

  23.0

  Poland

  21.2

  478

  Table 3: Gross fixed capital formation, expressed as a percentage of GDP in 1997, in OECD countries

  OECD member

  Percentage of GDP

  Portugal

  25.1

  Spain

  20.6

  Sweden

  13.7

  Switzerland

  19.6

  Turkey

  26.4

  United States

  17.4

  1 Not comparable with equivalent figure in Table 1. The ONS figures in Table 1 are calculated using the new European System of Accounts (ESA 1995) while the OECD figures use an earlier national accounts classification.

  Source:

  OECD National Accounts 1999 Volume 1

  Data Protection
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the measures currently planned to be taken, pursuant to the enactment of Common Position (EC) 8/1999 (1999/c 55/01), with particular reference to(a) recitals 8 and 16, (b) their costs and (c) data privacy. [75709]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Common position is that adopted by the Telecommunications Council on 21 December 1998 on a series of guidelines, including the identification of projects of common interest, for trans-European networks for the electronic Interchange of Data between Administrations (IDA). IDA aims to achieve the most efficient and cost effective means of data interchange in support of European Community policies.

  The Common position relates to a second phase of IDA that will run for five years from the point of adoption. The first phase ran from 1995–1997 and supported Community policies by the development of networks for the exchange of data related to subjects including agriculture, fisheries, health, statistics, employment and customs matters. The second phase is likely to continue work in some of these areas and other areas where Member States and the European Community identify the need for data interchange.

  At this stage, there are no specific proposals on exchange of information related to Recitals 8 and 16 of the Common position text. The proposed budget for the IDA guidelines proposal is estimated as euro 38.5 million for the first three years of the programme.

  Any work carried forward under IDA, will take full account of the sensitivity of the data to be passed across a network and the relevant data protection legislation. Appropriate security measures will be taken to protect sensitive data.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  National Insurance Contributions
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the increase in revenue to the Exchequer in the financial year 1999–2000 as a result of(a) raising the upper earnings limit on employee national

  479
  insurance contributions to £602 per week and (b) removing the upper earnings limit on employee national insurance contributions altogether. [74396]

  Mr. Timms
  Estimated additional revenue of some £1.8 billion would be raised in 1999–2000 if the Upper Earnings Limit on employees' Class 1 contributions was increased from its present level to the same level as the threshold of higher rate income tax, which is to be set at £622 a week from April 1999. If the Upper Earnings Limit was removed, the estimated additional revenue raised would be £4.2 billion for that year.

  The figures assume that the current 10 per cent. Class 1 contribution rate would apply to earnings above the present Upper Earnings Limit, and that this limit would remain in place for the calculation of employee and employer contracted-out rebates.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the number of employees who will pay higher national insurance contributions as a result of the increase of the upper limit in(a) the standard rate and (b) the contracted out rate of national insurance contributions. [76454]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.

  Estimated average weekly numbers of employees in Great Britain who will pay more National Insurance Contributions following the increase of the upper earnings limit to £535 per week from April 2000 and to £575 per week from April 2001

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Contracted in employees

  1,400,000

  1,380,000

  Contracted out employees

  2,500,000

  2,460,000

  All employees

  3,900,000

  3,850,000

  Note:

  Rounded to the nearest ten thousand

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many prosecutions have followed from calls made to the Benefit Fraud Hotline in each month since May 1997; and what the total annual saving arising from the Benefit Fraud Hotline has been since its establishment. [75849]

  Mr. Timms
  Administration of the Benefit Fraud hotline is the responsibility of Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Iain Duncan Smith, dated 12 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the number of prosecutions which have followed from calls made to the Benefit Fraud Hotline in each month since May 1997; and what the total annual saving arising form the Benefit Fraud Hotline has been since its establishment.
  Investigations by the Benefits Agency, which include cases which start as a Hotline referrals, have led to 8,417 prosecutions in the year to date (to the end of January 1999.) Figures for referrals, in each month since May 1997 are provided in the attached table. Figures for the number of these referrals that then result in prosecutions have only been recorded since January 1999.
  480
  The total Weekly Benefit Savings achieved by the National Benefit Fraud Hotline since its launch in August 1996 to date (to end of January 1999) is £108.9m.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  National Benefit Fraud Hotline Number of cases referred to Departmental Solicitors for prosecution in each month since May 1997 following Hotline referrals.

  Year

  Month

  Cases referred for Prosecution

  1997

  May

  45

  June

  71

  July

  61

  August

  31

  September

  6

  October

  40

  November

  67

  December

  12

  1998

  January

  41

  February

  25

  March

  28

  April

  3

  May

  65

  June

  26

  July

  16

  August

  87

  September

  2

  October

  13

  November

  50

  December

  14

  1999

  January

  8

  Total

  711

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what definitions of high and low suspicion of fraud are used for categorising cases in the Area Benefit Review Programme. [76108]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of the Area Benefit Review Programme is the responsibility of Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my right hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Frank Field, dated 12 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the definitions of high and low suspicion of fraud used for categorising cases in the Area Benefit Review Programme.
  The definitions of high and low suspicion are set out in the Governmental Statistical Service Area Benefit Review Results published in November 1998 and you may wish to refer to this document. The published headline figures of fraud and error exclude high and low suspicion of fraud. We are following up specific cases so that those originally classified as high suspicion of fraud can be subsequently confirmed as fraud, re-classified as correct, or remain as high suspicion.
  As part of our commitment to improve the administration of the benefit system we have been working to clarify the definitions as published in the above report. The revised definitions are set out below.
  Low suspicion of fraud means that the reviewing officer suspects that fraud exists, but the evidence is weak, and benefit entitlement does not change. For example, a customer with a long-term claim appears to be living above their means, but there are no solid grounds for suspicion, and no means of establishing the source of the financing.

  481
  High suspicion of fraud means that, on the balance of probabilities, a fraudulent situation exists, but there is insufficient information to prove fraud, and benefit entitlement does not change.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Benefit Interviews
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security, pursuant to his answer of 2 March 1999,Official Report, column 709, on benefit interviews, whether a claimant will be able to provide the completed claim form by post or by another person delivering it to the relevant agency. [75851]

  Angela Eagle
  Claim forms delivered by post or by another person will be accepted where the claimant's readiness for work has been reviewed and a decision taken as to whether an immediate work-focused interview is appropriate. If not, we will take steps to contact the claimant to resolve these issues before benefit is put into payment.

  Family Resources Survey
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list the special analyses, including unpublished tabulations, of the Family Resources Survey which were undertaken by his Department for the Pension Provision Group. [76098]

  Mr. Timms
  The following analyses of the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey were undertaken for the Pension Provision Group:Tabulation of the individual incomes of men and women over State pension age.
  Tabulation of the incomes of single pensioners.
  Tabulation of the average incomes of pensioner units by source and by marital status and gender.
  Tabulation of the average incomes of pensioner units by source and by marital status and age under/over 75.
  Estimation of the number of benefit units becoming entitled to means-tested benefits were upper capital limits to be removed and tariff income calculated for all capital above the lower capital limit.
  Estimations of the numbers of people below State pension age in paid employment in the UK who are currently contributing to SERPS and occupational pension schemes and who have ever contributed to a personal pension scheme, by gender and full-time or part-time employment status.

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the average age of those ceasing to receive widowed mother's allowance on the grounds that they no longer have dependent children. [76112]

  Angela Eagle
  The average age of those ceasing to receive Widowed Mother's Allowance between September 1997 and September 1998 is 51.

  Notes:

  1. Average age calculated of widows who were in receipt of Widowed Mothers Allowance (WMA) and had a dependent child in September 1997, but by September 1998 were in receipt of Widows Benefit (WB) but no longer had a qualifying dependent child.

  2. The average does not include WMA cases that move off WB completely as it may be reasons other than no longer having a dependent child/ren.

  3. Excludes Northern Ireland.

  Source:

  5 per cent. sample of Pension Strategy Computer System.
  482
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many new claimants of widow's benefits there were in each year since 1992; and what percentage of those claimants were in each region and nation. [76135]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the tables.

  Estimated number of recipients of widows benefit per year1 by country (September 1994 to September 19982)

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  England

  30,000

  25,880

  23,480

  19,420

  Scotland

  3,860

  3,320

  2,780

  2,520

  Wales

  2,300

  2,100

  1,160

  1,440

  Overseas

  2,420

  2,100

  1,540

  1,100

  All Countries

  38,580

  33,400

  28,960

  24,480

  Estimated percentages of new recipients of widows benefit per year by country based on table above

  %

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  England

  77.7

  77.5

  81.1

  79.3

  Scotland

  10.0

  9.9

  9.6

  10.3

  Wales

  6.0

  6.3

  4.0

  5.9

  Overseas

  6.2

  6.3

  5.3

  4.5

  All Countries

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  100.0

  Notes:

  1. New widows estimated from 5 per cent. samples of Pension Strategy Computer System between September of each year.

  2. Data not available prior to September 1994.

  3. Excludes widows who received a Widows Payment lump sum with no succeeding award of Widows Benefit.

  4. Excludes Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the numbers of those receiving(a) widowed mothers allowance and (b) widows pension in each region and nation; and how many people (i) claimed widowed mothers allowance for the first time, (ii) transferred from widowed mothers allowance to widows benefit and (iii) claimed widows benefit for the first time in the most recent year for which figures are available. [76113]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available the format requested. Such information as is available is in the Tables.

  Number of widows benefit recipients in Great Britain and overseas at September 1998: by country

  Widows pension

  Widowed mothers allowance

  All

  England

  171,560

  37,440

  209,000

  Scotland

  24,120

  5,100

  29,220

  Wales

  11,360

  2,480

  13,840

  Overseas

  13,180

  2,960

  16,140

  All

  220,220

  47,980

  268,200

  Notes:

  1. Caseload estimate from 5 per cent. samples of Pension Strategy Computer System.

  2. Excludes widows who received a Widows Payment lump sum with no succeeding award of Widows Benefit.

  3. Excludes Northern Ireland.
  483

  Estimated number of widows transferring from widowed mothers allowance to widows pension between September 1997 to September 1998: by country

  Widows pension

  England

  1,320

  Scotland

  280

  Wales

  100

  Overseas

  40

  All

  1,740

  Notes:

  1. Caseload estimated from 5 per cent. samples of Pension Strategy Computer System.

  2. Excludes widows who received a Widows Payment lump sum with no succeeding awards of Widows Benefit.

  3. Excludes Northern Ireland.

  Estimated new recipients of widows benefit between September 1997 to September 1998: by country

  Widows pension

  Widowed mothers allowance

  All

  England

  15,020

  4,400

  19,420

  Scotland

  1,980

  540

  2,520

  Wales

  1,180

  260

  1,440

  Overseas

  1,000

  100

  1,100

  All

  19,180

  5,300

  24,480

  Notes:

  1. New Cases estimated from 5 per cent. samples of Pension Strategy Computer System.

  2. Excludes widows who received a Widows Payment lump sum with no succeeding award of Widows Benefit.

  3. Excludes Northern Ireland.

  State Second Pension
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) which versions of the state second pension, and what assumptions about the dates of take-up, underlie the table on page 105 of the White Paper, Partnership in Pensions (Cm 4179); [76110]

  (2) which versions of the state second pension, taken up at what dates, underlie Chart 5 on page 41 of the White Paper, Partnership in Pensions (Cm 4179). [76136]

  Mr. Timms
  Both Chart 5 on page 41 and the examples given in the table on page 105 of the Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions" are based on the first stage of the proposed State Second Pension. An implementation date of April 2002 was assumed.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what variation there will be between men and women as regards the benefits of the current SERPS and proposed state second pension system set out in the table on page 105 of the White Paper, Partnership in Pensions (Cm 4179). [76109]

  Mr. Timms
  The examples of pension provision shown on page 105 of the Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions" apply equally to men and women.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will set out the qualifying conditions in terms of income and other factors for availability of the state second pension(a) to 2002, (b) from 2002 to 2007 and (c) after 2007. [76748]
  484
  Mr. Timms
  No one will qualify for the State Second Pension prior to April 2002, as this is the proposed implementation date. The qualifying conditions for the first stage of the State Second Pension are set out in Chapter 6 of the Green Paper "A new contract for welfare: Partnership in Pensions". The introduction of the second stage of the State Second Pension is dependent on stakeholder pensions becoming established as low-cost, value-for money, funded second pensions. It is expected that, once the second stage is implemented, the qualifying conditions will remain the same.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate, on the basis of the 1988–89 and 1994 retirement surveys, the proportion of pensioners whose real incomes decline in the five years after reaching state pension age. [76101]

  Mr. Timms
  This Department does not hold retirement survey data in a format that would allow the information to be produced. The Department commissioned the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and the Age Concern Institute of Gerontology (ACIOG) to carry out the analysis of the combined 1988–89 and 1994 data. Findings were published in "The Dynamics of Retirement" (1998) DSS Research Report No. 72, The Stationery Office. Converting the data to an appropriate format and producing a reliable analysis would involve disproportionate cost.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity, indicating the organisation acting as their sponsor or host. [76653]

  Mr. Timms
  None of this Department's Ministers attended the Brit awards.

  Invalid Care Allowance
  Mr. Bendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are currently in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance; and what proportion of carers this represents. [76450]

  Mr. Bayley
  The administration of Invalid Care Allowance is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Rendel, dated 12 March 1999:
  I am replying to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people are currently in receipt of Invalid Care Allowance; and what proportion of carers this represents.
  Invalid Care Allowance (ICA) is a benefit for people of working age who are regularly caring for a severely disabled person for at least 35 hours a week. As at 10 March 1999 374,241 people were in receipt of the allowance.
  Unfortunately, information about numbers of recipients as a proportion of carers who fulfil the ICA eligibility conditions is not available.
  I am sorry I could not, on this occasion, be more helpful.
  485

  Pension Case
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he expects the Benefits Agency to begin payment of the retirement pension due to the constituent of the hon. Member for Aylesbury (reference ZW755428A); and if he will make a statement. [76467]

  Mr. Timms
  The administration of Retirement Pension is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Lidington, dated 12 March 1999:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking when he expects the Benefits Agency to begin payment of Retirement Pension to your constituent who lives in Aylesbury.
  In this case your constituent elected to have their Retirement Pension paid four-weekly by Automated Credit Transfer. The first payment was released timeously to their bank account on 26 February 1999. They were advised of this on the same day.
  I hope you find this reply helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will define the broad-based mechanism to check awards of disability living allowance under the new periodic review system referred to in his letter to hon. Members of 28 January. [76765]

  Mr. Bayley
  We are determined to ensure that people are receiving the correct amount of benefit. From April 1999, a new fairer system of periodic inquiry into benefit entitlement will commence for existing recipients of Disability Living Allowance (DLA). The process will incorporate lessons already learned and will be evaluated and refined as it develops.

  Initially, cases will be selected for inquiry action on a proportional basis across the range of awards to be included. People selected for inquiry action will be asked to complete a detailed questionnaire, based on the current claim form for DLA, either by post or at a home visit. These two methods of approach will be applied evenly across the range of people selected to help identify the best means of approach in individual cases. Once completed, the inquiry form will provide the Benefits Agency (BA) with an up to date picture of the need that the individual has for help with personal care and mobility and allow the BA to determine whether a review of entitlement would be appropriate. This will enable awards to be increased or decreased in line with entitlement. All staff involved in the new processes will receive full training before commencing this new work. The inquiry action will be monitored and evaluated after six months of operation and the findings will be used to continue to improve the process.

  Initially, the new system will exclude DLA recipients whose cases were examined by the Benefit Integrity Project (BIP) and those groups of disabled people that were specifically excluded from the action of the BIP. People who are terminally ill and meet the criteria set out in Section 66(2)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and people with a fixed period award due to end within the next three years will also not
  486
  be contacted. Full details are set out at in my Written Answer to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on 10 March 1999, Official Report, columns 251–52.

  Some disabling conditions, and the needs that they generate, change very little over time whilst others can be very variable in effect and/or degenerative in nature. The BA is therefore working to establish the proper frequency with which individuals should be asked about their current needs, so that, in the future, inquiries can be made at the most appropriate time and new claimants can be advised from the outset when inquiries are likely to be made in their case. This action does not affect the responsibility of all claimants to tell the BA about changes that may affect benefit entitlement.

  Wind Chill Factor
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what discussions he has had with the Meteorological Office concerning its proposals to pilot a study of weather stations in Scotland to take account of the wind chill factor in the assessment of cold weather payments; how much such a scheme would cost; and what plans he has to initiate such a scheme. [76146]

  Angela Eagle
  No discussions have taken place with the Meteorological Office on such a pilot. Nor is it possible to estimate the cost of introducing into the current scheme an allowance for the effects of wind speed because no trigger criterion exists combining it with external air temperature.

  A number of formulae are used to calculate the combined effects of air temperature and wind speed on the human body when in the open air (commonly referred to as "windchill"). However, the Building Research Establishment advises that these are not appropriate when assessing heat loss from buildings, because different heat transfer mechanisms apply.

  We are committed to tackling the problems associated with vulnerable people keeping warm and have already introduced numerous substantial measures to meet this objective. The most recent ones were announced in the Budget and will provide extra help for pensioners and young children in low income families. They include increasing the level of Winter Fuel Payments for pensioner households to £100 from next Winter and a substantial increase in the rates of benefit payable in income-related benefits for children under the age of eleven. The Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill proposals will also provide extra help for those in greatest need who have a long-term illness or are disabled.

  Taking into account all the measures already introduced we do not believe that amending the Cold Weather Payment scheme would be the most effective way to get help to those who need it most.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement on current progress on the introduction of the new National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2). [77192]

  Mr. Darling
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, in his written answer on 18 January 1999,Official Report, columns 368–70,

  487
  updated the House about progress that the Contributions Agency had made in addressing outstanding issues relating to the introduction of the new National Insurance Recording System (NIRS2). These issues include recording 1997–98 National Insurance Contributions, links between the NIRS2 system and claims for benefit, and wider roll-out of NIRS2 functionality.

  Since January the Contributions Agency has worked closely with Andersen Consulting to address these issues. Details of the progress that has been made are set out. Where issues have not yet been fully resolved, the Contributions and Benefits Agencies have endeavoured to minimise their impact on individuals and action is being put in place to identify the best way forward.

  In the light of outstanding issues relating to the introduction of NIRS2, it has been necessary to review the Contributions and Benefits Agencies' objectives for the remainder of the year and to re-prioritise activity. To ensure that we receive the greatest benefit from the system capacity, I have decided that the recording of 1997–98 National Insurance Contributions and payment of age-related rebates should be the first priorities. This will minimise the disruption to individuals and ensure that payments to individuals' personal pensions are made. However, a consequence of this decision is that some system backlogs will not be cleared until into the next financial year.

  My hon. Friend the Minister of State reported that, at 11 January, 31 million National Insurance contributions for the tax year 1997–98 had been posted. At 14 March 1999, 39 million items had been posted for the year, with 5.8 million items still to be posted. Action is underway to clear these outstanding items swiftly.

  The cumulative total of age-related rebate payments paid to occupational and personal pension schemes in respect of individual scheme members in this financial year has increased from £1,411 million on 4 January 1999 to £1,882 million on 1 March. This is over 75 per cent. of the expected net total for the year. (The cumulative total figure includes a compensation element.) Action is underway to clear the outstanding backlog.

  The NIRS2 link to Retirement Pensions, Widows Benefit, Jobseeker's Allowance and Incapacity Benefit is being used to process new claims to benefit. Where 1997–98 contributions are not yet recorded, there is a continuing need to make initial awards of Retirement Pension and emergency payments to widows. Initial and emergency awards of National Insurance benefits made since April 1998 will be reviewed following completion of the recording of 1997–98 National Insurance contribution information. The Benefits Agency hopes to begin reviewing these claims from April 1999.

  The Benefits Agency continues to calculate entitlement to State Earnings Related Pensions clerically for people who request this. 5,703 such calculations had been completed at 15 March.

  By 8 February 1999 a cumulative total of over £415 million of self-employed and voluntary National Insurance contributions had been billed and/or collected through the monthly payment method. In addition, over £286 million had been billed through the quarterly payment method.
  488
  New registration facilities for self-employed people who want to pay their contributions by monthly Direct Debit or by quarterly bills are fully operational.

  Adult registrations continue to be processed using the NIRS2 on-line facility and plastic National Insurance Number (NINO) cards are being issued. The exercise to process Scottish Juvenile registrations is complete. The full Juvenile Registration facilities were made available on 10 March 1999.

  All the work involved is being taken forward through a coordinated plan agreed between the Agencies involved. In order to minimise the impact on customers, we have set up a Benefits Agency taskforce that will take on responsibility for benefit claims affected by the delays. This will give customers a single point of contact by both telephone and post. The taskforce can be contacted, at local call rates, on 08456 010586 between 08.30 and 16.30 Monday to Friday, or customers can write to the taskforce at PO Box 6, Newcastle Upon Tyne, NE98 1XB.

  Ministers will keep the House informed of progress.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Early Years Development
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when he plans to announce approval of the local education authority early years development and childcare plans which were submitted to him last month; [76295]

  (2) if he plans to approve all local education authority early years development and childcare plans on the basis of a three tier approval system; and if he will set out those tiers and the criteria used to judge the plans at each level. [76294]

  Ms Hodge
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: There will be three levels of decision: full approval, conditional approval and deferred approval. Full approval will be awarded to plans which broadly meet the criteria set out in Section three of the 'Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership Planning Guidance for 1999–2000.' For plans which meet most of the planning guidance but have some gaps in information, approval will be conditional on the subsequent submission of material to fill the gaps. Where plans do not show that the statutory duty to provide nursery education places for four year olds will be met, where there is clear evidence of a failure in partnership working or where the plan falls well short of meeting the criteria in the planning guidance, approval will be deferred until an acceptable plan is submitted.

  I hope to make an announcement by the end of the month.

  SATS (Level 6)
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many primary school pupils in England were entered for the level 6 SATS papers in 1998 in(a) English, (b) mathematics and (c) science; how many were awarded level 6 in each subject; and what are the comparative figures for (i) 1994, (ii) 1995, (iii) 1996 and (iv) 1997. [75550]
  489
  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is given in the following table:

  Level 6 national curriculum test paper—key stage 2

  Number of pupils entered

  Number of pupils achieving level 6

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1998

  1997

  1996

  1995

  English

  21,689

  26,538

  34,409

  59

  484

  1,021

  192

  Mathematics

  21,002

  23,466

  24,492

  1,013

  837

  434

  1,545

  Science

  8,687

  8,760

  8,076

  223

  380

  122

  392

  Note:

  Information on the number of pupils entered for 1995 is not available, as data were not collected centrally at pupil level

  EU Education Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the agenda for the forthcoming EU Education Council on 18 March. [77157]

  Mr. Mudie
  The Education Council provisionally scheduled for 18 March has been cancelled.

  Target 2000
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress made in introducing the Target 2000 programme of education and training for young people. [76457]

  Mr. Mudie
  Our manifesto commitment to get all young people on the road to a Level 2 qualification by the year 2000 is being taken forward by our Investing in Young People strategy. A key component of the strategy is the expansion of National Traineeships, as part of the reform of Youth Training. 28,000 people have now started National Traineeships, which build on the success of Modern Apprenticeships and are available in 46 sectors of industry and commerce. A target of 100,000 starts has been set for March 2000.

  The strategy is wide ranging and includes piloting of an Education Maintenance Allowance in 12 areas, refocusing of the Careers Service on those most in need, expansion of the New Start strategy, and implementation of the Right to Time for Study legislation.

  We expect to develop the strategy further in the light of the forthcoming Social Exclusion Unit report into young people not in education, employment or training.

  Nursery Voucher Scheme
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the savings resulting from the abolition of the nursery voucher scheme. [74785]

  Ms Hodge
  The nursery education voucher scheme was replaced in September 1997 by local Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships and Plans which, from September 1998, have guaranteed a free, part-time early education place for all four year olds, for the three terms before compulsory school age, for those parents who want one in the maintained, private or voluntary sectors. The savings which accrued have been allocated to fund the establishment of a pilot scheme of 25 Early Excellence Centres by 2001, of which 17 have already been announced. From September 1999, additional funding will be provided to expand early education places for three year olds.
  490

  Special Educational Needs
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he expects to publish the outcome of the current consultation exercise on special educational needs; how many responses he has received to that consultation exercise; and if he will publish those responses. [76764]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department expects to issue a first draft of a revised Code of Practice on the identification and assessment of special educational needs in the Autumn. There have been over 600 responses to the consultation document issued on 12 January 1999. Under the Code of Practice on Open Government, any responses to the consultation document will be made public on request unless respondents have indicated that they wished their responses to remain confidential.

  Environment Taskforce
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many under-25s have been placed with the environment taskforce since its inception; what work the taskforce has carried out; and if he will make a statement. [76439]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Responsibility for the subject of these questions has been delegated to the Employment Service agency under its Chief Executive. I have asked him to arrange for a reply to be given.

  Letter from Richard Foster to Mr. David Maclean, dated 15 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked Leigh Lewis to reply to your question about the number of young people who have participated in the Environment Task Force option of New Deal for 18–24 year olds and what type of work is carried out on it. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to Mr. Lewis as Chief Executive of the Agency. I am replying in his absence.
  Up to the end of January, 8,910 young people had started on the Environment Task Force option of the New Deal for 18–24 year olds. This figure is drawn from the latest Government Statistical Service figures to the end of December 1998 and provisional Management Information to the end of January 1999.
  Turning to the type of work carried out, there is a wide range of projects which contribute to conserving energy and water and protecting the environment. We have also been keen to offer opportunities that encourage young people to become involved in local community regeneration. Projects have included dealing with housing, forest and park management, and reclamation of derelict or waste land. All projects are assessed against environmental objectives set by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The key criterion, however, is the extent to which they will develop participants' skills, help them into jobs at the end of their time on the option and increase their long term employability.
  I hope this is helpful.
  491

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity, indicating the organisation acting as their sponsor or host. [76650]

  Mr. Hoon
  None.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Race Relations Act 1976
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to implement his proposals to extend the Race Relations Act 1976 to all public services. [74594]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced in his Statement to the House on 24 February 1999,Official Report, columns 389–403, on the report of the inquiry into the death of Stephen Lawrence, that the Government accepted the recommendation in Sir William Macpherson's report that the police service should be brought within the Race Relations Act 1976. My right hon. Friend also announced that we intend going further by extending the Act to cover all the public services and that we are developing proposals to that end.

  The intention of the Home Secretary is to do so as quickly as possible. Parliamentary time is, of course, limited and the final decision belongs to the Leader of the House.

  Criminal Investigations
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review police methods and practices in gathering and interpreting information in the course of an inquiry. [74595]

  Kate Hoey
  Work is already underway in the Police Service to establish performance standards for the investigation of crime, to be followed and monitored in all forces. The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) has developed a manual of standards for murder investigations and their Crime Committee is developing models of good practice for all areas of crime investigation.

  Domestic Burglars (Sentences)
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure severe punishments for those domestic burglars who are convicted for a third time. [74597]

  Mr. Boateng
  As we announced on 12 January 1999,Official Report, column 159, we intend to bring into force this December section 4 of the Crime (Sentences) Act 1997. This provides minimum sentences of three years for those convicted for the third time of an offence of domestic burglary.
  492

  Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Report
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which of his Department's Ministers and officials saw the Macpherson report between 15 and 23 February; for what purpose; and if he will make a statement. [74598]

  Mr. Straw
  Details of this kind will need to be established by the independent investigator appointed to investigate the leak of parts of the Macpherson Report. It would not be appropriate for me to comment further at this stage.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's response to the Macpherson inquiry report into the death of Stephen Lawrence. [74604]

  Mr. Boateng
  The report into the death of Stephen Lawrence was published on 24 February 1999. The Home Secretary made an oral statement on that day,Official Report, columns 389–403, and said that he will be publishing an action plan detailing how the Government intend to take forward the recommendations and that there will be a full day's debate on this in due course.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of
  State for the Home Department what is(a) the name of the independent investigator into the Stephen Lawrence Inquiry leak and (b) who is his reporting officer for day-to-day Civil Service work. [76191]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: The investigator is independent; the question of a reporting officer does not, therefore, arise. It is not the practice to give details of investigators.

  Social Exclusion
  Ms Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on the role of the voluntary sector in tackling social exclusion. [74599]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government fully recognise the essential role that the voluntary and community sector plays in tackling social exclusion. Many organisations from the sector have unique experience and knowledge of areas of need and opportunity. The Policy Action Teams established to take this work forward include representatives from a range of voluntary organisations.

  Witness Protection
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will review the policy on the financing of witness protection; and if he will make a statement. [74600]

  Mr. Boateng
  Formal witness protection arrangements are funded from within existing budgets of individual police forces and, as such, are a matter left to the discretion of Chief Police Officers.

  I have no plans to review these arrangements.

  Police (Young People)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) guidance and (b) training is offered to police forces on the policing of young people. [R] [74601]
  493
  Kate Hoey
  The Home Office has issued guidance, in conjunction with the DfEE, to both police forces and local educational authorities on the application of the truancy provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The National Operations Faculty at the Police Staff College, Bramshill, provides training for officers who manage the police input to Youth Offending Teams. The Faculty has recently established a database for use by forces on information relating to the policing of young people with a view to disseminating good policing practice. Individual forces may also provide other training to meet local needs.

  Family Support
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on supporting families. [74602]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government's family policy is set out in the consultation document Supporting Families. The consultation period ends today (Monday 15 March). Work to assess the responses to the consultation exercise is already in hand, and the Ministerial Group on the Family will use the responses to inform the development of its strategy to increase the support available to families.

  Police Complaints
  Helen Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many times since May 1997 a complaint against a police force has been externally investigated. [74603]

  Mr. Boateng
  15 complaints cases were recorded as having been referred to another force for investigation in England and Wales in 1997–98, the latest year for which figures are available. Each case may consist of one or more complaint. This figure does not include investigations involving allegations of criminal or disciplinary offences in which no complaint has been received from a member of the public.

  The Government support the recommendation of the Home Affairs Select Committee in its report on police disciplinary and complaints procedures that investigation by an outside force should become a more regular occurrence than it is at present. The new guidance which we will be issuing shortly on police discipline and complaints procedures will encourage chief officers to make greater use of investigating officers from outside forces.

  Crime Audits
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the crime audits completed to date by local partnerships. [74605]

  Mr. Boateng
  The audits are a necessary and important step in the formulation of the local crime and disorder reduction strategies—which have to be completed by 1 April 1999. I am encouraged by the commitment I see on the part of the local partnerships to completing the tasks set for them in a timely and effective way.
  494

  Criminal Records (Children)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the availability of criminal records of children looked after by one local authority and placed in another local authority area to the local police in that area. [74606]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of the criminal records of individuals who come to police notice can be accessed by the police directly from the national criminal records database on the Police National Computer or from local police records.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of current provision of benefits in kind to asylum seekers. [74607]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The cost of the current provision of benefits in kind to asylum seekers will not be known until after the current financial year. However, we believe that the unit costs which have been set for 1998–99, whilst challenging, are realistic. The unit costs are:

  £165 per week for single adults;

  £230 per week for families (or £240 per week for families already resident within Inner London);

  £400 for unaccompanied children aged 15 and under: and

  £200 for unaccompanied 16 and 17 year olds.

  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people claimed asylum in the United Kingdom during 1998. [74613]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Forty six thousand and fifteen claimed asylum in 1998.

  Animal Procedures Committee
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met members of the Animal Procedures Committee to discuss progress in reducing the numbers of experiments on animals. [74608]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I met with members of the Committee on 9 December 1998. We discussed a number of issues including the need to ensure that animals are used only where fully justified: where the benefits outweigh the costs and where there are no alternatives. I would, however, refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 11 May 1998,Official Report, column 51—the effectiveness of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 cannot be judged by the overall number of procedures.

  Airguns
  Mr. Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to review the current legislation controlling airguns. [74609]

  Mr. Boateng
  We have no immediate plans to change the law relating to air weapons, but the firearms legislation will be kept under close scrutiny to see if there is anything further which needs to be done to protect the public safety.
  495

  Special Constables
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the recruitment of special constables; and if he will make a statement. [74610]

  Kate Hoey
  No representations have been received in respect of the recruitment of special constables.

  The government fully support the efforts of police forces to recruit more special constables who bring a level of commitment and local knowledge which is invaluable in policing their own communities.

  Illegal Immigrants
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with the road transport industry over his plans to levy financial penalties on lorry drivers found guilty of transporting illegal immigrants. [74611]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have held a number of meetings with representatives of the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, on the proposed penalty prior to the Bill's publication. I will continue to work closely with the industry on the detailed operation of this new penalty.

  Police Vehicles (Accidents)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) injured or (b) killed since 1990 as a result of an accident involving a police vehicle answering a 999 call. [74614]

  Mr. Boateng
  Figures dealing solely with responses to emergency calls are not available centrally as statistics collate them together with accidents arising from pursuits. Information has been provided by Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, to whom forces submit statistical returns. Collection arrangements have changed over the period so figures for 1990 to 1993 cover only serious injuries.

  Police vehicle accidents arising from responses to immediate calls and pursuits, England and Wales

  Injuries

  Fatalities

  1990

  317

  24

  1991

  271

  32

  1992

  300

  30

  1993

  300

  34

  1994–95

  11,830

  121

  1995–96

  22,169

  221

  1996–97

  21,930

  215

  1997–98

  2,123

  15

  1Figures from 3 forces are missing from the total

  2 Figures from 2 forces are missing from the total

  Police Officers (Ethnic Communities)
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to encourage the promotion of police officers from the ethnic communities to senior rank. [74615]
  496
  Kate Hoey
  Individual targets will be set for each force for the recruitment, retention and progression of ethnic minority officers. We believe that targets coupled with a range of initiatives aimed at removing barriers to progression will inevitably lead over time to more ethnic minority officers in senior ranks.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the reduction in the number of experiments following the ban on the testing on animals of cosmetic experiments and ingredients. [74592]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey), on 15 February 1999,Official Report, column 598 an average of about 2,000 animals a year were used in cosmetics testing from 1995 to 1997.

  Closed Circuit Television
  Mr. Bennett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice he gives to people installing closed circuit television about issues of privacy, retention of recordings and the need to follow a published code of practice. [74596]

  Mr. Boateng
  A code of practice for Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) systems is essential to ensure that CCTV is operated with integrity and respect for personal privacy. Public space CCTV systems funded under the Home Office Challenge Competition should comply with the best practice code developed by the Local Government Information Unit.

  The Data Protection Act 1998 will provide a framework for the statutory regulation of CCTV systems.

  The Data Protection Registrar has started to develop a code of practice, to be issued under her new powers as Data Protection Commissioner. This code will provide guidance to CCTV operators on how to comply with the Act's requirements.

  Sex Offender Orders
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many sex offender orders have been(a) applied for and (b) granted under section 2 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. [76023]

  Mr. Boateng
  To date, we are aware of one Sex Offender Order having been granted. No information is held centrally to indicate the number of Sex Offender Orders which have been applied for.

  Police (False Information)
  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people were charged with wasting police time, other than by making malicious complaints against the police, in each constabulary area in England and Wales during each year from 1996 to 1998. [75904]

  Mr. Boateng
  There is no offence of making a malicious complaint against the police, but a person may commit an offence under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law
  497
  Act 1967 where he or she causes wasteful employment of the police by giving false information to them. Information is available centrally only on the number of people cautioned, prosecuted or convicted for an offence under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967.

  In 1996 in England and Wales, there were 134 cautions, 60 prosecutions and 44 convictions for an offence under section 5(2) of the Criminal Law Act 1967. In 1997, there were 95 cautions, 71 prosecutions, and 56 convictions for the same offence.

  Mr. Maginnis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the number of man/days identified as having been spent in the investigation of(a) malicious complaints and (b) false information within each constabulary area in England and Wales during each year from 1996 to 1998. [75903]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not recorded centrally.

  Electoral Registers
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many councils did not have the 1999–2000 electoral register available in(a) printed and (b) tape or disc form on 16 February; and what requirements there are for councils to make registers available by that date. [76626]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the availability of the new electoral register for each local council area is not held centrally.

  Under the Representation of the People Act 1983, electoral registration officers are required to publish the register not later than 15 February in any year. If any part of a register is not published by this date then, until the day after it is published, the corresponding part of the previous register continues in use. Once published, printed copies are required to be made available to electoral users on request, whilst data copies are to be supplied on payment of the appropriate fee.

  Police (South Cumbria)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations have been made to him concerning (i) the number of police stations and police officers and (ii) police resources in South Cumbria by(a) members of the police and (b) hon. Members. [76665]

  Mr. Boateng
  I have not received any representations specifically about the number of police stations, officers or police resources in South Cumbria. I did, however, receive two representations from hon. Members, one representation from the Cumbria Police Authority and one representation from the Allerdale Borough Council about the police funding allocation for the Cumbria Police Authority in 1999–2000. Only the letter from the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale referred to the number of police stations and police officers.

  I also had a meeting with representatives of the Cumbria Police Authority and the Chief Constable on 6 January about the funding settlement for 1999–2000 at which the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale was present.
  498
  I understand that the Cumbria Police Authority have approved a budget increase of 2.7 per cent. for 1999–2000.

  Prisons (Phones)
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are(a) the costs, (b) the purposes and (c) the timescale of the contract awarded to BT for new technology phones in prisons; and if he will make a statement. [76664]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The new prisoner telephone system, which is due to be installed in all prisons in England and Wales by May 2000, has the dual purpose of enabling prisoners to maintain their family ties whilst minimising the risk of misuse. The new system is being provided and maintained at no cost to the Prison Service throughout the duration of the ten-year contract.

  WPC Yvonne Fletcher
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to receive the report from the Metropolitan Police on the review of the evidence surrounding the murder of WPC Fletcher. [74874]

  Mr. Boateng
  The police review of the evidence surrounding the murder of WPC Yvonne Fletcher has taken longer than originally anticipated. I understand from the Metropolitan police, however, that this review will be completed in the near future.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Walsall, North of 10 February concerning a constituent. [76227]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: I have written today on the Home Secretary's behalf to my hon. Friend for Walsall, North.

  European Parliamentary Elections
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on(a) the counting arrangements and (b) the procedures to be adopted in the event of a recount in the elections for the European Parliament, in relation to counting at (i) parliamentary constituency level and (ii) regional centre level. [77127]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Details of the proposed counting arrangements for European Parliamentary elections were set out in the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson) on 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 33.

  Parties and candidates will be entitled to be present at all of the local counts and to ask for a recount. They will also be entitled to be present at the place where the regional returning officer performs the seat allocation calculation and to ask him to repeat the calculation.

  Criminal Justice Act 1993
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will implement the measures contained in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. [76292]
  499
  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: Discussions are currently taking place with Departments most closely interested in the implementation of Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1993. It is hoped that we will be in a position to bring Part I into force very soon.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 12 March, indicating the position taken by the UK Government on each item discussed. [76200]

  Mr. Straw
  I will report to the House as soon as possible on the outcome of this Council.

  Police (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers there were in Oxfordshire in(a) March 1997, (b) March 1998 and (c) March 1999; and how many he estimates there will be in March 2000. [76785]

  Mr. Boateng
  I understand from the Chief Constable that it is not possible to provide information on the number of police officers in Oxfordshire as the territorial divisions of the Thames Valley Police are not co-terminous with the county boundaries of the three counties that make up the force area.

  Information on the number of officers for March 1999 will not be available before the middle of May. Ministers have no direct control over police numbers. Under legislation passed by the previous Government in 1994, it is for the individual chief constables to determine the number of police officers in their force, on the basis of the resources made available to them. It is not, therefore, possible to provide a projection of the force's strength for March 2000.

  Numbers of officers in the Thames Valley Police in 1997 and 1998 are set out in the table:

  Thames Valley Police

  Year

  Number of officers1

  31 March 1997

  3,695

  31 March 1998

  3,776

  1 Full-time equivalents

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the estimated(a) initial capital cost and (b) annual running cost of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [75701]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) is to be delivered as a Private Finance Initiative scheme. British Telecom will be the service provider and, therefore, responsible for the capital infrastructure costs.
  500
  I am advised by Police Information Technology Organisation that negotiations for the award of the contract for PSRCP are now entering their final stage. I am, therefore, not able to comment on annual running costs as they are part of the contract negotiations.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what form of competition took place prior to negotiations starting on the introduction of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project; and what other parties took an interest in providing the communications services required by the Police. [75703]

  Mr. Boateng
  A full competition was held under European Community rules and three consortia were invited to submit a bid. The Project Definition Study was awarded to Quadrant—a consortium led by British Telecom after the two other consortia withdrew from the competition.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what contingency plans have been prepared for an alternative to the Public Safety Radio Communications Project. [75702]

  Mr. Boateng
  A fallback strategy has been produced and is being further developed to assist forces to procure replacement radio systems, either locally or regionally.

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are for other emergency services to be included in negotiations on the introduction of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project. [75704]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Police Information Technology Organisation are negotiating with British Telecom about the introduction of the Public Safety Radio Communications service for the police. They are keeping potential sharers of the service informed of developments.

  District Plans (Police Authority Objections)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department under what statutory authority police authorities may object to local authorities' unitary district plan proposals; and if he will list the occasions on which this has occurred in each of the last five years. [75939]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I have been asked to reply.

  Police authorities, like any other individual, body or organisation, can object to a unitary development plan during the statutory periods set out in the Town and Country Planning (Development Plans) Regulations 1991. Information on organisations making objections is not collected centrally.

  2001 Census
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received calling for the inclusion of additional categories in the 2001 census to identify(a) race and (b) ethnic origin. [74630]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Office for National Statistics, along with the other two UK Census Offices, has conducted a lengthy programme of consultation with all user communities on their requirements for questions to be considered in the

  501
  2001 Census. This consultation process culminated in the submission by users of business cases setting out the uses and values of Census information for each particular topic. Ministers have now considered the case for a revised ethnic group question in the 2001 Census, and the Government's proposals were published in a White Paper on 4 March [Cm 4253].

  During the period of consultation, a total of 154 representations calling for the inclusion of additional categories in the 2001 Census to identify ethnic origin have been received as follows:
  108 from MPs and 31 from MEPs, on behalf of the British Sikh Federation, the Kashmiri Workers Association, the Federation of Irish Societies, Cornwall 2000, Cornish Solidarity and 15 from individual members of the public.

  Live Animal Imports
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prosecutions there were for breaches of the law in respect of live animal imports for each year from 1990 to the latest year for which figures are available. [75846]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have been asked to reply.

  Statistics concerning the number of prosecutions for breach of the law in respect of live animal imports are as follows:

  Number of prosecutions for breaches of the law in respect of live animal imports into Great Britain

  Year

  Number

  1990

  60

  1991

  99

  1992

  73

  1993

  58

  1994

  79

  1995

  71

  1996

  71

  1997

  54

  1998

  50

DEFENCE

  Gulf War Veterans
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Gulf War veterans have died since the end of the war in 1991; [62958]

  (2) how many service personnel who served in the Gulf War of 1991 have died whilst still serving in HM forces. [62960]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 9 December 1998]: The Ministry of Defence has identified 53,462 members of the UK armed forces who were deployed on Operation GRANBY or to a state in the Gulf region at some time between 1 September 1990 and 30 June 1991. As at 5 March 1999, 381 of these individuals were recorded by the MOD as having died since 1 April 1991, of which 254 were regular personnel recorded as having died whilst still serving in the armed forces. Information received by the MOD in respect of a further 17 Gulf veterans who have been reported as having died is currently in the process of being verified.
  502

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment his Department has made of the cost of moving a non-infantry TA battalion HQ from South to North Wales. [68478]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 1 February 1999]: No assessment has been made of the cost of transferring a non-infantry TA Regimental Headquarters from South to North Wales. There are no non-infantry TA Battalion Headquarters in the South of Wales.

  Compensation
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to publish a consultation document following the review of arrangements for compensating service personnel and their dependants injured or killed during service. [72250]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 22 February 1999]: The joint MOD/DSS review of compensation arrangements for service personnel has proved more complicated than expected and therefore taken longer than we originally planned. We are, however, pressing ahead with the work and we hope to publish a consultation document around the middle of the year.

  Defence Agencies (Targets)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to set targets for the(a) Army Training and Recruiting Agency, (b) Defence Bills Agency, (c) Defence Evaluation and Research Agency and (d) Army Base Repair Organisation for the year 1999–2000. [71943]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: We expect to set Key Targets for these four agencies by the end of April 1999.

  Air Miles
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many air miles have been earned by him and each of his ministers; and how he proposes to use them. [73332]

  Mr. Spellar
  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.

  Depleted Uranium
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what continuing research is in progress on depleted uranium under the medical assessment programme;[74718]

  (2) for what reason testing for depleted uranium has been omitted from the overt list of standard tests carried out at the medical assessment programme; [74717]
  503
  (3) what tests for depleted uranium have been undertaken under the medical assessment programme; and what consent for such testing was sought from those tested. [74719]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The primary purpose of the Gulf veterans' Medical Assessment Programme (MAP) is to investigate the medical complaints of UK Gulf War veterans and, so far as possible, to diagnose what they are suffering from and recommend appropriate treatment, or provide reassurance if no illness is found.

  When the MAP was first established in 1993, its first Head, Wing Commander (now Group Captain) Bill Coker, initially carried out those tests he felt necessary on clinical grounds to establish a diagnosis. When the number of patients referred to the MAP increased, he carried out a number of screening tests, similar to those then used by the US Department of Defense's Comprehensive Clinical Evaluation Programme (CCEP), which is broadly equivalent to the MAP. These screening tests did not include a test to detect the presence of uranium because Group Captain Coker had not previously seen any features in patients to indicate that such testing was clinically necessary. The US experience had suggested that the urinary excretion of uranium was only significantly increased in those veterans with retained fragments of depleted uranium (DU). As MOD was not aware of any UK Service personnel who had sustained shrapnel injuries from DU-based ammunition, it was not thought necessary to screen routinely for uranium excretion, although testing could be carried out on a case by case basis if clinically indicated. Any other tests considered clinically appropriate would also be performed, these additional tests varying from patient to patient. This system of investigation was in place at the time of the Royal College of Physicians' (RCP) clinical audit in 1995.

  The RCP's subsequent report, published in July 1995, endorsed the MAP' s professional independence and integrity and made specific comments on how the Programme could be improved. However, with the exception of a recommendation concerning psychiatric assessments, the RCP did not recommend any changes to the tests and examinations carried out by the MAP.

  The baseline tests currently carried out on MAP patients by St. Thomas's Hospital on the MAP's behalf are very similar to those which were in place at the time of the RCP audit in 1995. They are as follows:

  Full blood count and sedimentation rate (FBC/ESR)

  Full biochemical screen, including renal function tests (urea, electrolytes and creatinine), liver function tests (LFT), calcium and blood sugar

  Immunoglobulin analysis

  Creatine kinase

  Thyroid function tests (TFT)

  Serological screening tests

  Chest X-ray (CXR)

  Ultrasound abdominal scan

  Electrocardiogram (ECG)

  Urinalysis

  Peak-flow lung measurement (to determine the necessity for vitalography)

  A management audit of the MAP has recently been conducted, looking at all aspects of patient care and the service provided by the Programme. A final report is in preparation and MOD expects to receive this shortly. We
  504
  intend that this will be made public in due course. This work will then be followed by a clinical audit which will include a review of the range of tests and examinations currently undertaken at the MAP.

  The tests listed are the baseline investigations at the MAP; additional investigations and/or referrals to other consultants/specialists are sometimes required for particular patients. As part of this, any tests which are considered clinically appropriate by the examining MAP physician, which could include those to detect the presence of uranium, are arranged. However, MAP physicians have not so far considered it clinically necessary to conduct tests on any MAP patients to detect the presence of uranium.

  Contrary to some recent media reports, the MOD is not conducting testing in relation to the possible exposure of Gulf veterans to DU, secret or otherwise.

  On 16 December 1998, Official Report, columns 520–22, I announced that I had asked my officials to collate the information which the Department possesses concerning mechanisms which could be used to test for the presence of uranium in the human body. I expect to publish the results of this work shortly and will make arrangements for copies to be placed in the Library of the House.

  The MAP is not a research programme and it is not involved in any research concerning DU. Although the Ministry of Defence is funding a range of studies into aspects of Gulf veterans' illnesses, none of these are specifically aimed at investigating the relationship between possible exposure to DU and the illnesses being experienced by some Gulf veterans.

  The Ministry of Defence is well aware that a link has been suggested between DU exposure and Gulf veterans' illnesses. However, this is only one of a number of factors which have been suggested as causes of Gulf veterans' illnesses and, pending further medical and scientific evidence, MOD is keeping an open mind on this issue. MOD would be very interested to see any new relevant information on this subject.

  Personnel Strategy
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will set out his Department's Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy. [74651]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: A key outcome of the Strategic Defence Review was a widespread recognition of the need for an Armed Forces Overarching Personnel Strategy. We are currently developing this important strategy, which will be a major contribution to improving the joint environment in which the Armed Forces will increasingly work. We will keep the House fully informed as this work matures.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the meetings since May 1997 held with representatives of the British defence industry by each of his special advisers. [74642]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 4 March 1999]: Both special advisers meet representatives of the British defence industry in the course of their duties.

  505
  Mr. Bernard Gray has particular responsibilities in relation to defence procurement and industrial policy and is therefore in day-to-day contact with a wide variety of industry representatives.

  Government to Government Programme
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Swindon, South (Ms Drown) of 26 January 1999,Official Report, columns 173–74, if he will list the customer Governments which contributed to the cost of project offices for Government to Government programmes, stating in each case the size of receipts; and what the total receipts were in the three previous financial years.[76125]

  Mr. Spellar
  The customer Governments which contributed to the cost of project offices for Government to Government defence programmes are those of Kuwait, Malaysia and Saudi Arabia. Details relating to the level of contributions made are confidential between Her Majesty's Government and the customer Governments concerned. I am therefore withholding that information under the provisions of Exemption 1 of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with Hunting-Brae over replacing the Pangbourne pipeline with an evaporator following the enforcement notice served on AWE Aldermaston by the Environment Agency. [76018]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Enforcement Notice served on 9 February made no reference to the Pangbourne pipeline. There is no requirement at present to replace it. However, AWE has for some years been examining the best environmental choices for all its discharges, which includes consideration of evaporators and absorbers and the MOD Compliance Office at Aldermaston have been involved in this work. If, at some point in the future, replacement is considered necessary, AWE, the Ministry of Defence and the Environment Agency will have to be satisfied that any alternative offers environmental advantages over the present system.

  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library a copy of the nuclear installations inspectorate's licence of AWE Aldermaston. [76020]

  Mr. Spellar
  I have arranged for a copy to be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Trigat
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to sign the Memorandum of Understanding in respect of Medium Range Trigat. [76063]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are considering whether the UK will participate in the Industrialisation and Production Phase of the collaborative Medium Range TRIGAT programme.

  Falklands Military Garrison
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost in 1998 of maintaining the Falklands military garrison; and if he will make a statement. [76367]
  506
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The outturn cost to the Ministry of Defence of the Falkland Islands Garrison in financial year 1998–99 is expected to be approximately £71 million. This figure relates to the costs incurred by the Commander British Forces Falkland Islands only. It does not include the costs of the RAF airbridge to the Falkland Islands, nor the cost of naval deployments to the South Atlantic. These costs fall to other budgets and are not separately identified.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Ministerial visits made to Argentina in 1998. [76366]

  Mr. George Robertson
  No Ministers from my Department visited Argentina in 1998.

  Low-flying Aircraft
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many complaints were received concerning low-flying British military aircraft in 1998. [76266]

  Mr. Spellar
  5,102 complaints and inquiries about aircraft operating within the UK Low-Flying System are recorded centrally as having been received by my Department in 1998. These records do not specify the nationality of the aircraft prompting the report and the number of British aircraft concerned could only be identified at disproportionate cost.

  JP233 System
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of replacing the Saudi Arabian JP233 system with Paveway 111 bombs; from which budget the money was drawn; at whose request and for what reason the replacement was required; and if he will make a statement. [76278]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Under the provisions of the Ottawa Convention and the Landmines Act 1998, which came into force on 1 March 1999, the UK cannot continue to support the Saudi Arabian JP233 anti-airfield weapons, which were supplied by the UK under the Al Yamamah project. As explained in a Minute laid before Parliament on 4 February 1999, our offer to destroy Saudi JP233s, to provide 100 Paveway 3s as replacements, and to provide modifications and training to allow the Saudis to operate the new system underlines our commitment to the Ottawa Convention, while maintaining strong relations with a strategically important, friendly country. The estimated cost of these measures is £15–17 million, to be funded by the Ministry of Defence.

  Neo-Nazi Groups
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on steps taken to curb the activities of neo-Nazi groups reported to have infiltrated sections of the British armed forces. [75987]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: Since coming to office we have made very clear our policy on zero tolerance for racism in the Armed Forces. Our priority is for the development of an organisational culture which welcomes racial diversity.

  507
  Our policies, applied rigorously and reinforced by strong leadership from the Service Chiefs, are designed to ensure that racism is eliminated.

  All personnel, of whatever rank, need to understand that there is no home or hiding place for racist attitudes or behaviour. This must be understood not only by serving personnel but also by potential recruits and society generally. The Armed Forces, as a major institution and public body, are taking a clear stand on this. Prejudice, when encountered, is being challenged. Those who transgress the high standards required are, and will continue to be, dealt with firmly. This will include discharge if appropriate.

  It has long been the policy of the Armed Forces that Service life precludes membership of, or support for, groups or organisations whose purpose includes incitement to racial hatred and violence. All three Services already have in place regulations and instruction which give clear guidance to the Chain of Command on the rules, grounds and process governing membership of groups which is incompatible with Service life. This morning, each Service Chief has written to the Command Chain to remind them of the powers and procedures that are available to them and to ensure they are applied in all appropriate circumstances.

  We are continuing to place a high priority on robust awareness training in equal opportunities. Racial equality is an integral part of this; and we have made it mandatory for all senior officers of Brigadier and equivalent level and above to receive such training. Training for remaining personnel has also been strengthened and is being kept under constant review to ensure our priorities are fully reflected and brought to the attention of all personnel at every opportunity.

  Harrier Jump-jet
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what type of aircraft the Government expects to replace the Harrier jump-jet at the end of its service life. [76088]

  Mr. Spellar
  As announced in the Strategic Defence Review, a Future Carrier-Borne Aircraft (FCBA) will replace the Royal Navy Sea Harrier and Royal Air Force Harrier from around 2012. A strong contender for FCBA is a variant of the US Joint Strike Fighter (JSF) and the UK is currently participating in the Concept Demonstration Phase. We are also assessing a number of other options including a navalised Eurofighter, Rafale-M, F/A 18E/F and an Advanced Harrier variant.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity, indicating the organisation acting as their sponsor or host. [76647]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I was the only Minister from my Department to attend the Brit Awards this year, and was invited by the British Phonographic Institute. I have recorded my attendance with the Registrar of Members Interests.
  508

  Weaponry Gifts
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what gifts of weaponry have been made by the United Kingdom Government to(a) overseas Governments and (b) armed forces since 1 January 1990. [76044]

  Mr. George Robertson
  According to central records, gifts of weaponry by Her Majesty's Government to overseas Governments and armed forces since 1 January 1990 are as follows:(a) Overseas Governments:

  Australia—Gannet MkT5 aircraft

  Belize—Harrier GR3, stores and equipment (which included ammunition)

  Canada—FV 433 Abbott, 4 x Ferret scout cars, 2 x Chieftain main battle tanks, and other (unspecified) armoured vehicles

  Chile—Harrier GR3 aircraft

  Czechoslovakia—Phantom aircraft

  Germany—Harrier, Phantom, Hastings aircraft, FV 432 armoured vehicle,

  Ferret scout car, 2 x Centurion main battle tanks

  Jordan—Hunter aircraft (and spares)

  Luxembourg—25 pounder gun

  Lebanon—500 x self loading rifles

  Norway—Canberra aircraft

  Nepal—70 x light machine guns, self loading rifles and light machine guns, ancillaries for light machine gun

  Romania and Bulgaria (gifted through the Western European Union)—combat support boats,

  Zimbabwe—1000 rounds of ammunition

  (b) Armed forces:

  Baltic Peacekeeping Battalion—anti-tank weapons

  France—AR Martel missiles

  Netherlands—rifle

  Nepal—15 x Ferret scout cars, Ferret spares

  Our records do not show whether an item listed as gifted to an overseas Government was destined for that Government's armed forces. Most of the larger items of equipment shown as gifted to overseas Governments were surplus and were destined for national museums or to museums having official status.

CABINET OFFICE

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will set out the conventions governing the propriety and cost of press releases issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies; and what is the total cost of the press releases issued since May 1997. [71474]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer on 16 February 1999]: Rules governing the work of the Government Information and Communication Service are laid down in the "Guidance on the work of the Government Information Service", published by the Cabinet Office in July 1997. More specific guidance on the writing and issuing of press releases is given in the "Working Guide for Government Information Officers". Copies of both these documents have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
  509
  The cost of press releases by the Cabinet Office and its agencies since May 1997 is approximately £42,500. Details relating to the Central Office of Information can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71473]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  [holding answer on 16 February 1999]: The total number of press releases issued by the Cabinet Office and its agencies between 1980 and 1998 was 1,449. This can be broken down as follows:

  Year

  Number of press releases

  1998

  305

  1997

  189

  1996

  218

  1995

  330

  1994

  272

  1993

  47

  1992

  43

  1991

  42

  1990

  3

  Total

  1,449

  The Central Office of Information issued 28 press notices in its own right in 1998. However, records dating further back are not maintained.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list those people he has appointed to public bodies since 1 November 1998, indicating the positions to which they have been appointed and if they receive remuneration. [76414]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The public bodies for which my right hon. Friend is responsible as Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster are: the Civil Service Appeal Board; the Better Regulation Task Force; the Advisory Committee on Advertising; and the Advisory Committee for Justice of the Peace in Lancashire, Greater Manchester and Merseyside. The following appointments have been made since the 1 November 1998:

  The Better Regulation Task Force

  Members

  Ms Matti Alderson

  Ms Deidre Hutton

  Civil Service Appeal Board

  Deputy Chairperson

  Mr. P. D. Jones

  Member, Official Side Panel

  Ms S. Brown

  Mr. E. McGivern

  P. S. Draper

  Member, Trade Union Side Panel

  Mrs. A. Berney

  Mrs. P. Braby

  No member of any Cabinet Office Public Body receives a salary. Members of the Civil Service Appeal Board receive a fee per daily attendance.
  510

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  British Business
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the ambassadors for British business with whom she has met, the dates on which she met them, and the topics discussed. [74435]

  Clare Short
  I have met with the following "ambassadors for British business" on the dates and times indicated:

  Date

  Topics discussed

  Sir David Barnes

  02.11.99

  Responsible business issues

  Sir John Browne

  08.07.99

  Shared a platform at the speech

  I gave to the Institute of Directors

  Anita Roddick

  17.12.97

  Fair and ethical trade

  Sir Richard Sykes

  14.05.99

  'Roll Back Malaria'

  Adair Turner

  17.09.99

  Fairtrade

  Lord Paul

  on a number of occasions, most recently on 15 December 1998

  Charitable issues, including education

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will name the Ministers in her Department who are regular users of electronic red boxes. [76183]

  Clare Short
  We have no electronic red boxes.

  Zimbabwe
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the organisational development project with the Zimbabwe Republic Police. [76281]

  Clare Short
  This project aims to provide efficient and accountable police services to the people of Zimbabwe, especially the poor and disadvantaged. Recent reviews indicate that it is making good progress. The Zimbabwe Republic Police are already working more closely with local communities in the planning and delivery of improved police services.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the total number of occasions when(a) departmental and (b) non-departmental special advisers have travelled abroad in an official capacity since 2 May 1997. [76827]

  Clare Short
  Between 2 May 1997 and 28 February 1999, my Special Advisers have made visits overseas on 12 occasions in an official capacity. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Commonwealth Development Corporation
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what progress has been
  511
  made in determining the tax treatment of future private investments in the Commonwealth Development Corporation; [76780]

  (2) if the details of the tax treatment of future private investments in the Commonwealth Development Corporation will be available to the House before the second reading of the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill. [76779]

  Clare Short
  I intend to introduce amendments at Committee stage to the Commonwealth Development Corporation Bill to cover tax provisions.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those Ministers in her Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity, indicating the organisation acting as their sponsor or host. [76655]

  Clare Short
  Neither myself nor the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State attended the Brit awards.

  Casa Alianza
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what funding her Department has provided to Casa Alianza in the last five years. [76755]

  Clare Short
  None.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) pursuant to his answer of 16 February 1999,Official Report, column 739, on Iraq, from whom he received the account of the episode relating to the 16-year-old Iraqi youth; [72887]

  (2) when he will reply to the question from the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 22 February, on the episode relating to the 16-year-old Iraqi youth (ref 72887). [75497]

  Mr. Fatchett
  [holding answers 25 February and 8 March 1999]: I received the information from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

  Nepal
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what representations he has made to the Government of Nepal concerning the disappearance of Mr. Rajendra Dhakal, Chairman of the Forum for the Protection of Human Rights in Grakha District; [76273]

  (2) what reports he has received relating to the disappearance of nine passengers following police arrests in Kailai District in Nepal on 4 February; [76272]

  (3) what reports he has received of the arrest and alleged torture of Mr. Shaha, President of the District Bar Association and the People's Concern Movement in Nepal; [76252]

  (4) what reports he has received relating to killings in the town of Jajarkot in Nepal. [76274]
  512
  Mr. Fatchett
  We have only very limited knowledge of these specific cases which arise in the more general context of the "People's War" being waged in the mid-Western region of Nepal. We have raised with the Government of Nepal on several occasions our concerns about reports of human rights abuse by the police.

  Slovak Nationals
  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the need for Slovak nationals to obtain visas in order to visit the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [R] [76262]

  Ms Quin
  Our decision to introduce visas for Slovak nationals was taken only after careful thought, and as a practical and temporary step to address a practical problem.

  Ministers have taken every opportunity to raise the issue with their Slovak opposite numbers. We are pleased that the Slovak Government are determined to tackle the problems which compelled us to take this action.

  We review our visa regime at regular intervals. We will lift the requirement as soon as we are confident that the problems which led to the imposition of the visa regime will not reappear.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrangements to enable citizens of Sierra Leone to visit the United Kingdom for business or training purposes; and when he expects to resume the issuing of visas to enter the United Kingdom to people applying in Freetown. [76445]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The British High Commission in Freetown is still closed. Citizens of Sierra Leone seeking a visa to visit the United Kingdom may apply at any British Diplomatic Mission offering a full entry clearance service. For other categories of visa, applicants who would in normal circumstances submit their application in Freetown are required to apply at British Diplomatic Missions in Dakar, Banjul or Abidjan. The security situation in Freetown is being monitored carefully. UK Based staff will return to Post as soon as it is safe to do so. Visa issuing will resume as soon as practicable thereafter.

  Senator Pinochet
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who was informed by the Head of the Latin America and Caribbean Department following his telephone conversation at midday in Friday 16 October 1998, of the nature of his conversation with the Chilean Ambassador concerning Senator Pinochet's travel arrangements. [76430]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Head of the Latin America and Caribbean Department informed other FCO officials of his conversation with the Chilean Ambassador on 16 October about Senator Pinochet's travel arrangements.
  513

  Pakistan (Human Rights)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the human rights abuses towards Christians in Pakistan on which he has received reports. [76157]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received several reports of alleged persecution against religious minorities in Pakistan, including Christians. I raised our concerns on this issue with the Minister of Law during my visit to Pakistan in February.

  European Commissioners
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to place in the Library all new declarations of European Commissioners' interests. [76286]

  Ms Quin
  Copies of all new declarations of European commissioners' interests will be placed in the Library when they are made available by the Commission.

  General Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which EU bodies were instructed at the General Affairs Council of 22 and 23 February to examine EU support for the peace process. [76284]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The General Affairs Council of 22 and 23 February tasked all EU bodies, including the European Commission and the EU Special Envoy, Ambassador Moratinos, the European Commission, to examine how the EU can continue to support the peace process.

  January 1998 to December 1998

  January 1999 to 20 February 1999

  States

  Number of incidents

  Number of persons killed

  Number of persons injured

  Number of incidents

  Number of persons killed

  Number of persons injured

  Andhra Pradesh

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Arunachal Pradesh

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Bihar

  4

  1

  2

  1

  —

  —

  Dedar & Nagar Haveli

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Delhi

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gujarat

  48

  —

  23

  13

  —

  —

  Haryana

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Kerala

  6

  —

  —

  4

  —

  11

  Karnataka

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Madhya Pradesh

  3

  —

  —

  3

  —

  —

  Maharashtra

  9

  —

  —

  1

  —

  1

  Orissa

  3

  —

  —

  4

  3

  2

  Punjab

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Tamil Nadu

  3

  —

  6

  2

  —

  —

  Uttar Pradesh

  2

  —

  5

  2

  —

  —

  West Bengal

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Total

  85

  1

  37

  31

  3

  14

  Chilean Embassy
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions over the period 14 to 15 October 1998 representatives from the Chilean Embassy contacted his Department's representatives in London. [76431]
  514
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Leicester, South (Mr. Marshall) of 5 March 1999,Official Report, columns 940–42, on the General Affairs Council, if he will place in the Library a copy of the paper presented by the presidency on work in progress to prepare for entry into force of the Amsterdam Treaty; what was the nature of the discussion on the Schengen Acquis; when the Committee of Permanent Representatives plans to meet to consider the paper; and if he will make a statement. [76369]

  Ms Quin
  I have arranged for a copy of the Presidency paper to be placed in the Library of the House. There was no detailed discussion of it at the 22 February General Affairs Council. The paper was a report on the existing situation, and there are no plans for further discussion of it.

  India (Human Rights)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the human rights abuse towards Christians in India on which he has received reports. [76156]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have received various reports of attacks on religious minorities in India. The following table, giving the number of attacks against Christians in India in 1998 and to 20 February this year, was provided by the Indian Minister of Home Affairs to the Indian Parliament on 24 February. I have raised our concerns with the Indian authorities on several occasions most recently during the visit to London by the Indian Prime Minister's national Security adviser, Mr. Mishram, on 20 January.

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  While we do not keep comprehensive records of telephone calls, we are not aware of any contact between representatives of the Chilean Embassy and the FCO on 14 October. For details of the conversation with the Chilean Embassy on 15 October, I refer the right hon. Member to my replies to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Trend) on 25 January 1999,Official Report, column 149, and 1 February 1999, Official Report,

  515
  columns 496–97, and to my reply to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan) on 10 February 1999, Official Report, columns 294–95.

  Malta
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers are planning to pay an official visit to Malta in the next four months. [76429]

  Ms Quin
  I plan to pay an official visit to Malta during the first week in May.

  James Miles and Paul Loseby
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sentences were imposed on James Miles and Paul Loseby at the time of the trial and at the time of the appeal. [76426]

  Mr. Fatchett
  James Miles and Paul Loseby were each sentenced to four years imprisonment at trial which was increased to five years at appeal. The Public Prosecutor has appealed against the five year sentence and the case is currently with the Supreme Court.

  Sanctions Policy
  Ms Ryan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on sanctions; and if he will make a statement. [77194]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The Government have recently completed a wide-ranging review of its sanctions policy. All Whitehall Departments with an interest in sanctions were involved in the review.

  As a result, the Government have decided to launch a new policy of better targeted "smarter" sanctions. This will sharpen the focus and effectiveness of sanctions whilst trying to minimise their impact on ordinary people, including children, and on our own commercial and economic interests.

  Apart from the threat of or use of force, which will remain essential in the more extreme cases, sanctions are the only coercive measure available to the international community to respond to challenges to international peace and security. The review concluded that they will remain an important tool of our foreign policy.

  The review also concluded, however, that better targeting would be likely to enhance the effectiveness of international sanctions and minimise the risk of harm to ordinary people. A range of sanctions, of varying type and severity, is available and different measures may be selected depending on particular circumstances. Comprehensive sanctions should be reserved for cases where the objective is to isolate and contain a very serious transgressor.
  516
  The review concluded that although the circumstances in which sanctions are imposed vary from case to case, there are a number of broad principles that should normally be followed. Sanctions should:
  be targeted to hit the regime, rather than ordinary people.
  include exemptions to minimise the humanitarian impact on innocent civilians.
  have clear objectives, including well-defined and realistic demands against which compliance can be judged, and a clear exit strategy.
  have effective arrangements for implementation and enforcement by all states, especially be neighbouring countries.
  avoid unnecessary adverse impact on UK economic and commercial interests.

  The review also agreed a revised set of inter-Departmental procedures for the efficient imposition, amendment, and lifting of sanctions, as well as for their enforcement and monitoring. These will further improve co-ordination between Whitehall Departments on sanctions issues.

  I shall keep the House informed of current sanctions and their scope on a yearly basis. All new sanctions or any amendments to existing sanctions will be announced at the time. We shall shortly be laying in the Library of the House a list of all sanctions imposed by the UK. An updated version will be laid in the Library annually (or more frequently if policy changes require a revision).

  Yemen
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact the British Embassy in Yemen has had with human rights groups in the past year; and if he will make a statement. [76203]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Our Embassy in Sana'a has provided modest financial support for human rights organisations operating in Yemen. It has assisted with inward and outward visits by MPs and other officials, including projects run by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy, to help improve good government. We have also provided assistance in training judges and related officials on national and international human rights law and its application in the court-room. We are looking to continue similar cooperative projects in the future.

  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Yemen concerning human rights and cases of kidnapping. [76204]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We regularly raise our concerns about human rights issues with the Yemeni Government. I refer my hon. Friend to my previous answer (76203) and the answer I gave him on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 606. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also raised with the Yemeni Prime Minister, our concerns about the incidence of kidnapping in Yemen, especially where UK nationals have been involved.

  European Citizenship
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is his Department's interpretation of the expression "true European citizenship" in Recital 6i of COM(98)0331-C4–0511/98– 98/0197(COD); and if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on this matter. [76432]
  517
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been asked to reply.

  The European Commission's proposals for an action programme for youth from the year 2000 include the objective of promoting active citizenship among the young people of Europe. The Government are participating positively in negotiations with other Member States on the content of the new programme.

TREASURY

  Passported Benefits
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to which passported benefits recipients of(a) working families tax credit and (b) disabled persons tax credit will be entitled. [71500]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]: The Government are committed to ensuring that Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Persons Tax Credit recipients who need it continue to receive the help provided by passported benefits through for example, the NHS Low Income Scheme, the Social Fund Maternity and Funeral Payments, the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme and legal advice and assistance.

  Green Transport
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research his Department has carried out on the effects of the taxation of employee' benefits from green transport plans; and if he will make a statement. [74854]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]Inland Revenue and Treasury officials have had discussions about the present tax rules with officials at the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, who are in the lead in carrying out the research concerning green transport plans referred to in the Integrated Transport White Paper.

  Alcohol Smuggling
  Mrs. Dean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he will take to make up for the loss of revenue caused by the smuggling of alcohol. [75491]
  518
  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: Customs and Excise estimate that the revenue lost from the smuggling of alcohol in 1998 was £220 million, which is a little over 2 per cent. of total alcohol revenue receipts. Revenue leakage caused by smuggling and fraud is a factor that the Chancellor of the Exchequer takes into account when taking his Budget decisions.

  The Government take all excise smuggling very seriously and are committed to tackling the problem. A comprehensive set of measures resulting from recommendations made in the Alcohol and Tobacco Fraud Review is currently being implemented.

  Mortgage Lending (Code of Practice)
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement concerning the lending practices of The Money Store, Kensington and other non-status lenders; [74194]

  (2) if he will investigate the effect (a) Private Label, (b) The Mortgage Operation and (c) other mortgage packaging companies have on the customer's choice of product; [74195]

  (3) if he will put forward legislation to ensure that the fees that non-status lenders and mortgage packaging companies pay to lenders are disclosed. [74196]

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what monitoring his Department is undertaking regarding compliance with the industry code of mortgage lending practice; what percentage of lenders and intermediaries now subscribe to the code; what future consultation is planned with the industry regarding the impact of the code; and if he will make a statement. [74178]

  Ms Hewitt
  All aspects of the mortgage market will be taken into account when considering whether mortgage advice should be regulated under the Financial Services and Markets Bill.

  Church Buildings (VAT)
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the proposal to exempt from VAT payments works to church buildings. [75171]

  Ms Hewitt
  Treasury Ministers have received numerous letters asking for a zero rate of VAT for repairs to church buildings. Repairs to all existing buildings have always been standard rated. Under the provisions of the sixth VAT directive we cannot introduce a new zero rate.
  519

  Stamp Duty Reserve Tax
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the loss of stamp duty reserve tax on cross-border mergers and take overs for the tax year 1998–99 through United Kingdom companies creating bearer shares denominated in foreign currency which are put into a depositary or clearance system. [74126]

  Ms Hewitt
  The proposed measure announced on 29 January to close a Stamp Duty Reserve Tax loophole relating to cross-border takeovers and mergers by UK companies is intended to protect the revenue from shares and other securities which is provisionally estimated to be £2.6 billion in 1998–99.

  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the gross yield from stamp duty reserve tax for the tax year 1998–99. [74127]

  Ms Hewitt
  Net receipts from stamp duty (including stamp duty reserve tax) on transactions of shares and other securities are provisionally estimated to be £2.6 billion in 1998–99.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if(a) she, (b) civil servants in her Department or (c) special advisers in her Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75878]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, column 531. There have been no instances of members of Select Committees giving me, or my ministerial colleagues, drafts of Select Committee reports, or of parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor to the best of my knowledge have there been any occasions on which members of Select Committees have given such material to civil servants or special advisers in my Department. This excludes embargoed copies of reports issued under House of Commons Standing Order 116.

  Prisoners
  Mr. MacKay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what powers she has to halt the early release of prisoners convicted of scheduled offences within the meaning of the Northern Ireland (Emergency Provisions) Acts 1973, 1978, 1991 and 1996. [70138]

  Mr. Ingram
  The early release of prisoners following the Belfast Agreement takes place in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998.
  520
  Under that legislation, the Secretary of State must specify any organisation which she believes is concerned in Northern Irish terrorism, or in promoting or encouraging it, and has not established or is not maintaining a complete and unequivocal ceasefire. Prisoners who support a specified organisation are not eligible for early release.

  In addition the Secretary of State has the discretion under the Act to make an order suspending the operation of the whole scheme. Whether to make such an order would require my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State, to make a judgment in the round, taking into account all relevant factors pertaining at the time.

WALES

  Hepatitis C
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are currently suffering from hepatitis C; and of these, how many have contracted the condition as a consequence of receiving contaminated blood products in the course of NHS treatment. [75561]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  It is not known how many people in Wales are currently suffering from hepatitis C. However, data are available on newly diagnosed cases reported from laboratories although cases may not be identified until years after the infection is acquired. 1,030 newly identified cases of hepatitis C were reported to Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Wales (CDSC) from laboratories in Wales between 1995 and 1997. Of these 28 were reported where blood transfusion or blood product receipt was a possible risk factor (although other risk factors may have also been present). The Haemophilia Society reports that there are 105 people infected with hepatitis C through their National Health Service treatment with blood products. A number of NHS patients other than haemophiliacs will have acquired hepatitis C infection.

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

  Mixed-sex Hospital Wards
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many mixed-sex wards there are in NHS hospitals in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [76213]

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

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

  National Assembly
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the intended use of Crickhowell House following the completion of the permanent Assembly building. [76220]
  521
  Mr. Michael
  Crickhowell House will continue to provide the permanent accommodation for the majority of Assembly Members and their direct support staff once the new building is available for use. It will also continue to house a significant number of Assembly staff and officials, including the support staff of the Cabinet Secretariat and Office of the Presiding Officer.

  The temporary debating chamber has been designed to have a secondary use, and in conjunction with the adjacent space will provide an excellent facility for conferences, seminars, broadcasting, meetings and training events. The temporary committee rooms will help satisfy the expected demand for additional meeting rooms.

  Following the transfer of functions, these issues will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what was the difference between the public expenditure estimate for general dental services in Wales in 1997–98 and the cost outturn. [75321]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The public expenditure estimate for gross general dental services in Wales for 1997–98 was £75.1 million and the cost outturn was £76.9 million, a difference of £1.8 million.

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

  Source:

  Welsh Office Departmental Report 1998–99 and Appropriation Account 1997–98.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many adults have been seen by dentists under NHS regulations in each health authority area in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [75325]

  Percentage of population registered with a dentist for NHS care

  Bro Taf

  Dyfed Powys

  Gwent

  Morgannwg

  North Wales

  Wales

  Adults

  30 September 1996

  52.0

  48.9

  52.7

  63.8

  46.8

  52.5

  31 December 1996

  51.4

  48.1

  52.2

  63.8

  47.3

  52.2

  31 March 1997

  51.4

  46.9

  52.4

  63.9

  48.2

  52.3

  30 June 1997

  51.3

  46.4

  52.4

  64.1

  48.8

  52.3

  30 September 1997

  51.7

  46.5

  52.2

  64.3

  49.6

  52.6

  31 December 1997

  51.7

  47.2

  52.8

  64.8

  51.4

  53.3

  31 March 1998

  48.7

  44.2

  50.3

  62.0

  48.9

  50.6

  30 June 1998

  46.5

  41.8

  48.4

  59.3

  47.6

  48.5

  30 September 1998

  43.9

  39.7

  46.6

  56.7

  45.9

  46.4

  Children1

  30 September 1996

  60.9

  59.6

  62.8

  73.3

  60.0

  63.0

  31 December 1996

  62.1

  61.4

  65.0

  75.5

  62.1

  64.8

  31 March 1997

  54.9

  54.2

  57.1

  67.0

  55.9

  57.5

  30 June 1997

  58.7

  57.7

  61.1

  71.8

  60.1

  61.5

  30 September 1997

  61.6

  60.0

  63.6

  74.3

  62.9

  64.2

  31 December 1997

  64.1

  62.5

  66.2

  76.4

  66.3

  66.8

  31 March 1998

  56.9

  55.8

  59.3

  69.0

  59.9

  59.9

  30 June 1998

  57.2

  55.3

  59.6

  68.6

  60.5

  60.0

  30 September 1998

  56.8

  54.8

  59.6

  68.1

  60.8

  59.8

  1 Aged 17 or under

  522
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on the number of adult courses of dental treatment paid for under NHS regulations is given in the following table. It should be noted that one adult may have more than one course of treatment during a year.

  Adult courses of dental treatment

  Health Authority

  1995–961

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Bro Taf

  —

  323,151

  342,422

  Dyfed Powys

  —

  200,078

  209,149

  Gwent

  —

  247,599

  260,096

  Morgannwg

  —

  276,136

  286,479

  North Wales

  —

  309,824

  347,795

  Wales

  1,349,622

  1,356,788

  1,445,941

  1 Data for current Health Authority areas are not available prior to their re-organisation on 1 April 1996

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes by health authority area have taken place in dental registrations of(a) children and (b) adults since the introduction of the 15 month registration period. [75332]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The 15 month registration period was introduced in September 1996 and information on the percentage of the population registered with a dentist for NHS care for each quarter from that date to September 1998 is given in the following table. Prior to September 1996 the registration period for adults ran for two years from the date of registration or re-registration; the registration period for a child ran from the date of registration or re-registration to the 31 December of the following year.

  The introduction of the 15 month period for adults and action by the Dental Practice Board to remove duplicate registrations, has led to a decrease in the number of adult registrations in all Health Authorities.

  The main effect of the introduction of the 15 month period for child registrations has been to remove the seasonal effect resulting from the lapse of all child registrations at the end of each year. This last occurred in December 1997 and since that date the pattern of registrations has levelled out in all Health Authorities.
  523
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of treatments requiring prior approval from the Dental Practices Board was submitted to dental reference officers for further examination in each of the last three years; what percentage was refused; and what was the(a) shortest, (b) longest and (c) average time taken to consider these submissions. [75310]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information for 1995–96 is not available.

  In 1996–97, 6 per cent. of prior approval applications in England, Wales and the Isle of Man were referred to dental reference officers for further investigation and 71 per cent. of these patients were seen ie 4 per cent. of the total number of applications. In 1997–98, 9 per cent. were investigated further and 56 per cent. of patients were seen ie 5 per cent. of the total number of applications.

  Of those patients seen in 1996–97, the dental officer had a fundamental disagreement with the treatment plan in 0.47 per cent. of cases and had a major disagreement in 4.72 per cent. of cases. For patients seen in 1997–98, there was a fundamental disagreement in 0.38 per cent. of cases and a major disagreement in 3.48 per cent. of cases. However, refusal to give approval takes place only after further consultation at the Dental Practice Board.

  In 1996–97, the quickest approval was given in 45 days, the average time taken was 85 days, and the longest time taken was 138 days. In 1997–98, the equivalent periods were 46, 97 and 124 days respectively.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about current audit and peer review projects for general dental practitioners; what assessment he has made of their effectiveness, value for money and prospects for further development; and what plans he has for additional financial support. [75312]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  A Peer Review scheme for general dental practitioners (GDPs) in Wales was introduced as a pilot in September 1991. The pilot scheme has been twice reviewed by outside consultants, and on each occasion it was concluded that the scheme was a valuable initiative. The latest review in June 1996 reported favourably on the cost effectiveness and benefit for patients.

  The Peer Review scheme and Audit for GDPs is well established. An Assessment Panel composed of representatives from the dental profession and the Welsh Office, is responsible for the funding, probity, training and development in Wales.

  Details concerning the budget for Peer Review in 1999–2000 will not be known until the end of March. Funding for dental audit will fall within the Clinical Governance remit of Local Health Groups which all have dental membership on their boards.
  524
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to receive the report of the Health Authorities' Chief Executives' Group on oral and maxillofacial services in South Wales. [75315]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The South Wales Health Authorities' review of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Services is expected to be completed by October. The conclusions of the report will be for health authorities to consider and take forward.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of all types of dental treatment in each of the last three years was referred to a dental reference officer for scrutiny; and what percentage was declared to be(a) of poor quality and (b) invalid. [75317]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information for 1995–96 is not available. Of courses of treatment scheduled for payment for England, Wales and the Isle of Man in 1996–97 and 1997–98, about 0.5 per cent. and 0.6 per cent. respectively were referred to a dental reference officer for scrutiny.

  Of those patients seen, the Dental Officer had a major or fundamental disagreement with the treatment in 1.75 per cent. of cases in 1996–97 and 1.37 per cent. of cases in 1997–98. These percentages cover both poor quality and invalid treatments. The Dental Officer was unable to comment in 3 per cent. of cases seen in 1996–97 and 4 per cent. in 1997–98.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the problems of providing satisfactory dental services in rural areas and the steps taken to deal with them since 1 April 1998. [75327]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I recognise that, in the more rural parts of Wales, patients who are not registered with a dentist can sometimes find it difficult to obtain NHS dental treatment close to home.

  Stage 2 of the Welsh Office dental initiative, launched on 10 July 1998, introduced more flexible conditions specifically designed to address the particular problems being encountered in rural parts of Wales. It offers the possibility of enhanced levels of grant aid for dentists who want to open new part-time or branch practices in certain areas where this would be the best way of meeting local needs.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what changes have taken place, by health authority area, in child dental registrations since June 1996; and what steps he has taken to encourage the registration with a general dental practice of children up to five years of age. [75331]
  525
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is as follows:

  30 June 1996

  30 September 1998

  Health authority

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Bro Taf

  102,012

  57.7

  100,975

  56.8

  Dyfed Powys

  59,450

  57.0

  56,965

  54.8

  Gwent

  81,648

  60.4

  80,728

  59.6

  Morgannwg

  79,872

  70.5

  76,968

  68.1

  North Wales

  85,050

  57.7

  89,408

  60.8

  Changes introduced in September 1996 brought the child registration system in line with the adult system, with both running for a period of 15 months from the date of registration or re-registration. Prior to this child registrations ran from the date of registration or re-registration to the 31 December of the following calendar year, which created a seasonal pattern in registrations. The change was fully effective by the end of December 1997 but care should be taken when comparing data from different times of the year where one quarter was prior to September 1996 as data are not strictly comparable.

  Despite general improvements in the oral health of the population, and of children in particular, there are considerable regional variations. Even in areas where the prevalence of tooth decay is low, there remain pockets of disease frequently related to social deprivation. The Department has developed a targeted incentive scheme to increase the registration of children in their early years. This will deliver enhanced fees to dentists for registered patients aged 5 and under who live in specified areas.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the need for facilities for dento-alveola surgery. [75319]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  None. Dento-alveolar surgery is mostly carried out within the facilities of primary dental care. Dento-alveolar surgery requiring more specialist treatment is provided by Hospital Dental Services based in District General Hospitals and it is for Health Authorities to assess local need for such facilities.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of dentists required in each health authority area to provide a satisfactory level of service. [75323]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  It is a matter for local health authorities to satisfy themselves of the adequacy of dental manpower in light of local needs. Health Authorities are free to make a case for Welsh Office grants to attract new general dental practitioners, subject to funding being available and criteria being met.

  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.
  526
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales following the publication of the Poswillo Inquiry, how many general dental practitioners underwent training in anaesthesia and equipped their practices to comply with the appropriate recommended safety levels; and what contribution the Welsh Office made towards this training. [75328]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In 1992, £0.5 million was made available in Wales to assist the delivery of the exacting standards of the Poswillo Report wherever general anaesthesia, sedation were being provided.

  The funding was available for:

  Community and Hospital Dental Services: £310,000

  Postgraduate Dental Education Facilities: £80,000

  General Dental Services: £105,000

  Resuscitation Manuals: £5,000.

  As far as I am aware, no general dental practitioner in Wales underwent the postgraduate training for Non-Consultant Anaesthetists organised under the syllabus agreed by the Royal College of Anaesthetists, and the Faculties of Dental Surgery and General Dental Practitioners. A one-off uniform grant of £7,000 was available for individual practitioners or practices who were able to meet certain specified criteria, but there were no eligible applications. The resuscitation manuals were distributed to every NHS dental practice and to vocational trainees.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what plans he has for the development of community dental services. [75320]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  It is a matter for each Health Authority to determine, in the light of local circumstances, the appropriate level of Community Dental Service provision for its area.

  The Welsh Office dental initiative, first launched in 1995, enables Welsh Health Authorities to offer grant aid for Community Dental Service expansion. To date, grant aid has been awarded for 13 additional posts in the CDS.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many dentists are employed by NHS trusts in their community dental services; how many children were treated in the last year for which figures are available in each trust; and how many treatments were made in each trust. [75322]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information is given in the following table:

  Community dental service 1997–98

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  NHS trust

  Dentists

  Children treated

  Total treatments

  Cardiff Community

  Healthcare

  9.2

  3,842

  19,288

  Carmarthen and District

  1.3

  459

  2,509

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  2.3

  2,959

  9,004

  Clwydian Community Care

  15.9

  5,014

  45,043

  Glan-y-Mor

  8.8

  6,022

  20,492

  527

  Community dental service 1997–98

  (a)

  (b)

  (c)

  NHS trust

  Dentists

  Children treated

  Total treatments

  Gwent Community

  13.2

  7,244

  26,072

  Gwynedd Community

  5.6

  4,920

  16,442

  Llandough Hospital and Community

  4.1

  2,977

  10,977

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  3.6

  2,521

  7,256

  Pembrokeshire and Derwen

  4.6

  3,176

  13,892

  Powys Health Care

  5.9

  2,688

  10,005

  University Dental Hospital

  20.1

  17,100

  50,071

  (a) Whole-time equivalent of dentists working in the community dental service at 30 September 1997 (excluding locums).

  (b) First contact in the financial year for children aged 15 or under.

  (c) Total contacts, all ages. May include examination only.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the impact of differences between health authority areas in the average number of dental registrations per dentist on dental health; and what steps have been taken to reduce such differences. [75326]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  A variety of factors determine the average list size of general dental practitioners, including the fact that as independent contractors, they can tailor list sizes according to their working practices and business requirements.

  Current information on dental disease levels in the adult population is not presently available but surveys of children aged 5, 12 and 14 are regularly carried out by the British Association for the Study of Community Dentistry. Current information available from those surveys shows no correlation between list sizes and disease levels.

  The Welsh Office is committed to improving the health and well being of the population of Wales and to reducing inequalities in health status. The primary aim of the Welsh Office dental initiative has been designed to address those inequities both in the provision of NHS services and in the dental health of the population.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what percentage of fees paid to dentists was deducted to cover allowable expenses; and what was the(a) average, (b) highest and (c) lowest income recorded for dentists in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [75311]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The calculation of General Dental Practitioners' average earnings and expenses follow the convention established for the Dental Rates Study Group (DRSG)' of focusing on a subset of principal dentists who have been under contract for the previous year without substantial breaks in service. The information about dentists' expenses is derived from a528
  confidential survey of a sample of dentists' practice accounts, undertaken by the Inland Revenue. Only DRSG principals are included in the sample.

  Expenses, as a percentage of gross earnings, for General Dental Practitioners (in Great Britain) for the period 1991–92 and 1994–95 were:

  1991–92: 54.0

  1992–93: 53.9

  1993–94: 55.7

  1994–95: 54.6.

  For the combined year 1995–96 and 1996–97 results from a survey of non-associate dentists indicate that, for all GDS dentists, expenses as a percentage of gross earnings would be around 56.8 per cent., the rise from 1994–95 reflecting in part the treatment of capital allowances.

  The other information requested is not readily available on a Wales only basis and I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as possible.
  1 The Dental Rates Study Group comprises representatives of Health Departments and the dental profession. Its main responsibility is to make recommendations on dentists' fees after taking into account practice expenses.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the dental practice incentive scheme and the extent to which it has led to an increase in(a) the number of general dental practitioners and (b) the number of adults and children being seen and treated under NHS regulations. [75314]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The primary aim of the scheme was, and still is, to enable Health Authorities to attract new NHS dentists into those parts of Wales where they were most needed.

  Grants have already been paid for 33 new practices and 29 expanded practices. There are also another 3 practices and 7 expanding practices for which grant offers have been made.

  The number of dentists working in the General Dental Service in Wales is at an all-time high of 955—a 9 per cent. increase since September 1995 when the scheme was first launched.

  The number of courses of treatment for adults increased from 1.35 million in 1995–96 to 1.45 million in 1997–98. Comparable data for children are not available.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many treatments requiring prior approval from the Dental Practices Board were submitted in each of the last three years; how many were refused; and what was the(a) shortest, (b) longest and (c) average time taken to consider these requests. [75318]
  529
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The number of prior approval applications, which relate to England, Wales and the Isle of Man, received by the Dental Practice Board and the number of these referred for investigation is as follows:

  Prior approval applications

  Number referred

  1995–96

  548,753

  1—

  1996–97

  548,741

  33,126

  1997–98

  554,584

  49,833

  1 Not available

  The number of applications referred in 1995–96 is not available.

  The shortest time for dealing with applications was one day.

  The longest time for approval was:

  Days

  Referral not required

  Referral required

  1995–96

  138

  1—

  1996–97

  35

  138

  1997–98

  45

  124

  1 Not available

  The average time for approval was:

  Days

  Referral not required

  Referral required

  1995–96

  5

  1—

  1996–97

  6

  85

  1997–98

  5

  97

  1 Not available

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the advantages of dentists participating in information management and technology programmes; and what financial support he intends to provide for such in-service development. [75329]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh Office will be publishing a Strategic Framework for Information Management and Technology for Health Care and Health Improvement in Wales in mid-March.

  66 per cent. of NHS general dental practitioners in Wales are already linked electronically to the Dental Practice Board, (DPB), and utilising information management and technology systems. Grants of £900 are available from the DPB to dentists, intending to establish electronic links, for the purchase of suitable computer systems.

  The Directors of Dental Public Health for each of the Welsh Health Authorities, with advice and financial support from the Welsh Office, commissioned the Dental Public Health Unit of the University of Wales College of Medicine to carry out a project to assess the information technology requirements of the Community Dental Service in Wales. The recommendations from the project report will be considered within the provisions of the Strategic Framework.
  530
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list, by health authority area, dental practices(a) which accept all NHS patients, (b) whose NHS lists are closed, (c) which accept additional family members only on NHS lists and (d) which accept children for NHS treatment only if parents are private patients. [75333]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is not held by the Welsh Office. Each Health Authority maintains a list of practices with contracts to provide NHS dental services within its area. These authorities are best placed to provide the most up-to-date information to any patient who needs advice on the current acceptance policies of local practices.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what estimate he has made of the number of dentists that need to be trained in Wales to ensure(a) the maintenance of the present level of service and (b) that his dental health targets are met. [75324]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Long-term requirements for the numbers of medical and dental staff are modelled at a UK level and both the Department of Health and the Welsh Office receive advice on staffing in Dentistry from the Advisory Group in Medical and Dental Education, Training and Staffing (AGMETS). This Group brings together members of the professions and their regulatory bodies, the academic and research communities, the higher education sector, NHS and patients representatives as well as Welsh Office and Department of Health officials.

  Within Wales the Dental Sub-Committee of our national advisory committee—the Medical and Dental Manpower and Education Committee (MeDMEC)—has set as its priority the examination of manpower in primary dental care. The Welsh Office has also funded a research project to investigate factors affecting the recruitment and retention of dentists which is to be carried out by the Postgraduate School of the University of Wales College of Medicine. This work will result in a robust assessment of the needs of the Principality as well as providing information from the situation in Wales to assist wider considerations at UK level.

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

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the cost of clinical waste collection and water service charges for general dental practices; to what extent these costs are accounted for in the payments made to dentists for NHS work; and what plans he has to make changes to the reimbursement of dentists in respect of these costs. [75330]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information about dentists' expenses, including those referred to in this question, is derived from a confidential survey of a sample of dentists' practice accounts, undertaken by the Inland Revenue. These expenses are taken into account in determining the fee scale and include the costs of clinical waste collection. There are no plans to change this arrangement.
  531
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Water Fluoridation
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the impact of(a) the fluoridation of water and (b) the cessation of fluoridation of water in Anglesey on the dental health of children; and what studies his Department has conducted on the impact of fluoridation and of the withdrawal of fluoridation on the general health of the population. [75316]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The topping up of water supplies with fluoride to one part per million reduces tooth decay in young children by at least 50 per cent. and confers lifelong oral health gains. Since the cessation of fluoridation in Anglesey, tooth decay in young children there has increased by 168 per cent.

  Respondents to the Welsh Office Green Paper "Better Health, Better Wales", published in May 1998, were overwhelmingly in favour of fluoridation. The Welsh Office is considering the responses in conjunction with other health departments which have undertaken similar consultation exercises.

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

  Psychiatric Care (Children)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many children in Wales have been admitted to psychiatric care for each year since 1992. [76907]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Information on the number of in-patient admissions for children (aged under 16) for psychiatric care is given in the following table. It should be noted that a child may have been admitted more than once during the period.

  In-patient admissions1

  Year

  Amount

  1992

  574

  1993

  480

  1994

  444

  1995

  444

  1996

  481

  1997

  483

  1 Data are coded by International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9 until March 1995 and by ICD-10 thereafter. The codes included are: ICD-9:317 to 319, LCD-10:F70 to F79 (mental retardation), ICD-10:F80 to F89 (disorders of psychological development) and ICD-9:290 to 316, ICD-10:F00 to F69 and F90 to F99 (all other psychiatric/mental illness).

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

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what evaluation his Department has undertaken of(a) individual social services department's policy and (b) individual psychiatric services in relation to children excluded from school in the last five years. [76903]
  532
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  An analysis of children's services plans of Welsh local authorities (1997) identified weaknesses in planning for unmet needs, though some authorities had set targets in relation to children excluded from school.

  The Welsh Office is funding, through the Welsh Office of Research and Development (WORD), a project in Swansea which is evaluating strategies for reducing school exclusion.

  In its response to Sir William Utting's report of the Children's Safeguards Review, the Government undertook to issue guidance on school exclusion and pupil support relevant to looked after children. Local Education Authorities will also have to set targets for reducing school exclusions as part of their education strategic plans which are to come into effect from 1 September 1999.

  The Government's proposals for the reform of children's services include objectives to ensure that children in need and those looked after obtain maximum benefit from educational opportunities.

  The Welsh Office is developing a Strategy for Child and Adolescent Mental Health services, with the help of an Advisory Group. The needs of children excluded from school will be taken into account in developing this Strategy.

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

  Health Authorities (Debts)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will publish for each area and health authority in Wales the level of total debt(a) in cash terms and (b) as a percentage of income. [76921]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

  Residential Care Homes
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many people in Wales are in residential care homes in the most recent year for which figures are available in the(a) 16 to 64, (b) 65 to 74, (c) 74 to 84 and (d) 85 years and over age groups; and in each of those categories if he will list the numbers funded by (i) the local authority on a means tested basis, (ii) the individuals themselves and (iii) the Department of Social Security through presented rights. [76906]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The numbers of people in residential care homes in Wales at 31 March 1998 are shown in the following table.

  Age group

  Local authority homes

  Independent homes

  All homes

  16–64 years

  522

  1,544

  2,066

  65–74 years

  562

  965

  1,527

  75–84 years

  1,711

  3,009

  4,720

  85 and over

  2,390

  4,664

  7,054

  Age unknown

  7

  218

  225

  533
  Although information on sources of funding is requested from each home, it does not cover all residents. Excluding residents whose source of funding is not known, the proportions of people receiving support from each different source are shown in the following table. A more detailed age breakdown is not available.

  Percentage

  Age group

  Local authority

  Private means

  DSS preserved rights

  Under 65 years

  44

  7

  49

  Over 65 years

  49

  28

  23

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

  1997–98

  1996–97

  M1(A)

  Ml

  M2(B)

  M2

  Ml

  Ml

  M2

  M2

  NHS trusts

  Total £000

  Percentage of total income(C)

  Total £000

  Percentage of total income

  Total £000

  Percentage of total income

  Total £000

  Percentage of total income

  Bridgend & District

  2,695

  3.01

  3,785

  4.22

  2,412

  2.87

  3,477

  4.13

  Cardiff Community

  1,949

  3.11

  3,022

  4.82

  1,935

  3.23

  2,949

  4.92

  Carmarthen & District

  1,312

  2.99

  1,849

  4.21

  1,243

  2.98

  1,766

  4.24

  Ceredigion & Mid Wales

  979

  3.77

  1,433

  5.52

  913

  3.56

  1,323

  5.15

  Clwydian Community Care

  2,390

  3.47

  3,423

  4.97

  2,360

  3.55

  3,444

  5.18

  Derwen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  913

  3.74

  1,314

  5.38

  East Glamorgan

  1,515

  2.84

  2,552

  4.78

  1,480

  2.87

  2,449

  4.75

  Glan Clwyd

  1,935

  2.76

  2,965

  4.23

  1,902

  2.78

  2,995

  4.37

  Glan Hafren

  3,414

  2.62

  5,346

  4.10

  3,079

  2.50

  5,059

  4.12

  Glan Y Mor

  2,149

  2.90

  2,879

  3.89

  2,060

  2.80

  2,686

  3.65

  Gwent Community

  1,981

  3.19

  2,579

  4.15

  2,128

  3.48

  2,682

  4.39

  Gwynedd Community

  1,518

  2.82

  2,131

  3.95

  1,558

  2.95

  2,171

  4.11

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  2,009

  3.02

  2,829

  4.26

  2,001

  3.07

  2,890

  4.43

  Llandough Hospital

  2,085

  3.11

  3,429

  5.12

  2,166

  3.37

  3,536

  5.50

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  934

  2.75

  1,437

  4.23

  875

  2.61

  1,358

  4.05

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance

  672

  6.74

  776

  7.78

  626

  6.73

  710

  7.63

  Morriston Hospital

  2,190

  2.57

  3,657

  4.30

  1,847

  2.37

  3,300

  4.23

  Nevill Hall

  1,401

  2.92

  2,301

  4.79

  1,317

  2.82

  2,158

  4.62

  North Glamorgan

  2,037

  3.24

  2,835

  4.51

  1,870

  3.03

  2,750

  4.46

  North Wales Ambulance

  722

  5.08

  1,047

  7.37

  661

  4.79

  1,063

  7.71

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,785

  3.98

  2,565

  5.72

  Pembrokeshire & Derwen (F)

  2,758

  3.99

  3,785

  5.48

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Powys Healthcare

  1,700

  3.82

  2,465

  5.53

  1,663

  3.70

  2,480

  5.52

  Rhondda Healthcare

  1,349

  3.86

  1,797

  5.14

  1,292

  3.93

  1,717

  5.23

  South East Wales Ambulance

  841

  4.44

  1,182

  6.24

  1,015

  5.52

  1,808

  9.84

  Swansea

  1,677

  2.45

  2,254

  3.29

  1,598

  2.50

  2,168

  3.39

  University Dental Hospital of Wales

  304

  3.31

  421

  4.58

  266

  2.96

  395

  4.40

  University Hospital of Wales

  5,678

  3.00

  7,320

  3.87

  5,603

  2.99

  7,431

  3.96

  Velindre Hospital

  689

  3.72

  969

  5.23

  712

  4.11

  1,037

  5.99

  West Wales Ambulance

  653

  5.07

  751

  5.83

  624

  5.07

  787

  6.39

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,779

  2.79

  2,401

  3.76

  1,631

  2.67

  2,327

  3.81

  Total

  51,315

  3.11

  73,620

  4.46

  49,535

  3.10

  72,795

  4.56

  534

  NHS Trusts
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list the(a) M1 management costs, (b) M2 management costs and (c) management consultancy costs (i) in total and (ii) as a percentage of income for each NHS trust in Wales for the last five years. [76920]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  (a)(b) Figures for Ml, which consist of salary costs of only the more senior managers, together with the costs of management consultancy and M2, which adds in the salary costs of all other staff who work in corporate management function of NHS trusts, are available for 1995–96 to 1997–98. Prior to the introduction of the M1 and M2 measures, figures are given for "management costs".

  (c) Information on management consultancy costs is not held centrally.

  The information is given in the following tables.
  535

  1995–96

  1994–95

  1993–94

  Ml

  Ml

  M2

  M2

  (D)(E)

  (D)(E)

  NHS trusts

  Total £000

  Percentage of total income

  Total £000

  Percentage of total income

  Total £000

  Percentage of total income

  Total £000

  Percentage of total income

  Bridgend & District

  1,942

  2.81

  2,824

  4.09

  1,558

  2.43

  1,635

  2.69

  Cardiff Community

  2,115

  3.63

  2,977

  5.12

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Carmarthen & District

  1,241

  3.06

  1,701

  4.20

  1,207

  3.19

  1,133

  3.06

  Ceredigion & Mid Wales

  911

  3.79

  1,324

  5.50

  831

  3.59

  790

  3.48

  Clwydian Community Care

  2,399

  3.66

  3,390

  5.17

  2,385

  3.72

  3,205

  5.27

  Derwen

  976

  4.25

  1,383

  6.02

  955

  4.25

  —

  —

  East Glamorgan

  1,316

  2.59

  2,280

  4.48

  1,678

  3.54

  —

  —

  Glan Clwyd

  1,729

  2.77

  2,824

  4.52

  1,702

  2.94

  1,865

  3.37

  Glan Hafren

  3,017

  3.14

  5,079

  5.29

  2,633

  2.82

  2,824

  3.10

  Glan Y Mor

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent Community

  2,278

  3.78

  2,847

  4.72

  2,699

  4.70

  2,567

  4.57

  Gwynedd Community

  1,684

  3.36

  2,279

  4.55

  1,636

  3.42

  —

  —

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  1,944

  3.18

  2,957

  4.83

  1,982

  3.28

  —

  —

  Llandough Hospital

  2,442

  4.09

  3,847

  6.44

  2,520

  5.00

  2,698

  5.89

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  872

  2.74

  1,314

  4.14

  812

  2.62

  1,024

  3.38

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance

  617

  7.15

  800

  9.27

  1,002

  12.86

  —

  —

  Morriston Hospital

  1,795

  2.43

  3,051

  4.14

  1,609

  2.59

  —

  —

  Nevill Hall

  1,377

  3.17

  2,174

  5.01

  1,463

  3.59

  —

  —

  North Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Wales Ambulance

  623

  4.78

  982

  7.54

  516

  4.20

  —

  —

  Pembrokeshire

  1,863

  4.32

  2,564

  5.94

  1,873

  4.46

  2,053

  4.95

  Pembrokeshire & Derwen (F)

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Powys Healthcare

  1,668

  3.86

  2,453

  5.67

  1,882

  4.90

  2,301

  5.50

  Rhondda Healthcare

  1,189

  3.73

  1,514

  7.74

  993

  3.40

  —

  —

  South East Wales Ambulance

  1,691

  9.32

  2,116

  11.66

  1,054

  6.00

  661

  4.11

  Swansea

  1,442

  2.43

  1,963

  3.31

  1,233

  2.27

  1,426

  2.73

  University Dental Hospital of Wales

  230

  2.71

  346

  4.07

  —

  —

  —

  —

  University Hospital of Wales

  5,388

  3.23

  7,231

  4.33

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Velindre Hospital

  722

  5.22

  960

  6.94

  619

  5.85

  —

  —

  West Wales Ambulance

  558

  5.08

  716

  6.52

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Wrexham Maelor

  1,670

  2.89

  2,352

  4.08

  1,881

  3.50

  1,664

  3.39

  Total

  45,699

  3.40

  66,248

  4.92

  36,723

  3.60

  25,846

  3.93

  (A) Ml—Management costs as defined in the guidance issued by the Audit Commission in 1995 and 1996.

  (B) M2—Management and Administration costs as defined in the guidance issued by the Audit Commission in 1995 and 1996.

  (C) Total income—Comprises income from activities and other operating income of NHS trusts.

  (D) Ml and M2 data were not recorded in NHS trust annual accounts prior to 1995–96.

  (E) Management cost figures as quoted in PQ 875/95/96.

  (F) On 1 April 1997, Pembrokeshire NHS Trust and Derwen NHS Trust merged to form the Pembrokeshire and Derwen NHS Trust.

  Source:

  Audited Annual Accounts of NHS Trusts from 1993–94 to 1997–98

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

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will provide up to date information on termination payments made by NHS trusts or health authorities in Wales to(a) chief executives and (b) general and senior managers including the numbers and amounts. [76908]

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

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

  NHS Advertising Cost
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much the NHS spent on advertising costs in each region in Wales in each year since 1993–94. [76904]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  This information is not collected centrally.
  536
  Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much(a) Objective 1 and (b) Objective 2 money is forecast to come to Wales from Europe in each of the next five years; and whether the total amount of matched funding will be drawn from existing Welsh Office budgets. [76918]

  Mr. Michael
  As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the European Commission has not yet agreed the level of resources to be made available to the UK and consequently Wales for its new Structural Funds programmes. The Government will review the distribution of EC receipts when the sums involved are known.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many times he has met Treasury officials and ministers during the last six weeks to discuss matched funding for(a) Objective 1 and (b) Objective 2. [76919]
  537
  Mr. Michael
  Ministers and officials are in regular dialogue on all matters of policy, including those referred to.

  NHS Surplus Properties
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) for the last five years all those surplus NHS properties in Wales that realised more than £100,000 when sold and (b) for the next five years all those surplus NHS properties which he expects will realise more than £100,000. [76926]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information requested is given as follows:List of Surplus NHS Properties that realised more than £100,000 when sold.

  1993–94

  St. Cadocs Hospital—Land for highway improvement

  No. 1 Clase Drive, Morriston

  No. 6, 10, 22, 24 Clase Drive, Morriston

  Norton Villa Clinic, Swansea

  Park Beck, Swansea

  St. David's Hospital, Brecon

  Mill House, Abergavenny

  Taffs Well Health Centre, Cardiff

  Cefni Hospital site, Anglesey

  91, Gorwel, Llanfairfechan

  Coed Du Hospital, Flintshire

  "Romano" (House), Wrexham

  Fforestfach Health Centre, Swansea

  Mount Pleasant Hospital, Swansea

  Hill House Hospital, West Glamorgan

  Parc Hospital, Bridgend

  1994–95

  Abercynon Health Centre

  Computer Centre, Velindre Road, Cardiff

  Blackmill Hospital, Bridgend

  Llanelli General Hospital site

  Land at Lluesty Hospital, Flintshire

  Wrexham War Memorial Hospital

  Pool Park Hospital, Denbighshire

  Garth Angharad Hospital, Dollgellau

  William Nicholl Home (part), Cardiff

  1995–96

  Narbeth Health Centre, Pembrokeshire

  William Nicholl Home (remainder)

  1996–97

  Coryton Crescent, Cardiff

  Pen-y-Fai, Bridgend

  "The Laurels", Bronllys, Brecon

  Energlyn Hospital, Caerphilly

  1997–98

  Ty Bronna, Cardiff

  Y Bwthyn, Bridgend

  Llynfi Hospital, Maesteg

  Brynhyfryd Hospital, Forden, Powys

  538
  List of Surplus NHS Properties which are on the open market and are expected to realise more than £100,000 when sold.

  Property name

  Ely Hospital, Cardiff

  Lansdowne Hospital, Cardiff

  St. David's Hospital, Cardiff

  Prince of Wales, Rhydlafar

  Llys Maldwyn Hospital, Powys

  Mid Wales Hospital, Talgarth

  Brynyneuadd Farm, Conwy

  North Wales Hospital, Denbigh

  St. David's Site, Bangor.

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

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) for the last 10 years how much money was realised from the sale of surplus properties by the NHS in Wales, (b) for the next 10 years how much money he estimates will be realised from the sale of surplus properties by the NHS in Wales and (c) who holds the proceeds of such sales. [76924]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  (a) The list for the last 10 financial years of money realised from sale of surplus properties is as follows:

  £

  1997–98

  1,292,290.91

  1996–97

  3,476,827.34

  1995–96

  4,632,554.78

  1994–95

  5,153,481.48

  1993–94

  5,248,581.69

  1992–93

  6,424,523.95

  1991–92

  2,868,401.31

  1990–91

  1,587,358.47

  1989–90

  5,474,541.85

  1988–89

  1,789,803.35

  (b) The money estimated to be realised from sale of surplus properties in the next 10 financial years is approximately £30 million.

  (c) Until 1994–95 most of the proceeds of sale were returned to Health Authorities. Since then the normal procedure is for sale proceeds to be retained by the Welsh Office and used to part fund the All Wales Capital Programme. Health Authority and Trusts may retain the receipt for a related capital development on production of a sufficiently convincing business case.Following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Clinical Negligence Claims
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many clinical negligence claims in Wales were settled by individual trusts in the last year. [76922]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The information is not centrally available in the format requested. However, the numbers of cases for those losses categories which can contain clinical negligence claims are in the following table.
  539

  NHS trust

  Category 5 Compensation under legal obligation

  Category 7(b) Clinical negligence with advice

  Category 7(d) Other clinical negligence and personal injury

  Total

  Bridgend and District

  0

  88

  0

  88

  Cardiff Community

  0

  1

  1

  2

  Carmarthen and District

  0

  15

  0

  15

  Ceredigion and Mid Wales

  0

  6

  0

  6

  Clwydian Community Care

  1

  1

  1

  3

  East Glamorgan NHS

  2

  9

  6

  17

  Glan Clwyd

  27

  0

  0

  27

  Glan Hafren

  0

  47

  3

  50

  Glan y Mor

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwent Community

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Gwynedd Community

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Gwynedd Hospitals

  0

  3

  0

  3

  Llandough Hospital

  0

  4

  0

  4

  Llanelli Dinefwr

  0

  9

  0

  9

  Mid Glamorgan Ambulance

  45

  0

  0

  45

  Morriston Hospital

  0

  7

  0

  7

  Nevill Hall

  0

  13

  0

  13

  North Glamorgan

  4

  3

  0

  7

  North Wales Ambulance

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Pembrokeshire/Derwen

  1

  16

  0

  17

  Powys Healthcare

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Rhondda Healthcare

  0

  13

  0

  13

  South East Wales Ambulance

  61

  4

  0

  65

  Swansea

  0

  42

  0

  42

  University Dental Hospital

  2

  0

  0

  2

  University Hospital of Wales

  0

  14

  2

  16

  Velindre Hospital

  0

  0

  0

  0

  West Wales Ambulance

  0

  27

  27

  54

  Wrexham Maelor

  0

  21

  21

  42

  Total

  144

  343

  61

  548

  Table 1: distribution of the additional resources made available in each local government settlement for care in the community

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  County councils

  Clwyd

  6,830

  9,173

  7,269

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  4,627

  5,953

  4,728

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  5,548

  7,193

  5,716

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  3,543

  4,476

  3,545

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  5,081

  6,289

  4,996

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  1,597

  2,009

  1,596

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  4,916

  6,264

  4,981

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  5,371

  7,094

  5,626

  —

  —

  —

  County/county borough councils

  Isle of Anglesey

  —

  —

  —

  608

  462

  494

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  1,143

  897

  920

  Conwy

  —

  —

  —

  1,087

  856

  935

  Denbighshire

  —

  —

  —

  868

  688

  731

  Flintshire

  —

  —

  —

  1,083

  830

  941

  Wrexham

  —

  —

  —

  1,007

  769

  898

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  1,125

  877

  887

  Ceredigion

  —

  —

  —

  631

  494

  489

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  944

  733

  800

  Carmarthenshire

  —

  —

  —

  1,652

  1,299

  1,343

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  2,037

  1,574

  1,685

  Neath Port Talbot

  —

  —

  —

  1,311

  1,036

  1,093

  Bridgend

  —

  —

  —

  1,081

  835

  917

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  908

  691

  790

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  —

  —

  —

  2,312

  1,807

  1,766

  540
  Notes:

  1. Categories 5 and 7(d) may contain cases other than clinical negligence.

  2. Category 5 comprises claims paid under court order or settlement.

  3. Category 7(b) includes claims paid on the basis of legal advice.

  4. The data presented are based on cases approved in the financial year and payments may have been made in previous financial years.

  Source:

  Annual accounts of NHS trusts 1997–98

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

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) if he will list the amount as a percentage of their special transitional grant for the last five years spent by each local authority in Wales in the independent sector; [76910]

  (2) if he will list the amount spent on home care by each local authority in Wales as a percentage of their special transitional grant for the last five years. [76911]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  In Wales the Care in the Community initiative was not funded through a special transitional grant, as it was in England, but was instead distributed as part of the revenue support grant settlement. The distribution of the additional resources was identified as part of the settlement announcement each year and are given in table 1. The amounts spent by each local authority on personal social services in the independent sector are given in table 2. The latest available information on home care expenditure for each local authority in Wales is given in table 3.
  541

  Table 1: distribution of the additional resources made available in each local government settlement for care in the community

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  —

  —

  574

  444

  435

  Caerphilly

  —

  —

  —

  1,367

  1,051

  1,158

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  634

  490

  533

  Torfaen

  —

  —

  —

  692

  530

  615

  Monmouthshire

  —

  —

  —

  666

  522

  560

  Newport

  —

  —

  —

  1,107

  846

  920

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  —

  2,387

  1,833

  2,092

  Total

  37,514

  48,449

  38,457

  25,224

  19,565

  21,000

  Table 2: the amounts spent by each local authority on personal social services in the independent sector

  £000

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  County councils

  Clwyd

  4,142

  11,184

  17,179

  —

  —

  —

  Dyfed

  4,442

  8,852

  11,418

  —

  —

  —

  Gwent

  3,740

  n/a

  17,086

  —

  —

  —

  Gwynedd

  n/a

  6,372

  6,277

  —

  —

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  2,125

  5,926

  11,369

  —

  —

  —

  Powys

  2,290

  n/a

  5,394

  —

  —

  —

  South Glamorgan

  7,204

  15,169

  19,477

  —

  —

  —

  West Glamorgan

  3,156

  10,356

  13,614

  —

  —

  —

  County/county borough councils

  Isle of Anglesey

  —

  —

  —

  3,240

  3,904

  3,647

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  5,633

  7,533

  8,645

  Conwy

  —

  —

  —

  5,557

  5,443

  5,692

  Denbighshire

  —

  —

  —

  5,817

  5,534

  5,469

  Flintshire

  —

  —

  —

  4,112

  7,204

  7,962

  Wrexham

  —

  —

  —

  4,178

  4,625

  5,043

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  6,799

  7,112

  6,019

  Ceredigion

  —

  —

  —

  3,383

  4,086

  3,232

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  4,269

  4,763

  7,404

  Carmarthenshire

  —

  —

  —

  6,907

  7,706

  8,111

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  10,903

  11,370

  13,283

  Neath Port Talbot

  —

  —

  —

  5,959

  7,479

  7,912

  Bridgend

  —

  —

  —

  3,810

  4,613

  5,292

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  2,578

  5,874

  4,509

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  —

  —

  —

  9,150

  7,557

  11,021

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  —

  —

  1,663

  2,610

  2,238

  Caerphilly

  —

  —

  —

  5,053

  5,734

  6,583

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  2,442

  4,100

  4,243

  Torfaen

  —

  —

  —

  3,743

  3,457

  4,131

  Monmouthshire

  —

  —

  —

  3,810

  5,312

  6,281

  Newport

  —

  —

  —

  7,116

  8,433

  9,521

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  —

  18,239

  18,027

  21,280

  Total

  1

  1

  101,784

  124,352

  142,476

  157,518

  1 incomplete data

  Table 3: Local authority expenditure on home care and home help1

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  County councils

  Clwyd

  4,979

  5,250

  8,808

  10,570

  —

  Dyfed

  3,579

  3,523

  5,438

  6,294

  —

  Gwent

  7,014

  7,461

  11,106

  13,513

  —

  Gwynedd

  3,587

  3,981

  5,962

  686

  —

  Mid Glamorgan

  9,350

  10,683

  18,142

  18,871

  —

  Powys

  1,799

  2,103

  2,494

  2,354

  —

  South Glamorgan

  3,398

  4,315

  8,112

  9,987

  —

  West Glamorgan

  7,078

  6,978

  8,905

  9,934

  —

  County/county borough councils

  Isle of Anglesey

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,059

  Gwynedd

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,621

  Conwy

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,509

  542 543

  Table 3: Local authority expenditure on home care and home help1

  £000

  1992–93

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  Denbighshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,669

  Flintshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,689

  Wrexham

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,734

  Powys

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,052

  Ceredigion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,202

  Pembrokeshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,084

  Carmarthenshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,668

  Swansea

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6,255

  Neath Port Talbot

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,074

  Bridgend

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,313

  The Vale of Glamorgan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3,048

  Rhondda, Cynon, Taff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10,145

  Merthyr Tydfil

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ,3542

  Caerphilly

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,407

  Blaenau Gwent

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,797

  Torfaen

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,757

  Monmouthshire

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1,893

  Newport

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2,654

  Cardiff

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,281

  Total

  40,784

  44,294

  66,967

  73,478

  80,265

  1 Information for 1992–93 and 1993–94 is for home care related to the elderly and physically/sensory disabled adults. Information for 1994–95 onwards also includes home care for children and their families, the learning disabled and adults with mental health needs

  Elderly People (Abuse)
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the level of abuse of elderly people in difficult care environments in the last five years. [76905]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Identification and monitoring of abuse of older people in care and their protection are the responsibility of local and health authorities in Wales. Information is not held centrally on this. We have established a multi-agency working group, including senior police representatives, to make recommendations on the protection of all vulnerable adults including older people. The policy and practice guidance which will be the outcome of this work will be for the National Assembly to consider.

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list those firms that have bid for private finance initiative deals in Wales; which of these bids were successful; and to what the bids related. [76923]

  Mr. Hain
  The Department does not hold information, other than for its own Private Finance Initiative (PH) projects, on firms that bid for PFI deals in Wales. The Department does hold information on PFI deals once they have been signed, and this information can be summarised as follows:

  Project

  Successful bidder

  Welsh Office IT Network

  Siemens Business Systems1

  Welsh Office A55 (Anglesey)

  UK Highways (Tarmac, Laing and Hyder)2

  Community Hospital at Chepstow

  Consortium led by King Sturge and Co.

  Staff Residential Accommodation at the new Royal Glamorgan Hospital

  Charter Housing

  Day Surgery/Endoscopy Unit at Nevill Hall Hospital, Abergavenny

  Chiltern Securities

  544

  Project

  Successful bidder

  Sterile Services Unit at the University Hospital of Wales

  Sterile Services International

  Main Entrance and Concourse at the University Hospital of Wales

  Healthgate Ltd. (formerly Rockeagle (Health) Ltd.)

  Car Parking Facilities at the University Hospital of Wales

  Britannia Impregilo/APCOA

  Other bidders were:

  1 ICL

  2 Autolink, Road Management Group and Connect

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about the commercial plantation of herbicide tolerant genetically modified crops. [74691]

  Mr. Rooker
  No commercial plantings of genetically modified herbicide tolerant crops will take place in 1999. The Government are determined to ensure that these crops do not harm the environment. We have therefore reached agreement with the industry on a programme of managed development starting this spring, whereby the first field-scale plantings of the crops will be strictly limited and monitored for ecological effects alongside conventional varieties.

  Tetcott and South Tetcott Hunt
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what sums his Department contributed for the installation of incinerators at the Tetcott and South Tetcott Hunt kennels. [75524]

  Mr. Morley
  This Department, together with the EU, has provided funds for the purchase and installation of incinerators at Tetcott and Kilkhampton under the English LEADER II Community Initiative Structural Funds
  545
  programme. Both projects were submitted by the North Tamar Business Network Group Limited; one of the local groups though which the LEADER programme is being implemented in the South West. The projects are designed to help farmers reduce costs for the collection and disposal of fallen stock in the North Tamar area. The Tetcott project received funding of £3,750 from each of MAFF and the EAGGF. The Kilkhampton project received funding of £5,084 from each of MAFF and the EAGGF.

  Rabbits
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in how many research projects, since research on this subject began,(a) ferrets and (b) shot guns have been considered as a method of rabbit control; and what general conclusions were reached. [75626]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since 1991–92, the Ministry has funded three research projects which have incorporated information on ferrets and shot guns as methods for rabbit control. The projects involve one research group whose contracts have been extended for fixed periods following reviews of their work. The information on ferrets and shot guns includes results from research funded by other organisations. This research found that, for ferrets, rabbit populations were reduced by no more than 35 per cent. and, for shot guns, by only 30 per cent. Details for MAFF research for the period prior to 1991–92 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much his Department has spent on research on rabbits in each year since 1969; and how many research projects have been funded in that period. [75630]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information on expenditure on rabbit research from 1991–92 to 1998–99 was provided by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary on 18 June 1998,Official Report, column 324. The estimate provided in that answer for 1998–99 has been revised to £572,000. Details for the period prior to 1991–92 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the (i) cost, (ii) start date, (iii) planned completion date and (iv) objectives of the research studies(a) developing a visual scaring device to deter rabbits, (b) developing a rabbit management system, (c) developing a method for assessing the size of rabbit population and (d) rabbit behaviour and population dynamics at fenced hot spots; and in the case of (a) what devices have been considered to date. [75624]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is as follows:(a) Developing a visual scaring device to deter rabbits.

  (i) £114,000 (total).

  (ii) 1 April 1998.

  (iii) 31 March 2001.

  (iv) To produce and test a prototype scaring device based on a light beam and adapted to prevent the development of habituation by rabbits.

  The research is at early stage. Research to date has involved assessing the response of rabbits to light beams to provide a baseline against which to measure the effectiveness of anti-habituation techniques.
  546

  (b) Developing a rabbit management expert system.

  (i) £619,000 (total).

  (ii) 1 April 1998.

  (iii) 31 March 2002.

  (iv) To produce yield loss models to calculate the losses caused by rabbits to spring barley and grass and to obtain additional data on rabbit populations to incorporate into an expert system.

  (c) Developing a method for assessing the size of rabbit populations.

  (i) £154,000 (total).

  (ii) 1 April 1998.

  (iii) 31 March 2001.

  (iv) To develop a method under controlled conditions for assessing rabbit abundance.

  (d) Rabbit behaviour and population dynamics at fence hot-spots.

  (i) £217,000 (total).

  (ii) 1 April 1998.

  (iii) 31 March 2001.

  (iv) To determine the effects of erecting fencing on rabbit population dynamics and ranging behaviour.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many research projects have been undertaken by his Department, and at what total cost,(a) on the effects of rabbit fencing in preventing crop damage by rabbits, (b) to determine effective methods of rabbit control, (c) to investigate the breeding habits of rabbits and (d) to examine the effects on population levels of allowing rabbits to breed unchecked; and what conclusion they reached in each case. [75628]

  Mr. Rooker
  (a) Six since 1991–92 at a cost of £869,000. This figure relates to whole project costs rather than the proportions of projects specifically addressing fencing. The results of research completed to date have been summarised in an advisory leaflet for landowners and occupiers; a copy of the leaflet has been placed in the Library of the House.

  (b) Ten since 1991–92 at a cost of £1.3 million. This figure includes research on fencing. Reports on the results from these projects, where not already covered by my answer of 3 March 1999, Official Report, column 792, have been placed in the Library of the House; their project numbers are:

  VCO204

  VCO207

  VCO208

  Where projects have been extended, only the latest report has been placed in the Library.

  (c) & (d) Three since 1991–92 at a cost of £390,000. These projects cover the development of mathematical models to identify cost-effective rabbit control strategies; they are therefore also included in the cost given in (b). Information on breeding habits and population levels is included in the models to achieve the primary aim of the research relating to rabbit control strategies. The conclusions were given in my answer on 3 March 1999, Official Report, column 792.

  Details for the period prior to 1991–92 could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.
  547
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of the research project, developing humane, environmentally acceptable and cost-effective methods of rabbit control; and what assessment it made of the use of ferrets as a means of rabbit control. [75623]

  Mr. Rooker
  This project has now ended and the total cost was £479,000. An assessment of the use of ferrets for rabbit control was not included.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many research projects have been undertaken by his Department which have involved predicting the effects of various rabbit populations on crops. [75627]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since 1991–92, the Ministry has funded seven projects involving prediction of the effects of various rabbit populations on crops; these have now all ended. They consisted mainly of the work of one research group whose contracts have been extended for fixed periods following reviews of the research.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what was the cost of the research project, irreversible immunocontraception for the control of wild rabbits; and what was the proposed delivery method of the contraceptive. [75625]

  Mr. Rooker
  The cost was £178,000. The delivery method under consideration for the species-specific immunocontraceptive was an oral bait. Work is continuing on this topic under the project: "Antigen delivery systems for the control of wild rabbits". If an immunocontraceptive is developed, it will have to be approved under the Medicines Act 1986 and careful consideration will need to be given to all the issues surrounding its use.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has made from the research which it has funded of the effects on (i) crops and (ii) young woodlands from a nearby rabbit population which is(a) light and (b) heavy. [75629]

  Mr. Rooker
  (i) This topic was covered in the completed research project: "Predicting damage to crops by rabbits". The results are being refined in the project: "Developing a rabbit management expert system". Details of this project are contained in my answer to the right hon. Member's question, ref.75624.

  (ii) This completed research has been assessed as part of the Ministry' s normal review process. Results from MAFF' s research on farm woodlands is made available to farmers. The research was also publicised at a symposium in York on 8 October 1998 addressing MAFF R&D on farm woodlands since 1987. The symposium was attended by organisations with interests in farm woodlands as well as advisers and farmers.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what synopsis his Department has prepared of the conclusions of the research into the(a) effectiveness and (b) cost of legal methods of rabbit control; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [75622]
  548
  Mr. Rooker
  A single synopsis has not been produced. However, three advisory leaflets based on the results of the Ministry's research on fencing and other control techniques have been produced for landowners and occupiers. Copies have been placed in the Library of the Hosue.

  Live Animal Imports
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many checks were carried out in respect of live animal imports at British ports of entry in each year from 1990 to the latest year for which figures are available. [75845]

  Mr. Rooker
  Council Directive 90/425/EEC of 26 June 1990 (as amended) abolished systematic veterinary checks on live animals at internal European Community frontiers. It provides instead for a system of checks at points of origin and random spot checks at points of destination.

  Council Directive 91/496/EEC (as amended) concerns veterinary checks on imports entering the Community from third countries and requires that consignments enter the European Community only through an approved Border Inspection Post (BIP). At the Border Inspection Post they must be subjected to documentary, identity, and physical checks before entering free circulation within the Community.

  Statistics concerning the number of veterinary checks carried out at Border Inspection Posts (third country imports only) are readily available for 1994 to 1998. Records for earlier years are not available in a form which would permit the extraction of corresponding figures without disproportionate cost.

  Year

  Number of veterinary checks on consignments carried out at border inspection posts1 (third country imports)

  1994

  6,797

  1995

  6,550

  1996

  4,805

  1997

  7,238

  1998

  8,826

  1 Based on the number of border crossing certificates issued.

  EU Milk Quotas
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the annual European Union milk quota was for British farmers for each year from 1990 to the latest year for which figures are available. [75838]

  Mr. Rooker
  The total annual European Union milk quota allocation for the UK for each quota year (which runs from 1 April to 31 March) from 1989–90 to 1998–99 is as follows:

  000 litres

  1989–90 and 1990–91

  14,359,836

  1991–92 and 1992–93

  14,084,716

  1993–94 and 1998–99

  14,166,936

  549

  Animal Feed Exports
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what quantity of meat and bonemeal and other high-protein feed products was exported from Britain in each of the last three years of a type which would currently be illegal if used for animal feed in Great Britain. [75837]

  Mr. Rooker
  Such feed products are not separately identified in official Overseas Trade Statistics.

  Within the UK the feeding of mammalian meat and bonemeal to all farmed livestock and the feeding of any mammalian protein (with certain specific exceptions) to ruminants is prohibited. Since February 1996 the State Veterinary Service has conducted a feed sampling programme to monitor compliance with these controls. Two breaches of the feed control legislation have been identified though neither case involved the export of prohibited material.

  In addition mammalian meat and bonemeal of UK origin, and animal feed containing it, is included in the EU export ban which came into force in March 1996. No breaches of this ban have been detected.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Charlotte Atkins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current research projects funded by his Department to discover the cause of, and possible remedies for, tuberculosis in cattle. [75830]

  Mr. Rooker
  In addition to the randomised badger culling trial designed by the Bourne Group, the Ministry is currently funding the following research projects:

  Understanding the causes of herd breakdown:
  A spatial analysis, using GIS, of risk factors associated with TB incidents in cattle herds in England and Wales.
  Bovine TB in badgers and the risks to cattle: a spatial analysis.
  Modelling badger populations, the epidemiology of natural infection with Mycobacterium bovis, the risk of spread to cattle and the consequences of control.
  DNA fingerprinting of samples from badger culling trial.
  The effect on the viability of Mycobacterium bovis of freezing samples prior to culture testing.
  An assessment of the validity of the current necropsy protocol to detect tuberculous lesions in the badger.
  NVL (no visible lesion) tuberculous badger: pathology, immunology and epidemiology.

  Evaluating the effectiveness of currently available strategies to reduce herd breakdown:
  Badgers and bovine tuberculosis: a proactive strategy for the control of bovine TB in badger populations.
  Analysis of European badger (Mycobacterium meles) population dynamics and social organisation in a population naturally infected with Mycobacterium bovis.
  The consequences of perturbation caused by badger removal for the control of TB in cattle: a study of behaviour.
  Perturbation study (culture and serology for Mycobacterium bovis).
  An ecological and epidemiological study of a badger population naturally infected with Mycobacterium bovis.
  An epidemiological and ecological study of a badger population naturally infected with Mycobacterium bovis (laboratory support project).
  Longitudinal study of natural Mycobacterium bovis in badgers.
  Assessment of the humaneness, efficacy, usability and non-target risk of leg-cuffs for capturing badgers.
  550
  Developing improved strategies to reduce herd breakdown:
  Development of vaccine candidates for protection of badgers against infection with Mycobacterium bovis.
  The development of animal models to test candidate vaccines for Mycobacterium bovis in badgers.
  Blood tests to distinguish vaccinated from TB infected cattle; Interferon assay to improve diagnostics in reactors.

  The research programme for 1999–2000 has been reviewed in the light of the recommendations of the Krebs report and a research requirement document was published in April 1998. Research will be focused on understanding the causes of outbreaks of bovine TB and developing improved strategies to reduce the number of outbreaks, especially by creating a cattle vaccine. For details of the research projects for 1999–2000 I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to our hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) on 10 March 1999, Official Report, column 300.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of(a) the likelihood of the UK's dairy beef herds losing their TB-free status and (b) the implications such a development would have for UK agriculture; and if he will make a statement. [76290]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]: The officially tuberculosis-free (OTF) status of an individual bovine herd within Great Britain is suspended if an animal in that herd reacts positively to a tuberculin test or if, for any other reason, a veterinary inspector suspects that an animal in that herd is infected with tuberculosis.

  The EU legislation (Directive 64/432/EEC), as it currently applies, does not provide for member states, or regions of member states, to obtain OTF status. Certain member states and regions have been exempted from the routine herd testing requirements of the Directive by virtue of a Commission Decision, although they have not been granted OTF status as such. This exemption has never applied to any part of the UK.

  Amendments to the Directive, which were agreed during the last UK Presidency and will come into effect from 1 July 1999, provide for member states and regions to apply for OTF status. Outside such areas, the Directive allows cattle from herds with OTF status to be eligible for intra-Community trade provided that they are subject to a tuberculin test, with negative results, either 30 days before or 30 days after movement.

  Similar testing requirements applied to live cattle entering intra-Community trade from Great Britain prior to 27 March 1996.

  Farming White Paper
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to produce a White Paper based on the results of the Future of Farming consultation. [75839]

  Mr. Rooker
  My officials are in the process of analysing the results of the consultation exercise on Agenda 2000/CAP Reform. These include some 17,000 responses from individual farmers, more detailed comments from a range of organisations and the reports of consultation meetings held across the country. We shall be publishing the results as part of a further consultation paper in the Spring.
  551

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if(a) he, (b) civil servants in his Department or (c) special advisers in his Department have (i) had sight of drafts of select committee reports, in whole or in part, or (ii) been informed of conclusions of select committee reports prior to their publication by the select committees. [75883]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire) on 1 March 1999, Official Report, column 531.

  There have been no instances of members of select committees, giving me, or my ministerial colleagues, drafts of select committee reports, or parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor, to the best of my knowledge, have there been any occasions on which members of select committees have given such material to civil servants or special advisers in my Department. This excludes embargoed copies of reports issued under the House of Commons Standing Orders.

  Whales
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if the Government support the planned joint proposal by Australia and New Zealand to the International Whaling Commission for a whale sanctuary in the Southern Pacific; and if the Government will be actively seeking support from other International Whaling Commission countries for the proposal. [76025]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Government strongly support the current International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling and the existing whale sanctuaries. We are opposed to all forms of whaling other than some limited subsistence whaling by indigenous people, and would like to see a permanent, comprehensive international ban on whaling introduced.

  We are keen to develop ways of further these objectives and of improving the conservation of whales. We are therefore in favour of the proposal being developed jointly by Australia and New Zealand for a South Pacific Whale Sanctuary, and will strongly support any firm proposal for such a sanctuary that is submitted to the IWC.

  Countryside Stewardship Scheme
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the total budget for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme is in each of the next three years in England. [76093]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: The total budget available in the 1999–2000 financial year for the Countryside Stewardship including the main scheme, the Arable Stewardship Pilot Scheme and the Upland Experiment is estimated to be over £32 million. This includes payments to farmers, scheme monitoring costs and the work of the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency (FRCA) and not MAFF administrative costs. Figures for 2000–01 and 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many applications were received in England during 1998 to join the Countryside 552
  Stewardship Scheme; what area of land they represented; how many were approved; and what area of land they represented. [76095]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: The number of applications received for the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in 1998 was 2,445. Of these, 1,290 agreements have been offered to date, covering an area of 21,919 ha of land. Data on the area of land covered by applications which were rejected or deferred are not recorded.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is the total area of farmland in England covered by the Countryside Stewardship Scheme; and what is the area covered by the scheme within the less favoured areas and its proportion of the total LFA area. [76091]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: The total area of land currently under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in England is 161,896 ha, virtually all of which is managed agriculturally.

  The area covered by the scheme in the Less Favoured Areas is approximately 55,500 ha which is 3 per cent. of the total area of LFA.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to announce proposals on reform of quarantine law. [76221]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) on 5 March 1999,Official Report, column 946.

  Birds (Poisoning)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if his Department has recorded the number of predatory birds killed by poison in the United Kingdom in the last five years. [76756]

  Mr. Rooker
  MAFF co-ordinates the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme which monitors the effects of pesticides on wildlife. The figures are taken from the annual publication, 'Pesticide Poisoning of Animals—Investigations of Suspected Incidents in the UK'.

  This information gives details only of incidents involving pesticides, not all types of poisons. These figures represent incidents where pesticides have been identified by analysis, but which are not necessarily the cause of death.

  Year

  Number of pesticide related incidents involving birds of prey and owls

  1993

  34

  1994

  38

  1995

  31

  1996

  42

  1997

  21

  Note:

  In addition one incident of an owl poisoned by a veterinary medicine has been recorded.
  553

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity, indicating the organisation acting as their sponsor or host. [76654]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  None.

  Badgers
  Mr. McNulty
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he has appointed an external auditor for the randomised badger culling trial. [77232]

  Mr. Rooker
  In its report of July 1998 to Ministers, the Independent Scientific Group on TB in cattle recommended that an external auditor be appointed to check field operations. Cresswell Associates, Environmental Consultants of Stroud, Gloucestershire, have now been appointed to carry out this work until November 1999. Audit work after that date will be the subject of a further invitation to tender.

HEALTH

  Capital Allocations (London)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health on what basis the Regional Office for London will be allocating the general allocation for capital; and if he will list the amount to be allowed to each London health authority. [75134]

  Mr. Denham
  The basis for capital allocations is in accordance with the priorities set out in Health Service Circular 1998/214. Initial capital allocations to National Health Service trusts and health authorities are set out in the table. Further allocations will be made throughout the year following approval of business cases.

  Initial capital allocation 1999–2000: London Regional Office

  Trust/health authority (HA)

  £000

  Barnet Community Healthcare

  791

  BHB Community Health Care

  1,481

  Bromley Hospitals

  1,720

  Camden and Islington Community Health Services

  1,470

  Chelsea and Westminster Healthcare

  4,365

  City and Hackney Community Services

  861

  Croydon Community

  240

  Ealing Hospital

  1,458

  Enfield Community Care

  850

  Forest Healthcare

  2,883

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children

  1,800

  Greenwich Healthcare

  2,760

  Guy's and St. Thomas's

  22,760

  Hammersmith Hospitals

  7,840

  Haringey Health Care

  1,188

  Harrow and Hillingdon Healthcare

  538

  Havering Hospitals

  2,915

  Hillingdon Hospital

  1,707

  Homerton Hospital

  4,988

  Hounslow and Spelthorne Community and Mental Health

  656

  King's Healthcare

  3,800

  Kingston and District Community

  890

  Kingston Hospital

  1,320

  Lewisham Hospitals

  1,720

  London Ambulance Service

  4,400

  Mayday Healthcare

  1,360

  554

  Initial capital allocation 1999–2000: London Regional Office

  Trust/health authority (HA)

  £000

  Moorfields Eye Hospital

  938

  Newham Community Health Services

  815

  Newham Healthcare

  3,771

  North Middlesex Hospital

  1,395

  Oxleas

  631

  Pathfinder

  730

  Queen Mary's Sidcup

  1,160

  Ravensbourne Priority Health

  409

  Redbridge Healthcare

  3,227

  Riverside Community Healthcare

  523

  Royal Free Hampstead

  4,059

  Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital

  931

  St. George's Hospital

  3,600

  St. Mary's Hospital, Paddington

  3,239

  Tavistock and Portman

  296

  Teddington Memorial Hospital

  40

  Royal Brompton and Harefield

  2,651

  Royal Hospitals

  7,365

  Royal Marsden

  1,754

  Whittington Hospital

  2,239

  Tower Hamlets Healthcare

  1,358

  University College London Hospitals

  4,394

  West Middlesex University Hospital

  3,659

  Barking and Havering HA

  50

  Barnet HA

  50

  Bexley and Greenwich HA

  50

  Brent and Harrow HA

  50

  Bromley HA

  50

  Camden and Islington HA

  50

  Croydon HA

  50

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow HA

  50

  East London and the City HA

  50

  Enfield and Haringey HA

  50

  Hillingdon HA

  50

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster HA

  50

  Kingston and Richmond HA

  50

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham HA

  200

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth HA

  50

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest HA

  50

  Broadmoor Hospital

  1,441

  Notes:

  1. Above list excludes Trusts potentially involved in mergers.

  2. Above excludes additional allocations from A&E and Waiting List Capital Modernisation Funds, together with contribution from general allocation which will be used to supplement the money from the Modernisation Fund.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many people in each health region are currently waiting for an appointment with a consultant following referral by a general practitioner; if he will provide a breakdown of the length of time for which those people(a) have already waited and (b) are expected to wait; and if he will list for each region the waiting time being given to new entrants to this waiting list for (i) ear, nose and throat, (ii) trauma and orthopaedic, (iii) general surgery, (iv) ophthalmology and (v) gynaecology consultants. [75041]

  Mr. Denham
  Available information on waiting times for first outpatient appointments following general practitioner written referral is shown in the table. Information on expected waiting times is not available centrally.
  555

  Number of patients in England waiting for first outpatient appointments following a general practitioner written referral, for the quarter ended 31 December 1998

  Region

  Number who had been waiting 13 to 25 weeks

  Number who had been waiting 26 plus weeks

  Northern and Yorkshire

  36,569

  17,764

  Trent

  35,903

  20,784

  Anglia and Oxford

  34,480

  14,850

  North Thames

  54,606

  20,841

  South Thames

  40,305

  15,005

  South and West

  35,109

  17,283

  West Midlands

  31,366

  11,353

  North West

  54,880

  26,534

  England

  323,218

  144,404

  Note:

  Figures derived from waiting times form QM08 completed by National Health Service trusts each quarter.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were waiting for hospital treatment in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area in(a) October 1998, (b) November 1998, (c) December 1998 and (d) January 1999. [72888]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]: Mid Essex Hospital National Health Service Trust's total waiting list was 11,832 at 31 October 1998; 11,347 at 30 November 1998; 11,359 at the end of December 1998; and 11,172 at the end of January 1999.

  Medical School Places
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what is the capacity for expansion of existing medical schools to accommodate the additional medical places required by the NHS; and if he will make a statement; [75455]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee evaluation of the capacity for clinical positions for students at existing medical schools; and if he will make a statement. [75453]

  Mr. Denham
  The third Medical Workforce Standing Advisory Committee report did not include a detailed evaluation of the scope for the expansion of student intake at existing medical schools.

  The Government have announced that medical school intake in the United Kingdom will be increased by about 1,000 places by the year 2005, to about 6,000. Because of the current distribution of medical school places, the increase will principally affect student intake in England and Wales.

  In England, all universities and their National Health Service partners have been invited to submit proposals for a share of the increase in medical student intake by 12 March 1999. The Joint Implementation Group appointed to oversee the increase will consider all proposals, and make recommendations to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, which will announce the allocations later in the year.

  Professional Regulation
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what statutory protection is provided to the patients of (i) paramedics, (ii) chiropodists, (iii) physiotherapists,556
  (iv) clinical psychologists, (v) occupational therapists and (vi) speech therapists in (a) the National Health Service and (b) the private sector; and what plans he has to introduce measures to provide additional protection. [75224]

  Mr. Denham
  Chiropodists, physiotherapists and occupational therapists are regulated under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960. It is an offence to pretend to be registered under that Act. In addition, employment in the National Health Service is restricted to those who are registered under the Act. We plan to replace the Act with new legislation to improve public protection, including restricting the use of common professional title to registered practitioners wherever they work.

  NHS employment of speech and language therapists is restricted to members of the Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. NHS employment of paramedics is restricted to those who have a qualification accredited by the Institute of Health Care Development. We are currently considering petitions to extend the 1960 Act to these two professions.

  NHS employment of clinical psychologists is restricted to those who are members of the British Psychological Society. It is for the profession to develop proposals for statutory regulation.

  South-west Health Authorities (Funding)
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) for what reason the South West Health Authorities will receive 3 per cent. increase on previous funding instead of the announced funding figure of 4 per cent. for the year 2000; [74430]

  (2) if he will take action to ensure that funding for health care in the South West is maintained at 4 per cent. [74432]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]: For 1999–2000 the national average real terms increase was 4 per cent.

  We use a weighted capitation formula to determine each health authority's fair share target of available resources. Health authorities which already receive more than the formula suggests is their fair share received less than the average increase. Seven of the eight health authorities in the South West were in this position. In 1999–2000 the region as a whole received 1.4 per cent., or £4.3 million more than the formula suggests is their fair share.

  Medicines Control Agency
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the names of the members of the Medicines Control Agency together with a list of their financial interests and research funding. [75726]

  Ms Jowell
  The Medicines Control Agency (MCA) is a Departmental agency and is accountable direct to Ministers. The staff of the agency are civil servants and are subject to all the normal civil service employment rules, including those covering financial and research interests. The names of senior MCA management and scientific staff can be found on the agency's Website.
  557
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the membership of the Medicines Control Agency, indicating for each member their(a) terms of employment, (b) consultancies, (c) research funding and (d) shareholdings in pharmaceutical companies. [75950]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply given today to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).

  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to implement the recommendations of the Medicines Control Agency to extend its remit to cover(a) health products and (b) nutritional supplements; and if he will make a statement. [75951]

  Ms Jowell
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: We have no plans to extend the remit of the Medicines Control Agency.

  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to expand the remit of the Medicines Control Agency to enable it to ban vitamin and other supplements to diet; and if he will make a statement on the composition and background of the members of the Medicines Control Agency. [76760]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have no plans to extend the remit of the Medicines Control Agency (MCA) or to ban vitamins and other dietary supplements. The MCA is an agency of the Department and is accountable direct to Ministers. The staff of the agency are civil servants and are subject to all the normal civil service employment rules, including those covering financial and research interests. The names of senior MCA management and scientific staff can be found on the agency's Website.

  Nurses (Violence)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of violent incidents against nurses in accident and emergency wards were attributable to(a) substance and (b) alcohol abuse in the last five years for which figures are available. [75953]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]: Information on the number and specific causes of violent attacks on nursing staff is not available centrally. National Health Service trusts and health authorities collect information locally.

  North Essex Health Authority
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to provide a substantive answer to the questions tabled by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford on 22 February, on figures published by the North Essex Health Authority and his Department (Refs. 73118, 73119 and 73120). [76205]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. Member's questions on 12 March 1999,Official Report, column 410.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of (i) the availability of services within the NHS for sufferers of ME/CFS and (ii) the adequacy of the present arrangements for commissioning social services. [76475]
  558
  Mr. Hutton
  The National Health Service provides a considerable number of services to which people suffering from Chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) have access, and such patients are seen within a wide range of hospital specialties. The recently established CFS/ME Working Group will produce guidance aimed at improving the quality of this care and treatment. We have consistently emphasised the importance of close partnership between the NHS and local authorities to plan and commission services and have set in hand a number of initiatives, including legislative change, to strengthen this.

  Children (Employment)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to introduce legislation to bring ILO Convention 138 relating to children's employment into UK law; and if he will make a statement. [76202]

  Mr. Hutton
  An announcement of the results of the review of the ratification of International Labour Organisation Convention 138 will be made in the near future.

  Hospitals (Phones)
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will issue instructions to hospitals that normal BT call charges should apply to all payphones within their hospitals. [76149]

  Mr. Denham
  None. The provision of a telephone service for use by patients and visitors, including the choice of provider, is a matter for individual trusts. Detailed guidance on the setting of fees and charges by National Health Service trusts is contained in Her Majesty's Treasury publication "The Fees and Charges Guide". Where a service is to be provided by a third party, trusts should ensure best value both for the hospital and the user by seeking tenders from potential operators.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of dentists that need to be trained in England to ensure(a) the maintenance of the present level of service and (b) that his dental health targets are met. [75438]

  Mr. Denham
  On 31 March 1998 there were 19,711 dentists practising in the National Health Service in Great Britain, an increase of 2.6 per cent. on the year before. Numbers of dental students are also at a record level. In the 1997–98 academic year there were 3,929 undergraduate dental students in medical schools, an increase of 2 per cent. on the 1996–97 year.

  A sub-group of the Dental Advisory Group on Medical Education and Training, which has been established to consider future workforce requirements, will hold its first meeting on 10 June 1999. Its discussions will be informed by our forthcoming dental strategy.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the need for facilities for dento-alveolar surgery. [75442]
  559
  Mr. Denham
  Dento-alveolar surgery is mostly carried out within the facilities of primary dental care. Dento-alveolar surgery requiring more specialist Average time for referral treatment is provided by the hospital dental services. It is for health authorities to assess local need for such facilities.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the cost of clinical waste collection and water service charges to general dental practices; to what extent these costs are accounted for in the payments made to dentists for NHS work; and what plans he has to make changes in the reimbursement of dentists for these particular costs. [75437]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the cost of clinical waste collection and water service charges is not available centrally. As independent contractors, general dental practitioners are responsible for meeting all their own practice expenses. The fees payable to general dental practitioners reflect this fact. We have no plans to change this at present.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many treatments requiring prior approval from the Dental Practice Board were submitted in each of the last three years; how many were refused; and what was the(a) shortest, (b) longest and (c) average time taken to consider these requests. [75435]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of prior approvals received by the Dental Practice Board which cover England, Wales and the Isle of Man and the number of these referred for investigation is given in the table.

  Prior approval applications

  Number referred

  1995–96

  548,753

  not available

  1996–97

  548,741

  33,126

  1997–98

  554,584

  49,833

  The number of applications referred in 1995–96 is not available. The shortest time of dealing with the applications was one day.

  Longest time for approval—referral not required

  Year

  Days

  1995–96

  38

  1996–97

  35

  1997–98

  45

  Longest time for referral

  Year

  Days

  1995–96

  not available

  1996–97

  138

  1997–98

  124

  Average time for approval—referral not required

  Year

  Days

  1995–96

  5

  1996–97

  6

  1997–98

  5

  560

  Average time for referral

  Year

  Days

  1995–96

  not available

  1996–97

  85

  1997–98

  97

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the number of dentists required in each health authority to provide a satisfactory level of service; [75439]

  (2) if he will make a statement about (a) the availability of dental services in rural areas and (b) the steps being taken to improve access to dentists in rural areas. [75426]

  Mr. Denham
  Health authorities have responsibility for monitoring the oral health and general dental services (GDS) in their area. If a health authority is concerned about the level of GDS provision in its area, it may ask the Secretary of State for Health to use his powers under Section 56 of the NHS Act 1977, to approve the funding of proposals submitted under the Investing in Dentistry initiative, which we launched in September 1997, or, where appropriate, seek approval to employ a salaried dentist(s).

  The Personal Dental Services scheme (PDS) was set up under the NHS (Primary Care) Act 1997 to address local service problems and tailor services to meet local need, including in rural areas. PDS enables dentists and National Health Service trusts, working with health authorities, to develop and pilot new ways of delivering NHS dentistry. The first wave of pilot schemes began in October 1998.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was(a) the public expenditure estimate and (b) the cost outturn for general dental services in England in 1997–98. [75427]

  Mr. Denham
  General Dental Services (GDS) is not cash limited, so there is no set annual budget. The original vote provision and final expenditure in the GDS in England is shown in the table.

  General Dental Service:1997–98 Expenditure

  £ million

  England

  Gross expenditure

  Net expenditure

  Provision made in main estimate

  1,405.8

  1,021.5

  Outturn

  1,349.3

  959.1

  Gross expenditure includes all fees and allowances payable to general dental practitioners, which cover their income and practice expenses, together with supplementary cost such as employers' superannuation contributions, payments of salaried dentists who provide GDS care in certain localities, and refunds to patients who incorrectly paid dental charges. Net expenditure shows costs after taking into account all dental charges collected from patients.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement about current audit and peer review projects for general dental practitioners,
  561
  setting out (a) his assessment of their effectiveness and value for money and (b) his future plans for such projects. [75430]

  Mr. Denham
  As our consultation paper AFirst Class Service indicated, participation of doctors and dentists in clinical audit schemes is central to our strategy for improving the quality of health care. Local audit and peer review advisory panels assess dental schemes and those dentists who participate are required to prepare resumes of their experience. A recent analysis of a sample of these reports showed that 89 per cent. of dentists viewed the process positively and 63 per cent. had acquired knowledge with a direct, beneficial impact on patient care. We have allocated £1.5 million for these schemes in 1999–2000 and have no plans to change the current arrangements.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list by health authority area the average number of dental registrations per dentist; if he will make a statement on the impact on dental health of differences in the average number; and what measures are being taken to reduce such differences; [75534]

  (2) how many adults have been seen by dentists under NHS regulations in each health authority area in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [75533]

  Mr. Denham
  The table gives, by health authority (HA), the number of registered dental patients on 31 January 1999 as compared to the number of General Dental Service (GDS) dentists at 31 December 1998. Differences in these numbers between HAs will reflect differences in the level of commitment of dentists to the GDS (lower registrations per dentist are likely to indicate a lower level of commitment to the GDS by the dentists involved) and other factors. Figures on the number of adult patients seen by GDS dentists are not available.

  General Dental Service: Number of patient registrations1 per dentisf2,3 by health authority

  England

  Health authorities

  England

  1,363

  Avon

  1,184

  Barking and Havering

  1,390

  Barnet

  663

  Barnsley

  1,996

  Bedfordshire

  1,255

  Berkshire

  1,070

  Bexley and Greenwich

  1,237

  Birmingham

  1,626

  Bradford

  1,605

  Brent and Harrow

  1,036

  Bromley

  833

  Buckinghamshire

  985

  Bury and Rochdale

  1,610

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  1,786

  Cambridge and Huntingdon

  1,442

  Camden and Islington

  779

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  1,351

  County Durham

  1,850

  Coventry

  1,615

  Croydon

  1,039

  Doncaster

  1,875

  Dorset

  1,425

  Dudley

  1,728

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  781

  East Kent

  1,284

  562

  General Dental Service: Number of patient registrations1 per dentist2,3 by health authority

  England

  Health authorities

  East Lancashire

  1,547

  East London and The City

  1,002

  East Norfolk

  1,400

  East Riding

  1,894

  East Surrey

  964

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  1,192

  East and North Hertfordshire

  1,344

  Enfield and Haringey

  1,102

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  1,514

  Gloucestershire

  974

  Herefordshire

  1,292

  Hillingdon

  1,274

  Isle of Wight

  1,540

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  555

  Kingston and Richmond

  793

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  1,169

  Leeds

  1,380

  Leicestershire

  1,726

  Lincolnshire

  2,229

  Liverpool

  1,570

  Manchester

  1,192

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  974

  Morecombe Bay

  1,366

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  1,490

  North Cheshire

  1,831

  North Cumbria

  1,472

  North Derbyshire

  1,588

  North Essex

  1,439

  North Nottinghamshire

  1,943

  North Staffordshire

  1,679

  North West Anglia

  1,498

  North West Lancashire

  1,578

  North Yorkshire

  1,433

  North and East Devon

  1,239

  North and Mid Hampshire

  1,380

  Northamptonshire

  1,983

  Northumberland

  1,527

  Nottingham

  1,604

  Oxfordshire

  967

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  1,373

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  1,261

  Rotherham

  1,777

  Salford and Trafford

  1,584

  Sandwell

  1,620

  Sefton

  1,719

  Sheffield

  1,707

  Shropshire

  1,362

  Solihull

  1,343

  Somerset

  1,540

  South Cheshire

  1,333

  South Derbyshire

  1,591

  South Essex

  1,424

  South Humber

  2,051

  South Lancashire

  1,391

  South Staffordshire

  1,752

  South and West Devon

  1,251

  Southampton and S W Hampshire

  1,423

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  1,569

  Stockport

  1,571

  Suffolk

  1,703

  Sunderland

  1,926

  Tees

  1,791

  Wakefield

  2,033

  Walsall

  1,858

  Warwickshire

  1,368

  West Hertfordshire

  1,095

  West Kent

  1,108

  West Pennine

  1,685

  West Surrey

  980

  West Sussex

  1,164

  563

  General Dental Service: Number of patient registrations1 per dentist2,3 by health authority

  England

  Health authorities

  Wigan and Bolton

  1,780

  Wiltshire

  1,164

  Wirral

  1,497

  Wolverhampton

  2,001

  Worcestershire

  1,447

  1 Adult and child patients registered at 31 January 1999

  2 Includes Principals, Assistant and Vocational Dental Practitioners at 31 December 1998

  3 Excludes Community, Salaried and Hospital dentists

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health in each of the last three years what percentage of all types of dental treatments was referred to a dental reference officer for scrutiny; and what percentage was declared to be(a) of poor quality and (b) invalid. [75433]

  Mr. Denham
  In 1996–97 and 1997–98 about 0.5 per cent. and 0.6 per cent. respectively of courses of treatment scheduled for payment for England, Wales and the Isle of Man were referred to a dental reference office for scrutiny. Of those patients seen, the dental officer had a major or fundamental disagreement with the treatment in 1.75 per cent. of cases in 1996–97 and 1.37 per cent. of cases in 1997–98. Information for 1995–96 is not available. These percentages cover both poor quality and invalid treatments. The dental officer was unable to comment in 3 per cent. of cases seen in 1996–97 and 4 per cent. in 1997–98.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists are employed by each NHS trust in their community dental services; how many children were treated in the last year for which figures are available in each trust; and how many treatments were made. [75440]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Table 1 gives the number of child patients, aged 15 years and under, seen for treatment by the community dental service (CDS) by health authority (HA) in England during the financial year 1997–98. The activity for each Trust is allocated to the HA for which the work is carried out. Table 1 also includes information on the number of episodes of care for children aged 15 years or under. An episode of care is a series of face to face contacts with a member of the CDS to complete a treatment plan.

  The number of CDS dentists on 30 September 1997 is given in Table 2 by HA in England based on the location of the NHS trusts.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of treatments requiring prior approval from the Dental Practice Board was submitted to dental reference officers for further examination in each of the last three years; what percentage was refused; and what was(a) the shortest, (b) the longest and (c) the average time taken to consider these submissions. [75434]

  Mr. Denham
  6 per cent. of prior approval applications in England, Wales and the Isle of Man were referred to dental reference officers for further investigation in 1996–97 and 71 per cent. of these patients were seen, for 564
  example, 4 per cent. of the total number of applications. In 1997–98, 9 per cent. were investigated further and 56 per cent. of patients were seen, for example, 5 per cent. of the total number of applications. Information for 1995–96 is not available.

  Of those patients seen in 1996–97, the dental officer had a fundamental disagreement with the treatment plan in 0.47 per cent. of cases and had a major disagreement in 4.72 per cent. of cases. For patients seen in 1997–98, there was a fundamental disagreement in 0.38 per cent. of cases and a major disagreement in 3.48 per cent. of cases. However, refusal to give approval takes place only after further consultation at the Dental Practice Board.

  In 1996–97 the quickest approval was made in 45 days, the average time taken was 85 days and the longest time taken was 138 days. In 1997–98 the quickest approval was made in 46 days, the average time taken was 97 days and the longest time taken was 124 days.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of dentists' earnings was made up of non-NHS work in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [75313]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on non-National Health Service dental earnings is not collected. However, an annual Inland Revenue Survey gives information on the total gross earnings (i.e. including both NHS and private work) of General Dental Service (GDS) dentists, allowing a comparison with total gross GDS earnings. This indicates that the percentage of GDS dentists' earnings made up of non-GDS work over the last five years has been in the order of:

  1991–92: 4 per cent.

  1992–93: 5 per cent.

  1993–94: 10 per cent.

  1994–95: 14 per cent.

  1995–96 and 1996–97 combined about 25 per cent.

  The percentage estimate for the combined year 1995–96 and 1996–97 is not on the same basis as the estimates for the earlier years. The total gross earnings were obtained from a special data collection covering non-associate dentists only and the accounting years eligible for inclusion in the survey were less restrictive.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the value of dentists participating in information management and information technology programmes; and what plans he has to provide financial support for such in-service development. [75535]

  Mr. Denham
  10,983 National Health Service general dental practitioners in England and Wales are already linked electronically to the Dental Practice Board (DPB). Grants of £900 are made by the DPB, when dentists first establish electronic links to them, to assist with the purchase of suitable computer systems.

  The value of information management and technology for dentists is one of the issues that will be considered by the team appointed to carry out an evaluation of Personal Dental Services pilots.
  565

  Private Finance Initiative
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those firms which have bid for NHS private finance initiative deals for each of the last five years; and which of those bids were successful. [76487]

  Name of Trust

  Consortia Selected to Bid

  Successful Bidder

  Norfolk and Norwich

  (1) Octagon

  Octagon

  (2) AMEC

  (3) Wimpey/Serco/Impregillo

  Dartford & Graveshara

  (1) Costain Construction

  Pentland Healthcare Group

  (2) Pentland Healthcare Group

  (3) Trafalgar House Construction

  (4) United Healthcare

  Bromley

  (1) United Healthcare

  United Healthcare

  (2) Healthcare Management Group

  (3) Swan Hill

  Wheelhouse

  (1) Metier Healthcare

  Metier Healthcare

  (2) Symonds Group and General Healthcare Group Plc

  Calderdale

  (1) Tarmac

  Catalyst

  (2) Swan Hill

  (3) Kier

  (4) Catalyst

  Carlisle Hospital

  (1) Health Management Carlisle

  Health Management Carlisle

  (2) Swan Hill

  (3) Laing

  South Buckinghamshire

  (1) Domino Equipping Solution

  United Healthcare

  (2) M Howard Consultants

  (3) Hemax Healthcare

  (4) Martin James Medical

  (5) United Healthcare

  South Manchester

  (1) Consort Healthcare

  South Manchester Healthcare Ltd

  (2) Healthcare Group

  (3) Wimpey Healthcare

  (4) South Manchester Healthcare Ltd

  North Durham

  (1) Bovis

  Consort Healthcare

  (2) Consort Healthcare

  (3) Kier/Iss

  (4) Laser

  (5) Swan Hill Development

  Greenwich

  (1) Trafalgar House

  Trafalgar House (Bought out by Kvaerner plc)

  (2) TBV (Subsidiary of Tarmac)

  Psychiatric Services (Children)
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what evaluation his Department has undertaken of the policies of(a) local authority social services departments and (b) NHS psychiatric services in respect of children excluded from school. [76479]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department has made no such evaluation. The Department is, however, working closely with the Department for Education and Employment to

  Estimated admissions under a child and adolescent psychiatry specialty by age to NHS trusts, 1991–92 to 1997–98 England

  Age on admission

  0–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–19

  20 and over

  Total

  1991–92

  140

  470

  1,040

  750

  430

  2,840

  1992–93

  130

  610

  1,070

  780

  420

  3,010

  1993–94

  230

  560

  1,410

  810

  80

  3,090

  1994–95

  200

  740

  1,480

  900

  60

  3,380

  1995–96

  110

  290

  710

  810

  90

  2,010

  566
  Mr. Denham
  Details of individual Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes with a capital value of less than £10 million are not available centrally. Information is given in the table on the consortia selected to bid for the scheme and the successful consortium for those schemes with a capital of over £10 million which have reached financial close.

  encourage joint local initiatives to help tackle school truancy and exclusion.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children have been admitted to NHS psychiatric care in each year since 1992. [76482]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the estimated number of admissions, under the child and adolescent psychiatry specialty to National Health Service trusts in England from 1991–92 to 1997–98.
  567

  Estimated admissions under a child and adolescent psychiatry specialty by age to NHS trusts, 1991–92 to 1997–98 England

  Age on admission

  0–4

  5–9

  10–14

  15–19

  20 and over

  Total

  1996–97

  50

  240

  620

  700

  260

  1,860

  1997–98

  70

  270

  600

  630

  220

  1,780

  Notes:

  1. Data have been rounded

  2. Data for 1996–97, 1997–98 are provisional, no adjustments have yet been made for shortfalls in data (i.e. the data are ungrossed)

  Source:

  Department of Health

  NHS Training and Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what data his Department collects on expenditure on NHS training and education, and its availability; and if he will make a statement. [76483]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department collects comprehensive expenditure information on non-medical education and training and medical education and training funded from the national levies. Expenditure information has been published annually in each of the levy accountability reports commencing with the 1997–98 financial year.

  Doctors (Complaints)
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will ensure that a patient making an allegation to the General Medical Council about the conduct of a doctor will have automatic access to all relevant notes and correspondence. [76759]

  Mr. Denham
  This is a matter for the General Medical Council.

  NHS Charges
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what percentage NHS charges for(a) sight tests, (b) glasses,
  (c) travel to hospital, (d) dental treatment and (e) prescription have risen since December 1998. [76757]

  Mr. Denham
  Prescription charges and charges for dental treatment have not risen since December 1998. There are no charges for National Health Service sight tests (which will be available to everyone aged 60 or over from 1 April) or for travel to hospital. Children and people on low incomes are eligible for NHS spectacle vouchers which they may use to buy glasses of their choice.

  For changes from 1 April, I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on 25 February 1999, Official Report, columns 429–30.

  Brit Awards
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list those Ministers in his Department who were present at the recent Brit awards in an official capacity, indicating the organisation acting as their sponsor or host. [76646]

  Mr. Hutton
  None.
  568

  Pasteurised Eggs
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to revise or reissue guidance on the use of pasteurised eggs. [76652]

  Mr. Hutton
  We advised caterers to use pasteurised egg in uncooked egg dishes over ten years ago. That advice continues to be disseminated by the Department in advice published by the Chief Medical Officer in 1997, for example. There are no plans, at present, to revise this guidance.

  Nursing Vacancies (Oxfordshire)
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many vacant nursing places there are at(a) The Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust, (b) Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre NHS Trust, (c) Radcliffe Infirmary NHS Trust, (d) Oxfordshire Community Health NHS Trust and (e) Oxfordshire Mental Healthcare NHS Trust; and what the corresponding figures were 12 months ago. [76762]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  The hon. Member may wish to contact chairs at the trusts for further details.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list by NHS region the number and value of clinical negligence claims settled by individual trusts, for each of the last five years. [76488]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available.

  Departmental Policies
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [72681]

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

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

Meat Production
The Countess of Mar The Countess of Mar asked Her Majesty's Government:
When they consider their plans to rationalise primary meat production will be complete and what will be the level of meat production in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Donoughue): My Lords, the Government accept that some rationalisation of the primary meat production sector is desirable, but consider that such rationalisation should be achieved through the action of market forces. The Agenda 2000 reform of the European Union beef regime may eventually lead to reduced beef and lamb production. In that context, the Government will consider whether an early retirement scheme could be of use.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, before I ask my supplementary questions, perhaps I may declare an interest. My husband and I have a small farm and we take our animals to be killed at a small family-owned abattoir. Does the Minister realise that the new charges to be implemented by the Meat Hygiene Service on 1st April will kill off many small farmers and specialist producers? The Government always hide behind EC regulations. However, can the Minister say whether they will take a leaf out of Denmark's book over the antibiotic Virginiamycin? The Danes went to the Scientific Committee on Animal Nutrition and were told no, there could not be a ban. So they then went to the Council of Europe and asked for a ban, which was subsequently granted. Will the Minister ask Mr. Nick Brown to go to the Council and point out that the UK will not tolerate the destruction of a very specialist and valuable part of our rural culture? Will he also ask his right honourable friend to request a complete review by the Meat Hygiene Service?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I thank the noble Countess for her Question. However, I must make clear that new charges have not yet been decided upon or announced. There will, of course, be consultation with the industry in that respect.
On the question of the EU rules, we have written to the European Commission to ask for clarification concerning the inspection charges and the level of inspection required, especially for small slaughterhouses and cutting plants where I believe the main problem lies. We have not yet received a reply, but when we do we will communicate it rapidly to the noble Countess. I should point out that her pressure in this area together with other public pressure for the Commission to appreciate the concern about small producers, is not unwelcome to us.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the Government are thinking very seriously about how to
466
avoid any further reduction in the number of smaller local slaughterhouses, if only because of the need to deal effectively with casualty animals, to avoid long hauls for any description of animal and, indeed, to cater for small and specialist demands for meat?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Government certainly appreciate the importance of the small slaughterhouse, not only in the more remote rural areas but also as regards servicing the small producer who may find that the big slaughterhouse is not very interested in his two or three cattle. So we certainly appreciate the situation. However, I should point out that the over-supply in the slaughterhouse industry is on an enormous scale; indeed, it is estimated at about 50 per cent. Therefore, there is need for rationalisation. We must be concerned about whether the rationalisation takes place in what one might call a rational way or in a way that eliminates all the small slaughterhouses of the kind that I have mentioned. As far as concerns the increased inspection levels which the Commission requires of us and the charges, I should stress that we have made clear that, certainly in the first stages, the increases will be directed towards the big slaughterhouses and only to those smaller ones which have low hygiene scores.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, can my noble friend the Minister confirm whether or not I heard him correctly? Today is 15th March and the new charges are due to come in on 1st April, but I believe my noble friend said that the Government are still consulting at this stage. Can my noble friend say whether this gives people the opportunity to plan their business commitments when they have, say, 15 or 16 days left in which to do so?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, my noble friend is quite right; there is a certain tightness in the timetable. A small delay may be necessary, especially in order to consult the industry. As I am sure my noble friend knows, there has already been consultation. The industry was not very happy with the level of charges that were being floated. Ministers are looking at two items in particular: first, whether the level of charges could be reduced; and, secondly, whether there are ways in which we can help the smaller abattoir. I am sure that the industry will consider the latter to be worthy causes of any small delay.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, would the Minister care—
Lord McNair: My Lords—
Lord Chesham: My Lords, it is the turn of this side. We have not yet asked a question from this side of the House. Sit down!
Noble Lords: Order!
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I am surprised that neither noble Lord is prepared to give way, but I think it is the feeling of the House that the noble Lord, Lord Chesham, should speak first.
Lord Chesham: My Lords, would the Minister care to give me a comparison of costs as between this country and France? In France the vets are paid by the state. There is a sanitary slaughter charge of 30 francs per bullock, 12 francs per cow, 1.70 francs per lamb etc., and 11 francs per tonne sanitary cutting cost. How is it possible that the costs in this country should so exceed those in France?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we are currently investigating the charges in this area in all of our partner countries. France, like some other countries, has a different system from ours, but it operates under the same European Union requirements to recover costs, to have a structure of standard charges and not to have cross-subsidy. We are assured that in the end, although the French have a different system from ours—the French levy the fiscal charge centrally and pay their inspectors centrally—the outcome is similar to ours. I see the noble Lord is a little sceptical about our French friends. We are certainly looking into that matter.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the concerns of the noble Countess, Lady Mar, were borne out, this would particularly affect the producers of organic meat?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, if we could find ways to introduce die measure that we are considering it would benefit small slaughterhouses that have good hygiene standards, whether the meat is organic or otherwise.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, will the Minister justify what he has just said about the charges; in other words, that they will not be introduced on 1st April because consultation is still in progress? Will he please explain why a senior veterinary official visited Mr. John Coles in Devon just this morning and told him that they must work out how Mr. Coles was to pay the charges from 1st April? He stressed that there would be no special allowances for people with high hygiene scores.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, we shall announce the charges as soon as possible. If the noble Countess will provide details of the case she mentioned, we shall certainly consider it.

Nuclear Weapons
2.45 p. m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney Lord Jenkins of Putney asked Her Majesty"s Government:
Whether they have given assurances to non-nuclear states that under no circumstances will they be attacked by a British nuclear weapon and that these assurances will not be unilaterally withdrawn.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have long given assurances to non-nuclear weapon states that we shall not use nuclear weapons against them unless they first attack us, our allies or a state to which we have given a security commitment, in alliance or association with a weapon state. These assurances have been given to the 182 non-nuclear weapon states parties to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and to many non-nuclear weapon states through protocols to regional nuclear weapon free zone treaties. In giving such assurances we make clear that we do not regard them as applicable if any beneficiary is in material breach of its own non-proliferation obligation.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer which I think the House will find informative. Can my noble friend tell us whether other nuclear states are following Her Majesty's Government's steps in this matter? What other action is being taken to discourage non-nuclear states following in the footsteps of India and Pakistan?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the 1995 non-proliferation treaty review conference agreed that states should consider further steps to assure non-nuclear weapon states as regards the use of nuclear weapons. These steps could take the form of an internationally legally binding agreement. However, there is no common view as to what form any such international arrangements might take. Discussion on the issue should continue in the ad hoc committee on negative security assurance when it is re-established at the conference on disarmament in Geneva. Of course, Her Majesty's Government will take a full part in those discussions.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, does the Minister agree that it is important that any potential aggressor, nuclear or non-nuclear, should be left in no doubt that we would defend ourselves with any weapons at our command? Is it not true that we have consistently refused to accede to non-first use agreements for that very reason? Will the Minister also assure the House that none of the assurances given to the 182 states concerned will apply if those states are engaged in an act of aggression against this country?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Chalfont, reads the initial Answer I gave to my noble friend he will see that those assurances were clearly stated. Our security assurances also contain the standard supreme national interest provisions on withdrawal. That is the important point. Of course the supreme national interest must be maintained in all the arrangements we have. As regards first use, the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation continues to reserve the right of limited first use of nuclear weapons in extreme circumstances of

469
self-defence to persuade an aggressor to desist if no other means are available. I hope that that assures the noble Lord on both the points he raised.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, is my noble friend saying that, having persuaded the non-nuclear powers to renounce a nuclear future in the non-proliferation treaty, there may still be circumstances in which we would nevertheless attack them with nuclear weapons? Is that not to say not only that we claim the right to use nuclear weapons but that we want to ensure that we do it unilaterally?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I do not believe that that is the case at all. I hope that my answer made clear that, in all cases where we have given assurances, we have made clear that those assurances are not applicable if any beneficiary is in breach of its obligations.

Quarantine Rules: Consultation
2.51 p. m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington asked Her Majesty"s Government:
When they intend to announce their response to the public consultation on the report by the Advisory Group on Quarantine.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, the Government are considering the way forward following the consultation on the review of quarantine rules undertaken by the Advisory Group on Quarantine. In that consultation, more than 96 per cent. of respondents were in favour of reform broadly on the lines of the Kennedy recommendations. We will make an announcement as soon as we can.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for his help in this matter. I can assure him that I am not asking this question in any mood of carping criticism. Is the Minister aware of arguments in his department that primary legislation is necessary in order to set up the new system rather than regulations under the Animal Health Act? Is it not necessary to make good speed in this matter in order to avoid any unnecessary hardship to animal owners and animals, and also in order to avoid any risk of an increase in smuggling now that people know that vaccinated animals pose no risk of carrying rabies?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we must make the fullest speed possible. The Kennedy Committee recommended that any new system should contain no more risk than the existing system. We have to put into place monitoring and control measures which ensure that. That is what has delayed matters so far.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not think the Minister answered the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. Can he perhaps rephrase what he said to include an answer to the noble Lord's question on regulations?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, on the noble Lord's point about regulations or primary legislation, that depends on what type of machinery we put in place. Some of the machinery may require primary legislation; some, it is to be hoped, will require only secondary legislation. There are also problems of European Union rules. All that is being examined. If we can do something and avoid the need for primary legislation, we will certainly do that.
Lord Kimball: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that those people who invested their money in quarantine kennels did so because of government regulations and stood in for a service that the Government would have had to provide? Will the Minister bear in mind in any adjustment to the current regulations that kennel owners are entitled to proper compensation for having done a job that the Government should have done?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, kennel owners have been included in the fullest way possible in the consultation. As far as concerns compensation, the Government's present view is that they have been given due warning. In any case, after the reforms, which will only apply to the European Union and rabies-free islands in the European Economic Area, there will still be a great deal of business for them with animals from elsewhere in the world.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, it is probably a rumour at present, but can the Minister say whether or not it is true that there may be a legal challenge from the European Union to the United Kingdom for charging for assessing certification at the port of entry on the basis that that would contravene the freedom of movement of goods and animals into this country? If that were to be so, I understand that it might cost the Government some £9 million to £10 million not to charge people for bringing animals into this country.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, one of the problems we have to consider is that when we put a procedure in place it must be one that will not be subject to legal challenge or would survive it. The European Union rules on freedom of movement are a prime area. We are looking at ways to achieve the reforms in the direction that Kennedy recommended and which we want, and which will not be subject to challenge. There are indeed costs in the new procedures, and we have to look at how those costs will be met. Many people would feel that

471
the taxpayer should not pay the full cost of something which is to the benefit of an important but small number of pet owners.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, can the noble Lord say how many ports of entry have the necessary facilities to deal with any change in quarantine laws?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I cannot say that because we have not yet reached the point at which we decide what the monitoring facilities are and which ports of entry should have them.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, can the Minister help me on this point? If charging brings the risk of a challenge in the European Union because of interference with free movement, then, a fortior, the present system of quarantine interferes with free movement. So that argument is as broad as it is long.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, yes. The European factor is one aspect of the charging problem but it is not the only one. As to the decision of who is charged and how, that matter is under active consideration at the moment.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, can the Minister give the House an idea of when things might change? What timescale are we talking about?
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, I cannot give a precise answer to that question. The noble Lord will recall that the Kennedy Report suggested that it might take as long as three years. At present Ministers are very committed that it should take less time than that. But we have to decide the procedures and then possibly develop some pilot schemes. We would like to get it in as soon as possible. The noble Lord should bear in mind that currently about 8, 000 animals pass through the kennels. The Kennedy Report estimated that there might be as many as a quarter of a million animals coming through in the first year of the new scheme. Therefore, this will need very careful and detailed preparation.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, having enjoyed the enormous blessings and benefits of being a rabies-free area for so long, I hope my noble friend can assure me that the onus of proof will be very clearly upon the advocates of change in moving away from our present and effective rabies legislation. I hope my noble friend is not also telling us that the freedom of movement provisions of the European Union extend to animals as well as persons.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, freedom of movement applies to movements in trade and persons. As to risk, it was a basic principle of the Kennedy Committee that the new proposals should not involve increased risk. The committee carried out a very technical analysis of risk and concluded that the system it proposed would not include risk. I should point out to my noble friend that the European Union is effectively rabies-free as far as
472
concerns human beings. Most of the European Union, except for Germany recently, is rabies-free as far as concerns pets. It is not the case that we have an oasis here and outside us are deeply affected areas.

Energy Efficiency
3 p. m.
Lord Ezra Lord Ezra asked Her Majesty's Government:
What advice they have given to the regulator for gas and electricity on the promotion of energy efficiency.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Minister for Energy and Industry has met the regulator, Callum McCarthy, to discuss various matters, including his intentions for promotion of energy efficiency. The powers to set standards for energy efficiency currently rest with the regulator himself. I am confident that, in considering what to do, he will take account of a range of views, including those of the Government. The Government's programme for reform of utility regulation will include a provision for statutory guidance to the regulator on environmental and social objectives to be taken into account in his decisions.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at a recent meeting in another place the regulator indicated that energy efficiency was not on his list of priorities? Asked about that, he said that he had not yet received clear guidance from government. Is that not surprising in view of the fact that the Government issued their Green Paper on utility regulation last March? Even though the legislation has been delayed, it should have been possible for the Government to be clear about what the regulator should do. For example, can the standards of performance scheme that is operating so effectively in the electricity industry be extended to gas?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am aware that at a meeting of the Parliamentary Group for Energy Studies on 22nd February, the regulator listed his five priorities. When the Minister for Energy and Industry met the regulator, he encouraged him to make positive use of his powers in respect of setting energy efficiency standards of performance. As I said, the Government do not have powers to direct the regulator, who is independent. However, he said before the Public Accounts Committee that he is considering an extension of the electricity standards of performance scheme beyond 2000 and, for consistency, the possibility of a similar provision for gas.
Regarding the longer term, the Government's response to consultation on utility reform, A fair deal for consumers, sets out the principle that where the Government wish to implement energy efficiency measures which have significant financial implications

473
for consumers or regulated companies they are to be decided by the Government and implemented through new specific legal provision.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, can the regulator do anything to offset the damaging heavy increases in electricity costs that will burden our manufacturing industries, particularly the chemical industry, and may well result in the loss of many jobs? In Germany, electricity costs in those same industries are heavily subsidised. The recent Budget will be very damaging.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not believe that the regulator has those powers. With the new legislation, there will be more scope for the Government to set social as well as economic objectives. I do not believe that under present legislation the regulator has that right.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister agree that manufacturing industry needs a more level playing field in order to meet the threat from overseas competition?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the whole purpose of the present legislation is to create a fair system of charging. Only the setting of further objectives for the regulator would enable him to take a view as to how manufacturing industry was affected.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, do the Government have views as to the future development of combined heat and power and also of tidal and wave energy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government have a target of 5, 000 megawatts of combined heat and power capacity by the year 2000. About 4, 000 megawatts is now installed. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions develops policy on combined heat and power and promotes its wider growth. It will be starting a high level marketing campaign to promote combined heat and power to key industries. We are also developing a policy on renewables so as to meet the 10 per cent. target we have set ourselves.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, in their Green Paper the Government referred to social objectives, environmental objectives, and energy efficiency objectives. Will the Minister tell the House on which of those objectives the Government place most weight? Gas-fired power stations beat coal-fired stations every time on two of those criteria; first, in terms of cost, and, secondly, in terms of reduced C02 emissions. In view of that, why have the Government imposed a moratorium on gas-fired stations?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, one of the fundamentals of energy policy is that it must meet a number of different objectives. There is no scheme that does not involve some kind of trade-off involving efficiency, social objectives and environmental
474
objectives. Therefore, in the new legislation there will have to be a way of balancing outlays in any direction that the Government give to the regulators. So far as concerns gas-fired power stations, it is not true that on all those objectives they beat the marginal cost of running existing coal-fired stations. On a marginal cost basis, coal-fired stations are still in many cases cheaper to run.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is great concern about the; lack of progress in energy efficiency improvements in the private rented sector? It is particularly worrying since many of the people living in those properties are on low incomes. Will the Minister give assurances that this area will be given high priority by the Government in their discussions with the regulator?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the EESOPs which the regulator presently applies cover areas such as home insulation. It is something we are extremely keen on.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend give some indication as to when the Government's policy on renewables might be published?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot give a date. I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord with our best indication.

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 to be made in another place on NHS modernisation.

Health Bill [H.L.]
3.7 p. m.
Report received.
Clause 2 [Primary Care Trusts]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 15, at end insert ("with a view, in particular, to their—

(a) providing or arranging for the provision of services under this Part of this Act,

(b) exercising functions in relation to the provision of general medical services under Part II of this Act, and

(c) providing services in accordance with section 28C arrangements. ").

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, at Second Reading and in Committee we debated at some length the proposition that the Bill should provide a clearer indication as to what primary care trusts will be established to do. The idea received widespread support, including from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation

475
Committee. There was also some debate as to what would constitute an appropriate level of detail. The noble Lords, Lord Walton and Lord Skelmersdale, and the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, reminded us of the problems inherent in setting out detailed lists. In the light of our debates, I offered to attempt to bring forward a suitably broad amendment that would address the concerns of the House.
The Government's approach in drafting this amendment has not been to set out a long and detailed list of functions and objectives. That approach is fraught with risks of omission and very real difficulties in relation to defining precisely what various specific objectives might mean as a matter of law, and risks of imposing through primary legislation too rigid a framework for the operation of PCTs which cannot be adapted in the light of the fact that, over time, specific objectives may well change.
Instead, therefore, Amendment No. 1 sets out the broad activities that primary care trusts will be established to undertake. I hope that noble Lords will feel that in so doing we have managed to come up with a provision that is less skeletal than the amendment tabled in Committee by my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey and perhaps also less skeletal than the amendment that is currently before the House in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood, and the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
To paraphrase Amendment No. 1, it means that primary care trusts may commission or provide hospital and community health services and develop primary care by exercising some functions in relation to general medical services. We want primary care trusts, in particular, to be able to deploy cash-limited funds to improve general practice infrastructure and support practice staff costs; and provide personal medical and dental services under the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997—for example, by employing GPs in the way that community trusts already do under that Act. I am assured that, as a matter of law, this will give us a comprehensive list of what a primary care trust will be.
The amendment provides that the Secretary of State will establish primary care trusts with a view, "in particular", to their undertaking these broad functions. Those words are important for two reasons. First, the listed functions give a clear indication of the main purposes for which primary care trusts will be established, but the list does not set out to be exhaustive. It permits the Secretary of State to establish a primary care trust with a view to exercising other health functions. This fits with existing arrangements whereby health authority functions under Part I are, in the main, not directly conferred by a statute but delegated by the directions of the Secretary of State. Primary care trust functions will be largely delegated from health authorities. Setting out a long list of primary care trust functions would run contrary to this basic structure of delegation which has been a feature of NHS legislation since 1946.
Secondly, the amendment does not mean that each primary care trust must perform all the listed functions. For example, matters such as whether a primary care trust will be able to provide services as opposed to merely commissioning them will be left to secondary legislation—in this case the establishment order and directions—as will any restrictions on what primary care trusts can commission and provide. Such flexibility is vital, and I believe that that was accepted by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, at Committee stage when he said that he understood the arguments with regard to flexibility. We want primary care trusts to develop in imaginative new ways; we do not want to lock the service, through primary legislation, into rigid ways of working. I believe that the way services are commissioned and provided should be allowed to evolve in the light of changing needs and developments in clinical practice and technology.
It may be helpful if at this stage I give the Government's response to the amendment standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which I believe has much the same general purpose as Amendment No. 1. However, there is a difference in that it refers to the responsibility of a primary care trust for promoting and improving the health of the local community. I understand why the noble Lord has framed his amendment in that way and I am sure that, as a general objective, it is not one from which we would want to demur, but perhaps I may explain why the Government have not gone down that particular route.
The functions listed in the amendment all concern the provision of services under the 1977 Act. The fundamental duty of the Secretary of State under that Act, as set out in Section 1, is to promote a comprehensive health service designed to secure improvement in the physical and mental health of people and in the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of illness. The Secretary of State's power to direct health authorities and primary care trusts to exercise his functions is limited to functions relating to the health service. There is, therefore, a definite link between primary care trust functions and the overall objectives of the health service.
Primary legislation does not explicitly require health authorities to exercise functions for these purposes. Such a requirement would be entirely superfluous as a matter of law. We have adopted a similar approach for primary care trusts in the Bill for exactly the same reason. That should not be taken to mean that primary care trusts will not play a critically important role in promoting the health of their local populations. We believe that they will.
Amendment No. 3 also refers to the responsibility of a primary care trust to work within the context of the health improvement programme. I confirm that that is indeed the Government's intention. However, the Bill already makes provision for that and there is no need to replicate this on the face of the Bill.
Clause 21(3), on page 16 of the Bill, places a duty on the primary care trusts, NHS trusts and local authorities to participate in the preparation, or review, of plans.

477
Clause 21(7)(b), at the top of page 17, provides that in exercising their functions primary care trusts must have regard to any plan in relation to which they have participated. I should point out that the powers of direction over primary care trusts contained in Clause 7 are also relevant here. Both the Secretary of State and health authorities will be able to give specific directions to primary care trusts to ensure that they play their part in achieving national priorities and in developing and delivering the local health improvement programme.
There is a reference in Amendment No. 3 to a PCT being a body corporate. Paragraph 3 of Schedule 5A—Schedule 1 to the Bill—already provides that every primary care trust shall be a body corporate and I believe that there is no need to repeat that in Clause 2.
I hope that the House will forgive me for explaining in some detail the thinking behind the amendment. I recognise that this is a matter of particular interest. We have tried to take on board the clear view expressed in Committee that there should be a statement of purpose on the face of the Bill and set out reasons why we believe that such a statement should be couched in the terms proposed in the government amendment rather than in those proposed in the alternative formulation. I beg to move.
3.15 p. m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as one of those who on Second Reading and in Committee asked the Government to define their terms in relation to primary healthcare trusts, I am delighted to see this amendment on the Marshalled List. It may be that I am slightly slow or slightly deafer than usual this afternoon. I should be grateful if the noble Baroness would explain to what Section 28C, referred to in paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 1, applies. Clearly the reference must be to the 1977 Act, but I am not sure what the relevance is to the duties and intentions of the PCTs.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness to elaborate on the expression, "body corporate". I ask that because, as a dental practitioner, at one time I owned a body corporate. Body corporates in the dental sense were designed to enable people who were not dentists to run dental practices. Indeed, I noticed from the press recently that Boots had acquired a body corporate and would now be running dental practices, so such bodies still exist. Is there any possibility under this Act that the body corporate could be taken over by people other than professionals, who would then run these health services? Could the whole of the health service be handed over to a body corporate?
I understand the body corporate to be a limited company. Perhaps the noble Baroness could tell me whether that is correct. If it is, is it subject to company law? Is it some other kind of body corporate? It is not a mutual. I should like to know the legal technicalities with regard to the body corporate to which the noble Baroness referred.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, having spoken in Committee against lists, which it seemed to me could
478
never be sufficiently exclusive, or sufficiently inclusive to meet all potential developments, I welcome the amendment, which seems to me to be sufficiently broad to take account of future developments. In particular, I welcome the inclusion of the words "in particular" in the amendment, which means that subsequently, should it prove necessary, other functions could be added by regulation to those specified in the amendment. I believe that this is an admirable solution to a difficult problem and I congratulate the Government on it.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I thank the Government for bringing forward this amendment and for responding so constructively to what I sensed was a very widely held view during the Bill's earlier stages that there needed to be an explicit definition or statement of purpose for a primary care trust spelt out in the legislation. My only regret is that the amendment has a slightly circular feel, at least as regards paragraphs (a) and (b). To be told that a primary care trust will be concerned with the provision of services under Part I of the Act is reminiscent of the party of the first part being known in a contract as the party of the first party. I had hoped that a slightly more explicit framework could be inserted without undermining the important principle of flexibility to which the Minister alluded and which the Government understandably want to maintain.
However, the Government's amendment is considerably better than what we had before—which was nothing. Lest I sound too grudging, which I have no wish to do, one of the most significant words is "and" at the end of paragraph (b). I realise that the functions listed are not mandatory for every PCT but the word "and" seems symbolic of the comprehensiveness of a PCT's functions, certainly at level 4, and the linkage between its broader commissioning and providing role and its role as a provider of personal medical and dental services under Section 28(1) of the 1997 Act. Incidentally, that answers my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I hope that I have not over-interpreted the significance of the word "and".
I welcome the amendment and, in light of the Minister's comments, I do not intend to preach the alternative to which I added my name or that which I tabled in Committee--the wording of which was lifted straight out of the Government's White Paper. The issue is not as simple or as straightforward as it might appear and I am grateful to the Minister for her willingness to take on board the main point of principle which causes concern to so many of us.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, ours is almost a composite amendment, incorporating a sentence derived from an amendment tabled in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, but omitting all the lists that other noble Lords so understandably disliked. Our language is also taken directly from bits of paper and guidance supplied by the department. It occurred to us that it would be better partly to link an amendment on purposes back to the 1977 Act, but I did not find myself competent at that, so we proceeded with the amendment that we first thought of instead.

479
I listened with interest to the Minister's remarks about the Government's amendment but confess to some disappointment that it does not set itself in the context of the Bill as well as of the 1977 Act. On the other hand, it is extremely welcome that the Minister has fulfilled her indication in Committee by bringing forward a comprehensive amendment. Persons who understand legal language will understand the amendment easily but others will be puzzled and will need legal advice. I regret that it has not been possible to link the amendment with the 1977 Act in the simple way that we proposed. However, in view of the Minister's excellent amendment, it is extremely unlikely that we will contest that point again.
Baroness Hayman: I am grateful for the support for Amendment No. 1. We have done our best with it but I share some of the concerns expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood. I doubt that it would win a plain English award, but I hope that it satisfies the average legislator more than the absence of any definition in the first place.
The noble Earl is absolutely right when he says that the use of the word "and" is significant. We expect that PCTs will exercise all three categories of function but they do not have to do so. Neither are these necessarily a comprehensive set, so that we may acknowledge developments may occur. He was also right in answering the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about Section 28(1) of the 1977 Act, which refers to the personal medical and dental services that can be provided. In doing so, PCTs will be put on the same footing as community trusts and be able to provide personal medical or dental services.
To answer the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, a body corporate is a body with a legal personality. It is able to exercise the same rights and be subject to the same liabilities as a natural person, subject to the statutory provisions that govern it. That is a significant area for primary care trusts and is the limitation. Primary care trusts are statutory bodies corporate in exactly the same way as NHS trusts and therefore subject to the requirements of the Bill. A PCT can only be set up by an establishment order under the Bill for the purposes in the amendment. Therefore, it could not be handed over to the private sector. That is the legal mechanism for creating those clearly NHS bodies.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 17, at end insert ("and following a majority vote by the members of the Primary Care Group concerned after consultation with all health care professionals that would be covered by the Primary Care Trust. ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is grouped with Amendments Nos. 4 and 5, to which I have added my name. The amendments address an extremely important issue debated in Committee—the basis on which the Secretary of State should decide whether or not to establish a primary care trust. As the Bill stands, a
480
proposal to establish a PCT could be made by a community trust, health authority, primary care group or a combination of those—whereupon that proposal would go out to consultation locally. The result of that process would inform the Secretary of State's decision.
My concern, which is widely shared among doctors and other healthcare professionals, is that those arrangements do not provide any assurance that the views of key stakeholders—the primary care groups— will determine the Secretary of State's decision. The worry is that a PCT could be established following wide and thorough consultation but without the positive backing of those most affected by it.
Consultation is an expensive process and it would be a thoroughgoing waste of NHS resources for PCT proposals to be put out to consultation without approval by the relevant PCG having first been sought. Another issue is implementation. Unless doctors and health professionals represented on a PCG are fully committed to developing a primary care trust and have a real sense of ownership of what is proposed, it is hard to see how the group could succeed in practice.
In Committee the Minister sought to be reassuring on those points. I fully acknowledge that the amendments previously tabled, at least by these Benches, did not properly capture the aim that the approval process should be wide and inclusive. But when I read again the Minister's language in Hansard it was odd. She twice repeated the phraseology of the circular of the Department of Health which said:
"It is our assumption that the support of relevant primary care groups would be required".
The Minister said:
"We intend to establish PCTs in a way that is sensitive to local views".
She also said:
"The views of PCGs, local GPs and other professions will be key considerations for the Secretary of State".
With great respect to the Minister—I know that she intends to be reassuring—I do not believe that those phrases go far enough. They appear rather guarded. It is because the words seem so carefully chosen that I feel even more strongly than I did before that something of a more prescriptive and definitive nature should appear on the face of the Bill. I believe the Minister when she says that the Government want measured change with progression to trust status being driven locally. However, there is a lurking worry that what ultimately determines the Secretary of State's decision may not be the feelings and views of health professionals but, rather, the views of others or (heaven forbid) the fulfilment of a political agenda. The Bill should not allow for that and, therefore, I beg to move.
3.30 p. m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Earl has spoken to a number of very important points that reflect many of the reasons for Amendment No. 5, which is very similar to his own. It is particularly important that progression from PCG to PCT status is clearly understood and that safeguards are built in. In a very recent circular relating to management costs, it is made

481
clear to health authorities that it is only by devolving to PCTs in due course that they will achieve the operational cost reductions required of them by the Department of Health. There will be considerable pressure on health authorities to ensure that the fledgling PCGs under their tutelage move towards PCT status, at least to level three, because it is only by moving on that those health authorities will reduce their management costs. It is extremely important to ensure that health authorities are not able simply to insist that a PCG becomes a PCT without the full consent of that PCG.
Like the noble Earl, I recognise that the Minister sought to reassure the Committee. She said that the Government could not put a requirement for consent on the face of the Bill because of particular circumstances. For example, two PCGs and the majority of GPs might want to go into a PCT but for some reason one of the PCGs, by vote of its members, might not be able to consent. That appeared to those on these Benches to be an exceptional circumstance; hence we have reflected that in our amendment. After all, if there were exceptional circumstances preventing progress from PCG to PCT status we would not wish to oppose that.
The language used by the Minister was in some ways more positive than that used in a letter dated 19th February from her colleague in another place. As the noble Earl pointed out, Mr. John Denham said:
"It is our assumption that the support of the relevant primary care group would be required".
The noble Baroness said that the Government did not envisage circumstances in which proposals would go ahead without the support of PCGs. I appreciate that she was putting a gloss on that letter. However, the difference in the language of the letter is significant. All of the professionals to whom we on these Benches have spoken in connection with this amendment have said that clearly there is no point in going out to consultation on progress towards PCT status if the basic requirement of consent of the primary care group is not met. Therefore, this amendment seeks further reassurance from the Minister about the nature of the consultation. I hope very much that she will be able to give that reassurance today.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howe made a powerful case in moving Amendment No. 2. Almost everything he said has been repeated by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in speaking to his amendment. I believe that this is a simple matter and should not be made too complicated. To move from a primary care group to a primary care trust is a very big step, particularly if the trust is to move to stage 4. It is a move that all the stakeholders must support if it is to work. The word "stakeholding" is absolutely meaningless if it does not mean that everyone has a stake. One cannot have a stake in something that one does not want. On those very simple grounds I believe that the Government must accept either this amendment or something very much like it. To reject the amendment would be extremely foolish.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 4. The amendment relates
482
to a slightly different issue from the one raised by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and by my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones. It relates to the wider process of consultation within the community over the establishment of primary care trusts. In Committee the Minister made clear that consultation about the setting up of primary care trusts would be mandatory. The question at issue was who should be consulted in that process. In particular we on these Benches were concerned that the consultation should involve both the wider medical community such as dentists, opticians, pharmacists and professionals allied to medicine, for example, physiotherapists, occupational therapists, speech therapists and so on, and lay members of the community represented by community health councils and the voluntary sector, including representatives of both carers and patients.
We had considerable discussion as to how far it was possible to prescribe who should be consulted by lists. The consensus, as on other issues, was that lists were too prescriptive and inflexible. The Minister echoed those thoughts. However, she assured us that the regulations to be made would specify wide consultation, including both the wider medical community, patient and carer groups and the voluntary sector. We made clear that we were not entirely happy with the response of the Minister. We have not yet seen the regulations. Can the Minister give an assurance that they will be laid before the House prior to this Bill going to the other place?
While we accept the dangers of being too prescriptive and inflexible, we maintain the core principle; namely, if primary care trusts are to work satisfactorily they must be owned by their local communities and wide consultation helps to create such a sense of ownership. In order to meet the wish of the Minister to have a more flexible and less prescriptive form of words we have redrafted our amendment. We now merely ask that it should be specified on the face of the Bill that key partners in the delivery of healthcare under the National Health Service should be consulted.
I reiterate that although the wording is more generalised, an issue of principle underlies the amendment. The Minister made clear at Committee stage the distinction between primary care groups which are to be led by GPs and practice nurses as commissioners of services and the primary care trusts which may be providers as well as commissioners of services. Unless specified on the face of the Bill, in moving from a stage 2 primary care group to a stage 3 primary care trust, there is a danger that consultation does not go wide enough and is too narrowly focused among the GPs and practice nurses who are involved already in running the group and subsequently the trust. By requiring consultation with key partners, and with the regulations specifying who those key partners shall be, we make sure that wide consultation takes place.
It is an important issue. Healthcare is more than just GPs' surgeries and hospitals. It involves all those we have sought previously to specify: the dentists and opticians; the physiotherapists and occupational therapists; chiropodists and social workers; universities and training institutes; and patients, carers and voluntary

483
organisations. If those groups are to play a full part in this new community-based healthcare system that the Government are promoting—the primary care trust— then they must trust and work with it, and they must be consulted when those trusts are established.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support Amendment No. 2 moved by my noble friend Lord Howe. I support that part of Amendment No. 5 which makes almost the same provision as Amendment No. 2. I am less happy with the phrase in Amendment No. 5 "except in exceptional circumstances". That provides such a let-out that it negates the majority vote.
The only fault that I can find with the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Howe is that it refers only to a majority. I believe that two-thirds should be in favour. There should be a definite process whereby people are able to register their feelings. My noble friend suggests a majority vote. It is generous to suggest simply a majority on the face of the Bill. We could have suggested a larger figure. However, we believe that those entering into a trust must be committed to it and want the best for the health service. Unless one has that provision, a small group of people on the primary care group with a lot of influence could overrule their less articulate colleagues and one could have people going into a primary care trust without being fully committed. I believe that Amendment No. 2 is a good amendment.
I found the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, on Amendment No. 4 very interesting. It is a chicken and egg situation. The noble Baroness referred to key partners. She did not mention pharmacists. One could go on and on; a list is never complete. But if one refers to key partners the question arises of how they will be defined. There is a problem therefore with Amendment No. 4. But I support Amendment No. 2 wholeheartedly.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness has differentiated between Amendment No. 2 and the other two amendments. When I describe the NHS as a great juggernaut, it is by no means pejorative. I use the term almost as a mark of respect. It is difficult to stop a great juggernaut and to make it turn corners; in the case of the Queen Mary, for example, to veer slightly to the left or right; or in the case of this Government to veer straight ahead! But we shall leave that point for another time.
It is vital that all healthcare professionals should be consulted. That theme runs through Amendments Nos. 2, 4 and 5. What is different is that having conducted the consultation the primary care group should have a vote which should be settled on a majority. The Government are keen on democratisation. They seek to democratise this House; they seek to democratise local government arrangements; they have almost succeeded in democratising local government proceedings in Scotland and Wales, and of course in London. I see no reason therefore why they should not democratise the institutional change of primary care groups from stage 3 to the ultimate stage 4 of the
484
primary care trust. Therefore I hope that the noble Baroness will have no difficulty in accepting the amendment.
3.45 p. m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend. The Minister will be well aware that if one is to achieve any change in the NHS, one has to take the key professionals with you. Traditionally, the way to do that has been to consult them fully. The noble Baroness will also be aware of some of the pitfalls of consultation. Those issuing consultation papers profess that they are sincere; that they are listening; and that they will be influenced by the outcome. But those who are being consulted sometimes suffer from consultation fatigue. As a result, they are wary, sometimes cynical, and think that the whole process is just another NHS tribal ritual—a sort of rite of passage before proposals come into being.
The amendment put forward by my noble friend gets over that problem. He seeks a majority vote. That is an excellent idea. It is clear; it is concise; and it rules out any ambivalence, any interpretation, of the consultation exercise that has taken place. I am aware that the Minister may not wholeheartedly support the amendment. However, perhaps I may probe further. There is a possibility that the amendment could be rejected. Will the noble Baroness tell us today what criteria will be exercised by the Government when they take on board the consultation? What evidence will they require to be assured that the majority is in favour? Can the Minister also say what processes will be in place during the course of consultation so that the Secretary of State can assess the views of the PCG about progress to trust status where that view differs from the health authority?
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, before the Minister replies I have a question, the answer to which may influence the way I vote on the amendments before us. Can we have an absolute assurance from the Minister that if as a result of the consultations she proposes there seems to be no enthusiasm, or perhaps even downright hostility, to moving to a trust, she will not then go ahead with making the order? It is a key point. I am slightly cynical as to whether we shall have such an assurance. In those circumstances, I prefer the certainty of Amendment No. 2.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have had an interesting short debate following the extensive debates at Committee stage. We have discussed some of the same issues. Those issues do not relate to the ends that we wish to achieve but the effectiveness of the means of achieving them.
There are two issues. The first relates to the many difficulties in drawing up in primary legislation exactly who must be consulted before a primary care trust is established. Amendment No. 4 returns to that issue. The second issue is the relative weight which should be given to the views of local players and professionals, and those of the primary care groups and GPs in particular, to which Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 refer.

485
I am grateful to those who drafted the amendments for trying to accommodate the "exceptional circumstances" issue, which I put forward as one of the reasons against including this in primary legislation. I am not sure whether that helps, because we then have an argument about what "exceptional circumstances" means, who interprets it and whether it is a meaningful phrase to put into primary legislation. I tried to reassure the House in earlier debates; I will try to reassure your Lordships again today and to clarify some of the issues.
One issue I should like to make clear at the beginning, which in earlier debates may have become slightly lost in our focusing on the technicalities, is that the Secretary of State for Health can establish a primary care trust only after consultation. The effect of the new Section 16A(4) and (5) inserted by Clause 2 is to impose a cast-iron duty on the Secretary of State to impose consultation requirements before a PCT is established. Our key aim has always been that the whole process leading up to the Secretary of State considering the establishment of a primary care trust is a local one, taking into account a wide range of local views on proposals generated locally. Consultation needs to be thorough and effective. I take the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, made: consultation should not be a ritual process to be gone through; it should be realistic and inclusive, with a significant number of interests being considered and balanced.
We recognise that developing and shaping the delivery of healthcare to meet the needs of the local population needs to involve the whole community. As a matter of government policy we will therefore be considering the interests of all relevant parties when making these regulations. I can give a clear assurance that we will, first, be consulting very widely and, secondly, be taking account of those views—the point to which the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, referred.
On Amendments Nos. 2 and 5 I will reiterate a further assurance which I gave to the House. It is no part of the Government's agenda to impose primary care trusts on the service in the face of local opposition, nor to deliver GPs and other healthcare professionals, bound and gagged, into primary care trusts. The process will be locally driven, based on and sensitive to local needs. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I can say that it will not be driven by issues of management costs. There is an envelope to cover health authorities, PCGs and, in due course, PCTs. It is not a question of devolution to PCTs being driven by management costs; rather, the principle is that funding for management costs should be consistent with where the management function is being discharged. If they are taking on more management, the costs should shift to them for doing that; but it is a matter of redistribution and not of changing the existing package.
Returning to the basic issue, the views of primary care groups, local GPs and other professions, as well as those of the wider community and the NHS locally, will be key considerations for the Secretary of State in deciding whether or not to establish a primary care trust, and the support of the relevant primary care group will be a
486
crucial consideration. We intend to establish PCTs in a way that is sensitive to local views and primary care groups are obviously key to that.
We have made it clear that it is our assumption that the support of the relevant primary care group will be required before a primary care trust is established. Let me make it clear once again that we want primary care trusts to be established with the support of local primary care groups, and we recognise the arguments that have been put forward about local ownership if they are to be a success. The House can therefore be reassured that the support of the PCG will be a critical factor in our decision.
So far there is not a great deal in the argument between those who support the amendments and myself, who has difficulty with them. Perhaps I may explain to the House what those difficulties are. In taking account of the views of one group of stakeholders, however important they are—and here we are talking about the PCGs—we should not allow for the possibility of automatically ignoring the views of others in the local community as though they had no weight at all. That is what Amendment No. 2 does. I believe that it would serve to demean the importance of the partners in the local NHS, such as community trusts and their staff, who will be very much affected by these proposals. As I said in Committee, it may be, though we hope that it will not, that complex and difficult situations—dare I say, exceptional circumstances?—arise which require careful and sensitive handling. Amendment No. 5 recognises that possibility
At Committee stage I gave one example; perhaps I may now give another. Let us consider the situation where almost exactly half of the local GPs within a PCG area are strongly in favour of a proposal to establish a primary care trust and half are lukewarm about it. The health authority, neighbouring PCGs, the local community trust and acute trust clinicians and managers, and local authority are all strongly supportive; and the Community Health Council and local patient and carer groups give unanimous support in favour of establishing a PCT. Surely the Secretary of State should not then be obliged by primary legislation to ignore those views. After all, the Government have always maintained that they want the establishment of primary care trusts to be locally driven. That means reflecting a broad spectrum of views.
I have given a hypothetical example in which almost exactly half of the GPs within a PCG area are strongly in favour and half are lukewarm, but that is not what these amendments provide for. They state that PCG members—that is, the PCG board—would be responsible for the veto. Local healthcare professionals, who in lay terms may be described as PCG members— that was the point behind the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, regarding a bare majority or a clear majority—do not fall within that definition as a matter of law. Given that PCG boards may comprise, a minimum of nine members, these amendments effectively provide that five individuals on the PCG board, a majority of the board, could stand in the way of the establishment of a primary care trust despite

487
overwhelming local support. That does not seem to me to be an appropriate way of dealing with a very difficult local circumstance.
I have a further difficulty with Amendment No. 5. It seems to me to be almost impossible to provide a satisfactory, objective definition of what constitutes "exceptional circumstances". I do not believe that it is feasible to capture all the circumstances which could be considered exceptional. I am not even clear whether the example I have just given would, in terms of statute, constitute exceptional circumstances. It is the sort of situation where the clear judgment of a Secretary of State would be needed regarding the best way forward in a difficult situation.
A further more technical point is that there is a problem in specifying a particular role for primary care groups on the face of the Bill. The pace at which PCGs progress to PCTs will vary, but there may be circumstances where, say, the whole of the health authority is covered by PCTs. People locally may want to re-configure primary care trusts; for example, by creating a new one. In those circumstances, the requirement to achieve primary care group agreement would not be relevant.
The difficulty with Amendment No. 4 is the use of the term "key partners. "As regards the definition, what, as a matter of law, does that proposition mean? Who are the key partners? Could they vary from one locality to another? How does one define them in primary legislation without getting into the recurrent list problem? Furthermore, I suggest that the Secretary of State must bear in mind a whole range of interests and should consider all relevant factors, not just those of the key partners, whoever they might be. There is a danger that in specifying "key partners" we are importing "two-tierism" into the Bill and enshrining in primary legislation a system between partners who matter, who are the key partners, and partners who do not matter, who are not on the face of the Bill. I do not believe that that is the most conducive approach to partnership working.
Finally, the way in which the Bill approaches the issue is based on clear precedent. The 1990 Act does not require the Secretary of State to have regard to particular interests when making regulations as to the consultation requirements which are to apply before an NHS trust is established. We are trying to mirror that situation here. I hope that I have persuaded your Lordships that there is no substantive disagreement as to the policy intentions but that there are some real and serious difficulties in spelling out those policy intentions on the face of the Bill.
I was asked about the criteria for the establishment of a primary care trust. I make it clear that top among them are likely to be a clear vision of the service and health benefits which establishing the trust may bring, an effective contribution to the local health improvement programme, effective arrangements for developing clinical standards and proper arrangements for monitoring activity. First and foremost, however, there must be broad local support for its establishment, including among the GPs affected.
488
I hope that in the light of those reassurances, our clear intention to have wide and meaningful consultation and our clear recognition that GPs and other primary care group professionals are crucial to the matter, the House will feel that it is not sensible to put such definitions on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will she explain one point? If there is no option for people to vote, does she mean that the Secretary of State will have the sole power to determine whether or not the primary care trusts are set up?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the Minister responds, perhaps I, too, may ask a brief question. In criticising the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Howe, she gave an example where everyone in a local community apart from the doctors, presumably the GPs, are in favour. Is she aware that under my noble friend's proposal in Amendment No. 2, there will be no doubt whatever that the majority vote of the members of a primary care group would go in the direction of forming a PCT?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we are debating a hypothetical issue of a hypothetical issue in saying that we do not know how a vote will go on the board of a primary care group. I take the noble Lord's point that it would not be a matter of the GPs having a direct vote because the amendment deals only with the board members of the primary care group.
As regards the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, it is correct that there would be no power of veto for a primary care group against the proposition that the Secretary of State, after extensive consultation and examination of the whole range of issues, can decide the most appropriate and best way of taking forward the health of the local community. There is a danger in trying to think through the implications of such legislation. In the hypothetical example of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, the primary care group board would support the proposal and I am not sure that that is absolutely clear. Certainly, the professionals on the PCG board could be out-voted by the lay members. I suggest that there is no magic formula in legislative provision which will guarantee that a proposal is soundly, locally based. There must be some room for judgment. That was recognised in the creation of NHS trusts. I hope that I have reassured the House that it will not be done in a cavalier manner and that we have real arrangements for wide-ranging and meaningful consultation before a primary care trust can be set up.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, before the Minister concludes, perhaps I may ask a question. I fully support the intentions underlying the amendments relating to consultation, but I am afraid that I have difficulty with each of them. Amendment No. 2 provides for "consultation with all health care professionals", but not for consultations with representatives of the local community, the community health council and others. I also accept the difficulty of defining "key partners" and "exceptional circumstances".

489
Clause 2(4) states:
"If any consultation requirements apply, they must be complied with".
However, subsection (5) goes on to provide:
"In this section, 'consultation requirements' means requirements about consultation contained in regulations".
Is it the case that such regulations would be subject to secondary legislation? Would they be placed before both Houses of Parliament for approval? If so, the Minister's confirmation would reassure me that this is a satisfactory way to go forward.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Lord is correct in outlining the difficulties with the amendments and the rigidity of primary legislation. The regulations would be encompassed in secondary legislation, which would be subject to negative resolution. There would therefore be an opportunity for people to scrutinise what was being suggested.
There is no intention not to consult any of the people mentioned in today's debate. However, the difficulty lies in defining the people who are to be omitted and the exceptional circumstances. I hope we can clarify the consultation process in a way that the noble Lord finds reassuring.
It would be wrong to suggest to the House that we could obviate completely the need for the ability to use judgment at some point in potentially very difficult circumstances. I suggest that it is safer to have the element of judgment, even though the Secretary of State has some power, rather than to bind ourselves to the rigidities of statute law. That would allow decisions to be made which were sensible and best balanced in the interests of local communities.
Lord Renton: My Lords, in view of the remarks which the noble Lord has just made, I hope that it may be in order for me, even though it is Report stage, to ask the Minister why, instead of putting them in regulations at a later date, we cannot have the consultation requirements referred to in subsection (5) defined clearly in the Bill, which could be done on Third Reading.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, subsection (4) also causes some difficulty.
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a fruitful debate and I am grateful to the Minister for the care that she has devoted to addressing my amendments. I listened extremely carefully to what she said.
Despite her obvious wish to be helpful and reassuring, I do not believe that she has quite gone far enough to meet the essence of the point which I sought to make. I understand the duty on the Secretary of State to consult. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, that, as we have heard from the Minister, that consultation process will be inclusive and wide-ranging. There is no doubt about that. Those who have a legitimate say in the process will be able to have that say. I do not dispute that for one moment.
490
But the result of a consultation is not binding, as we very well know. I could not help but notice again the use of the phrase by the Minister, "It is our assumption that the support of PCGs will be required". That is a strange, guarded phrase to use. I am reassured by the Minister saying that it is no part of the Government's agenda to deliver GPs bound and gagged into a PCT. But the example that she gave—and I believe it was her example rather than that of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale—would do just that.
I should say in relation to my amendments that the members of the PCG are not just there to represent themselves. They are there to represent the whole range of healthcare professionals, voluntary groups and patients in the locality. In that sense, I agree with the noble Baroness; she is quite right in what she said. We do not doubt that GPs and PCGs will be key players and that the views of local professional groups will be key considerations in the decision-making process. But with great respect, that is not the same as ensuring that the actual initiation of the consultation process and the ultimate decision depends, one way or the other, on the support and endorsement of primary care groups.
The principle and policy behind the amendment are almost shared on the two Benches. The noble Baroness intimated that herself. There is an element of judgment to be made, but my contention is that that judgment should be made at PCG level. I was gratified by the degree of support that I received from around the House for the points that I was seeking to make. I believe that this is a sufficiently important issue on which I should seek the opinion of the House.
4.14 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 117.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Ailsa, M.

Carnock, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Chesham, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Clanwilliam, E.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Colwyn, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Bell, L.

Courtown, E.

Bellwin, L.

Cox, B.

Belstead, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Berners, B.

Crickhowell, L.

Biffen, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Birdwood, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Blaker, L.

Davidson, V.

Blatch, B.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Bowness, L.

Denbigh, E.

Bridgeman, V.

Denham, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Bruntisfield, L.

Dundonald, E.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Effingham, E.

Butterworth, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Byford, B.

Elles, B.

Cadman, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Caithness, E.

Foley, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Fookes, B.

491

Gainford, L.

Moyne, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Munster, E.

Geddes, L.

Naseby, L.

Glentoran, L.

Northesk, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Harding of Petherton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Harrowby, E.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Hayhoe, L.

Pearson of Rannoch, L.

Hemphill, L.

Pender, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Higgins, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Holderness, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

HolmPatrick, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Hooper, B.

Rawlings, B.

Howe, E.

Rees, L.

HuntofWirral, L.

Renton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Renwick, L.

Jopling, L.

Rowallan, L.

Lauderdale, E.

St. Davids, V.

Liverpool, E.

Seccombe, B.

Long, V.

Sharples, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Luke, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Lyell, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

McCollofDulwich, L.

Stockton, E.

McConnell, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Mackay of Ardbrecknish, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Swinfen, L.

Mersey, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Trumpington, B.

Milverton, L.

Vinson, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Vivian, L.

Monteagle of Brandon, L.

Waddington, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Wise, L.

Morris, L.

Wynford, L.

Mountevans, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Evans of Watford, L.

Alli, L.

Ewing of Kirkford, L.

Amos, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Annan, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Fitt, L.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Glanusk, L.

Bach, L.

Goudie, B.

Barnett, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gregson, L.

Berkeley, L.

Grenfell, L.

Blackstone, B.

Hardie, L.

Blease, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Blyth, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brightman, L.

Haskel, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Hayman, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Burlison, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Carew, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carmichael of Kelvingrove, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hoyle, L.

Chorley, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Christopher, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Clinton-Davis, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Crawley, B.

Islwyn, L.

David, B

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Desai, L.

Jeger, B.

Diamond, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dixon, L.

Laming, L.

Donoughue, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Dubs, L.

McCarthy, L.

Emerton, B.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

492

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Sefton of Garston, L.

Shannon, E.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Shepherd, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Simon, V.

Molloy, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Monkswell, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Stallard, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Orme, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Patel, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Peston, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Thornton, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Uddin, B.

Varley, L.

Puttnam, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Weatherill, L.

Rea, L.

Wharton, B.

Richard, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Winston, L.

Sawyer, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.22 p. m.
[Amendments Nos. 3 to 5 not moved.]
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 27, at end insert—
("( ) Appropriate arrangements shall be made with a view to securing that a Primary Care Trust's functions are exercised with due regard to the principle that there should be equality of opportunity for all people. "").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, to some degree this is a re-run of the amendments that we discussed in Committee on the addition to the duties of primary care trusts of the duty of equality of opportunity. Amendments Nos. 9 and 31 are grouped with this amendment. In Committee, the Minister indicated that she would consider the best way in which to take forward the points raised about adding to the existing duties of primary care trusts the duty to observe equality of opportunity and—I believe that her reply on this was rather more equivocal—adding to the duties of the commission for health improvement in a similar fashion.
We have not changed the amendment raised in Committee for PCTs. It states in broad terms the principle that there shall be equality of opportunity for all people. However, the amendment as regards the commission for health improvement has been made more specific in response to some of the criticisms that Members of the Committee made when that was discussed. It is an important area and it is important for primary care trusts. It would be easy to say that we need a general statement about the duties of the NHS which covered all bodies in the NHS, and we could spend a lot of time devising appropriate forms of language.
However, it is particularly important that that should cover primary care trusts, for a variety of reasons. I recognise that recently the Government launched their own initiative, with a circular to managers across the National Health Service, to take tough action to tackle racism; for instance, by April 2000 every NHS employer

493
will need to be in a position to tackle racial harassment wherever committed by staff or by patients and progress will be measured and targets for reducing incidents will be set.
However, the issues of management in primary care trusts will be more difficult. Structures in primary care are much more devolved than they are in secondary care. The historical independent contractual status of GPs has led to a more fragmented and, at times, resistant approach to mainstream equality initiatives coming from the Department of Health and the NHS Executive.
Many primary care providers are covered by the small partnership exemption in the Race Relations Act. In other primary care professions there has been evidence that ethnic minority professionals are more likely to suffer obstacles to career progress, such as disproportionate appearances at disciplinary hearings. A further reason is that the Health Education Authority's health and lifestyle study in 1994 showed that some ethnic minority groups use GP services more than the majority of the population. That also shows that people from ethnic minorities wait significantly longer in surgery to see a doctor. Among south Asians in particular there is a tendency to register with a GP of south Asian origin.
The proposed policy for dispersal of asylum seekers will have enormous implications for primary care across the country. There are bound to be misunderstandings about entitlement to healthcare and lack of access to interpreters or specialist help for trauma resulting from their experience prior to coming to the UK. There are a number of other reasons that I could go into.
On the commission for health improvement, we had less of a debate on that subject in Committee, but the commission for health improvement must see as part of its remit the function of ensuring that equality standards are met for all ethnic groups, whether those are specified in national service agreements or the NHS Charter—no doubt that is to be revised—or local standards. Such a principle should be a founding principle and should be enshrined in law. It is a new public body and it must be in a strong position to guard against institutional racism, as defined in the Macpherson inquiry report.
I draw your Lordships' attention to two thoughtful and well considered editorials in the Lancet and the British Medical Journal in the past week. Both make the point that action by the NHS is very much needed. I quote from the BMJ:
"The NHS needs to go further. We need to take a needs led, evidence based approach to understand the reasons for disparities. We need actively to assess services using a centralised body as this would afford economies of scale and proper levels of expertise and independence"
I suggest to your Lordships that CHIMP is the very body that would fulfil that role. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 6. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, this is an important area. There is concern that older people and those from ethnic minorities are discriminated against in the NHS. Older people often experience difficulties in primary care provision and are more likely to be dropped off GPs'
494
lists than younger people. There are even reported examples of GP surgeries that refuse to deal with patients over the age of 65.
In addition, the incidence of illness is patterned by ethnic difference; for example, people of Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds have 50 per cent. greater rates of heart disease than white people. Historically, many primary care practitioners were exempt from the Race Relations Act, so primary care has not been subject to the same drive for equality as the rest of the NHS. Healthcare policy must ensure equality of access to primary care trusts. I strongly urge the Government to accept the amendment.
4.30 p. m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, of this group, I find Amendment No. 31 by far the most attractive and the most sensible. In Committee, the Minister made it clear (at col. 1294 of the Official Report) that she would like to consider the points that were made then. She went on to say that not only would she consider those points but that she would like to look at the best way to tackle the matters put forward and whether they could be accommodated in terms of amendments to the Bill. I therefore looked at the Marshalled List with interest today and at the government amendments on Friday but found absolutely nothing to give me any hope in that regard. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Astor did exactly the same. I hope that the Minister has some good news for us today in anticipation of Third Reading.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, whether this amendment would end prescribing by postcode? Also, disabled people could have difficulties getting on GPs' lists.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Astor has already covered one essential aspect of this and I shall not repeat what he said so eloquently. However, a further point needs making. It relates to the Government's entirely laudable ambition to see a levelling up of patient care not a levelling down. I am afraid that we are seeing just the opposite around the country. Practice-based budgets are being absorbed into unified budgets. In the process, services are being run down. There are numerous examples currently being reported in the medical press and they all relate to mainstream services, not to services at the fringe. I am prepared to accept the Government's assurances that they do not want to see such services disappear as a result of their reforms, but the question has to be asked: what are they going to do to stop it happening?
The other big concern relates to the burden of pay settlements. There are already reports in the medical press that the only way in which some health authorities will be able to fund their pay bill in its entirety will be to make cuts in the GP prescribing bill. The estimated cost of the inflation-plus element of the pay bill could be as much as £1 million for each health authority— and there are 100 such authorities. That is an enormous amount of money to find. It would be totally

495
unacceptable for it to come out of the prescribing budget. The question I need to ask the Minister is this: can she give an assurance that no treatment currently available to patients under the fundholding system will cease to be available under the system of primary care groups and primary care trusts?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I should like to reiterate the question asked by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale: does the Minister have it in mind to do anything in the Bill in this respect, because it is most important, and in Committee she said that she had it in mind to put some such provision into the Bill?
While I am on my feet, when the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, replies to the amendment, perhaps he could comment on this. In Committee I suggested that,
"equality of opportunity for all people",
was a somewhat fatuous and meaningless phrase. I am sorry that the noble Lord did not take my stricture into account. I still think that such a phrase would be an extremely unhappy insertion into the Bill. We all know what "equality of opportunity" means. It is defined in law and is well understood. Saying that we can have,
"equality of opportunity for all people",
sounds like something that only the good Lord could say and I do not believe that he would believe it.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, in Committee we had some thoughtful and serious debates about equal opportunities in relation to primary care trusts and the commission for health improvement. Some of those arguments have been rehearsed today. I hope that it was clear from my comments in Committee that the Government seek to address this issue in a range of policies.
Perhaps I may advise the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that there are a range of ways in which we are trying to tackle the problem of postcode prescribing— not only through this legislation but also with regard to the national service frameworks, the work of the national institute for clinical excellence and through the institution of clinical governance, by which people will have to justify—if I may put it in that way—any deviation from the kitemark standards that are available. I have never pretended that that is an easy task—not least because we do not want a service that is totally centrally controlled and we have to have a proper level of local decision-making about local priorities. We need to get that balance right.
Perhaps I may return to the issue of equal opportunities. A central part of the Government's agenda is to achieve fairer access to services, to reduce health inequalities and to promote equal opportunities for all those who work in the NHS as well as for those who use it. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said that the Government have put nothing on the Marshalled List in this regard. That is absolutely correct. It is simply because in Committee I agreed to consider a large number of points across a wide range of subjects and this is one of the areas on which we have not yet
496
managed to reach a conclusion about the best way forward in legislation. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, drew attention to the drafting.
This is an extremely important area, but it is also quite complex in terms of legislation. It is important that we consider the issues carefully. I quite understand why the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has focused on primary care and on the commission for health improvement—not least because they are the issues with which we are dealing in this Bill, but also because they are very important areas that we must tackle in terms of equal opportunities. I do not for a minute challenge that point. However, it is important that we come back with appropriate solutions for the NHS as a whole, not simply for primary care trusts and the commission.
I should like to reassure the House that we are considering the points raised in Committee. We shall also look at the additional points that have been raised today. I am certain that we shall return to these matters during the passage of the Bill. However, I am not at a stage to go further than that now and I ask the House for a little more leeway on the subject.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, perhaps I may ask her a question. The noble Baroness seemed to indicate that it was the Government's clear intention to consider the best way forward—to legislate for the best way forward—during the passage of this Bill. Am I correct in saying that it is the Government's intention, once they have considered this matter, to insert an appropriate provision during the passage of this Bill and not at a later date?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as there are serious difficulties in drafting the legislation, perhaps I ought to say that I shall certainly give a commitment to report progress on the issue during the course of this Bill. At this stage it would be premature of me to give an absolute commitment to bring forward such an amendment because I do not yet have before me advice on whether we can properly legislate as the noble Lord would wish. However, I give the commitment that during the course of the Bill we shall return to the subject and report progress. I think that I have given the noble Lord an absolute commitment that we want to address these issues. It would be precipitate of me to say anything beyond those two things.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, which slightly disappoints me because it did not go as far as I would have liked in terms of saying that amendments will be brought forward at a later stage of the Bill. I fully understand the Minister's reasons for not giving that full commitment because of the difficulties of drafting. I also realise, as the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, pointed out, that I did not recognise all the strictures. However, I tried to put forward a bit of a mix and match in terms of tabling a different set of amendments for the commission for health improvement to see if the House was any more enamoured of them. Therefore, I recognise that the Government are having some difficulty in framing their own amendments. I sincerely believe that it is most

497
important for all kinds of public policy reasons to amend the Bill at this particular time in a way that we all clearly desire. I very much hope that the Minister will have some better news for us on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 [Primary Care Trusts]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 42, line 5, at end insert—
("'(2) The number of persons referred to in sub-paragraph (l)(c) above shall include representatives of key partners in the delivery of NHS healthcare and the promotion of health in the locality. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I rise to move Amendment No. 7 which has been tabled in the names of my noble friends Lord Clement-Jones and Lady Thomas of Walliswood. The amendment concerns the membership of primary care trust boards. Since we debated this issue on the last occasion, we have had the opportunity to study the detailed proposals put forward by the health Minister in his letter to the chairs of health authorities, NHS trusts and primary care groups, which the Minister referred to in her reply in Committee.
The letter makes a distinction between the trust board, which will comprise a majority of lay members, and the executive board which will be responsible for day-to-day management and led and dominated by the healthcare professionals. We accept that distinction. The amendment relates primarily to the composition of the trust board but it also has relevance to the composition of the executive board.
As the Minister made clear in Committee, the intention is that these new primary care trusts should be firmly rooted in their local communities and responsive to the health needs of the community. The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that there is on the face of the Bill an obligation to ensure that the trust board and the executive board are representative of both users and providers of healthcare in their locality. This time we have been careful to avoid the lists which were criticised on all sides when we previously discussed these matters. However, the principle remains the same.
We are anxious that the PCTs should not become enclaves of professionals, run by the professionals for the professionals. We therefore welcome the dominant lay membership of primary care trust boards. But in looking for people to fill the positions of lay members, we are anxious that, among others, the Minister should remember, when making appointments, the need for users in the form of patient and carer groups to be represented, as well as the need for broad representation across age groups, between men and women, and fair representation of ethnic minorities.
In addition, we are anxious to ensure that it is not just GPs and practice nurses who gain representation among the professionals. We have received extremely strong representation from the professions allied to medicine—midwives, health visitors, physiotherapists, radiographers and speech therapists, to mention a few— about representation on boards. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones made clear in Committee, they are particularly concerned about their lack of representation
498
at stage 3 trust level when boards are effectively run by GPs and nurses. As the Minister made clear, this is largely because PCTs will be mainly concerned at that stage with commissioning healthcare services from, among others, these professionals.
However, in moving from stage 3 to stage 4, the danger is that executive boards will remain much the same. If I may say so, that also raises a gender issue. If the executive boards are dominated by GPs, they are likely to be disproportionately male. Therefore the key issue is representation at stage 4 trust level. As the Minister made clear in Committee, the possibility of their being members of the full trust board, as one of the professional representatives, is certainly not excluded. However, as she also made clear, of the 11 members of a trust board, six, including the chair, will be lay members, two will be ex officio in their capacities as the chief executive officer and finance director of the trust, leaving only three places for healthcare professionals, of which one will be filled by the director of clinical governance for the PCT, one by a GP and one by a nurse. Therefore, as the Minister said, although we do not rule out the possibility of the professions supplementary to medicine—or, indeed, midwives or district nurses—being on the board at stage 4 level, in practice it will be extremely difficult to achieve: that aim. As the Minister implied, it would in fact be easier to ensure representation on the executive boards.
In that regard, the amendment is not prescriptive: it is essentially concerned to enshrine the principle of wider involvement in board representation. We should not forget that these PCTs are about "joined-up thinking" on healthcare. That joined-up thinking means that we must consider—and include—all those who are concerned with the provision of primary healthcare; namely, dentists, chiropodists, physiotherapists and midwives. There is a principle involved here and it is an important one. Indeed, it is most important that that principle should be written on the face of the Bill so that there is a commitment to broader representation of healthcare deliverers. I beg to move.
4.45 p. m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that this is the point in our proceedings where mention should be made of a communication from the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy and also of a statement by a whole host of healthcare organisations. They are extremely concerned by a letter which was written by the Minister, Mr. John Denham, to NHS chairmen and chief executives stating that he intends to restrict membership of the primary care trust executive solely to GPs and nurses. They are indeed most worried about that for obvious reasons. I believe that that concern needs to be expressed now.
I am not absolutely sure whether this fits in with the discussion on the amendment now before us, but the communication only came to my attention just before I entered the Chamber. It is always difficult at short notice to consider the amendments while reading the Bill and, thereafter, understand the whole thing. However, it would be helpful if the Minister could say something in that respect which is comforting to all

499
those people. They are very important people who are worried that they will not have a say in how such trusts are actually run. Obviously they mind very much about that.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I agree with a great deal of what has already been said, so I shall not repeat any of it. In Committee, the Minister went to some trouble to explain the Government's broad approach to the appointment of the lay element of a primary care trust board. I believe that what she said could be summarised as a wish to ensure flexibility in the representational mix of each board, but also to ensure a balance of representation to reflect the needs and priorities of the local community. Understandably, therefore, the Minister sought to avoid prescriptiveness of any kind. The one element on which she was categoric was the principle of a lay majority.
The only point that I wish to re-emphasise about trust boards is that doctors and healthcare professionals of every kind working for a PCT need to feel a sense of ownership, in however broad a sense, for the organisation in respect of which they are clinically and financially accountable. Even with the comfort of a trust executive with a professional majority, doctors may well feel distanced from the decision-making in a way that— to use a common expression—switches them off. This amendment is helpful in fostering a sense of local ownership, which is why I have put my name to it, but I suggest that the issues here run somewhat deeper.
The first concern is a lack of tightness in the chain of accountability. How in practice will a lay-dominated board exercise the degree of control over doctors that it needs to do if it is to fulfil its responsibilities to the Secretary of State? What incentives are present to ensure that GPs fully accept their own responsibilities? The second concern comes, if you like, from the other direction. Doctors are extremely worried that a non-clinical majority on a level 3 PCT could not only make decisions with which they disagree but are powerless to do anything about but could also initiate and force through a move to level 4. That could see GPs being run by a community trust. There are all kinds of fears associated with that such as a salaried service and so on. I respectfully say to the Minister that if PCT boards are to be lay dominated—I understand why the Government have arrived at that view—there is a need to address the kinds of concerns among GPs that I have referred to. This comes back to the need to instil a sense of corporate feeling and identity in a PCT as much as a sense that the views of doctors carry some weight and are being acted upon at board level.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I, too, support this amendment. I, too, received the letter alluded to by my noble friend Lady Carnegy of Lour which appears to suggest that 11 associations connected with medicine, representing 130, 000 health professionals, are all prepared to boycott PCTs at level 3. This is a rather frightening situation; namely, that there is such a huge backlash to try to stop things happening in this regard
500
from within the NHS. The Government must seriously reconsider this matter. As I said, I support the amendment.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it has been helpful to have dealt with the proposals that concern the make-up of primary care trust boards and their governing arrangements in perhaps a little more detail than we did at Committee stage. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, is right; namely, we need to get the balance right and we need to establish a sense of corporate feeling in this area. We need to ensure that the views of doctors and general practitioners who have particular concerns are heard. However, I take the point that the noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. made; namely, that there are other groups who also have their concerns and their fears in this regard.
One of my objections to this amendment concerns the term "key partners", because if we suggest that some partners are more key than others we may cause exactly the problems that are being manifested now. However, at the end of the day we have to establish the right governance arrangements. There are obviously a limited number of places on a governing body but I hope that we can provide some reassurance in this regard, particularly to professions supplementary to medicine. We intend to bring forward a government amendment so that primary care trusts, like health authorities, are required to secure appropriate professional advice in carrying out their functions. I shall discuss that in a little more detail in a moment. There will also be significant lay involvement in the running of PCTs.
I hope the House will forgive me if I switch for a moment to PCGs and clarify the analogy that I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, as regards who could be outvoted by whom on a PCG board. Professional members could not be outvoted by lay members on a PCG board because, unlike the PCT, the lay members would not be in a majority. We discussed the views of general practitioners. General practitioner members—especially if they had not exercised their right to be in a majority of professional members— could be outvoted on that board. I suspect that I may have muddied the waters slightly as regards the terms "professional" and "GP". I take this opportunity to put that right.
I return to the governing arrangements of PCTs. As has been pointed out, they will be established under the overall supervision of a lay majority board but with a trust executive where health professionals will be in the majority. We hope here to have struck the right balance. The aim is for professionals to exercise through the executive major influence in shaping service policies and investment plans but within the wider framework of accountability—that has been mentioned—offered by the lay majority on the trust board. We envisage a board of 11 members, comprising the chairman, five lay members, the chief executive, the finance director and three professional members drawn from the executive, of which at least one will be a GP and one a nurse. One of the professionals will be a director of clinical governance. That is obviously essential if we are to establish the clinical governance provisions.

501
A difficulty has arisen with regard to the professional make-up of the executive varying between level 3 and level 4 PCTs. A level 3 PCT will consist of up to seven GPs, up to two nurses, one professional with public health or health promotion expertise and a social services officer, as well as the PCT chief executive and finance director. A level 4 PCT will consist of up to 10 clinicians as well as the chief executive, the finance director and the social services officer. It may be helpful if I explain why there is different professional membership at levels 3 and 4, as this is an issue that I know is of concern to the professions allied to medicine. There are two reasons. At level 3, the composition of the executive—with GPs allowed a majority—reflects the commissioning-only role of these primary care trusts. We believe that GPs must have a key role in commissioning because of their role as gatekeepers and in committing resources through their referral and prescribing decisions. This unique role is reflected in the make-up of a level 3 executive.
At level 4, however, PCTs are commissioning and providing bodies. The make-up of the executive must balance significant GP representation alongside local nurses and other community and public health professionals. There also needs to be flexibility in the precise balance of professional members. This is because the configuration and range of services that level 4 PCTs will provide may differ from place to place. Therefore we need to allow flexibility for the balance of professional members appropriately to reflect local variations.
I assure the House that the Government recognise the extremely important contribution that a wide range of groups, including secondary care clinicians, the universities, academic medicine and the professions supplementary to medicine could bring to primary care trusts at level 3 as well as level 4. We will expect PCTs to work closely with all the key local stakeholders, including academic interests. This will be particularly important when PCTs commission services from teaching hospitals, to ensure the interests of NHS teaching and research are fully taken into account.
I appreciate from my own discussions with members of professions allied to medicine their deep concern that the expertise at health authority level as regards commissioning services, particularly therapy services, should not be dissipated or lost completely in the move to primary care groups. As I said earlier, it is for that reason that I intend to bring forward a government amendment—I hope in time for Third Reading—so that PCTs, like health authorities, have a duty to make arrangements to secure appropriate professional advice. The House will understand that while we wish to avoid the problem of lists on the face of the Bill, we shall seek to ensure that the amendment is sufficiently wide to cover academic medicine, the acute sector and the professions allied to medicine.
I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord McColl, who drew attention to this point during the Committee stage. We are currently considering a suitable amendment to Section 12 of the 1977 Act. I hope that in the light of those assurances the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
5 p. m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. In the light of her assurance that she will be bringing forward an amendment—we look forward to seeing it—I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 42, line 37, after ("members") insert (, "provided that not more than half of the membership appointments are vacant, ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a very simple amendment. From time to time, and particularly over the past 18 months, we have seen NHS trusts struggling to cope with board vacancies that remain unfilled, some for quite lengthy periods of time. The question I pose to the House is what will happen if this situation is replicated in primary care trusts? As the Minister said, at the moment the government proposal is for a board comprising 11 members, including the chair. This amendment to paragraph 7 proposes that if s ix of those positions are for any reason unfilled, the PCT board is automatically inquorate.
It is not simply that the business of the trust would otherwise end up being decided upon by too few individuals but that a rump board of five or fewer would not be truly representative of the various interests which the trust is meant to represent. As we know from experience with NHS trust boards where there are vacancies, the additional workload that fall upon the shoulders of the remaining directors—in the case of the PCT it will be members—is unfairly heavy. We should not ask a minority to take on such responsibilities. What I hope from the amendment is that it will act as a spur for the Secretary of State never to allow a PCT to arrive at such a position in the first place. I beg to move.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I wish most strongly to support this amendment. I have been appalled by the delays in filling the vacancies for non-executive directors on trusts and area health authorities. It has been very unfair to people. There has been no excuse whatever for it. In the instance about which the noble Baroness has heard me speak before, we interviewed 16 people, of whom six were considered immediately appointable. One was appointed months after the vacancy occurred. When I wrote to ask why the second vacancy was not being filled—this is out of five non-executive appointments, so it is a very small number—the answer I received was that they were waiting until they could find someone suitable from an ethnic minority. I do not see why that was necessary when another vacancy was in the pipeline and was due to come up within four months. In the original trawl, ethnic minority members were interviewed but were found unsuitable. Only two were eminently suitable for interview and, at interview, it turned out that they clearly were not suitable. One really thought she was applying for a job and did not understand what a non-executive directorship was; and the other was unsuitable for a different reason altogether. The point I wish to make is that the Government specifically kept that vacancy open for that great length of time for no

503
reason whatever when another vacancy was shortly to follow. I think that appointment was made approximately 11 months later.
When I have previously raised this matter with the noble Baroness she has always said, "We are improving. We are getting better at appointing these people". I certainly hope so, because the present position is very unfair, both to the organisation—whatever the organisation is that is active in the health service—and, as my noble friend said, to the remaining members of a board who have to carry the extra burden.
My noble friend is not asking for very much. I said before that a majority is not much to ask for. He is very modest in everything that he asks for and he is being modest again in asking for this provision to apply only when not more than half the positions are vacant. Again he is adopting the same very reasonable tone. I cannot see why the Government would not accept the amendment.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I, too, try to be reasonable. I can perhaps try to be helpful about the substantive issue, although there are some difficulties, as I understand it, with the amendment as drafted. The substantive issue is to ensure that proper and appropriate safeguards are in place to protect the integrity of primary care trust boards and the decisions made by them. There is also another issue of the burden put on the remaining non-executive members, in particular, of boards when there are vacancies. I take seriously the strictures of the noble Baroness in this area and perhaps in a moment I can give her some facts and figures to show that we are making progress and improving.
I wish to deal with the technical problems that I understand could arise if we accepted the amendment as drafted. There may be exceptional, rare occasions where a significant number of the officer or non-officer members resign from a board. I am sure that it would not happen under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness opposite or of any of us who have taken forward those positions. But if it were to occur— it is not unknown in public life—we would not wish to invalidate the proceedings of the trust for the short period before replacement members were appointed. That is the technical issue.
On the substantive issue, it is the clear intention of the Secretary of State to make the appointments that fall to him—that is the non-officer appointments—as quickly as a rigorous appointment process allows to avoid leaving primary care trusts to cope with a number of vacancies on their boards, which I fully accept is a very unsatisfactory position. I can understand the concerns, given the problems experienced during the 1997 round of trust non-executive appointments, which are well documented and have been well expressed in your Lordships' House. There were delays in making decisions but, as I said to the noble Baroness, considerable improvements are being made. In 1998 approximately 50 per cent. of those appointed had four weeks' notice of their appointment and 83 per cent. were
504
made before the term of the incumbent expired. There were no cases in which the quoracy of a board was compromised by delays in the appointment process.
Having said that, I should acknowledge that too many people are still being given only very short notice of an appointment decision, or perhaps none at all when there has been a delay. We are committed to securing further improvements in the appointment process and to ensuring that delays and the subsequent problems for other members are kept to a minimum. The Secretary of State has explicitly asked officials to look at ways of improving the process in 1999 to ensure that our non-executive directors are treated with the courtesy that their contribution to the NHS demands, including proper notice of appointment decisions. I recognise that I and ministerial colleagues have to play our part in ensuring a speedy process.
I wish to assure the House that we intend to put primary care trusts on the same footing as other NHS bodies as regards arrangements to ensure the proper transaction of business. Although the boards of NHS trusts have been in operation since 1991 without any restriction on the number of vacancies that might exist on their boards at any one time, they have done so within the context of the safeguards written into the NHS Trust (Membership and Procedure) Regulations which ensure that,
"no business shall be transacted unless one third of the whole number of directors are present including … at least one executive director and one non-executive member".
There is a similar provision in relation to the business of health authorities in the appropriate legislation. The Government would not wish to create an anomaly in relation to the proceedings of primary care trusts. The Bill as drafted allows for regulations to make provisions about the procedure to be followed by trusts in the exercise of their functions. The Government will use those powers to put in place equivalent safeguards in relation to primary care trusts. For those reasons, and in the light of the assurances I have given, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, in particular for her acknowledgement that the issue of vacancies has been a problem in the past and needs to be guarded against in the future. The Minister said nearly all the right things. I accept that the situation is improving. I am particularly reassured that the Government intend to see equivalent safeguards put in place to those that exist in other areas of the health service. I do not wish to press this provision. However, this is an important area for Ministers to bear in mind; that is why I tabled the amendment. I am grateful to those noble Lords who have supported the thrust of the issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 9 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 44, line 27, at end insert (", including details of the proportion of income spent on administration. ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment is straightforward: it is to provide a clear and accessible way of publicising the burden of management and administrative costs carried by a primary care trust in the delivery of patient care. Subject to the acceptance of common definitions as to what does or does not constitute a management cost, a statistic in percentage form would enable comparisons to be made between PCTs which in turn could trigger some useful questioning about the factors underlying any differences.
In case noble Lords understand me to be saying that management and administrative costs are "a bad thing" and are therefore to be referred to in terms of disparagement, I need to make one point absolutely clear. The health service needs management. It needs to be properly administered. This is not, therefore, a case of saying that "less" necessarily means "better". That point needs to be made. If the present Government came to office with an idéee fixe, it was that bureaucracy in the health service was "a bad thing" and needed reducing.
The elimination of unnecessary bureaucracy is wholly to be desired. However, if one examines management costs across the health service as a whole in relation to the value of services delivered, I believe that that ratio, both now and over the past few years, compares very favourably with other areas of commerce and industry. During the term of office of the previous government, NHS management costs were considerably streamlined, contrary to all the received myths on that subject.
Furthermore, it is a truism that, in any industry, cutting management below a certain level leads inevitably to a deterioration in business performance. To do so in the NHS would equally result in its being unable to sustain the delivery of services. Where that level lies is a matter of judgment; however, I suggest that there is not now a great deal of scope to alter the level downwards.
However, the messages that we are receiving from the Government are rather different. They are fond of repeating that their reforms—and not merely from the abolition of fundholding—will lead to a substantial saving in the cost of administering the NHS, amounting to £1 billion over the course of this Parliament. That is quite a claim and it needs testing. Yes, the abolition of fundholding will reduce the number of commissioning bodies, with a consequent reduction in the numbers and costs of transactions handled by NHS trusts. Yes, moving across to three-year contracts, which is a perfectly sensible move, will save additional administration.
However, we need to look at what else is happening. In the regional offices there is now a huge workload arising from the Government's reform programme. What is the cost of that at health authority level? Will the Minister say whether management costs are rising or decreasing? What are the costs of administering primary care groups? In PCGs, we are seeing a huge disparity in management costs as between one PCG and another—anything from £2.20 to £6 per head of population. I confess that I do not understand why that
506
should be. However, it implies quite strongly that some PCGs will be struggling to deliver what is required of them.
I realise that my remarks go somewhat wider than the terms of the amendment, which relates strictly to PCTs. But we need from the Government more than simply generalised statements about anticipated savings in management and administration costs within the NHS. First, we need hard figures. Secondly, we need mechanisms such as the amendment proposes by which to make meaningful comparisons between different bodies within the health service. At present, it is hard to get a handle on what is happening to costs. That cannot be satisfactory for anyone, least of all the Government. I beg to move.
5.15 p. m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I should have expected the noble Baroness on behalf of the Government to welcome this amendment. The Government keep telling us that they wish more money to be spent on health and education, and that means on the things that matter, not merely frittering it away on unnecessary administration. If this amendment, or a similar provision, were to be accepted, the Government's purpose would be achieved. I therefore hope that the noble Baroness will welcome this provision.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords. I wish to speak to Amendment No. 11, which is grouped with this amendment. Whereas Amendment No. 10 relates to the details to be included in the annual reports of primary care trusts and, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, explained, details of administrative costs, Amendment No. 11 relates to the need to give wide publicity to that report.
Paragraph 17 of Schedule 1, to which this amendment relates, states that the Secretary of State,
"may provide that any Primary Care Trust shall take such steps as may be specified in the regulations to publicise… the trust's audited accounts …[and] the trust's annual reports",
and that any report on the trust's accounts is to be made by an auditor on a matter of public interest. The provision also relates to,
"any other document as may be prescribed".
The purpose of this amendment is to strengthen that requirement so that primary care trusts are in all cases required to take steps to publicise those documents. The amendment would achieve that aim.
As is well known, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches support the principles of open government. We therefore believe that information about the work of primary care trusts should be made readily available to members of the public and interested organisations in a form that is clear, accessible and easy to read and understand. We support the requirements in Schedule 1 that each primary care trust should prepare an annual report on its activities during the previous financial year and that the report is to be sent to the relevant health authority and the Secretary of State. However, as the amendment makes clear, we believe that there should be a clear obligation on the trusts to give wide publicity to such documents.

507
We were reassured by the Minister's comments in Committee that it is her intention that primary care trusts will be required to publish their audited accounts and annual reports. However, the Minister went on to say that she was considering an amendment that would have the effect of replacing the Secretary of State's discretion to make regulations as to the requirements to publicise specified reports and accounts with a duty on the Secretary of State to do so.
Patients, local communities, community health councils, staff and professional organisations, as well as the wider public, all have a right to know about the activities of their local primary care trusts and to be able to satisfy themselves that trusts are behaving in a financially responsible way. Primary care trusts should be required to make the information available in a way which is affordable and accessible, including placing it in local libraries.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I rise to support Amendment No. 10, moved by my noble friend Lord Howe. It is important to be able to see what money is spent on administration. I believe that this matter has been hyped up artificially. When the present Government were elected, they spent all their time talking about the waste of money on bureaucracy in the health service. My own experience, as chairman of a major trust, was that the administration was extremely hard-worked, very good value for money and that no big business enterprise could have hoped to have achieved, with the same amount of money, what was achieved by the administrators in that trust. The matter has been turned into a political football, which is a great pity. Administrators within the health service are not a separate class of people; they are the people who have been asked to carry out necessary and unenviable tasks, without whose efficiency and commitment the health service could not be run. Nothing has changed on the ground. The same people are all in their places, doing the same jobs; but now they are all in partnership and the terminology is different. It is important that these figures should be available.
I agree with the point made by my noble friend that, unless there is a basis for comparing like with like, there is no way of knowing the true position. With the national institute for clinical excellence we shall be able to see clinical standards that are parallel. We need to be able to see financial standards that are parallel, too.
In a different capacity, I am involved in an NGO which helps children in the third world. I notice that in their annual accounts NGOs include various categories under different headings, and comparing one with another is extremely difficult. If one NGO has an overhead of 10 per cent. and another an overhead of 90 per cent., often a totally false basis has been used for assessing that. My own NGO is very strict with regard to percentages, but, for example, we have noticed that other NGOs include all kinds of things under the heading of education, such as perhaps paying for a person to go in a taxi to deliver papers to someone who is to be educated.
508
It is extremely complicated to achieve a common basis on which to assess costs. However, it is worth doing, and not just in the case of primary care trusts, but throughout the health service. It would enable us to know where we were getting value for money. Within the health service it is not just a matter of cost, which I know is very important; it is also a question of value for money. If something looks cheap but is not satisfactory, there is nothing cheap about it. We want to be sure that we are getting good care for patients in this country and that whatever we spend is well spent. That could be done by showing the proportion spent on administration.
When one asks them a question, this Government, like all governments, say that they cannot give an answer. I have had that experience repeatedly over many years when I have asked dental questions: "No, we cannot give you the answer". Yet there is a vast enterprise, which is completely computerised, which decides on the type of filling that everyone has. I am a member of the Parliamentary Information Technology Committee. That committee would tell you that it should be possible to press a button on the computer and see exactly what is spent on every different aspect of dentistry. But, no; we have always had the answer that the information is not available. The amendment, if passed, would mean that the information would have to become available, and I strongly support it.
I read in the newspaper that the Secretary of State wishes to appoint the chief executives in the National Health Service. I believe that that is like expecting a major company to allow the Government to appoint its chief executive. It is a very worrying matter. It is one thing to appoint the non-executive members, but I believe there is cause for concern if the Secretary of State wants to take on the appointment of chief executives in the National Health Service, whether it be of one of these trusts or of any other type of trust or authority. I hope that the Minister can give us an assurance that that will not be the case.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it is inevitable that, like the Minister's arguments sometimes, in any large organisation subsets of the organisation will come under the heading of "the good, the bad and the ugly". I believe it is vital that these details should be publicised, whether they relate to my noble friend's charity, part of the health service, secondary schools, primary schools or, indeed, clinical excellence. It should not only be possible for the sum to be compared—in other words, by the Government and possibly Parliament—but, much more importantly, for local people to be able to compare and to know that what is done in Blackpool is better or worse than what is done in Blackburn, or wherever.
Governments tend to be rather frightened about the amount of income spent on this or that service. It may well be that a good trust spends more on administration and that that is why it is good. Equally, it may be that a good trust, in specific instances, spends rather little on administration. There is no reason to hide that

509
information in either of those cases because it is germane to the public's understanding of what their trust is doing for them. That is what the Bill is all about.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Government should not underestimate the interest that the public takes in how much is spent on administration and what the reason for it is. The noble Baroness probably knows that increasingly local government councils, which have by law to circulate a leaflet to their council-tax payers explaining how the council tax is made up, give descriptions of what is spent on administration and why because they know how great the interest is. I believe that most people are sensible enough, as my noble friends pointed out, to know that sometimes a bit more spent on administration can result in a better service and better value for money within a given sum. They understand that, but they need to know the figures and to be able to compare them with those for other like bodies.
The health service is thought of by the public as being somewhat amorphous and difficult to understand, and they do not know where the money goes. I believe that the provision in the amendment would help the public to find the health service user-friendly and that they would understand much better than some of us might suppose, on the face of it, why sufficient money has to be spent on administration. Some of them know the administrators, whether they think they are good or bad, and so on. The better people are educated on this matter, the better regard they will have for the management of their local health service.
Lord Laming: My Lords, we should recognise the helpful point made earlier about NGOs. There is no point having figures for expenditure on administration without definitions of what is included in "administration". We cannot compare like with like unless we record like with like. Recording like with like across primary care trusts and a range of activities requires a sophisticated accounting and recording system. Of course it would be helpful to have information of this kind, but we should not be under the illusion that it can be achieved at the press of a button. It will require a substantial amount of investment and time to assemble information across the country which can be useful in the way in which your Lordships have asked for it. If that is to happen, we must acknowledge the infrastructure required to achieve it.
5.30 p. m.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, I rise to support the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, who had a distinguished career throughout social services and in government. When the last Government established the total purchasing pilot schemes—the nearest thing to primary care groups—that was, an academic said to me the other day, about the only sensible thing they did. They monitored those schemes carefully, set the baselines and could see how costly they were. Interestingly, research has shown that they are more expensive than GP fundholding and general practice in its generality.
510
The Government are setting out on a new road of innovation. Some of us do not agree with the whole approach but clearly the Government are intent on that route, so we are determined to make it work. However, we need to know the cost. I support those of my noble friends who said that the cost should be transparent. The Government have put on record on many occasions their wish for transparency and in this case, they should prove that is so.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to those noble Lords and Baronesses who contributed and hope that I can be reassuring on both strands of the argument. There has been debate about transparency, comparability of costs, and the need for effective management, which I do not challenge for a moment— but I will speak about the difference between bureaucracy and of the importance of removing systems that create unnecessary administrative work that adds no value to the services provided. It is crucial to make that distinction.
We are completely sympathetic to the suggestion that primary care trusts should include details of the proportion of income spent on management costs in reports to their health authorities and to the Secretary of State. However, we do not believe that Amendment No. 10 in necessary. Primary care trusts will be required to keep and publish accounts in a form directed by the Secretary of State. Under Section 98 of the National Health Service Act 1977, the Secretary of State directs health authorities and NHS trusts to present their accounts in a form set out each year in the manual for accounts. They will show management costs—income spent on administration, to use the words of the noble Earl, Lord Howe—as a separate item. The accounts will show also details of the PCT's income and it will be easy to work out the proportion of income spent on management costs.
Paragraph 16(2) of Schedule 1 states that the report prepared by a PCT at the end of each financial year— that is, its annual report—shall give details of the measures the trust has taken to promote economy, efficiency and effectiveness in using its resources. Crude demarcations between the amount spent or not spent are an insufficient reflection of whether money has been well and usefully spent. That is why economy, efficiency and effectiveness are useful. Those details will embrace administrative or management costs and that is certainly one of the areas at which we shall be looking.
Further scrutiny of expenditure on management costs will be provided by the Audit Commission—which, as the noble Lord, Lord Laming, pointed out acknowledges the importance of the comparability of data. We do not add much light to the argument if we try to compare apples with pears. I accept the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, about ensuring from the beginning that systems are in place to monitor expenditure. As to her comment about the total purchasing pilots, they had higher management costs than fundholding but covered the full range of commissioning or purchasing activity, whereas fundholding only covered 20 per cent. or so. The

511
findings are entirely consistent with the Government's approach to funded care groups—that management budgets should be linked with the responsibilities that go with them.
In Committee, when we considered a proposal similar to Amendment No. 11, I undertook to give the matter further consideration. I can report that we will seek to bring forward an appropriate amendment, I hope on Third Reading, that will have the effect of placing on PCTs an express duty to publicise the specified accounts and reports in accordance with requirements set out in regulations. That will make the duty on PCTs more specific, in line with the proposed amendments, but will retain the Secretary of State's discretion to make regulations setting out, for example, when the accounts and reports must be published, any other requirements, and whether the list of documents that must be publicised should be extended to those other than accounts, annual reports and auditors reports on matters of public interest. That arrangement will have the added benefit of retaining flexibility, to cater for future changes in circumstances.
Many statutory schemes contain powers rather than duties to make regulations. That is true even when the failure to do so would render the scheme inoperable. There are a number of instances in the Bill where the word "may" is used but where there is a clear intention that such regulations will be made. It would not be appropriate to review every such instance where the word "may" rather than "must" is used. I hope that the noble Baroness accepts my assurance that we intend to impose an express duty on PCTs on the face of the Bill to publicise their reports and accounts. On that basis, I hope that she feels able to withdraw her amendment.
As to management costs and our commitment to ensure that £1 billion that would otherwise have been spent on bureaucracy is freed up for patient care, I was asked for hard facts. In Committee, I reiterated that we are looking to add to that target as well as improve the target reduction set in May 1997 of £84 million in health authority, NHS trust and GP fundholder management costs, together with further reductions of £73 million in 1998–99, which we announced last December.
Cumulative savings to date are already about £250 million. Primary care trust management costs are expected to be contained from the replacement of the internal market, GP fundholding and related measures. Together with PCGs, they will bring a more rational approach to the commissioning services and, across Great Britain, the number of commissioning bodies will be cut from more than 4, 000 to 600. PCTs in particular will enable savings in management costs through the merger of functions between PCGs and community trusts and by more cost-effective use of staff, a greater skill mix and sharing of skills, and resources across primary and community healthcare. As I said earlier, there is no way that I would wish to denigrate the contribution made by managers within the NHS as part of the team that provides high-quality healthcare. Money that is spent on effective management to ensure that that takes place is money well spent.
512
To deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, about the appointment of chief executives, the Government attach great importance to developing and supporting a strong cadre of highly trained managers. We have already strengthened appointment procedures by arranging for NHS executive regional directors to act as the external assessors for such appointments. This new approach will need arrangements and methodology that are being developed. It is right that the Secretary of State should have an interest in ensuring that there are high quality managers available to the NHS, which is a public service, but I can assure the noble Baroness that these new plans will fall strictly within the Nolan Committee rules. In no way are they concerned with politicising the appointments process, and the appointments will themselves be made by NHS chairs and boards. I hope that the noble Baroness finds that reassuring.
I hope that I have also reassured the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the Government recognise that a high proportion of NHS costs should not be spent on management. One of the great successes of the National Health Service is that it is much cheaper to administer than systems based on private insurance or private healthcare. That is one of the reasons why we manage to provide a high quality, effective service at lower cost than in other countries. For that reason we are determined to safeguard that publicly taxed-based system. In so doing we recognise the role of effective management and the payment of appropriate amounts of money to reflect that management. We do not want to spend money on the unnecessary and bureaucratic paperchase that was a feature of previous arrangements in the NHS with all those different commissioning bodies. In particular, teaching hospitals had to deal with contracts involving hundreds of individual commissioners and bill them which meant a paperchase around the National Health Service. That added nothing to patient care but took money out of it. Based on the assurances I have given as to what is already in the Bill and what we intend to put in it, I hope the House will feel that the Government are safeguarding the transparency of the costs of administration and management within primary care trusts.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a useful debate. I am very grateful to the Minister for her helpful and thoughtful comments. I agree with the noble Baroness that a distinction must be made between management costs and bureaucracy. But if there is a disagreement between us at the margin it is whether the savings of paper to which she referred will result in overall savings to the NHS at the end of the day once the Government's reforms have been put into practice.
I am a little disappointed not to have had from the noble Baroness a fuller picture of what is going on currently on the ground at regional offices, health authorities, primary care groups and so forth in that the bill for administration appears to be growing quite alarmingly, if anecdotal evidence is to be believed. The estimates that I have seen for the costs of administering the PCG/PCT structure range from £150 million to over £300 million a year excluding start-up costs. That is

513
much greater than the cost of fundholding. I do not believe that that should come as any surprise. Any system that seeks to control the commissioning functions and budgets of every single GP, to control the co-ordination of many different bodies and agencies, including local authorities, and engage in almost continuous consultation with local interest groups is bound to result in a considerable burden of management and administration.
As to the amendment, I never sought to suggest that there was always direct comparability between one NHS body and another. Clearly, that would be an absurd suggestion. However, the kind of statistic that I propose in the amendment is, I believe, useful as an initial standard of comparison not only for internal management purposes but also to inform the general public. I shall read carefully the words of the Minister, but in the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 11 not moved.]
5.45 p. m.
Clause 3 [Primary Care Trusts: finance]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 38, at end insert (", including an identified minimum sum to meet the need for investment in primary care").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, when primary care groups were first proposed 16 months ago one of the main concerns of GPs was the need to protect current levels of investment in primary care. The establishment of unified budgets for PCGs meant that GMS funds to pay for staff, premises and computers in GP practices were in danger of being squeezed by the other elements of the unified budget—namely, secondary care and prescribing—the direct consequences of which would be a fall in investment in primary care infrastructure.
Secondary care and prescribing are both areas in which costs have the potential to spiral upwards. The unified budgetary structure allows for a measure of flexibility in the way that funds are utilised. But the concern of the General Practitioners' Committee was that the unified budget could be put under enormous strain. That led directly to an agreement with the Government in the middle of the previous year that within the unified budget allocated to PCGs a specified level of funding would continue to be available for general practice infrastructure. That minimum level of funding is equivalent to the present levels of expenditure from the money that health authorities allocate for general medical services with an allowance for inflation.
Amendment No. 12 is intended to address exactly the same issue in the context of primary care trusts. The quality of frontline services should be protected. Without the proper level of investment in staff, premises and computers within GP practices the standards of primary care will suffer. These are not minor concerns. The investment in the practice infrastructure can represent up to 30 per cent. of the income of a GP practice. Therefore, the issue facing GPs is one that will weigh heavily with them as they consider any proposal
514
to progress from PCG to PCT status. They will look ahead and see a PCT board that is controlled by lay members who have been appointed by the Secretary of State. It will be that board, not the executive below it— certainly not the GPs themselves—that determines how the unified budget is spent. The board will take advice from the executive, which we understand will have a professional majority on it, but need not accept that advice.
I should like to put some questions to the Minister. First, to what extent is it intended that there should be mechanisms to safeguard the investment in infrastructure in GP practices? Secondly, does the noble Baroness agree that that infrastructure is of key importance in the delivery of a quality agenda? Thirdly, does the Minister also agree that the views of local medical committees should play a major part in informing primary care trusts as to what levels of investment are needed, as indeed they do under present arrangements? I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, we have general sympathy with this amendment. These days one hears a great deal about investment in the infrastructure of hospitals and the importance of it. The current level of investment in GP practices is quite a small proportion of the total expenditure in that area of medicine. I look forward with interest to the comments of the Minister in response to the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for raising the matters addressed by Amendment No. 12. We are fully aware of the significance of these matters to GPs and to other members of the primary care team. The Government, too, place great significance on securing appropriate investment in developing primary care.
That is why the modernisation fund includes £82 million specifically for investment in GP practices in the coming year, 1999–2000. It is also reflected in the guarantees, to which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, also referred, which the honourable Member, the then Minister of State for Health, gave in his letter of 17th June last to Dr. John Chisholm, chair of the BMA General Practice Committee, on the minimum levels of investment in GP practice infrastructure to be delivered by health authorities and primary care groups.
Those guarantees have subsequently been confirmed in the guidance to health authorities and primary care groups on allocations for 1999–2000. The guarantees go further than any previous ones in ensuring that the investment in GP practice infrastructure will increase year on year. In practice we expect that most primary care groups and primary care trusts will want to invest above that floor. But the floors provide a guarantee for GPs and their teams in areas where, for whatever reason, the investment priorities of the local health community, and in particular of the primary care group and health authority, lie elsewhere.
I hope that it will be helpful to the House to say in response to the amendment that I can confirm that in their plans for primary care investment, primary care

515
trust expenditure will be subject to the same government commitment in maintaining the level of spending on GMS infrastructure that covers primary care group expenditure. That guarantee will be secured in the same way as that which now applies to primary care groups; that is, reliance on the Section 97 powers, as extended by Clause 3. We shall also be publicising this commitment in a further paper about primary care trusts which we are planning for publication next month. In response to the specific question about LMCs, primary care trusts will have the same relationship with LMCs as health authorities now do in any decisions they take over GMS matters.
Given that assurance and confirmation of our intention to maintain the level of expenditure on infrastructure within primary care trusts, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, with the leave of the House, before the Minister sits down perhaps I may ask the noble Baroness a question to which I shall be grateful if she can find out the answer. It will save putting down another amendment relating to Part II of the Bill about Scotland. There is much concern among GPs about the squeezing out of expenditure on infrastructure in Scotland. Will the answer the noble Baroness has just given be replicated in Scotland? Will the Government make sure that those amounts are reasonably protected? That would be of great comfort to general practitioners in Scotland.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall resist the temptation to give an off-the-cuff response. I undertake to find out and respond to the noble Baroness as soon as possible.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the answer to the Minister's last point of her main response is yes, I do feel able to withdraw the amendment. Her answer was extremely helpful. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the assurances she has given. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6 p. m.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, leave out lines 39 to 45.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I announced during the earlier debate in Committee on Clause 3 of the Bill that we would be bringing forward a government amendment to refine the definition of the prescribing costs that will be included in health authorities' and primary care trusts' unified budgets. That is the main purpose of these amendments. The main feature of the amendments is a new schedule to the 1977 Act defining health authorities, and primary care trusts' "main expenditure" (which is cash-limited) and their "general Part II expenditure" (which is demand-led).
Before I address the amendments in any detail I should offer your Lordships some background. I know that it is an area of interest to the House. Unified
516
budgets—which we announced in the White Paper, The new NHS—will create for the first time a single financial envelope covering the commissioning of hospital and community health services; primary care prescribing; and investment in general practice infrastructure—the issue which we have been addressing. This is essential to achieve our objective of aligning clinical and financial responsibility: offering those closest to patients the maximum scope to deploy NHS resources in ways that best meet patient needs.
In the past, distinctions between these funding streams have made it difficult for local clinicians to make changes that they know would be beneficial. They could see ways of saving in one area of activity to support much needed improvements elsewhere but did not have the power to move resources around to achieve that. As local needs or clinical practice changed, it was difficult to adjust patterns of expenditure.
We want a system that is more responsive. Moving to unified budgets will give health authorities and, after this Bill is enacted, primary care trusts greater flexibility in deciding the most appropriate balance between these three areas of expenditure. This will enable health authorities, primary care groups and trusts to decide relative priorities between and within the three areas of activity and match the resources to those priorities without the artificial barriers imposed by the present separation between the different funding streams.
The unified budget itself does not depend on the Bill. Two elements of the unified budget—hospital and community health services, and GP practice infrastructure—are already part of health authorities' cash-limited budgets. But these are managed separately and divided by a statutory ring fence.
The third element, prescribing costs, can be brought within the unified budget using existing powers in Section 97 of the 1977 Act. Those powers allow expenses incurred by family health services practitioners—that is, GPs, dentists, pharmacists or optometrists—to be designated as part of health authorities' cash-limited main expenditure.
Indeed, in effect prescribing costs were partially brought within wider cash limits by the previous administration through the fundholding scheme. It is right to acknowledge that one of the important lessons we can learn from fundholding is that when offered the opportunity to handle a budget which brought together prescribing with an element of hospital and community services expenditure and funding for practice staff, many fundholders were indeed able to find efficient and effective ways of providing services for their patients.
Of course the fundholding scheme also had important limitations. It left artificial barriers between emergency care and other services, for example. And it only ever covered around half the country. But over the past year it has been interesting to see the GP commissioning group pilot schemes managing budgets effectively on a larger group basis—some of a similar size to primary care groups. The 1998 report of the University of Birmingham Independent Health Service's Management Centre on GP commissioning groups found that the groups sought continuously to improve their prescribing

517
and promote high standards of care. They took their responsibilities seriously and adopted a range of tactics in order to monitor and develop individual, practice and group prescribing practice, including development of formularies, setting up prescribing groups, open sharing of prescribing data and use of incentive schemes. Most used professional pharmaceutical advice for management and peer review purposes—it is another example of where other professionals such as pharmacists need to be involved—and nurses were also employed as advisers. Quality was addressed, as well as cost issues, including the importance of developing a peer review culture; and over a quarter of the pilot sites projected underspends on their prescribing budget— which I think is interesting.
Our new approach will for the first time bring all hospital and community services within a unified budget and will extend the flexibilities and freedoms of unified budgets to the whole country. This means—and let me be up front about this—that we will for the first time bring all prescribing expenditure within a unified cash limit. Equally, we are not putting a cash limit around prescribing expenditure itself. We are bringing that prescribing expenditure, £4.4 billion in England, within a wider unified budget of some £24 billion in England. Many GPs already have experience of working with this kind of approach, and hospital prescribing has always been managed as part of a wider overall cash limit.
Let me turn now from the overall policy context to the purpose of the amendments before us. It is critical that the new arrangements should operate in a fair and equitable way. The amendments are addressed to this, and are designed to ensure that we apply the principle of aligning clinical and financial responsibility as accurately as possible at local level.
As I have explained, Section 97 as it stands does already allow us to create the unified budgets that we are putting in place from April 1999 for health authorities and primary care groups. But in practice the framework which the existing Section 97 provides does not enable us to align clinical and financial responsibilities as accurately or equitably as is desirable. The main reason for this is that, under the existing powers, we would be bringing within a health authority's cash-limited budget the cost of drugs dispensed in its area, rather than the drugs prescribed by GPs and other practitioners in that area. In other words, we should be asking the GPs in a PCG to take responsibility not for expenditure on the drugs they had prescribed for their patients but on the prescriptions presented at chemists within the area of their PCG.
In some health authorities there is a significant mismatch between the two. Up to around 25 per cent. by value of the drugs dispensed in some authorities are prescribed elsewhere, and up to around 15 per cent. of the drugs prescribed by some authorities' practitioners are dispensed elsewhere. At primary care group level the discrepancies could well be more marked.
The amendments address this issue by allowing the Secretary of State to apportion payments for drugs among health authorities to take account of
518
cross-boundary prescribing and dispensing. They allow health authorities to make comparable arrangements for primary care trusts.
To put it another way, and I hope more simply, these amendments will refine the definition of prescribing costs so as to enable those costs to be charged to the health authority or primary care trust where the prescription was written rather than where it was dispensed. We need to achieve this because the crucial decision is that of the GP or nurse on whether to prescribe for a particular patient and, if so, which drug. The patient's decision on where to get the prescription dispensed should be of lesser significance to the arrangements for attributing prescribing costs. These amendments will deliver that objective. They will also enable the apportionment process to be used to average out those elements of drug costs that are outside the influence of the person doing the prescribing, for instance, the amount deducted from pharmacists' reimbursement to reflect average discounts. This will be more equitable for health authorities and primary care trusts, again ensuring our principle of aligning clinical and financial responsibility is implemented as fully as possible.
These practical arrangements for attributing drug costs will build on the well-established systems which are familiar to health authorities and currently operate for tracking spend against GP fundholders' budgets or against non-fundholders' indicative prescribing budgets. What will change, by virtue of these amendments, is that these refined attributions can be used as the basis for determining what prescribing expenditure counts against a health authority or primary care trust's unified budget. In other words, we will be aligning those responsibilities at practice and health authority or primary care trust levels.
I apologise to the House for the fact that the resultant amendments are lengthy and technically complex. They have to be so because they amend Section 97 of the 1977 Act, which is in itself a complex piece of legislation. They are also complex because they are designed to provide for an equitable charging system which can be operated by adapting the existing well-established NHS systems for remunerating dispensing contractors. Despite this legal complexity, the purpose of the amendments is straightforward. They are designed to deliver the fair and accurate charging of prescribing costs to health authorities' and primary care trusts' unified budgets. I commend the amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I shall try to be constructive rather than critical in what I have to say. We appreciate the efforts that the noble Baroness has made to explain the Government's intentions, but we are in a rather unusual position on this Bill. At least a third of it consists of amending previous Acts of Parliament. Indeed, Clauses 3 to 10 inclusive are confined to amending the Acts of 1977 and 1990. The 10 pages of Schedule 4 comprise a mass of amendments to previous legislation.

519
Of the three amendments moved by the noble Baroness we are mainly concerned with Amendment No. 15. It adds a new clause, adding a new schedule to the 1977 Act. This is rather unusual. Rather than adding a new clause, it would have been more usual, tidier and more logical, to have a new schedule to the Bill. I have studied the content quite closely. It deals with detailed guidance as to the way in which expenditure shall be handled: the sort of thing which is very often put into a schedule. I hope that we shall have early consolidation after this Bill becomes law, because those splendid people with the professional duty and administrative ability will have a terrible time trying to establish across the statute book exactly what the law is. If one looks at the amendments in Schedule 4, it will require tremendous documentary effort on their part to find out their responsibilities.
I do not say that there is much that the noble Baroness herself can do about this. My main point, however, is to implore those concerned within the Government to give high priority to consolidating all this legislation on health before great confusion sets in.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, what was said by my noble friend Lord Renton is even more true of Part II of the Bill. I have attempted, with very much less expertise than he has, to ask whether the Government would consider the same matter.
I turn to the question of how prescriptions will be charged and the part they will play in the unified budget. The Minister has already kindly agreed to find out about the replication in Part II of the Bill in connection with the arrangements she spoke of last time. Could I ask her also to add what she has just said about prescribing and how those arrangements will be made, because that is part of the problem which I tried to enunciate?
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, as the Minister said, the amendments tabled in her name are exceptionally complex, particularly the one relating to Schedule 12A, proposed as an amendment to the 1977 Act.
Drug budgets in the NHS have always been cost-limited to an extent. Is the intended purpose of these amendments to make prescribing across the country more even, ruling out, one hopes, the issue of post-code prescribing, which has been referred to on a number of occasions when this Bill has been debated in your Lordships' House?
We have seen the establishment of the national institute for clinical excellence, inexorable rising costs of technical and pharmaceutical developments and the introduction of expensive new drugs. After due inquiry, NICE may indicate that within the NHS a particular form of treatment is the most right and cost-effective for a particular condition. Might not the drugs budget then be adjusted to take account of its recommendations? The director of NICE has said that in making recommendations the institute will take account of cost-effectiveness. However, it is likely that drugs such as beta-interferon, the other interferons for multiple
520
sclerosis, Donepezil and other drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's, and many more, will put an increasing burden on the NHS and its prescribing budget. Does the Minister believe that the amendments she has introduced today will help to deal with such problems?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her thorough explanation of the amendments. I am also personally grateful to her for taking the time to brief me about them last week with her officials. I understand that a principal purpose of the amendments is to direct the costs of prescribing to the place where they should properly fall; that is, to the point at which the prescribing rather than the dispensing is done. I entirely understand why that should be thought desirable.
However, I find one point in Amendment No. 15 somewhat obscure. In paragraph 3(4)(b) of the new Schedule 12A the Secretary of State is granted power to exercise his discretion in apportioning funds,
"by reference to averaged or estimated amounts".
I see the sense in allowing for estimated amounts of expenditure, but what is the significance of "averaged"? In what circumstances might the Secretary of State be minded to apportion funds relating to the cost of drugs in a way which averaged out any likely differences between health authorities, or is reference being made to some other kind of averaging?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her careful explanation of the amendments and for the opportunity she gave us last week of discussing them before they were tabled.
We on these Benches have considerable sympathy with the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. In Committee we tabled an amendment which probed cash limits and the drugs budget and the Minister gave a clear and firm assurance, as she has done today, that there was no intention to cash limit drug prescribing budgets at GP level. However, there are dangers in the unified budgets being held at PCT level when there is overspending.
The Minister mentioned the temporary financial assistance which would be available if unified prescribing budgets were overspent, and that provides some assurance. However, we believe that if NICE, which will set standards for prescribing, regards particular drugs as being important and necessary as an effective form of treatment, making GPs bound to prescribe them, there is a great danger that the overall unified budget will not be sufficient. Will not either temporary or permanent financial assistance at that unified level need examining?
We accept, however, that these amendments do not alter the principles involved and the moves towards indicative and unified budgets. We also accept that there is considerable logic in being able to pinpoint with greater accuracy who is responsible for the prescription of the drugs. Therefore, that amendment does not give us cause for concern, unlike the overall framework in which it would be placed.
Furthermore, I have sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. These are perhaps plangent amendments in terms of their clarity,

521
and early consolidation of the Bill is important. Representations have been made to me for a memorandum explaining the amendment in greater detail prior to any consolidation. Perhaps the explanation which the Minister has given today will be extremely helpful, but there is concern about people's ability to understand the new legislation. I described our previous canter through unified budgets as being a financial seminar. Today we have had the second round of that financial seminar and I am grateful to the Minister.
6.15 p. m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to the debate, not least the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It is the first time I have ever heard the word "plangent" used in normal discourse—if a debate in your Lordships' House can be described as normal discourse.
I shall deal first with some of the technical issues. When dealing with the three components of the unified budget, I gave as the total sum £24 billion, but I should have said £28 billion.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, I point out that at a later stage my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston expects to bring forward a similar amendment.
As regards the inclusion of the words "averaged" and "estimated", the key adjustments we wish to make take account of cross-boundary prescribing but other adjustments will allow prescribing costs to be more accurately and equitably attributed to health authorities. They build on well-established systems for measuring spend against GP fundholders' budgets and against indicative budgets.
Averaging is perhaps most relevant where payments to pharmacists are made. They take into account the level of discounts which is assumed to obtain on the purchase of drugs. The larger their volume of NHS dispensing, the larger the assumed discount. The level of that discount deduction has nothing to do with the prescribing decision as such, so it is fairer to average out that discounting element in the recharging costs to health authorities. I hope that that clarifies the matter.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, spoke of an over-commitment on unified budgets. In the first instance, it will be for health authorities, as now, and primary care trusts to manage the risks across the whole of the unified budget; in other words, by balancing over-commitments in one part by reducing spending elsewhere. But health authorities will assist primary care trusts in that task by, for example, helping them to pool financial risks.
As in the current system, an over-commitment may sometimes be unavoidable. There are well-established in-year mechanisms for dealing with over-commitments. For example, a health authority or primary care trust could have its cash-limited budget increased to cover potential overspend by transferring resources from an under-spending health authority or primary care trust elsewhere. That is the well-established brokerage system.
522
I am not sure what I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton. I feel as much a prisoner of the complexity of the legislation as any other Member of your Lordships' House. I certainly recognise the difficulties to which he and other noble Lords referred.
As regards the issue of the new clause or schedule. I must deny all responsibility, if that is not inappropriate behaviour at the Dispatch Box. In dealing with those technical drafting issues, one depends on the advice of parliamentary draftsmen. It was chosen as the preferred method of dealing with the issue but it is obviously not the preferred method of the noble Lord, Lord Renton.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I hope that the noble Baroness will realise that parliamentary draftsmen are there to serve and not to direct. I hope that she will bear in mind what I said about the need for consolidation.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I shall certainly do that. I shall go on my assertiveness training course for dealing with parliamentary draftsmen as soon as the Bill has passed through your Lordships' House!
Serious issues were raised in relation to the memorandum. Revised explanatory notes will be published to cover those new provisions on the introduction of the Bill in another place. A further revised version will be published after that, on enactment of the Bill. However, I recognise that that goes only so far and does not deal with the major consolidation issue.
I deal now with the major substantive issue which has been raised on the effect of bringing together the prescribing budgets in primary care. Perhaps I may offer some reassurance to the noble Lord, Lord Walton. We believe that allowing maximum flexibility for local clinicians to identify and take the steps which will produce the best results for patients from all the resources available in the unified budget, free of artificial and distorting boundaries between different types of expenditure, is an important driver towards the high quality prescribing which I am sure we all wish to see.
The main issue is in relation to outputs rather than inputs from prescribing. We can all recognise that spending large amounts of money on prescribing is not necessarily a guarantee of high quality in that prescribing. As I made clear, the unified budget will not place a cash limit on any area of GP activity as such, whether it is prescribing or referrals. The cash limits will apply at the health authority or PCT level and not to individual practices and GPs.
The point has been made about NICE. If it functions as we hope it will do so that clinically-effective treatments are more widely available sooner, we must recognise the need to provide a system which also delivers on rigorous and cost-effective prescribing in other areas.
The experience to which I referred earlier, in terms of peer group review and working in a broader and larger system with the advice that is available from pharmacy advisers, is that it is possible to improve the quality of

523
prescribing. There are a range of ways in which that can be done without necessarily sending the bill sky high. I recognise that that is an important area if we are to see clinically effective treatments reaching all patients who need them as soon as possible.
It will perhaps be reassuring if I make clear that the extra resources we have made available to the NHS for the next three years take full account of the growth in recent years of prescribing costs, which have been about 8 per cent. annually, and of our expectations for the future. I reiterate that there is no reason for us to think that the unified budget will lead to patients being denied the medicine that they need. As I said in my opening remarks, all the evidence points in the other direction. I hope that the House will accept that these very technical and lengthy amendments provide a sound basis for what will be a better way in which to ensure that we achieve the best value for money across the board in relation to the way in which funds are spent by primary care trusts rather than in artificially-divided funding streams. I commend them to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 4, line 33, at end insert—
("(9) The Secretary of State shall provide guidance to Primary Care Trusts regarding appropriate levels of expenditure on research and development, training and tertiary services. "").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on Second Reading and again in Committee, we heard contributions from a number of noble Lords, not least the noble Lords, Lord Winston and Lord Walton of Detchant, which highlighted the importance of clinical academic medicine and training within the context of a thriving health service. The purpose of the amendment is to enable me to address those issues in what is intended to be a constructive spirit.
The Richards Report of 1997 recognised that the supply of academic clinicians is drying up. The UK is producing a lower proportion of academic papers than it used to. If we look at teaching hospitals, part of the problem is the developing fault line between the two sides of their activity: the clinical care side and the academic and training side. Those two sides are in danger of becoming dislocated due, in large part, to the increasing pressure caused by the need to treat more and more patients.
That is a serious trend. It goes almost without saying that any erosion of the teaching base will have a highly detrimental effect on both the quality of training and the numbers being trained. In the longer term, it will lead to this country losing its place as one of the foremost centres of excellence in clinical research.
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, whom I am sorry not to see in his place, reminded us on Second Reading of how intimately bound up with each other are those ingredients of excellence—the availability of academic clinicians, the concentration of specialist expertise and case studies of patients and the clinical research base. It is vital to retain the links between the universities and
524
other centres carrying out basic research and the various arms of the health service, but particularly the teaching hospitals.
As we witness ever-greater demands on the NHS budget, my great fear is that those vital elements of excellence in the delivery of healthcare will diminish both in quality and quantity. Of course, the streams of money which flow into academic training and research are not exclusively an NHS spend. The DfEE element is designed to cover a large part of the teaching and research activity, although the split of responsibility between the DfEE and the DoH is fairly complex. In the unified budgetary structure of a primary care trust, especially at level 4, we may find less and less of a commitment and, therefore, less money flowing towards those activities in NHS trusts. The purchasing horizons of a PCT will inevitably be much shorter than those of the Department of Health or even of a health authority. It is not clear what mechanisms will be in place to protect the broader, long-term objectives of the health service.
Those are the issues that lie behind the amendment. They are tremendously important, but they are not easy to deal with. I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance. I beg to move.
6.30 p. m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I rise to support warmly the amendment so splendidly proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. As he said, the issue of the future of clinical academic medicine and the related problems of teaching and research are crucial to the future of the National Health Service. It was reassuring when the Minister spoke earlier about the crucial importance of academic clinical input into primary care trusts. I am delighted that she was able to acknowledge that.
One important matter of relevance to the problem is that today's development in medical clinical research brings about tomorrow's practical development in patient care. In the area of primary care, academic departments and general practice play an increasingly important role, not least in training medical students, but also in the vocational training of future general practitioners and in a much wider range of activities than ever was the case in the past.
To the credit of the last government, they recommended that 1.5 per cent. of the NHS budget should be devoted to research and development. I had the privilege of chairing an inquiry of your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology into research in the NHS in the light of the last government's reforms. The Culyer inquiry on R&D in the NHS reported at about the same time as our Select Committee. Those reports identified the need to have research and development funded, first, at a central level through the Research and Development Directorate; secondly, by regional directors of research and development; and, thirdly, at a sub-regional level, with the intention that funds for research could be channelled to those general practitioners, to those nurses and other healthcare professionals who wished to undertake research of importance to the future of the NHS.

525
Such matters are of great importance. I am delighted that they have been highlighted in this amendment. I hope that the Minister will be able to give us assurances that the present Government propose to continue support for research and development at all three levels. It is a very important issue.
I am also glad that the amendment includes tertiary services. An unexpected effect of the internal market introduced by the last government was that tertiary referrals to centres of excellence, upon which so much major research depended, fell away sharply. That is a matter of relevance to Amendment No. 20 which stands in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. The issue of cross-boundary flow and the ability to have patients referred to centres of excellence, not only because of the quality of the treatment that they will receive in such centres, but also in the furtherance of the clinical research which is so important to the future of the NHS, is a vital characteristic that I trust the Government will continue to support.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I seek to support the amendment. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, mentioned the need for expenditure on research and development in disciplines such as nursing, physiotherapy and others. We need the ability to research and develop evidence-based practice.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I also rise to support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, and other noble Lords indicated, it is extremely important that we maintain the high quality of research and development in this area of expertise in the UK, where we have led for many years.
Given present scientific developments, there is an increasing lowering of boundaries between the life sciences, the biological sciences and the medical sciences. Although we have seen some diminution in the proportion of papers produced on the medical sciences, the UK is still highly ranked on the production of papers on biological sciences. We have recently seen an increase in the numbers of papers published in those areas. Nevertheless, the points made by noble Lords on all sides of the House are absolutely correct and we fully endorse them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, far be it from me to throw rocks into still waters and make them troubled, but I am rather troubled by this particular amendment of my noble friend. Of course, there is no doubt that both medical noble Lords who spoke on this issue in Committee are worried. They are right to be worried because the situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Walton, has just said, is, without a shadow of a doubt, deteriorating. That said, I believe that beggars—or perhaps cobblers—ought to stick to their lasts, which is why I only really welcome two-thirds of this amendment.
Primary healthcare trusts are, after all, going to be concerned with primary healthcare. Training, especially the postgraduate training of doctors into various disciplines, some of which are not truly recognised like stroke medicine or indeed the professions allied to
526
medicine—PAMs, or whatever they are called; for example, the various therapists—needs extra input. We all know that there are not nearly enough of them. It is in those areas that the primary care trusts should get involved.
I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Walton, in going on to expect the primary care trusts to expend money on research and development in the tertiary services. Tertiary services are equally in need of boosting, of extra funding and all the rest. The question is whether it should be done by the health trusts, by central government or some other organisation. I rather suspect that it would not be right for the primary care trusts to do it.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I add my support to the amendment, but I should like to ask the Minister if he can say who will fund the tertiary services. There seems to be concern about that. As other noble Lords have said, the quality of training spreads throughout the country. People who are trained in tertiary units move on. They get married and move down to the primary care services. Therefore, their expertise is spread around the country. The existence of units of excellence encourages nurses from all over the world to train in such places. The training of doctors, nurses and physiotherapists is vital when there is such a shortage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I did not understand the point made by my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale about tertiary services. I do not think that the amendment calls for GPs or primary care trusts to support research in tertiary services. It is more concerned with the referral of patients to the tertiary services and, because patients are referred to tertiary services, the tertiary services themselves will carry out the research. Can my noble friend confirm that the training will include newly qualified doctors who often undertake a period of primary care training in general practice? Are they included in the amendment?
Earl Howe: My Lords, with the leave of the House, although that area is important, it was not uppermost in my mind. I was seeking to focus on clinical academic medicine in the medical schools. I believe that that was the principal concern also of other noble Lords, including especially the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that clarification and strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have had a useful debate, following which I cannot be in any doubt about the strong feeling held by noble Lords about the importance of academic medicine. As the Minister in the department with responsibility for research and development, I feel that I am reminded constantly of the areas in which we need to ensure that those interests are properly safeguarded. We recognise the seedcorn that they represent in terms of high quality patient care for the future. We should not lightly neglect that.

527
I was grateful for the acknowledgement from the noble Lord, Lord Walton, of what we are trying to do in terms of the amendment that we shall be bringing forward to ensure that, as part of a PCT's duty to make arrangements to secure appropriate professional advice, the local stakeholder must take into account the key area of academic interests, particularly where a PCT commissions services from a teaching hospital.
In terms of the effect of the amendment, the provisions of Schedule 1 will give primary care trusts powers similar to those currently enjoyed by NHS trusts to conduct or commission research and to make offices and facilities available for training purposes. As the House is aware, funding for research and development is achieved through the research and development levy. It is for each trust to put forward research proposals for central funding. The strategic framework for the R&D levy, issued in January 1997, sets out the principles that govern the allocation of NHS funding for research and development. A strategic review is currently under way with the aim of ensuring that the allocation of funding takes full account of the organisation and function of the new NHS and that it continues to improve quality and value for money.
With regard to the short debate which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, we should not think of research and development as something that happens simply in academic medical departments and tertiary centres. One of the opportunities for primary care trusts with regard to their ability to undertake research and development is to ensure that that work is conducted in areas such as nursing, the professions supplementary to medicine and primary care where, after all, the vast majority of healthcare is delivered to patients and where the research base has not traditionally been as strong as in some areas of secondary and tertiary care. There are great opportunities there.
With regard to training, undergraduate and postgraduate training are both funded also through a system of levies, although postgraduate deans contribute to the costs. The arrangements for both are well established for NHS trusts. Primary care trusts will be brought into the same system.
The appropriate level of expenditure on tertiary services will obviously depend on local circumstances. However, I hear the concerns expressed about the importance of ensuring patient access to proper tertiary facilities. I am sure that when we reach Amendment No. 20 we shall have an opportunity to debate some of those issues. The appropriate level of expenditure will vary greatly. The provision of guidance from the Secretary of State would restrict the local flexibility that is required to ensure the most appropriate arrangements for the commissioning and provision of services. I am not sure that it would be appropriate for the Secretary of State to provide guidance on appropriate levels of expenditure on tertiary services, although I recognise the importance of ensuring access to those tertiary services and of the trickle-down effect of that throughout the service.
528
With the assurance that PCTs will be brought fully within the existing arrangements which apply to NHS trusts in respect of research and development, training and tertiary services, I hope that the noble Earl will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
6.45 p. m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, this has been a useful debate and I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in it and to the Minister for her response. In my view at any rate, part of the problem is that those who perform work that deals in long-time horizons— that is, in training and research, or in what is sometimes referred to as the "futures agenda"—are inevitably subject to a different kind of culture from those who deal in purchasing and commissioning decisions of a short-term nature. The second culture benefits from the first, but it is an underpinning that allows change to manifest itself only gradually. One day you notice that something on which you relied is no longer there.
One of the less satisfactory features of the proposed system for funding tertiary services is, as I understand it, the emphasis to be placed on historical spending patterns. It is essentially a system that relies on rolling forward what has happened in the past. That may well cut down on the paperwork, but it may also serve to ossify current structures in an unhelpful way. Alongside the protection of the overall levels of funding, one needs to achieve an ability to build up new tertiary concepts where there is the scope to do so. An over-reliance on the past will not allow such flexibility. If the Minister feels that she can elaborate on what she has already said on that point, I should be grateful if she would write to me.
On PCTs, I was trying to make it clear that it is not so much that funding will be voted away from training and research, but that the decisions taken by PCTs, particularly in areas such as tertiary services, will have direct, knock-on implications for those activities, with the resultant consequences in terms of funding over the medium to long term. With that, and with thanks once again to the Minister, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 15:
AFTER CLAUSE 3, INSERT THE FOLLOWING NEW CLAUSE—
EXPENDITURE OF HEALTH AUTHORITIES AND PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS
(". —(1) AFTER SCHEDULE 12 TO THE 1977 ACT THERE IS INSERTED—
"SCHEDULE 12A
EXPENDITURE OE HEALTH AUTHORITIES AND PRIMARY CARE TRUSTS
Health Authorities: general Part II expenditure
1. —

(1) In section 97 above and this Schedule, general Part II expenditure, in relation to a Health Authority, means expenditure of the authority which—

(a) is attributable to the payment of remuneration to persons providing services in pursuance of Part II of this Act, and

(b) is not excluded by sub-paragraph (2) below.

529

(2) Expenditure is excluded if it is attributable to—

(a) the reimbursement of expenses of persons providing services in pursuance of Part II which are designated expenses incurred in connection with the provision of the services (or in giving instruction in matters relating to the services),

(b) remuneration referable to the cost of drugs,

(c) remuneration paid to persons providing additional pharmaceutical services (in accordance with directions under section 41A above), in respect of such of those services as are designated, or

(d) remuneration of a designated description which is determined by the Health Authority and paid to persons providing general medical services in pursuance of Part II.

Health Authorities: main expenditure
2. —

(1) In section 97 above, main expenditure, in relation to a Health Authority and the year in question, means—

(a) expenditure of the authority mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below,

(b) any other expenditure of the authority attributable to the performance of their functions in that year (other than general Part II expenditure and remuneration referable to the cost of drugs), and

(c) expenditure attributable to remuneration referable to the cost of drugs for which the authority are accountable in that year (whether paid by them or another authority).

(2) The expenditure referred to in sub-paragraph (l)(a) above is expenditure attributable to—

(a) the reimbursement in that year of expenses of persons providing services in pursuance of Part II which are designated expenses incurred in connection with the provision of the services (or in giving instruction in matters relating to the services),

(b) remuneration paid in that year to persons providing additional pharmaceutical services (in accordance with directions under section 41A above), in respect of such of those services as are designated, or

(c) remuneration of a designated description which is determined by the Health Authority and paid in that year to persons providing general medical services in pursuance of Part II.

3. —

(1) For each financial year, the Secretary of State shall apportion, in such manner as he thinks appropriate, among all Health Authorities the total of the remuneration referable to the cost of drugs which is paid by each Health Authority in that year.

(2) A Health Authority are accountable in any year for remuneration referable to the cost of drugs to the extent (and only to the extent) that such remuneration is apportioned to them under sub-paragraph (1) above.

(3) Where in any financial year any remuneration referable to the cost of drugs for which a Health Authority are accountable is paid by another Health Authority, the remuneration is to be treated (for the purposes of sections 97 and 97A above) as having been paid by the first authority in the performance of their functions.

530

(4) The Secretary of State may, in particular, exercise his discretion under sub-paragraph (1) above—

(a) so that any apportionment reflects, in the case of each Health Authority, the financial consequences of orders for the provision of drugs, being orders which in his opinion are attributable to the authority in question,

(b) by reference to averaged or estimated amounts.

(5) The Secretary of State may make provision for any remuneration referable to the cost of drugs which is paid by a Health Authority other than the Health Authority which are accountable for the payment to be reimbursed in such manner as he may determine.

PCTs: general Part II expenditure
4. —

(1) In section 97C above and this Schedule, general Part II expenditure, in relation to a Primary Care Trust, means expenditure of the trust which—

(a) is attributable to the payment of remuneration to persons providing services in pursuance of Part II of this Act, and

(b) is not excluded by sub-paragraph (2) below.

(2) Expenditure is excluded if it is attributable to—

(a) the reimbursement of expenses of persons providing services in pursuance of Part II which are designated expenses incurred in connection with the provision of the services (or in giving instruction in matters relating to the services), or

(b) remuneration of a designated description which is determined by the Health Authority within whose area the area of the trust falls and paid to persons providing general medical services in pursuance of Part II.

PCTs: main expenditure
5. —

(1) In section 97C above, main expenditure, in relation to a Primary Care Trust and the year in question, means—

(a) expenditure of the trust mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) below, and

(b) any other expenditure of the trust attributable to the performance of its functions in that year (other than general Part II expenditure), and is to be treated as including any expenditure apportioned to the trust for that year under paragraph 6 below.

(2) The expenditure referred to in sub-paragraph (l)(a) above is expenditure attributable to—

(a) the reimbursement in that year of expenses of persons providing services in pursuance of Part II which are designated expenses incurred in connection with the provision of the services (or in giving instruction in matters relating to the services), or

(b) remuneration of a designated description which is determined by the Health Authority within whose area the area of the trust falls and paid in that year to persons providing general medical services in pursuance of Part II.

6. —

(1) For each financial year, a Health Authority may apportion, to such extent and in such manner as they think appropriate, among the Primary Care Trusts whose areas fall within their area, the remuneration referable to the cost of drugs for which the authority are accountable in that year.

531

(2) Where in any financial year—

(a) any remuneration referable to the cost of drugs for which the Health Authority are accountable is paid (whether by them or another Health Authority), and

(b) that remuneration is apportioned to a Primary Care Trust under sub-paragraph (1) above, that remuneration is to be treated for the purposes of sections 97C and 97D as having been paid by the trust in the performance of its functions.

Interpretation
7. —

(1) In this Schedule—

"designated" means designated in writing by the secretary of state (and different designations may be made for different purposes),

"drugs" includes medicines and listed appliances (within the meaning of section 41 above),

"pharmaceutical services" does not include additional pharmaceutical services.

(2)The Secretary of State shall determine what remuneration paid by Health Authorities to persons providing pharmaceutical services is to be treated for the purposes of this Schedule as remuneration referable to the cost of drugs.

(3) The Secretary of State may treat all remuneration paid by Health Authorities to such persons, so far as it is met by an NHS trust or Primary Care Trust under section 103(3) below, as remuneration referable to the cost of drugs for those purposes. "

(2) Section 97 of the 1977 Act is amended as follows—

(a) subsection (2) is omitted,

(b) in subsection (3), at the end there is inserted "in that year",

(c) for subsections (3A) and (3B) there is substituted—

"(3BB) Schedule 12A to this Act (which defines "general Part II expenditure" and "main expenditure" for the purposes of, and supplements, this section and section 97C below) shall have effect".
(3) Section 103(3) of the 1977 Act (special arrangements as to payment of remuneration) is amended as follows—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words from "the Health Authority" to the end of that paragraph there is substituted "a Health Authority so determined in respect of the whole or any part of that remuneration",

(b) in paragraph (b), for "that" there is substituted "the whole or (as the case may be) that part of the".

(4) This section has effect for the financial years 1999-2000 and subsequent financial years. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment was spoken to with Amendment No. 13. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4 [Primary Care Trusts: provision of services etc.]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 4, leave out lines 40 to 44.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I should say straightaway that this is a probing amendment, but it concerns a matter of genuine puzzlement to me. Clause 18A(2), which is to be found at the bottom of page 4, contains a provision that permits a PCT to provide services to patients of other NHS bodies, such as a primary care group or another PCT, as long as it already provides those services to its own population. In itself, that seems a perfectly sensible provision, but can the Minister say whether the flexibility granted to a PCT in
532
that way is entirely without condition? As I understand it, the clause would allow a PCT that was a provider of services and an acknowledged centre of excellence for, let us suppose, one or more of those services to treat patients living outside its own boundaries without restriction. I did not believe that that was the Government's intention.
In this Bill, we are seeing a move towards more proactive partnerships within the NHS. The powers in Clause 24 will allow greater operational flexibility between NHS providers and social services, perhaps in some cases involving more than one NHS provider. These will doubtless make for more co-ordinated provider arrangements, but that is not the point of new Section 18A(2) as set out in Clause 4.
It seems to me that what we have here is, in some senses, a continuation of market mechanisms. A PCT will be allowed to sell its people and facilities to other parts of the service. By definition, the purchaser/provider split is thereby retained. If one reads the section as an open-ended provision, it would be possible to envisage a health authority which happened to require a particular service choosing between two neighbouring NHS providers on the basis of the cost and quality that each could offer. If that is not a continuation of a kind of internal market, we need to understand exactly what it is. I look forward to what the Minister has to say about it. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps it will be helpful if I clarify for the noble Earl exactly what new Section 18A(2) of the 1977 Act, which will be inserted by Clause 4, is intended to achieve.
A level 4 PCT will have a degree of flexibility as to whether it deploys its unified budget to commission community health services from another provider or provides those services itself. The noble Earl is right to point out that this is not as neat a division as perhaps the most logical of minds would wish. However, I suggest to him that it actually reflects a sensible way forward which recognises the benefits brought by separating providing and commissioning responsibilities; but it does not bring with it such a total separation that would actually stand in the way of sensible patient care.
Therefore, perhaps I may explain the circumstances in which we think it would be appropriate to allow a PCT to provide to patients outside its own area any service that it can provide to its own population. Under this provision a PCT will be able to enter into a service agreement with a health authority or another PCT to provide services. These services may be health services—for example, health visiting or speech and language therapy. That flexibility—I believe the noble Earl recognised this in his introduction to the amendment—may be especially helpful where a PCT has particular expertise or well-developed services which other parts of the NHS might sensibly want to use.
Equally the services provided by a primary care trust could comprise management or support services. This provision thus offers opportunities to arrange services in

533
more efficient ways, for example, by allowing a PCT to provide support services—such as payroll management, estate management or IT support—to other parts of the NHS. This provision therefore provides both for operational flexibility in the way in which primary care trusts secure the delivery of services to patients and provides opportunities to increase management efficiency.
Where a PCT provides services to other parts of the NHS in this way, it would get income for these services through service agreements. That income would be on top of the unified budget allocation that the PCT will get to commission and provide services for its own population. Any arrangement for a PCT to provide services outside to other parts of the NHS—and this is the key issue about whether we are allowing a free-for-all into a market let rip—would obviously be subject to agreement between all the interested parties. The health authority will have to satisfy itself that any arrangement is consistent with the local health improvement programme. We believe that that will give a framework in which such arrangements can take place. It will be a sensible one in terms of maximising the expertise and services that an individual PCT may be able to provide for a wider geographical area and group of patients, without turning the chief executives of PCTs into Arthur Daleys trying to sell services throughout the country.
I believe that it is a sensible recognition to say that some of the divisions are not as neat and tidy in some areas as they could be. However, it would actually allow an appropriate extension of the providing activities of the PCTs. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that I have answered the questions raised by his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for what was a most helpful explanation. I do not disagree in any way with the provision in the clause, as explained by the noble Baroness. Indeed, it will obviously make for greater operational flexibility. The clarification she gave about how this fits into the context of health improvement programmes was also most helpful. No doubt it will be a comfort to all the Arthur Daleys out there in the NHS.
However, if you do retain the purchaser/provider split and actively allow a PCT to sell its services to other arms of the NHS, it seems to me that what you have in some sense or another is a kind of market. Nevertheless, it is not an issue which I want to press in any way. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6[Payments relating to past performance]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 14, leave out ("(3B)") and insert ("(3BB)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we move on to deal with Amendment No. 18, it might be convenient at this point for us to take the Statement on NHS modernisation. It might also be for the
534
convenience of noble Lords if I say that it is intended to move at the end of the discussion on the Statement that the House adjourns for dinner for 45 minutes.

Business
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, before we take the Statement on NHS modernisation, I should like to take this opportunity to remind the House that the Companion indicates that discussion on a Statement should be confined to brief comments and questions for clarification. Peers who speak at length do so at the expense of other noble Lords.

NHS Modernisation
6.57 p. m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. The Statement reads as follows:
"Madam Speaker, much of the National Health Service which we inherited from the previous government was run down and shabby. Much of its investment in information technology had been an expensive failure. Much of its equipment was unreliable and let down both patients and staff. Patients waiting on trolleys had become a commonplace feature of the service. That is why one of the top priorities of the new Government is to modernise the NHS, build new hospitals, replace outdated and unreliable equipment and give patients quicker, easier and more modern access to NHS services.
"We are already committed to investing an extra £21 billion in the NHS over the next three years. The biggest hospital building programme in the history of the NHS is already under way. This coming year at least £350 million will be invested in upgrading and replacing outdated equipment.
"Today I can give the House details of an additional £200 million to be invested in the coming year to speed up our programme to modernise the NHS. This is made up of £100 million to be invested in modernising accident and emergency departments and, drawing on the example of NHS Direct, in improving rapid access to professional advice and help for patients. The second £100 million will come from the National Lottery and will be used to step up the fight against cancer by helping provide new and replacement equipment like linear accelerators, diagnostic machines and scanners as well as extending the services provided by hospices. What better use could there be for lottery money.
"Earlier this year I was able to announce that £30 million was to be invested to improve 79 accident and emergency departments round the country. That will be funded from the NHS Modernisation Fund. Last Tuesday in his Budget the

535
Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that £430 million from the Government's Capital Modernisation Fund had been earmarked for investment in the NHS, and that £100 million would be made available this coming year to modernise the NHS. Between £70 million and £80 million of this will be invested to modernise all those A&E departments that remain in need of improvement. These improvements will include special areas for children and easier access to X-ray, pathology and pharmacy services. The layout and furnishings of A&E departments will be improved to make them both more pleasant and more secure. Video surveillance and alarm systems will bring greater efficiency and add to the security of both patients and staff. Some modernised A&E departments may incorporate an NHS Direct telephone point. All A&E departments which need it will benefit from some or all of these changes.
"A survey by the Royal College of Physicians published early in 1997 showed that fewer than half the hospitals with A&E departments had an admissions ward. Since that survey the numbers without either an admissions or observation unit have been reduced to 22 out of 202, and by the end of this initiative only five will not have one and all five have good local reasons for not doing so.
"Proposals which are likely to be funded under the new A&E initiative include extension of children's A&E at the Royal Liverpool Infirmary, improvements at Sheffield Children's Hospital and in children's facilities at North Staffordshire Royal Infirmary. In Ipswich there is a major scheme including improvements to resuscitation facilities and a children's area, and in Luton more resuscitation facilities and close circuit TV. Some £250, 000 worth of improvements are intended at the Royal London in the East End and a similar sum at the Mayday Hospital, Croydon. Large-scale improvements are intended at Southampton General and a new observation unit and better facilities for the GP co-operatives are planned for Frenchay Hospital, Bristol. These are just a few examples of what is planned for hospitals in every part of the country.
"This is the biggest programme of investment in A&E services in the history of the NHS. It will cover every part of the country. By April 2000 every A&E department will have been modernised or work will be well on the way. It should ensure that patients are treated more quickly, more effectively and with greater privacy than ever before. I am determined to make sure that both patients and staff get maximum benefit from the A&E modernisation programme, so it is not just a matter of new buildings, new plant and new equipment. We have to make sure that the new and better ways of organising A&E such as emergency nurse practitioners and greater use of telemedicine are taken up all over the country. We need to speed up the spread of best practice. I am setting up a team of professionals to spearhead this
536
work. I can announce today that the team will be led by Mike Lambert, A&E consultant at Norfolk and Norwich Hospital.
"This A&E modernisation programme will not just be good for patients and staff. It will be good for jobs, not just for the builders who do the work on site but also for firms who supply building materials and specialist fittings. Let me give just one example. The A&E department at Portsmouth has just been refurbished at a cost of just over £1 million. It used materials supplied by more than 20 firms from all over the country. Orders, large and small, included locks from Walsall, paint from Darwen, weather proofing from Slough, carpet from Swindon, wash-basins from Rugeley, partition walls from Loughborough, wall units from Broadstairs and the specialist security reception desk came from Glasgow. The A&E modernisation programme will reflect such orders one-hundred-fold.
"The remainder of the £100 million from the Government's Capital Modernisation Fund will be invested in improving direct access to the NHS. The success of NHS Direct, the nurse-led 24-hour helpline, has demonstrated the public demand for rapid direct access to professional advice and help from the NHS. Following the success of the pilot schemes, NHS Direct has already been extended since Christmas to cover 5 million extra people in the Black Country, Essex, Northampton and West London and will cover 20 million by Easter. Its success has also shown that, given the chance, the talented staff of the NHS can do a brilliant job supplying what the public want. We are now considering an NHS online service to provide a web site with on-line access to a wide range of health information. Between £20 million and £30 million is being made available in the coming year to finance capital investment in further developments in direct access to the NHS, including pilot schemes for walk-in services. These could include services provided by GPs or practice nurses located in or near accident and emergency departments; out of hours services provided by GP co-ops; and services in main streets or shopping malls.
"We want, as with NHS Direct, to work with the professionals to try out direct access, walk-in services in places and at times which are particularly convenient to patients. Some schemes may be confined to providing advice or directing patients to existing services for treatment or care. Others, particularly those associated with A&E departments may provide treatment and care, there and then. This is not intended to replace general practice but to augment it. All these ideas go with the grain both of modern living and what the health professionals are already developing. The new Government are determined to give impetus to all this to help create a new NHS for the new century.
"That brings me to the extra £100 million which will start to be invested in the coming year to augment the existing NHS investment in the fight against cancer. In line with our election promise we have set up the New Opportunities Fund to make sure that

537
more money from the National Lottery goes into the things the people of this country want to see it spent on. Every time there is a discussion about what to do with lottery money, thoughtful people ask why some of it is not being used to combat cancer. Well from now on, it will be.
"Over the coming three years £150 million from the New Opportunities Fund will be invested in tackling cancer in the UK as a whole. In England we want to make a major start this year in investing in new equipment. The order making this possible was laid by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. The direction he issued at the same time makes clear that the focus of this initiative in England will be to augment voluntary efforts to raise funds to provide new and better equipment, including breast screening units, scanners and linear accelerators and also to help hospices and palliative care. The aim is to provide additional equipment and replace unreliable equipment. It is likely to help fund, for example, replacement linear accelerators at the Christie Hospital in Manchester or new equipment for the diagnosis and treatment of cancer of the colon at Lewisham Hospital which my right honourable friend and I visited this morning.
"All this money comes on top of the extra funds previously announced for the NHS and will help the NHS in every part of the country to catch up with more modern standards of cancer diagnosis and treatment. The initiative has the strong support of Macmillan Cancer Relief, Marie Curie Cancer Care and the National Council for Hospice and Specialist Palliative Care services. It comes on top of the extra £30 million we have invested in breast and colorectal cancer over the past 18 months and the further £40 million we are making available in the coming year to combat breast cancer, colorectal cancer and lung cancer and our commitment to speeding up specialist attention for people suspected of suffering from cancer.
"The commitments I have announced today will speed up the renewal and modernisation of the NHS. They will make services more readily available and more dependable. At the same time they will make it easier for the dedicated staff of the NHS to provide quicker and more high quality services. That is only possible because we have a Government who invest public money wisely and have the right priorities".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
7.7 p. m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, once again the House has cause to be particularly grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement on the Budget settlement for health. My only slight regret, if I may be candid, is that there is a rather unnecessary tone in the opening sentence which seems to cast aspersions on the record of the previous government. I am sorry about that.
At first blush this is all good news for the health service, which we welcome. There is no doubt that many accident and emergency departments in acute hospitals need additional funding to help them to
538
improve services to patients. It is true to say that improvements of this kind will also help doctors and nurses, who can suffer considerable levels of stress in trying to cope with working in conditions that are far from satisfactory. As we have said before from these Benches, it is a remarkable tribute to doctors and nurses that the pressures experienced during the past winter in A&E departments did not lead to greater difficulties than they did.
One of the lessons learnt from last winter was that money and schemes designed to alleviate A&E pressures should be announced in good time so that hospitals can plan ahead properly. It has to be said that the Government's announcement last winter was far too last minute for many hospitals to take timely action before the pressures built up. Can the Minister say whether the amount of money allocated for this up-grading work to A&E departments is based on any preliminary assessment of need? In other words, how many hospitals are likely to benefit from this funding? How will bids from hospitals be assessed and ranked?
I am confused about whether this money is really new money. There are two aspects to that. It is said to be part of the capital modernisation fund, so I am not sure whether this is money that has been announced before in one form or another. Secondly, on 9th November last year the Secretary of State announced £250 million of additional spending following the pre-Budget announcement. The NHS confederation spokesman, Stephen Thornton, said at the time:
"This is really only next year's money paid early".
Was he right to say that and, if so, is any of the money that we are talking about today part of that previously announced package?
The other area of puzzlement relates to the capital modernisation fund. It is very difficult for those outside the DoH to keep track of the portion of the fund that has now been earmarked for various purposes. The modernisation of A&E units seems a perfectly bona fide use for modernisation fund money, unlike the funding of the nurses' pay award from the NHS modernisation fund which came as a somewhat unexpected use for it. To my mind, at least, pay should fall into the category of regular expenditure. Can the Minister say how the modernisation fund is now placed after these latest calls upon it?
I do not know whether the Minister recalls, but her party pledged in 1996 to set up a taskforce to monitor the number of patients forced to wait on trolleys for treatment. I am not sure what has happened to that idea. It does not seem to have been proceeded with. The worry I have is that if one dedicates wards for people waiting for A&E then one is bound to reduce capacity elsewhere in hospitals. I would welcome the Minister's comments on that.
Turning to NHS Direct, once again I have a sense of déjà vu over what has been announced. Have the Government come to any conclusions as to how NHS Direct will be organised on a national basis? National centres are likely to be more efficient and lead to more uniform standards but, at the same time, they are more

539
likely to reduce co-ordination with local GPs; whereas local centres based in practices may have advantages; they may also lead to a lack of uniformity in standards.
It would be impossible not to welcome a new investment of £150 million into cancer care. In particular, it was heartening to hear mention in the Statement of the Christie Hospital in Manchester, which the late Lord Dean of Beswick did so much to support. I am always worried by the appearance of Lottery money in this context. Can the Minister reassure me that none of the proposed expenditure represents what is normally regarded as core NHS spending? It would be quite wrong to use Lottery money to take the place of central funding.
I shall conclude by making one or two comments about the context in which the Statement has been announced to Parliament. The 6 a. m. news on Radio 5 Live contained a detailed report on the setting up of admissions wards within hospitals which could only have come from a detailed knowledge of the contents of the Statement. It has also appeared on BBC Teletext. The Statement on the nurses' pay award was leaked to the press more than two weeks before publication; the Statement on Ashworth Hospital was leaked to the Daily Telegraph one day before the delivery to the House; the Statement on mental health was leaked to the Sunday Telegraph two days before publication; the Statement on social services appeared in the Independent and the Guardian on the morning of publication; the Statement on safeguarding children appeared in the Evening Standard on the morning of publication; and the Statement on health spending of March 1998 appeared in The Times on the morning of delivery to the House. I do not believe that I am alone in finding that unacceptable. I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance that she and her right honourable friends will do all that they can to stop that kind of practice.
7.15 p. m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I join the noble Earl in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement made in another place. I have very similar concerns about understanding the exact amount of money involved in the Statement. It is difficult enough as it is to distinguish between the capital modernisation fund and the NHS modernisation fund and to understand the linkages between the two when, for instance, the £30 million previously announced for accident and emergency comes out of one fund and the current expenditure today, it appears, comes out of another.
In addition, of course, as I understand it, this money is brought forward money rather than new money, as was announced on Budget Day. The Chancellor was basically saying that £250 million could be brought forward from later years into this year, and in that regard the NHS, I assume, is getting something approaching £70 million or so additional funds. Sometimes it is rather difficult to track and it would therefore be helpful if in future Statements the Government were able to be more precise about what money is involved in terms of being brought forward, how much money is new and
540
how much has already been announced in any Statement. Otherwise, bald figures such as these are extremely difficult to track.
As I understand it, we have the announcement today of expenditure of £100 million which comes from the capital modernisation fund but we do not yet have an understanding of how much will come out of that fund and how the remainder of the £430 million will be spent over the next two to three years. Again it would be helpful in terms of planning by NHS trusts if that information were available.
That said, however, I very much welcome the additional expenditure announced by the Government for accident and emergency. That is a proper response to the winter pressures and the problems in the NHS that we have seen over the past few months. Patients waiting on trolleys is completely unacceptable. The idea of admissions wards is a good one and is clearly an imaginative way of dealing with some of the issues.
However, at the end of the day, capital expenditure must be linked with the staff to go with it. Without the commitment on staffing the capital improvements that are taking place in accident and emergency will not tackle the winter pressures that have been identified. Furthermore, in the context of accident and emergency, it is worth while taking a look back at the Audit Commission report of 1996 which discussed the issue in considerable detail. It is not enough simply to look either at staffing or at capital expenditure. For instance, are the Government looking at other areas such as taking steps to meet the resource requirements of supporting an effective emergency service, in particular specialist staff and in-patient beds? Other recommendations include setting a research agenda to build a robust knowledge base for decisions about the future of emergency care; optimum approaches for meeting a full range of emergency needs; how patients' views can be ascertained in a way which is useful to improve care; the cost and quality of alternative forms of emergency services; improving education to facilitate informed self-care and first aid as well as more appropriate use of alternative facilities for emergency care; and, finally, and very importantly in the context of a great deal of the load that was put upon accident and emergency departments by the flu epidemic—or perhaps I should say the flu non-epidemic—communicating to the public the need for change in the organisation and use of accident and emergency departments so that it is clearly seen to be inappropriate to refer yourself to accident and emergency in those circumstances. It would be helpful to have the Minister's response on those aspects.
I also welcome the proposals for better access to primary care. But I am somewhat confused. The noble Earl referred to expenditure on NHS Direct, but I think that this is analogous to NHS Direct. This does not represent further funds for NHS Direct. We have asked many questions in the past about that particular aspect— I am sure we will ask more in the future—but, as I understand it, this is building on the experience of NHS Direct to improve primary care and other aspects of the NHS.

541
We on these Benches welcome the additional expenditure on cancer equipment and treatment. However, £100 million of lottery funding has been spent on cancer treatment. The Government admitted in their manifesto that this was a core area for additional expenditure. It seems extraordinary that a transfer of responsibility from government to lottery funding is taking place. We have grave doubts about that. If this area is a major priority for the NHS, should it not be funded out of ordinary mainstream NHS income? Where do we draw the line? What other core NHS expenditure will be borne out of lottery funding? Where does it end?
We are talking about capital expenditure and about an important set of components. We welcome the fact that there are funds which allow capital expenditure to be made. That said, there are other aspects of capital expenditure within the NHS which give considerable cause for concern. I have previously raised the issue of how PFI funding is proceeding. The evidence so far is that that is providing very poor value for public money. I believe that the Government have now succeeded in uniting the BMA, the NHS Confederation, UNISON and the Health Select Committee in being extremely critical of the current PFI programme. If the Minister is able to respond to that point, we on these Benches shall be grateful.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, on the noble Lord's last point, we shall have an opportunity to discuss these issues later this week in relation to a Question that he has tabled. Therefore, perhaps I need not go into the issues surrounding the PFI in response to comments made from both Front Benches.
The noble Earl began his remarks with a caveat, so perhaps I, too, may begin with a caveat. I am slightly disappointed at the lack of enthusiasm for what is a very important injection of finance into two crucial areas of the NHS. Perhaps I may deal with the second area first; namely, cancer treatment. I have said several times in this House that we are not in any way breaching the question of additionality. I have made absolutely clear the extra funds that are going into cancer services and producing results in those services. The investment in breast cancer services are having a daily effect in reducing the amount of time that women wait for referral to consultants and increasing the coverage of one-stop clinics. We announced the process asking for bids for improvements to services for lung cancer patients. I was able to visit Papworth Hospital and see some of the things that are going on there. There are a number of exciting and innovative projects in colorectal cancer which have been funded through the £10 million that has been put into that area.
From my own experience of the NHS, I find it difficult to understand the way in which people seem to think that some kind of charitable contribution towards equipment in the NHS is an innovation. There is a long history of charitable involvement. Very few hospitals are so well-equipped that they have not held a scanner appeal. Very few hospitals have not benefited, particularly in the field of cancer care, from partnership with voluntary organisations such as Macmillan Cancer Relief. On Friday, during a visit to Leicester, I saw a
542
magnificent building providing high quality cancer care. Large sums of money have been poured into that project. I met the Macmillan staff who were providing that care. There is a long-established tradition of Macmillan pump-priming for three years Macmillan Nurses, and of the funding then being taken over by the health service. They enjoy that commitment.
Of course the NHS must take on its share of the responsibility, as it does, for using such equipment and for providing the staff to ensure that it is properly used. However, we have talked many times during debates on the Bill that is before the House about the importance of equalising access to high quality care. We do not have that equal access at present. We have equipment that is terribly in need of replacement. This is an enormous opportunity to make a step change in the quality of care that is provided to cancer patients. It is an absolutely appropriate use of lottery money. I have no hesitation in saying that. Nor do I hesitate to say that I believe that that is the popular view among patients and the public in general.
I now turn to the £100 million that is being put in to improve accident and emergency services. I confirm that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, was correct. We are not talking about a further expansion of NHS Direct. I repeated a Statement in this House about how that coverage is being extended in order for it to be up and running in the larger part of the country by December this year to deal with the Christmas and millennium period. With some of that money, we seek to build on that experience of providing easily available access for patients to advice and care in innovative ways. I outlined some of the ways in which that will be achieved.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked which hospitals would benefit and how bidding processes would take place. I do not think that there will be a classic: bidding process. I believe that I made clear, particularly in relation to admission wards, that we have done some work to see what is needed through regional offices. We are confident that the money that has been made available will be enough to ensure that every hospital A&E department that needs it will receive the appropriate capital investment. Some have already benefited, or are benefiting, from the £30 million NHS modernisation fund. Therefore, not every hospital is in need of investment. However, a large number do— perhaps up to 100. We believe that that investment can be made possible by this money.
I take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It is not just a matter of capital investment. We are examining ways in which we can ratchet up the quality of care through investing in infrastructure. In some areas that is straightforward—for example, in security. In others, it provides the opportunity for re-engineering and ensuring that staff can provide more efficient and effective services by improving access to pathology or radiology, space for nurse practitioners, and the things that go hand in hand with providing appropriate services.
A&E services are central to the functioning of the whole system throughout a hospital. If we get those services right, we take a great deal of pressure off other

543
parts of the service. I have seen, and I am told by admissions units that a large proportion of their patients are discharged straight from the admissions unit rather than having to be admitted to a ward and benefit from that speedy concentration of resources. It is therefore clear that the impact of providing that extra space, rather than taking space away, can have a crucial effect on the working of the whole hospital.
It is in that spirit that we have taken forward the issue that the noble Earl raised about trolley waits by setting up the emergency services action team to look not simply at trolley waits, which are often a symptom of a problem, but at the whole range of emergency services, both in the hospital and outside.
The funding is £100 million of new money for the NHS. The £2.5 billion capital modernisation fund was set up in the Comprehensive Spending Review to support capital investment to improve public services. It initially provided £1 billion for spending in the year 2000–2001 and £1.5 billion in 2001–2002. It was announced last week that the Government now believe that there is scope for a more rapid start in these key areas and that they have brought forward £250 million of the fund from 2001–2002 to 1999–2000. The CMF allocation is now £0.25 billion in 1999–2000, £1 billion in 2000–2001 and £1.25 billion in 2001–2002. I hope that that clarifies the position as far as the capital modernisation fund is concerned. As far as health service expenditure is concerned, this is all extra money.
7.30 p. m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for repeating the Statement, perhaps I may declare an interest as chair of the New Opportunities Fund, which will be responsible for distributing the money. In that role, perhaps I may assure the House that my board and I are completely committed to the principle of additionality, which the Minister mentioned.
Does the Minister agree with me that the best way to ensure that people recover from cancer is to have, first, early diagnosis and, secondly, public awareness and that, while it is very important that all hospitals have diagnostic equipment of the highest quality, equally as important is the provision of information to patients and their families about early symptoms and lifestyle—in other words, a holistic approach to detection, prevention and treatment of cancer?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am happy to agree with my noble friend. The principle of additionality is one that is being safeguarded. While we envisage that, because of the importance of early diagnosis, a significant proportion of the money will be spent on equipment in the first year, that is not exclusive. I mentioned the provision of palliative care. My noble friend referred to the valuable role that information centres and information services can provide. That is something that we shall want to look at when considering the bids from individual localities. Those
544
bids will take account of priorities but will also be able to look at the whole patient journey rather than simply at one area of expenditure.
Baroness Cumberlege: My Lords, the Minister said that between £20 million and £30 million would be made available for further developments in direct access, including services in main streets or shopping malls. Can the Minister tell us a little more about that? I suspect that it is related to the weekend press reports that the Government are to encourage Boots the Chemist to establish GP centres in pharmacies. I have no objection to that in principle provided there are certain safeguards, but, if this is to be the trend, it is a huge change in the philosophy of the gatekeeper role of GPs in a given community. It also challenges the idea of registered patient lists. I should like to know how it will affect the payment of GPs. Have the Government a strategy for this or will it be left to serendipity and commercial initiatives? I am not critical of it, but I should like to know what the Government's long-term strategy is towards these kinds of developments.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as I said in the Statement, these are innovative areas that we are looking at, building on the success of NHS Direct. I have to say to the noble Baroness, as I should have said to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I do not have responsibility for what is written in the press about the health service, which is not always of the highest level of accuracy.
The Government want to look at ways in which we can provide services in places and at times which are particularly convenient to patients. Part of that will be building on information services and perhaps providing those services perhaps in different places and through different media from those where they have been provided before. In A&E departments, in particular, it may be about providing treatment and care there and then—for example, by extension of out-of-hours GP services.
As far as developments outside traditional healthcare settings are concerned, the important thing is that we go with the grain of how people now live their lives and how they expect to have access to services. However, we recognise some of the points to which the noble Baroness referred. General practice is a jewel in our crown which we would not wish in any way to undermine by these developments. We need to take a careful and considered approach and work with the professionals, as we have worked with them on NHS Direct, to ensure that the new services that are provided are complementary and do not in any way undermine the services that already exist.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I welcome the Statement and should like to ask the Minister whether there is any hope that some of the extra money will go towards helping to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. The Minister knows what a problem MRSA is. Is there any hope of speeding up the tests for

545
infectious diseases? Does the Minister agree that it is no good having wonderful new equipment if patients become ill in hospital?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with what the noble Baroness says. I accept that in A&E departments when there are, for example, trolley waits in crowded circumstances, there is not only a risk of cross-infection, to which the noble Baroness referred, but also of pressure sores and a variety of other matters, including the privacy and dignity of patients, at a most stressful time, not being properly safeguarded. That is one of the reasons why we shall focus in particular upon medical assessment units, which will provide speedy diagnosis and consider the opportunities for isolation facilities, as appropriate.
Lord Winston: My Lords, the Government are to be congratulated on what is a very worthwhile initiative in two most important areas of medicine. The principle of using lottery money must surely be right and appropriate. It follows a model widely used—for example, the use of charitable money to such great effect in the United States for healthcare.
I wonder whether the Government have considered the possibility of using some of that money in the future for the kinds of services which are much more difficult to fund in the National Health Service. I am thinking in particular—and this is admittedly special pleading—of reproductive services. Will the Government give some thought to allowing some part of that money to be used for that purpose? In his Budget Statement the Chancellor made a great plea for the family. I am sure that my noble friend will agree that reproductive services are an important part of general health.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I always give thought to suggestions that my noble friend makes. I suspect that I should lay myself open to criticisms far worse than those I have received today about the funding of mainstream services if I gave him any further assurances. I understand exactly the connection that my noble friend makes and of course undertake to discuss it with colleagues.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, while I welcome the extra funding for accident and emergency, which is the front line, I have two questions. There is to be £100 million of lottery funding this year plus £50 million over the next three years, making a total of £150 million. As all citizens of Great Britain together put money into the national lottery how, with devolution, will those funds be distributed to the different parts of the country? Presumably the money must be given to Scotland, but not for specific projects.
The Hampshire Magpie scanner appeal has been working hard to raise money. Can the Minister confirm that the main idea is to augment funds that have already been realised or to have completely new scanners, and so forth? Which will have higher priority?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, priority will very much depend on regional cancer leagues informing us of
546
their priorities. For some, the priority will be to replace equipment. Others will want added capacity. We need to view the matter from the patients' perspective, to ensure speedy access to effective treatment. There is no one answer but we should look at the output in terms of what the patient sees from the investment. Like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, I thought of my noble friend at Christie Hospital and how he would have reacted to the possibility of investment.
The noble Lord, Lord Rowallan, referred to how the funds would be split between the four countries. The £150 million for the UK as a whole, excluding administrative costs, will be allocated in such a way that over time, 77.5 per cent. will be committed to projects in England; 11.5 per cent. in Scotland; 6.5 per cent. in Wales; and 4.5 per cent. in Northern Ireland.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I have no quibble with using lottery money for capital equipment in the National Health Service. That is the right way to proceed. As many have said, including the Minister, it is an adjunct or fillip to what goes on. My noble friend Lord Rowallan mentioned a scanner in Hampshire.
The Government have three priorities for the health service this year, They are cancer, cardiac treatment and—it was a surprise that my noble friend did not mention this—mental health. In this additional tranche of money that the Government have courageously provided, just one of those priorities is singled out. Why could not the money be spread a little more thinly and appropriately, according to the Government's own priorities?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have made it clear that, in terms of lottery funding, expenditure was on cancer services, where we felt there was a need for the catch-up exercise—particularly in respect of equipment. The noble Lord rightly draws attention to other priorities. One is mental health, for which the national service framework is being drawn up and substantial additional funds have been allocated. We have ring-fenced additional funds for mental health. We are currently working too on the national service framework for coronary heart disease, where I am examining the resourcing implications. It is important to acknowledge that demand but there are demands also for the drugs budget and public health areas such as smoking cessation support, which will have a great effect in respect of coronary heart disease. I do not think that we are neglecting those two areas.
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I also welcome the funds that have been allocated, and particularly the emphasis that my noble friend the Minister placed on the importance of accident and emergency departments and admission beds. Having just personally experienced the upgrade of A&E departments and the introduction of admission beds, I know that the Statement will be much welcomed throughout the NHS.
However, while an A&E department is being upgraded, use of it is halved; that creates pressures, particularly in the winter, and makes life difficult for nursing staff and patients. It increases trolley waits and other pressures in the department. While trying to deal with the government

547
initiative to reduce waiting lists, one must acknowledge the pressures created when money has to be spent over time.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend gives wise advice. Anyone who has lived through the major upgrading of an A&E department knows exactly how disruptive that can be for staff and patients alike. She is right to say that upgrades should be timed carefully and not at the peak of demand. A variety of smaller schemes will not necessarily involve the same disruption and could be successfully progressed. The carrot of knowing that new facilities will be made available takes people through the sticks of adversity and living with the builders.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I also welcome my noble friend's Statement. Does she agree that one of the greatest concerns of recent years has been the number of assaults on NHS staff and that a significant proportion have occurred in A&E departments? Will her Statement lead to a significant improvement in the security arrangements for staff working in A&E departments and will there be close co-operation between NHS trusts, community safety officers and the police?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, my noble friend is right to draw attention to that aspect. Additional security facilities were among the priorities in the additional investment of £30 million from the modernisation fund. He is right to say that A&E departments are a particular flashpoint, which can create danger and distress for staff and patients alike. We must ensure that improvements are made in closed-circuit surveillance, and that is provided for in some of the schemes. My noble friend is sensible to suggest that local police services are involved in examining how that can best be done.
As well as the specific expenditure focused on security, other measures will include improving services overall, cutting waiting times and improving the quality of the surroundings in which people wait, and reducing access times to radiology and pathology. Improvements will reduce stress levels and, hopefully, levels of violence against staff and patients.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I have a similar line of questioning to that of my noble friend, Lady Cumberlege, but we arrived at our questions quite separately. I have a particular interest in GP work in main streets and shopping malls. In Australia this occurs almost everywhere. The system of funding the health service in Australia is very different. Patients choose where to go and then reclaim what they have paid according to means after the event. That is a real test of patients' choice. They have greatly welcomed the provision of surgeries in shopping malls, to the extent that they have been expanded enormously.
As I understand the Minister, the service is intended to be free to the patient. I ask that question again. It is said that it will be at places and at times convenient to the patient. We would all like that. But the statement that this is not intended to replace general practice but to augment it may give rise to some risk. If patients take to this free
548
service in a big way there will be a great demand for it. If a patient goes to a doctor in a shopping mall and the doctor gives a prescription—my noble friends have already asked how he will be paid, and, presumably, it will be done on a sessional basis—from whose budget will that come? How will it be fair either to general practices or to any other source? How will it be allocated?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Baroness asks exactly the questions to which we must work out the answers together with the professionals to ensure that the services that are offered—for example, general practice in the high street—are properly and effectively run. I believe that I made clear that initially the provision of direct services is more likely to take place in an existing NHS setting. That is one of a number of options that we are considering to improve access to high quality care. It is too early to provide the details. We have set out the direction of travel.
But we should not think only of GP services. We must build on the work that is done by community pharmacists. That is an issue about which we have spoken in your Lordships' House on many occasions. People place faith in pharmacists to provide well-informed advice, particularly on the treatment of minor ailments. We want to see the role of pharmacists generally and community pharmacists in particular extended. Not to make full and proper use of their skills and knowledge is a waste of a highly effective resource that can provide exactly the easy access to services in the high street about which we have been speaking.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 8.35 p. m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.52 to 8.35 p. m.]

Health Bill [H.L.]
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Clause 6.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, leave out line 38 and insert— ("amount, by an amount not exceeding that sum". ")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I wish to speak to a rather large group of amendments. However, I can assure the House that I shall be brief.
The amendments repair some typing and drafting errors which managed to creep into the Bill and were not spotted prior to its introduction. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 19:
After Clause 6, insert the following new clause—
Indemnity cover for Part II services (". —(1)
Before section 44 of the 1977 Act there is inserted—

549
"Indemnity cover
Indemnity cover.
43C. —

(1) Regulations may make provision for the purpose of securing that, in prescribed circumstances, prescribed Part II practitioners hold approved indemnity cover.

(2) The regulations may, in particular, make provision as to the consequences of a failure to hold approved indemnity cover, including provision—

(a) for securing that a person is not to be added to any list unless he holds approved indemnity cover;

(b) for the removal from a list prepared by a Health Authority of a Part II practitioner who does not within a prescribed period after the making of a request by the Health Authority in the prescribed manner satisfy the Health Authority that he holds approved indemnity cover.

(3) For the purposes of this section—

"approved body" means a person or persons approved in relation to indemnity cover of any description, after such consultation as may be prescribed, by the Secretary of State or by such other person as may be prescribed;

"approved indemnity cover" means indemnity cover made—

(a) on prescribed terms; and

(b) with an approved body;

"indemnity cover", in relation to a Part II practitioner (or person who proposes to provide Part II services), means a contract of insurance or other arrangement made for the purpose of indemnifying him and any person prescribed in relation to him to any prescribed extent against any liability which—

(a) arises out of the provision of Part II services in accordance with arrangements made by him with a Heallh Authority under this Part of this Act; and

(b) is incurred by him or any such person in respect of the death or personal injury of a person;

"list" has the same meaning as in section 46 below;

"Part II practitioner" means a person whose name is on a list;

"Part II services" means general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services or pharmaceutical services;

"personal injury" means any disease or impairment of a person's physical or mental condition and includes the prolongation of any disease or such impairment; and a person holds approved indemnity cover if he has entered into a contract or arrangement which constitutes approved indemnity cover.

(5) The regulations may provide that a person of any description who has entered into a contract or arrangement which is—

(a) in a form identified in accordance with the regulations in relation to persons of that description; and

(b) made with a person or persons so identified,

is to be treated as holding approved indemnity cover for the purposes of the regulations. "

550

(2) In section 29A of the 1977 Act (medical lists), at the beginning of subsection (3) there is inserted "Subject to any provision made under section 43C below, ".

(3) In section 36 of that Act (regulations as to arrangements for general dental services), in subsection (l)(b), after "below" there is inserted "to any provision made under section 43C below".

(4) In section 39 of that Act (regulations as to arrangements for general ophthalmic services), in subsection (1)(b), after "subject" there is inserted "to any provision made under section 43C below". ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I suspect that this amendment will take a little longer. The amendment makes an important contribution to help patients on the fortunately rare occasions when something goes wrong. It will ensure that GPs, dentists, pharmacists and optometrists practising in the family health services are able to meet any damages that might be awarded against them in cases of death or personal injury caused to their patients.
At the moment neither doctors nor dentists are required legally to maintain professional indemnity cover. Although those employed in the NHS, for example in an NHS trust, are covered by NHS indemnity for general medical practitioners and high street dentists, we rely on the guidance of the regulatory bodies and the professional organisations. We consider that to be unsatisfactory.
In September 1996 there was considerable interest in a case which involved a dentist in Lancashire who was continuing to practise without professional indemnity. A patient who suffered at his hands began legal proceedings to prove negligence, but at the assessment hearing the judge established that the dentist was not in benefit of professional indemnity cover at the material time. Since he had no assets, he was unable to meet the £23, 000 damages awarded; and unfortunately there have been other similar cases. To suffer harm as a result of a visit to your doctor or dentist is bad enough; to then find that you are unable to receive the compensation you deserve is of great concern. I believe that in the interests of patients clinicians should not practise on the NHS without proper professional indemnity cover.
This amendment would allow the Secretary of State to require Part II family health service practitioners— those are the professions providing general medical services, general dental services, general ophthalmic services, or pharmaceutical services—to hold indemnity cover. I should say that the vast majority of those practitioners already act responsibly by arranging suitable indemnity cover for their work. By covering all, this amendment seeks to address the small minority who are not so responsible.
The Secretary of State would be able to enforce the requirement in either or both of two ways. Regulations could specify that having approved indemnity cover is a requirement to joining a health authority list for a Part II service. Noble Lords will be aware that practitioners must be on such a list in order to provide those services on the NHS. This requirement would also specify that practitioners on the list must hold approved indemnity in order to remain on the list.
The second way the requirement could be made is that the regulations under this amendment could allow the Secretary of State to specify that the holding of

551
approved indemnity cover be set out in the terms of service for any or all of the Part II services. This would mean that, if approved cover was not held, the practitioner required to hold it would be subject to the established health authority service disciplinary committees, and ultimately to the NHS tribunal which could strike them from the health authority list in a sufficiently serious case.
The two approaches allow flexibility. The four different family health services are different from each other and also different in their relationships with the health authority under the 1977 Act. Both approaches give proper protection to patients, but would allow the Secretary of State to apply the appropriate mechanism to the circumstances.
The amendment states that the indemnity cover which must be held is to be approved indemnity cover. This is to ensure that cover is adequate to meet the anticipated level of claims and remains contemporaneous with the event giving rise to the claim. For example, we might want to ensure that adequate cover remained in place after a practitioner had ceased clinical practice to meet a claim should an adverse event come to light some years later. Approval would be given by the Secretary of State, although this could be delegated to, for example, a small representative group of interested parties set up under the regulations to carry out this function on behalf of the Secretary of State. In the interests of probity such a group would of course exclude any potential providers of indemnity cover. In forming decisions on approval of indemnity, we envisage there being consultation with the provider bodies concerned.
To provide full protection for patients, the amendment provides for the approved practitioners to hold indemnity cover which covers not just themselves—the practitioners on the health authority's list—but which also provides indemnity against claims for their assistants, deputies, employees and for any auxiliary whose work they may direct. We will also be able to ensure that health authorities review the indemnity cover held by Part II practitioners at regular intervals. Where the requirement was that indemnity must be held to remain on the health authority list, the result of failure to comply would mean removal from the list, subject to a short period of grace allowing practitioners time to put their house in order. The length of that period of grace could be specified in the regulations. As I said a moment ago, staff employed by NHS bodies, when providing services under the NHS, are covered by the present NHS indemnity scheme. The amendment does not alter or interfere with those arrangements.
We have consulted widely on these proposals among patient groups, professional bodies, and with the providers of indemnity cover. I am pleased to say that our proposals have been supported. This amendment will enable patients to be protected, and properly compensated on those rare occasions when something goes wrong. Where a patient is deserving of compensation, we believe that they should be able to receive it. I commend this amendment to the House. I beg to move.
8.45 p. m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that very clear introduction to this amendment. In principle, we firmly support the terms of the amendment. It is clearly crucial that the practitioner is covered "at the material time"—the phrase used by the Minister in his introduction—because otherwise great unfairness and injustice ensues if, having had the trauma of an injury or a failure of treatment, the patient is subsequently unable to obtain compensation in the way described by the Minister.
The vast majority of Part II practitioners do hold indemnity insurance but it is important that there is this safety net. In some ways it is highly surprising that we have not had this on the statute book before. Speaking as a solicitor, I have to hold indemnity insurance and that is true also for other professions.
It would be helpful if the Minister could deal with some points of clarification. The definition of approved indemnity cover includes cover made on prescribed terms. The Minister referred to a body which might be delegated to discuss this question. Is the Secretary of State expecting to lay down requirements which would mean GPs having to increase or to change their current level of cover? Is that in prospect or is this simply a mechanism for future change? It would be important that the consultations described by the Minister included no change to the regime currently practised by those practitioners who do have insurance.
Secondly, will there be different levels of cover for different types of practitioners? It is difficult to give a blanket definition of the level of cover that GPs in particular may need. Some of them provide only core general medical services, while others will be undertaking obstetric or child surveillance work, for instance, both of which would cover much greater liability risks. Flexibility in that prescription, so to speak, would be important.
The amendment relates only to Part II practitioners. That of course is the vast majority of practitioners, dentists and so on who provide those services. But why does it relate only to them? For instance, there are GPs working in pilot schemes who are Part I practitioners. It would be important to make sure that they too were covered by this type of indemnity insurance.
I have referred throughout to the phrase "indemnity insurance". There is the feeling, particularly among members of the medical profession, that their type of cover is not described as indemnity insurance. The kind of mutual cover which is provided by their medical defence organisations technically is described as something else: it is membership rather than indemnity insurance. That may be a technical phrase. I do not know whether it has some significance, but perhaps the Minister will be able to answer that.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as I understand it this indemnity is just for professional negligence or failure to treat the patient correctly. It in no way indemnifies the general practitioners who will be left with all these debts after 1st April. I had a dinner-time conversation with a practitioner from

553
Slough who is very disturbed at Berkshire Health Authority pushing all the debts on to the GPs' budget on 1 st April.
When I first arrived in the UK and wanted to register as a dentist, the first thing I was told I must do was to join one of the protection societies—either the Medical Protection Society or the Medical Defence Union. Towards the end of my time in practice those bodies changed and, under one of the Finance Acts, had to become insurers. Their status changed, and unfortunately the premiums went up a great deal. As I understand it, they then became insurers in the same way as any other insurer. What control do the Government have over what such bodies charge practitioners? There has been a great increase in the cost of "membership", but it is indemnity insurance. We hear that in the United States, the indemnity cover of obstetricians is exceptionally high. In this country, certain practices may become high risk and insurers may ask more from them. Will the Government decide what the limits should be and how the system should be operated?
The Minister answered that everyone in a practice would be covered. Does that mean that no one practitioner in a GP group will be responsible for himself? Is it to be a joint practice insurance which will be taken out by individuals and will cover the people working for them? Can the Minister clarify that the care assistants, physiotherapists, counsellors and so forth who GPs are concerned about losing, will also be covered by the practitioners' insurance? I support the general principle of the amendment.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. I must declare several interests: I am a dentist; I have indemnity cover; and I am a council member of the Medical Protection Society. I hate to answer on behalf of the Minister, but I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that there are different levels of indemnity for different risks in medicine and dentistry. My noble friend Lady Gardner does not have insurance, but is a member of a society which provides indemnity. It is not an insurance; one is a member of a society which takes care of its members if anything goes wrong.
The introduction of compulsory indemnity cover for doctors and dentists, providing NHS general practitioner services, is long overdue. It is an essential element in the protection of patients. Although the overwhelming majority of GPs subscribe to a medical protection organisation, the irresponsible few who do not must be made to comply. The definition of "approved indemnity cover"' in the amendment is cast in broad terms. I venture to suggest that in order to maximise patients' protection, requirements should specify the need for occurrence-based indemnity cover, which I mentioned on Second Reading. Occurrence-based cover simply means that the doctor or dentist will be indemnified provided that he or she was in benefit at the time of the incident giving rise to the claim, no matter when the claim materialises. That may of course be years after the events in question.
554
In medical cases, a claim usually occurs between three and five years after the event and in dentistry one or two years later. This cover should be compared with the usual insurance claims-made model in which both the events and claim must take place within the insurance period. Indemnity cover on a claims-made basis can, through administrative oversight or simple misunderstanding of the principle, result in patients being denied the compensation they deserve. At least one other country, Israel, is contemplating introducing a requirement for occurrence-based indemnity cover. I hope that the Minister and her advisers might consider a form of words which specified a type of cover. The mutual societies are occurrence-based, but if cover is provided by an insurance company, it is important to ensure that indemnity includes claims which have not yet been reported or claims which can arise when, for example, a GP has retired and is no longer paying a premium. I support the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what is the time in which patients or their relatives have to make a claim and who will adjudicate?
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, covered all the points about which the British Medical Association wrote to me, so I will not reiterate them. However, I wish to ask the Minister a narrow question. Have the Government taken into account those who are not employees of the National Health Service or the universities, but who by virtue of their medical schools have employees working within the health service?
I ask that question because when I was asked by the local health authority and university to be chairman of the medical research ethics committee, I was tipped the wink by a friend to ask whether I would be indemnified if the ethics committee should make a decision which ultimately resulted in liability for damages. I made the inquiry and discovered that I would not be indemnified, nor would the other lay members of the committee. Therefore, I asked to receive assurance in writing that it would be the case and I did so. However, had I not been tipped the wink I would have run considerable risk during the four years of tenure. Can the Minister reassure us that people who are not employed by the National Health Service or by a university are indemnified?
Lord Nunburnholme: My Lords, will the Minister answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham?
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, it is difficult to disagree with the principle of the amendment, but I worry about the risk of escalating costs. If indemnity insurance is known to be available on these terms, that may encourage the escalation of the compensation paid. One then fears that such an escalation will lead to higher

555
insurance premiums. Have the Government considered whether in making indemnity insurance compulsory they can prevent the escalation of large claims?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been an interesting debate. I will endeavour to answer all the questions that have been asked, but if not I shall write to noble Lords.
The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, asked how long patients have in which to make a claim. I understand that, generally, one has three years in which to make a claim for personal injury, but that can be extended in cases where the injury comes to light only at a later date. Then it would be three years from the time the injury became apparent.
A number of noble Lords asked about the potential liability outwith those employed in the NHS. The professional regulatory bodies— for example, the General Medical Council and the General Dental Practitioners Association— currently recommend that all practitioners should hold professional indemnity cover. If holding such cover were to be made mandatory for all dentists, the route to achieving that would not be through NHS legislation but through legislation concerning the dental profession. If the regulatory bodies concerned wish to take such a step, the order-making power under Clause 47 of the Bill would enable such provision to be made.
A number of questions were asked about funding. First, the charges made for indemnity cover are for market forces, but the number of practitioners who do not have indemnity cover is very small. Therefore, the additional cost to the NHS of that provision should be negligible. It is worth making the point that the cost of that cover falls to the NHS and not the practitioners personally. The cost of indemnity cover is a legitimate practitioner expense and so would fall to be reimbursed within the overall contract arrangements for GPs and dentists, as the existing arrangements made by the great majority already are. We believe that the cost will be marginal and certainly worth paying.
Perhaps I may deal with the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner. To provide full protection for patients, the amendment provides for approved practitioners to hold indemnity cover which covers not just themselves— that is, the practitioners on the health authority list— but also claims made in relation to their assistants, deputies, employees and any auxiliary whose work they may direct.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised the issue of primary care Act pilots. Those are covered by the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 and I can confirm that they are a Part I service. Health authorities are required by the direction of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to contract only with providers who undertake to ensure that all their performers have indemnity against claims for negligence.
In dealing with the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, perhaps I may refer to the issue of occurrence-based cover, which is a term used by
556
providers of cover to indicate that they will still meet claims which arise from events when the clinician was covered that only came to light later, perhaps after the period of cover has ceased. Other forms of cover could be claim-based, whereby the claim must be made during the period of cover. Under the amendment, regulations would allow the Secretary of State to specify the type of indemnity cover which would be approved.
9 p. m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the Minister has not answered my question about people who are not employed by the health service or the universities and who are lay members. That may be, as in the example I gave, members of ethics committees and other bodies connected with the health service.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, will there be different levels of cover for different types of practitioner?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the intention is to be flexible in the arrangements to reflect the situation as it is on the ground.
I should prefer to write to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, on the matter which she raised.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I believe that I heard him say that the indemnity of dental surgeons is paid for by the NHS. I believe that he will find that all general practitioners have to pay their own indemnity, whether they are working for one day or five days per week. It is not paid for by the NHS. It may well be covered indirectly by the fee structure, but they have to pay their own indemnity, whether they work for the NHS or privately.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the Minister said that there would be flexibility. Is he suggesting that there may be a possibility of a no-claims bonus?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, no. I was not suggesting that. The arrangements which are brought into play will need to reflect the points which the noble Lord made about the differing circumstances. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Directions]:
Baroness Masham of Ilton Baroness Masham of Ilton moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 7, line 17, at end insert—
("( ) The power conferred by subsection (1) shall be exercised so as to enable patients resident in an area covered by a body referred to in that subsection to be referred out of that area where appropriate for the purpose of receiving specialist hospital treatment and after-care. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I apologise to the Committee for not being present throughout the Committee stage of the Bill. The reason is that my noble kinsman, my husband, was not well and with the very

557
serious medical conditions he has, I did not have carers who were adequately trained to deal with the situation. Therefore, I had to go back to Yorkshire.
That is the reason I now bring to your Lordships on Report what I consider to be most important amendments. Amendment No. 20 deals with the general powers of the Secretary of State to issue directions to NHS bodies. The intention of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to issue directions to achieve out-of-area treatments where appropriate.
Amendment No. 48 provides that the duty of co-operation should extend to OATs, making sure that they are covered in the Bill. People are often suspicious of change. We have before us a Bill which deals with the new National Health Service. It has many changes within it. The National Health Service is something from which every family in the country benefits at some time in their lives.
I have had my life saved by the expertise provided at a centre of excellence which dealt with spinal injuries. I was transferred from an accident and emergency department of a general hospital to a spinal unit attached to a general hospital out of the area in which I was living. Because of that, I declare a personal interest in these amendments.
I founded the Spinal Injuries Association and I can tell your Lordships from first-hand experience that I have seen some terrible cases of patients who have not been transferred to a spinal unit and have been treated in a general ward of a general hospital. After many months, some of them have at last been transferred, looking like a person from Belsen—emaciated, with sepsis, pressure sores, urinary infections, contractions of the limbs and suffering from depression.
There are many supra-regional specialties which these amendments would cover such as those dealing with liver disease, cancers, HIV/AIDS, skin diseases, head and spinal injuries, special eye surgery and complicated fertility problems, to mention but a few. It is cost-effective for patients to receive correct treatment from experts who know what they are doing.
Nobody seems to know exactly who will be responsible for OATs. Will it be health authorities, primary care trusts or NHS trusts? Many doctors and patients do not trust those trusts. The Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has worked for the NHS as a hospital trust chairperson. The Minister knows how important it is for an individual patient to receive the correct treatment. My amendment refers to patients to be transferred only where appropriate.
Last Friday I had a most interesting visit to the vascular unit of St James's Hospital in Leeds. The expertise of the doctors and nurses at that specialising unit was excellent. The benefit to the patients was obvious. Very difficult conditions were being treated and the patients felt confident. The expert advice given to patients makes all the difference to them and their families. The benefit to teaching and research was also obvious. We live in a fast-developing technological age. Expensive medical equipment cannot be made available in every hospital. It is from such specialised units that the patients, universities and students can benefit.
We must keep up with the advancement of medical expertise. We must keep up the morale of staff and patients. These amendments will help to recognise the wonderful work of the experts. I hope that the Government and your Lordships will accept them. 1 beg to move.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I rise to support the two amendments. I cannot imagine for one moment that the Government will not support them. As noble Lords will be aware, it is not just the medical personnel at the specialist centres who make the difference; it is the whole team, including the nurses, the physiotherapists and the much-maligned management. The whole atmosphere of such places is geared to providing a superb service. Of course, they treat a sufficient number of these injuries to be expert in them. If a clinician has only one such case a year at his hospital, there is no way that he can acquire the expertise that obtains in the specialist hospitals.
There are also many other problems, perhaps less acute, which nevertheless are so rare and difficult to treat that they need to be concentrated in a specialist unit. Everyone in London used to send cases of a tumour, chorionepifhelioma—cancer of the womb>—to the Charing Cross Hospital because the best person worked there. Ewing's tumour of bone is another rarity and such cases tend to congregate in the Middlesex Hospital where again there is the expertise.
It is essential that that practice is allowed to continue and is encouraged under the new arrangements. We believe that it is important to have a provision on the face of the Bill so that there is absolutely no doubt that the arrangements can operate when required.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise to support strongly the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. She brings a particular understanding and expertise to this area. She has cogently put the case for this provision to be cm the face of the Bill.
We have had a discussion already in Committee on the question of out-of-area treatments and the way in which extra-contractual referrals move towards OATs. If we genuinely are to have a situation where referrals can continue to be made to specialist hospitals, that is a test as to whether or not the internal market is being done away with.
In her previous replies—if I did not misunderstand her—the Minister made it fairly clear that, although generally the commissioning contracts of P'CTs and PCGs were to cover tertiary care and specialist care, where it was necessary and where it was in the. patient's interest and at no cost to the PCT or the PCG, such a referral would take place. It is important that we have absolute confirmation of that as that is precisely the kind of treatment that the noble Baroness was talking about in terms not only of spinal injuries but also liver disease, cancer, head injuries, plastic surgery and so on, where tertiary referral will be vital.
We hope that the Government will support the spirit of the amendment, if not necessarily the precise wording. It is a litmus test. It is extremely important that

559
the new system of commissioning does not confine GPs to taking services only from within their own area. It is vital that patients have full access to expertise of the highest order outside their particular area.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I did not hear the first two minutes of her speech but I have managed to pick up the threads. I am interested in this matter because I speak from personal experience. What is aimed at in these two amendments is already in operation in the area of England in which I live. I live five miles from Huntingdon, where there is a general hospital with a certain amount of specialist treatment available.
I now draw on experience within my family. One member of my family had to go to Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge where she needed particular specialist treatment. She was operated on there and received that treatment there, but she could not have had that treatment in Huntingdon. Another member of my family, alas, had to go to a specialist unit in a hospital in Peterborough. Out-of-area treatments already take place. Under the new arrangements which the Government have in mind, I hope that that flexibility will be maintained.
9.15 p. m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, this is a matter about which I feel absolutely passionately and on which I have spoken in your Lordships' House in the past. Sadly, I fear that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is not entirely correct when he says that this practice invariably goes on. It does not. It happens in some areas of the country but not, unfortunately and regrettably, in all areas.
There is growing concern, especially in the teaching and specialised hospitals, that there is an increasing problem with the reorganisation of the health service. Although I do not want to talk about different governments and their different reforms, I do think that this started in some way with the internal market and it is still causing increasing nervousness. Many specialists have seen a falling off in out-of-area transfers. I am sorry to return to reproductive services, but my hospital in Hammersmith has seen an astonishing fall in referral practice, so much so that we now have empty operating theatres, fully staffed, waiting for patients who are not there. I was talking this week to the director of leukaemia services there and he has found similarly that patients are now not so easily able to attend his expert unit for leukaemia treatment because they are not being referred.
I believe that that is completely counter-productive to the health service. First, it reduces the research base. When I first used to lecture in the United States about what we were doing at Hammersmith Hospital, the Americans were amazed at the wealth of clinical material which an individual clinician could build up. Whereas we were building up literally thousands of cases, American doctors would see tens or perhaps hundreds of cases. We were able to do that because of
560
the remarkable pattern of referral across the nation inside the National Health Service.
Secondly, out-of-area transfers present great benefits in terms of teaching and training. That in turn allows the dissemination of excellent practice, which is very important for the training of specialists.
Above all, I hope that the Government will recognise that sensible out-of-area transfers can save money. There is no question in my mind but that at the moment we are spending more than we need. In my own area of reproductive medicine, for example, I am convinced that if we sensibly concentrated services in certain areas to which patients could easily travel, there would be a great benefit to the patients, a benefit in terms of training and research, and a saving of money. I feel strongly that there is sense behind the amendment and I hope that the Government will be able to give some kind of assurance—
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may say how grateful I am to him for putting me right. What the noble Lord has said supports the amendment and what I said about what can be done in one particular area also supports the amendment because it shows that such transfers take place elsewhere.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I feel that I hardly need to answer that point.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I feel equally strongly about this. At different times, both my parents benefited from being referred to a specialist service outside the area in which they were living, so I have some personal reason to be grateful for that.
More recently, I intervened, if that is the right word, on behalf of a lady of my acquaintance who I felt needed specialist treatment which she was not receiving in her local area. However, it proved quite difficult. Her GP was not anxious to refer her. She was not the kind of lady who was in a position to make herself felt. That was partly because of the illness from which she had suffered, which was a massive stroke. I tried to make representations to the doctor myself and in the end, very successfully, the case was referred to a specialist unit. That was to her great benefit because after a considerable number of tests something was discovered to be wrong which had not been discovered at the local level.
However, such problems should not arise. I would like an assurance from whoever answers on behalf of the Government tonight that, where a patient is anxious to have treatment out of area, no undue blocks will be placed in his or her way. Indeed, not everyone has someone to speak up for them. If there is to be equality of provision, which this Government set great store by, then it is most important that people should have equal access to the very best specialist treatment that is available.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I, too, should like to express my support for the amendment.

561
In my own district health authority, which is struggling at present with a large deficit, there is considerable pressure to limit the number of extra-contractual referrals. Therefore, what the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has said is totally true.
When we discussed another amendment earlier, we talked about the position of research and development in this country. The expertise that we have in our teaching hospitals is amazing. It is ludicrous that we are not making use of such expertise at present. If we are to maintain state-of-the-art capabilities in medicine, it is essential that we maintain the expertise here. We must make use of these out-of-area referrals. Indeed, we have centres of excellence and we must build upon them.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, as someone who might have died had I not had an out-of-area referral, I was horrified by the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. The idea that specialist units are under employed in the health service when there is so much need out there in the country fills me not only with horror but also with dismay and disquietude. The nub of this debate is to ask the Minister what provision will continue to be made—if necessary, a new provision— to ensure that the description provided by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, will no longer pertain. It is absolutely disgraceful.
Baroness Berners: My Lords, I support the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. I strongly agree with referrals to specialist hospitals. Indeed, it makes very good sense. I hope that the Government feel able to consider the amendment.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I support the principle of being able to refer people to specialist hospitals. That is absolutely right. However, I draw the line when it comes to the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Winston. For years everyone was referred to hospitals in London. It would be a great pity if there was in any way a feeling that we were making a special plea for people to come back to London. I say that because it has been beneficial for people to have centres of excellence in many different parts of the country. I hope that that will continue. Of course I would be delighted if the noble Lord, Lord Winston, were to have full occupation all the time in his hospital, but not if that disadvantaged some other equally good centre of excellence in another part of the country.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I should point out to the noble Baroness that what I said would apply equally if I were living in Leeds. It is a pure accident that I happen to work at Hammersmith Hospital. Nevertheless, the principle of what I said pertains across the country and it is true in different parts of the country. It is ludicrous to suggest that I am special pleading for London; indeed, I am certainly not.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has raised a very important matter. I certainly understand the concerns that lie behind her amendments. Indeed, other noble Lords who
562
have spoken in this debate have experienced problems which some specialist units have encountered with the operation of the internal market. I hope that I can convince the House that the arrangements which the Government are now putting in place will meet some of the concerns expressed. Of course, one needs to start by saying that it is absolutely essential that all patients have ready access to specialised treatment and care.
We are committed to promoting fair access both to NHS services generally and in particular to specialised services. In The new NHS White Paper we said explicitly that an aim of our new arrangements for planning and commissioning specialised services was to develop the more systematic approach needed if fair access is to be guaranteed.
It may be helpful if I explain in a little more detail how the new arrangements will work. Each health authority, and increasingly, each primary care group and primary care trust, will be responsible for commissioning services for their population. There is of course nothing to restrict them to commissioning services from hospitals in their own immediate area. Many will have service agreements with hospitals in neighbouring health authorities to reflect established flows of patient referrals, and many more will also enter into agreements with more distant hospitals, for example to reflect patterns of treatment for cardiac or cancer patients.
As regards specialist centres, I make it clear that funding for those services will come through long-term service agreements. The main funding route will be through the specialised commissioning arrangements. NHS Executive regional offices will be responsible for ensuring that health authorities and their primary care groups and primary care trusts come together with the clinical units concerned to agree the future pattern of services. As we said in The new NHS, the intention is to balance the population perspective of health a uthorities, primary care groups and primary care trusts as regards addressing questions of fair access with the need to support clinical units and their staff in developing the most suitable and effective care.
In their health improvement programmes, health authorities and their partners will set specialised commissioning issues alongside their local priorities. They will need, as ever, to form a balanced judgment about areas for development along a number of broad fronts. One of the criticisms of the internal market was that fragmentation of responsibility made it difficult to ensure co-ordinated planning and commissioning of specialised services. The comments of a number of noble Lords in this debate have reflected this problem of fragmentation. The noble Lord, Lord Walton, is not present at the moment, but as he pointed out earlier this evening, in some instances specialist units were uncertain as to the future flow of patients and, consequently, their future funding arrangements. The new specialised commissioning arrangements we are putting into place will offer a much more coherent and purposeful way forward. We are giving regional offices clear responsibility for ensuring proper arrangements are

563
in place, and will require all health authorities and all primary care groups and primary care trusts to participate in that.
Having said that, I cannot, of course, go so far as to say that every specialist centre will receive the funding it would like as a result. I do not think any system in the NHS has, or could, ensure that. There will still be a need for difficult judgments to be made and difficult priorities to be set, but in future there will be a clear and ordered system for ensuring that the concerns that are expressed are properly and collectively addressed by all the partners in a health region or in smaller areas respectively.
To complete the picture, the new arrangements for out-of-area treatments will cover cases which cannot readily be brought within a primary care group or trust's planned service agreements, for example, emergency admissions away from home or a rare case needing specialised treatment. Where a hospital receives referrals of this kind, that pattern will be reflected in the allocation of the health authority which is its main local commissioner. That health authority will build this funding into its own service agreements with the hospital to cover these ad hoc cases. There is no constraint here on the freedom of a GP to refer a patient in such circumstances.
I believe that these arrangements should, between them, meet the concerns of the noble Baroness. I can also confirm that the powers of direction in Clause 7 are wide enough to enable directions to be issued on this point. The scope and duty of partnership in Clause 19 is similarly broad enough to cover these arrangements. As I said in Committee, the co-operation in the commissioning and provision of specialist services is precisely the kind of issue that we see coming within the scope of that duty. In the light of my explanation and assurances I hope that the noble Baroness will consider withdrawing her amendment.
9.30 p. m.
Baroness Masham of IIton: My Lords, I wish to thank all the supporters of the amendment. I believe it is necessary to have the out-of-area treatments written on the face of the Bill. It does not matter where they may be—Leeds, London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Belfast, Middlesbrough or anywhere else—but if the specialised services are not written on the face of the Bill, which is, after all, a health service Bill, a strong emphasis is put on primary health care in the Bill, and secondary healthcare—tertiary healthcare—will seem to be forgotten.
I think that I speak for many outside the Chamber who would like our National Health Service to be the best in the world. We cannot be the best in the world unless, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, there is the clinical material necessary to carry out research and to advance in treatments. We live in a fast-advancing world. I shall read very carefully what has been said. I will go back to the supporters of the amendment and we will wait for Third Reading. The Government should
564
take this matter seriously. I consider it to be the most important matter for the advancement of our medical service. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 7, line 28, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State may direct NHS Trusts to establish that number of consultant posts recommended centrally in order to deliver a consultant-based service.
(5) In pursuance of subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall establish the appropriate mechanism to ensure that agreement is reached centrally on the relationship between the number of junior staff in training and the number of consultants required. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, as usual I declare my interest. I have a score of relatives who have been involved in the health service in this country, some of whom are still in training. In addition, I have trained hundreds of members of junior staff in hospitals, many of whom face a fairly bleak future as they seek consultant posts under the current chaotic system. The amendment is designed to help solve what must be one of the most serious manpower crises in the NHS.
First, I wish again to draw attention to the fact that there are fewer consultants per head of population in this country than any other western country with the exception of Portugal. Everyone who knows anything about this subject agrees that we desperately need more consultants in order to have a consultant-based service. That is the only way to improve the quality of care, especially as there has recently been such a large reduction in the number of hours worked by the junior staff. Secondly, there are far too many junior staff being trained for the consultant vacancies currently available. Thirdly, what makes this even more unacceptable is that at the end of their training, which takes a total of 20 years, doctors are now being sacked without, of course, redundancy payments. The NHS is a monopoly employer and there is nowhere else for them to go. When one considers the millions of pounds that have been spent on training them and the demoralisation experienced by these sacked trainees, noble Lords will realise that we have a major crisis on our hands.
If that scenario is not bad enough, noble Lords will find it difficult to believe that the NHS continues to recruit new, and therefore less experienced, trainees to fill the posts vacated by those who have just been made unemployed. Specific instructions have been given by the Department of Health to the postgraduate deans who are in charge of the employment of these trainees not to renew their contracts but instead to go on recruiting more trainees. I am not complaining; I am offering solutions. One immediate solution to the problem is to stop recruiting more trainees until this totally unacceptable situation has been sorted out.
Some senior people in the NHS maintain that we must go on recruiting junior staff to ensure that we have continuing recruitment into each specialty. We have been here before. At the end of the war and at the inception of the NHS, the number of junior staff was doubled in order to provide an opportunity for those returning from the war to specialise in hospital

565
medicine. At the same time, with the inception of the NHS, the retirement age for consultants was raised from 60 to 65. So there was a great increase in junior staff and virtually no vacancies for five years. That created enormous problems. However, the problems were eased by keeping the trainees employed. They were not sacked when they came to the end of their allotted training period, and we never had any problems of recruitment.
As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, pointed out, the problems in obstetrics are probably worse at present than in any of the other specialties. Last year, there was a 33 per cent. cut in the number of consultant posts advertised. It has been estimated that at the end of this year there will be 150 fully trained obstetricians without a job and that within two years that figure will double.
In an earlier debate I drew attention to the fact that 65 per cent. of all the medical legal cases involve obstetrics and gynaecology. The British Medical Association has pointed out that the confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy and the confidential inquiry into maternal deaths have raised questions about the lack of consultant input into these problem cases. The BMA also points out that both the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists and the Royal College of Midwives have recommended that a consultant should be on the labour ward throughout the normal working week to supervise care. Several hundred new posts will be needed to reach that standard. But. as I have mentioned, last year there was a 33 per cent. cut in the number of consultant posts advertised. Doctor Ian Bogle, chairman of the BMA Council, said recently:
"This is a human tragedy for trained experienced doctors who are being put on the scrap heap in their thirties and for the women and children who are dying because of lack of care".
When one attempts to find out who is responsible for this state of affairs, everyone points an accusing finger at someone else. The postgraduate deans say that it is the NHS Executive; the NHS Executive says that it is up to the NHS trusts; and so it goes on. It must be written on the face of the Bill who is responsible and who should correct this state of affairs. These amendments go some way towards doing that by providing on the face of the Bill that it is the Secretary of State who is responsible.
I should emphasise that we are not asking that everyone recruited into training should be given a consultant post. No one has ever suggested that. But clearly, if there are only 50 consultant vacancies a year in a particular specialty, it would be unreasonable to recruit 10 times that number of junior staff every year. There must be a sensible relationship between the number who are trained and the number who are needed. As the president of one of the Royal Colleges said today, the number of trainees should be more closely matched to the number of potential consultant appointments. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I strongly support the spirit of the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, has cogently described the unsatisfactory situation with regard to workforce planning. We had considerable debate on this issue in Committee. Since
566
then we have had the report from the Health Select Committee, which highlighted the situation in technicolour. I had not realised before I saw that report just what kind of alphabet soup we had in terms of the bodies responsible for workforce planning. We have the MWSAC, the SWAG, the MPC, LMWAGs and REDGs. We have a host of bodies, none of which, on their records so far, seem to be very effective in getting things right in terms of the number of consultants we need or the number of trainees who can go through the pipeline to become consultants.
The Health Select Committee said:
"In the longer term we recommend a major review of current planning procedures which should pay particular regard to their rationalisation and eventual replacement by an integrated planning system".
What better integrated planning system could there be than placing the responsibility where it belongs, with the Secretary of State? The amendment has considerable merits in doing just that. The result of the current planning system is headlines such as the following in The Times:
"No jobs for 400 doctors trained at a cost of £40m".
I thought that that was pretty hair-raising. Obviously the BMA is highlighting this as a campaign. Two relatives of mine are obstetricians. They are registrars and hope to become consultants in due course. The situation is worse in the area of obstetrics than in many others. However, the BMA highlights the fact that, before long, ear, nose and throat specialists, as well as cardiothoracic and renal surgeons, will face a similar problem. The situation is not satisfactory. Someone must take responsibility for making sure that we have the right numbers coming in for training and the tight numbers of jobs available when training is finished.
There are other considerations which can be added to the mix. There is the EU Working Time Directive, the impact of Caiman, training reforms and the New Deal. In addition, more doctors wish to work part-time. There are also considerations of how doctors wish to balance their family lives and their work lives. If our planning system cannot get it right, then we shall have a lot of extremely unhappy trainees and a lot of overworked consultants. I suggest that the department should look at its planning system and take on board the spirit of this amendment.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I am unaccustomed to speaking in your Lordships' House and noble Lords will therefore forgive me if I am a little slow. Certain facts need to be clarified. It is correct that a major problem has developed in the specialty of obstetrics. I declare my interest here: I am an obstetrician and until the end of September 1998 I was president of the Royal College of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. To that extent, I presided over the problem that has arisen.
There are several factors which led to the problem, and they apply to all specialties. I am currently chairman of the Specialists' Training Authority and therefore sign every certificate in every specialty when a trainee completes the specialist training, and I know how many

567
certificates I have signed. There are more than we originally thought there would be. The problem will occur in other specialties.
The problem has come about because some four-and-a-half years ago we changed our way of training in post-graduate medicine and made it more structured than it was before. The noble Lord, Lord McColl of Dulwich, referred to that. It meant that when a trainee completed the training he or she was issued with a certificate of completion of specialist training, which identified that trainee and enabled him or her to apply for a consultant post in the NHS. The numbers of trainees entering the programme are controlled by a complicated formula worked out by the Specialist Workforce Advisory Group every year for every specialty.
Four-and-a-half years ago, when so-called Calman training was introduced, the contention was that the NHS would move towards a more consultant-based service. What is a consultant-based service as opposed to a consultant-led service? It is a service whereby most if not all treatment is provided by fully trained specialists. We are moving more and more towards a service provided by non-consultants. That is the third problem. Trusts are appointing more non-consultant career grades on short-term contracts rather than longer-term consultant contracts. There are many issues to be teased out.
After the reforms in training, the question arises of how we want to man the medical workforce in the NHS. The public want treatment by fully trained people and those who are not trained or who are in training to be supervised. If that is the intention, many issues must be addressed.
The amendments highlight the problem but I am not sure that they go far enough. A complete review is needed of medical workforce planning. Another problem is that in general practice recruitment is poor, while in specialist services overall, it is good.
Lord Winston: My Lords, the hour is late and I do not want to detain the House but I am absolutely obliged to speak briefly to the amendment because it concerns another area about which I feel passionately. I will tell my noble friend the Minister a brief story about one of the people on my own unit to highlight the seriousness of the problem. She has completed her training. She got an excellent degree at Cambridge and has three higher degrees, including a doctorate and a distinction. In September, she will be redundant. She is one of the most deft surgeons we have trained and she is excellent with patients.
It seems extraordinary that such people can be on the scrap heap of their speciality. That applies to obstetrics at the moment but, as the noble Lords, Lord McColl and Lord Patel, said, it will apply to other specialities. I agree that this may not be precisely the right amendment but it is a critical issue for the health service. Given that there is growing public expectation of a consultant-led service and growing risks of litigation, particularly in obstetrics and gynaecology—
568
with the need for consultants to be on the labour ward— I beg the Government to examine the issue closely and with a degree of urgency.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, this bullet must clearly be bitten by the Government and I hope the Minister will say that it is being bitten. Whether the type of biting will be acceptable to your Lordships remains to be seen.
The nub of the new amendment is in new subsection (5). As I read the Bill, subsection (4) is not necessary. Under Clause 7(1) and (2), the Secretary of State may give directions to health authorities and NHS trusts on virtually anything. In my book, the nub of all this and arguably the solution—I should like to hear what the Minister has to say—is new subsection (5) of the amendment, rather than the two together.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord McColl, has returned to the very important issue of consultant and medical workforce planning. I do not believe that there is any doubt that anyone who has lived and worked within the NHS for many years would acknowledge that this is a matter that we have struggled with to get right. We still have difficulty in meeting some of the points raised tonight by noble Lords. To get the right balance between national strategy and the issues that face those who run the health service locally is very difficult. I am not convinced that to take a directional approach from the centre is the right way forward.
Clearly, we must ensure that medical and other workforce planning reflects forecast service needs and available resources. It is in the interests of both the NHS and those in training that we get this right. But the amendment goes on to specify a power to require that local posts be created to match a central forecast or recommendation. That surely goes too far. The noble Lord, Lord McColl, himself acknowledged this evening that no one suggested for a moment that all those trained in a specialty should be guaranteed jobs. As my noble friend the Minister said when the noble Lord raised similar matters in relation to Clause 8 during Committee stage, the Government reject as a matter of principle that direction should play a part in medical workforce planning. We prefer to work in co-operation with NHS trusts.
The whole experience of the NHS shows that unless one balances out national medical workforce planning and the needs of local NHS services one will never be able to deal with the problem successfully. NHS trusts are themselves in the best position to judge the staffing and grade mix required to deliver high quality patient services within the framework of their local health improvement programme and service agreements with local health authorities and primary care groups and trusts. In making those judgments they will also be guided by the requirements of clinical governance.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel, spoke about responsibility; and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about a circle of responsibility. Noble Lords will be aware that in terms of the relationship between the number of junior doctors in training and the number of

569
consultants the Speciality Workforce Advisory Group and its associated processes already exist to provide a central assessment both of likely future service needs for consultants and the number of staff in training needed to supply them. Both NHS management and the main professional interests are directly represented on this group. That is of crucial importance because, almost for the first time, it has brought together those people concerned with workforce planning at national level and those concerned with managing services at local level.
Every year this group agrees its recommendation to Ministers about the number of higher specialist training places needed to fill consultant posts in the future on the basis of input from the colleges, NHS management, educationists and other interested bodies. We believe that these arrangements ensure that national workforce planning is properly informed by the local NHS perspective. This should mean in turn that NHS trusts' local workforce decisions are informed by the national planning to which they have contributed. But to go beyond this and pre-empt individual local decisions would go far too far. For that reason I cannot therefore support the amendments.
I stress that while the Government do not believe that these amendments are the right way forward, they nonetheless recognise the real issues to be addressed. Matching forecast demand with planned supply is a complex issue, especially for a multi-disciplinary service like the NHS, with a long period involved in completing full medical training.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, perhaps I may put one point to the Minister. The tone of his response is variable, which I find interesting. He said that he did not believe that a directional approach was the right one. When I read these amendments I cannot see such an approach. It is a matter of establishing the appropriate mechanisms at the centre rather than a directional approach.
In the Minister's response, I did not hear him say that the current system is not working well. Clearly there is a crisis. SWAG may have brought people together but, having brought them together, is it effective? We may be living on past rather than current methods of planning.
I am sorry to ask the Minister a rather long question. However, from the tone of his response it does not sound as though there is a great sense that the current system is inadequate.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I did not mean to give the impression that I am complacent about the issues which noble Lords have raised. Indeed, my experience in the NHS is that medical workforce planning and the tying of it into service needs has been one of the most difficult issues faced by the NHS. Simply taking directional powers to specify the number of consultants posts centrally is not necessarily the most appropriate and practical way forward.
One of the problems that we have had over many years is that the needs of the service have not been matched sufficiently with medical workforce planning
570
decisions made at the centre. That is why it is so important that in this SWAG group, almost for the first time, people managing the service in the field are working and meeting face to face with the people concerned with the number of doctors and specialists who are to be trained in the future. I believe that is a significant advance.
But we are talking about long lead times. I do not think that one will ever get the situation exactly right. Of course it takes time for improvements to come through. I believe that I made that clear in my remarks. I believe that one can point to some improvements in addressing shortages in specialties such as anaesthetics and accident and emergency. Nevertheless, I believe that minimizing shortages or oversupply remains a difficult balancing act.
I accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Patel, suggested, that many issues remain to be sorted out. Improving the way in which national and local planning mesh together is important. Our intention is that the health improvement programme process will ensure better local links between service planning and identification of the workforce consequences both for medical posts and other professional groups. At the same time we are looking at ways of improving the linkages between local planning and the way in which the picture is drawn together at regional and national level. We recognise and are committed to the need to strengthen those arrangements.
We have discussed the particular concerns over obstetrics and gynaecology. I do not think that I can add a great deal to what my noble friend said in Committee on those issues. We recognise the concerns about job prospects for those completing higher specialist training in that specialty. That is why arrangements were made for postgraduate deans to give one-off extensions to specialist registrar contracts for 18 months to allow more time for those involved to seek posts. Postgraduate deans will be keeping closely in touch with those concerned as the period comes to an end for the first group, to offer advice about job and other opportunities. In parallel we have already reduced the number of higher specialist trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology so as to try to bring supply and demand back into balance.
I listened again to the prescription of the noble Lord, Lord McColl, that no new trainees should be taken on until all who have completed training have consultant posts. But that would have a negative effect. It would effectively close down the specialty for at least two years, making it difficult to generate recruitment after that time.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I have not suggested that we stop all training in obstetrics; what I suggested was whether, as we are making 100 redundant every year, it is sensible to recruit more. The plans are to recruit 65 starting in April of this year and that has been agreed at the Department of Health. Why?
I suggest that we do not recruit 65 this year. How on earth can that possibly be disruptive to the service, when all these people are there? I suggest that we do what we

571
used to do in the old days: do not sack them; keep them on, but stop bringing in more trainees who are less experienced. Why do we not do that?
The junior staff in this country will be in utter despair when they read what the noble Lord has just said. They will realise that he gives the impression that he does not understand what he is talking about. Could I have an answer to the question why we do not stop the recruitment of trainees for just one year? That would do something, though I think that it should be done for several years.
Could I also ask the noble Lord about the £5.4 million which has been taken out of the obstetrics training budget this year and given to another specialty? Why could not that be used to create more consultant posts?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I must remind the House that this is Report stage and the Minister is winding up on an amendment. It would be very useful if noble Lords refreshed themselves from the Companion for guidance on procedure in relation to the Report stage of this Bill.
10 p. m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I am grateful for the clarification by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, of the point he is raising. He is presumably suggesting that the recruitment of trainees be stopped for a certain period. I believe that that would have a negative effect on future recruitment to the specialty overall.
Nevertheless, we have reduced the number of higher specialist trainees in obstetrics and gynaecology in order to try to bring supply and demand back into balance. As my noble friend explained at Committee stage, a working group with membership drawn from the medical and midwifery professions and from NHS management has been exploring every angle to improve the staffing position in this specialty. A way forward has now been agreed. We shall launch a series of local workshops, including NHS trusts, health authorities, the professions and others to take the agenda forward.
There clearly can be no complacency about the matters which have been raised by noble Lords in this debate. I do not believe that the amendment itself offers the appropriate way forward but the comments which have been made have been extremely valuable and I will ensure that those are communicated to the people most concerned with these issues.
We are dealing with difficult issues to which, to my certain knowledge, the NHS has not found a solution in the 50 years or more of its existence. I believe that the only sensible and proper way forward is by a continuing dialogue between those responsible for setting targets and dealing with medical workforce issues at a national level and those responsible for managing the National Health Service at a local level. I believe that we have the machinery to enable that to happen. It will not be easy and it will take time; nonetheless, I think that we
572
have the right mechanism with which to deal with the issue. On that basis, I ask the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I apologise for speaking in an intervention; I thought that I was responding to the amendment. The Minister's reply was disappointing, and a large number of junior staff will be utterly dismayed. Indeed, patients will become more apprehensive as they see their services deteriorating. I cannot for the life of me imagine why the Government cannot stop training this year and possibly next. There is no way in which that will make a hole in the service. We have been there before, we did that years ago, and there was no lack of recruitment or continuity in the service when trainees were retained instead of being sacked. It is a myth and I do not understand how it was perpetuated. And it will be seen as a myth by the vast number of trainees who are looking forward to a solution to the problem.
The Minister today and the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, previously said that the Government did not believe in diktat. It was not so long ago that the Secretary of State threatened to sack all the chief executives of the trusts if they did not reduce the number of people on the waiting lists. We all know that the number is irrelevant; what matters is how long they wait. If he can do that with something as irrelevant as the number of people on the waiting list, why can he not say to the NHS trusts, "We have a problem. We would like you to restore the 33 per cent. cut made last year in the number of new consultant obstetric posts"? The problem is so serious that I wish to test the opinion of the House.
10.7 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 21) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 30; Not-Contents, 71.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Annaly, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe, E.

Belstead, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Berners, B.

Inglewood, L.

Blackwell, L.

Kingsland, L.

Burnham, L. [Teller.]

Lyell, L.

Butterworth, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L

Coleraine, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Colwyn, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Cox, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Dundonald, E.

Renton, L.

Fookes, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Stockton, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Wise, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Wynford, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Ahmed, L.

Bach, L.

Alli, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Amos, B.

Berkeley, L.

573

Bragg, L.

Judd, L.

Burlison, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Lockwood, B.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Crawley, B.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

Davies of Oldham, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

[Teller.]

Desai, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Dixon, L.

Monkswell, L.

Donoughue, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Dubs, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Murray of Epping Forest, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Famington of Ribbleton, B.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Grenfell, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hacking, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Hardie, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Sawyer, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Sefton of Garston, L.

Hayman B.

Simon, V.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Hollis of Heigham. B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Hoyle, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hughes, L.

Thomas of Macclesfield, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Thornton, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Uddin, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

Varley, L.

Warner, L.

Islwyn, L.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.15 p. m.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Establishment orders]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 9, line 2, at end insert—
("( ) The functions which shall be specified in an order under subsection (1) above include a duty to comply with any direction the Secretary of State may make in respect of the establishment of an occupational health service. ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an important amendment, but it is an amendment not without some irony. Last week the Minister for Public Health, Tessa Jowell, launched the healthy workplace initiative, which is designed to encourage employers to commit themselves to improve health in the workplace. Better health in the workplace leads to better productivity, fewer accidents and less absence through sickness. That is all extremely worthwhile.
Unfortunately, there is one organisation in which health, safety and welfare are not universally guaranteed, and that is the NHS. Access to occupational health services in the NHS throughout the UK is patchy, particularly in the primary care sector. It is true that there exists guidance from the NHS Executive on occupational health policy, but that guidance is only "commended"; it is not monitored, nor enforced. Meanwhile, prosecutions of health authorities and trusts for breaches of health and safety legislation are on the increase. That is bad for staff and bad for patients.
The NHS should have an across-the-board facility to provide occupational health services for members of the NHS workforce. Those services could be organised and co-ordinated regionally. Within a district the organisation could be undertaken by an occupational health doctor and a senior occupational health nurse, alongside a human resources officer. That team would share accountability with the health authority.
The responsibility should not stop at that level. The NHS Executive should take the ultimate responsibility for monitoring the availability of occupational health services across the NHS. One million people work within the National Health Service. At a time when patient demand is increasing and staff numbers are low, it is all the more important that there should be proper professional structures in place, designed to help reduce work stress, eliminate hazards in the workplace, ensure the provision of lifting and handling equipment and carry out those matters identified in the Green Paper, Our Healthier Nation, aimed at raising standards of health. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the amendment. As the noble Earl said, of course, it is good to see the launch of the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive sign-up campaign. That must be translated into action within the health service.
There are certainly a number of particular cases where occupational health services are badly needed and one only needs to read representations made in connection with the amendment, particularly from the Royal College of Nursing, to understand the need for occupational health services. There are areas where, because of the independent contractual status of GPs, GP practice nurses—there are 18, 000 such nurses—have no access to occupational health services. Research by the University of Sheffield found that nurses in general are 40 per cent. more likely to suffer stress than are other groups of professional and technical workers. One could relate this to a whole range of professionals working in the health service. It is clearly important that all should have a high level of occupational health service available to them. I support the noble Earl in his amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, the noble Earl has raised a very important issue. In the past, perhaps the NHS has not done as well as it ought with regard to occupational health.
Legislation already exists in relation to the: provision of occupational health services for employees. Section 2(1) of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 lays a duty on every employer,
"to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, the health, safety and welfare at work of all his employees".
This is viewed by the Department of Health and the Health and Safety Executive, in their capacity as inspecting authority, as placing upon NHS management a duty to provide comprehensive occupational health services for their staff. This provision forms part of all inspections by health and safety inspectors and failure

575
to provide an adequate service can result in the issuing of an improvement notice or result, where necessary, in prosecution.
The NHS Executive has further strengthened this line by including the provision of quality occupational health services for all staff as an objective in the new framework for managing human resources—Working Together, Securing a quality workforce for the NHS. This document sets out the framework for improving the health, welfare and working conditions of all NHS staff and raises these issues to the top of the management agenda where they should be.
Research carried out for the NHS Executive in March 1998 suggests that all NHS employees have access to occupational health services provided by their employers. The quality of provision varies and this is being addressed as part of the human resources strategic framework, Working Together.
The NHS Executive issued The Management of Health, Safety and Welfare Issues for NHS Staff in the spring of 1998 setting out details of what constitutes a comprehensive occupational health service and encouraging NHS employers to work towards this for their staff. This has been extremely well received by the field and is being widely used as the standard for negotiating provision by outside contractors.
I very much take the noble Earl's point about the importance of occupational health services in the NHS. I believe that that is a shared aim. I hope that I have explained that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 lays down the duties that the NHS is already required to undertake. Taking that and the management action which I have described into account, I hope that the noble Earl will find this reassuring and will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I do find it reassuring, at least in part. By the noble Lord's own admission, the system across the country has been patchy: in some places it has worked reasonably well, although in others it has not. Clearly, there is work to be done. I worry that although, as the Minister rightly pointed out, duties are enshrined in law, there is not a tight enough system to enable shortcomings to be identified and corrected, as they should be. However, with those words, and in view of the hour, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 13 [Duty of quality]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 11, line 8, after ("arrangements") insert (", including identifying adequate resources, ").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is designed to highlight one of life's simple truths—that in healthcare, as in any other area, you get what you pay for. If you believe in a quality agenda—clearly, we all do although we may disagree about the means to that end—you have to invest the money and the support staff to ensure that you achieve it. The commission for health improvement needs to do its job properly and it has a wide remit. I do not know—perhaps the Minister can
576
tell us—what it will cost to set up and run the commission and how many employees the Government expect it to have; nor do I know what kind of additional funding will be made available to trusts to enable them to put the necessary systems in place to implement the new statutory requirements. Where is the money to be found and how much money will be needed?
I very much hope that the Minister will not say that each trust will need to find the necessary money from within existing budgets. That implies a knock-on effect to other parts of the service. We hear a great deal about the additional resources that the Government have committed to the NHS over the rest of this Parliament. If they mean business on delivering quality, I should have thought that this is one area that ought to have a call on that additional pool of resources.
The way that the quality agenda is supported centrally will have a very big impact on the degree of credibility carried by the policy as a whole once it is put into practice. Trying to implement the quality agenda on the cheap simply will not work because no one will have confidence in the results. The results will depend on assessments that have an objective basis to them. As I said in Committee, to judge the performance of a surgeon or of a specialist you need a reliable series of bench-marks which are themselves compiled from representative data on outcomes. It is a fact that at present very few specialist disciplines have such information available. Therefore, does the Minister agree that a great deal of data collection and analysis will need to be done in the first instance to enable the commission to do its work? If so, how is that to be funded and in what way will it be done?
My second quite separate question relates to the revalidation of GPs. The proposals for revalidation are not yet fully worked out, but it is already clear that testing the competence of a GP to continue practising will not be a cheap exercise. Revalidation is a concept which brings together two of the big issues in the Bill; namely, the quality agenda and the self-regulation of the medical profession. To what extent are the Government prepared to consider helping with the costs that this will inevitably entail? I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to express my support for the amendment. As we on these Benches have made clear, we support the establishment of the commission for health improvement. As in education, we recognise that there are many ways in which the quality of service provision can be raised. Just as Ofsted in education is a mechanism for stimulating and monitoring improvements, so we see the new commission as having that responsibility in health.
However, as in education, the new quality framework is not costless, as the noble Earl made clear. Anyone present in the Chamber who has been a school governor will know the time and energy required from all teachers, especially the top management team, to prepare the necessary documentation for a full inspection. Exactly the same will be true of CHIMP. Sufficient time, money and, indeed, support must be

577
invested to make it work properly. This amendment looks to the Secretary of State to allocate sufficient funding to meet these requirements. We fully support it.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I, too, strongly support the amendment. I do so because I believe that resources are absolutely essential. I mentioned earlier tonight—and I repeat it now—that even at this stage when we are just getting to primary care groups, let alone to other issues with which we shall deal later, the resources are not there. I have in mind, for example, the Berkshire health authority. I mentioned Slough, which is an area with a great many single-handed practitioners and quite a deprived population. There is no communication between practices and many people have to work on their own. Others do not have a computer; indeed, some of them have non-matching computers. The debts being passed on from Berkshire health authority are enormous.
If things are so bad, and if something does not happen on 1st April, how will we know the outcome? Unless we can be confident that there is adequate resourcing for the next much more important stage after the PCGs, I believe that we need this amendment. It crystallises the whole issue as regards these necessary resources. I support it.
10.30 p. m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have had a brief but interesting debate on the link between resources and service quality. However, I should point out to the House that the amendment as it stands does not deal with the commission for health improvement; indeed, it deals with the duty of quality which is to be placed on primary care trusts. However, I would not wish that to stand in the way of debate on how quality is resourced.
As I say, I recognise that there are important links between resources and service quality, although perhaps a recurrent theme that I have been trying to put forward in looking at quality is that high quality services sometimes are also cost-effective services, and sometimes improvement and investment in quality lead to longer term savings. I believe that that was the point that the noble Lord, Lord McColl, made earlier; namely, that it may be more cost effective to employ highly qualified staff than to pay the costs of litigation that may arise if one does not employ them. That leads me to say that special funding for quality cannot be ring-fenced or handled through a separate stream of funds. The whole quality agenda of the Government is concerned with the way we use all resources, not just some resources that are earmarked for improving quality.
As regards revalidation, it is premature to consider the costing of that. The GMC has only recently taken a view on that issue. There is a great deal to do. It has not made any attempt to assess the financial implications of the proposals. Even if the individual clinician bore the costs of any assessment requirements, there would be implications for NHS employers in terms of providing locum cover and possible remedial training costs. We would not wish to attribute the ongoing costs of CPD,
578
which would of course underpin the success of any revalidation system. There are important issues to be explored there.
As I say, this amendment is concerned with putting a duty on primary care trusts and NHS trusts to put in place arrangements to monitor and improve the quality of healthcare they provide to individuals. The amendment would require them also to identify adequate resources for this. It is, of course, important that the arrangements which trusts put in place are backed up by the appropriate resources. As I say, in some instances investment in quality may lead to a longer term saving.
However, in placing a duty on NHS trusts and primary care trusts to identify adequate resources, the amendment would appear to be giving them some responsibility for the size of the total sum of resources available to them. That would be to impose on them a responsibility which they could not reasonably discharge. It is, and has always been, the proper responsibility of government to determine the appropriate level of resources for the NHS. It is likewise the responsibility of government to make arrangements to promote the fair distribution of resources to health authorities and now for health authorities to arrange allocation to their primary care groups and their primary care trusts.
The roles which can properly be discharged locally include decisions through the health improvement programme process on how the resources available to the local healthcare system can best be deployed to respond to national and local priorities and needs. Our forthcoming guidance on clinical governance will make clear that if issues with significant resource implications emerge from that process, they should be explored in the context of the health improvement programme. In addition, NHS trusts and those primary care trusts with direct responsibility for providing services will, of course, need to have regard to the implications for service quality in deciding how best to deploy their own resources. That is already encompassed within the duty as drafted,
"to put and keep in place arrangements for … improving the quality of health care".
We believe these proper local responsibilities in the matter of deploying resources to maintain and improve service quality are already properly covered. So far as responsibility for securing resources is concerned, the Government have no intention of trying to confer their own proper role on others. Our recognition of the challenges facing the NHS informed the results of our comprehensive spending review when we committed an extra £18 billion to the NHS in England over three years. Noble Lords who can remember as far back as seven o'clock this evening will remember that I announced the investment this coming year of an extra £100 million into modernising A&E departments and improving rapid access to professional advice and help for patients. All those things are about improving quality within the NHS and providing the resources so to do. This time of night is perhaps not the best time for an extended debate on expenditure records or the pressures and opportunities facing the NHS. However, I suggest

579
to the House that an amendment to this clause to confer on NHS trusts and primary care trusts a responsibility that they are simply not in a position to discharge is not the best way forward.
10.30 p. m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her comments on the amendment. I take her point that I am guilty of going wide of the amendment in addressing the issue of resources for the quality agenda generally, including the commission for health improvement. But the point that the amendment seeks to bring out is that, with a duty placed upon them to improve the quality of healthcare as the clause demands of them, primary care trusts and NHS trusts cannot just shrug off the issue of how that will be paid for. While they may not have a responsibility to provide those resources, they must address those issues. However, I shall read carefully what the Minister said and reflect further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 25:
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 promotion of health, ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the definition in the Bill of health care:
"health care' means services for or in connection with the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness".
Amendment No. 25 is designed to ensure that the definition is rather wider. It seeks to add the words,
"including, without prejudice to the generality of this section, general clinical care as well as medical treatment, and the promotion of health".
That is similar to, but significantly different in one respect from the amendment which we put forward from these Benches in Committee. The difference is that we seek to include the words "and the promotion of health".
In Committee the Minister's case was that the existing definition was wide enough and would cover many of the points on general clinical care raised in our amendment. In Committee the noble Baroness said:
"The duty, we believe, is broad enough to cover not only medical interventions but certainly nursing care". —[Official Report, 1/3/99; col. 1384.]
At face value, that is a perfectly fair statement. But the more one looks at that definition, the more one sees that it does not cover all the cases it should cover if the duty of quality is to mean anything. In particular, let us consider the reception of pregnant women or the position of women immediately after childbirth. That surely is not covered by "illness". I cannot believe that that is the case. The termination of pregnancy is not "illness". I could cite a number of other aspects; for example, the carrying out of surgical procedures under anaesthesia. That is not always a question of illness. They are procedures often carried out on perfectly well people. This means that the definition is certainly faulty in that respect.
The second respect in which it is faulty is that it refers to the prevention of illness. Surely that is not the same as the promotion of health. The prevention of illness is much narrower in scope. The promotion of health is, as the Minister said, very much something for which the PCTs will be responsible in their new incarnations. Having wrestled with this point since the Committee stage, I believe that there is a case for the department to consider the definition and come back with something rather wider. Otherwise, the duty of quality will not carry the weight that is being placed on it in the Bill. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I support this amendment. It is phrased in a different way from the similar amendment that was moved in Committee. The Minister argued in Committee that it was unnecessary to expand the definition of health care in the way proposed. I, too, have re-read her remarks. I confess that I am still uncertain about the matter. In particular, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I wonder whether the prevention of illness is the same as the promotion of health. It does not seem to me to be the same. Nor am I certain whether the treatment of illness includes the kinds of nursing activity referred to so powerfully by Christine Hancock at last week's RCN congress: an end to mixed sex wards; the privacy and dignity of the patient; emotional support; the absence of noise on a ward, and so on.
If a nurse is instrumental in planning the discharge of a patient successfully from hospital and providing information to the patient, is that really part of the patient's treatment? Similarly, if a nurse with expertise in pain control alleviates a patient's physical distress, is that necessarily part of the treatment of an illness, or is it rather an example of a much broader type of care? I do not know the answer to that. But if there is any doubt about it, some words, such as those in the amendment, should be included in the Bill. General clinical care is too important a part of the quality agenda to be left to argument in court as to what is meant by treatment of an illness.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I do not have any quarrel whatsoever with the general thrust of argument used in support of this amendment. I hope that I signalled that when we had a similar debate in Committee. However, we return to matters of drafting. Perhaps I may try to clarify further why we believe that these amendments are not necessary to encompass exactly the kinds of activity mentioned.
We define "health care" in the duty in Clause 13(4)as,
"services for or in connection with the prevention, diagnosis or treatment of illness".
I draw the attention of the House to the words, "or in connection with", which significantly broaden the scope of the definition.
"Illness" as defined at Section 128(1) of the 1977 Act explicitly includes,
"any injury or disability requiring medical or dental treatment or nursing".

581
Again, I draw the attention of the House explicitly to the inclusion of nursing care. It is clear, when one examines the Bill carefully—although I am the first to concede that one needs to look below the surface—that there is no question of the definition of health care equating solely with medical care.
It is our belief and intention that the duty covers all those basic aspects of patient care which impact in one way or another on an individual's health and recovery. So far as a hospital is concerned, I see those as including cleanliness and hygiene, nutrition, and so forth. The HAS 2000 Report highlighted concerns that elderly patients in particular should be confident of basic care and nutrition as part of their hospital treatment and care. I am sure that none of us would dissent from that.
I do not believe that the addition of "general clinical care" on the face of the Bill would add to what is already there. One would then have to define that in a more precise way, and I cannot immediately think how that might be done in a way that addresses areas not already covered by the existing definition of health care.
I suggest that we also need to think very carefully about what would in practice be added to the duty if we were to add "promotion of health" to "prevention of illness". It is important to remember that we are dealing with a duty of quality related to the role of NHS trusts and primary care trusts in providing services. I can see that one might argue for a broader view of health-promoting activity in connection with the role of health authorities and primary care trusts in working with local government to promote the health of local communities in a wider sense. But I suggest that that is the territory of the duty of partnership. So far as the provision of health care by NHS bodies to individuals is concerned—that is what the duty of quality is all about—activities related to the prevention of illness will surely also have a health promoting effect and vice versa. One can think of examples of activities such as immunisation, smoking cessation support, healthy eating advice, and all kinds of things that noble Lords were stretching to ensure would be covered in the definition. They all relate to both the promotion of good health and the prevention of illness and are therefore encompassed by the duty as currently drafted. Indeed, the very act of providing high quality treatment and care plays its part, one might argue, in promoting better health.
I certainly share the view that the NHS should be just that: a health service, not merely a sickness service. But I believe that, for the purposes of the duty of quality, "prevention of illness" is a broad enough term to cover all that is intended. However, in the spirit of reading through the entrails after our previous debate, as noble Lords have done, I shall be happy, in the light of the specific points that have been raised in the debate, to check once again that nothing which has been pinpointed as essential in the contributions that noble Lords have made tonight is beyond the scope of the present definition. I hope that, with that assurance, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Clement-Jones: I thank the noble Baroness for that response, particularly the latter part of it. I was becoming worried towards the end that pride of
582
authorship was so strong that there was no way that there was going to be any improvement on that definition of "health care". Clearly I think that there should be. It is a genuine concern. One wants to make sure that the services that the noble Earl and I mentioned are covered. I thank the noble Barones;s for her undertaking to look again to see whether the definition can be improved. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 [The Commission for Health Improvement]:
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones moved Amendment No. 26:
Page 11, line 20, at end insert—
("( ) The Commission for Health Improvement shall, except in exceptional circumstances, be guided by the relevant national service frameworks, the standards set by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence and other relevant national standards as regards best practice in clinical care and treatment. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the hour is late and I think that it would probably be more suitable to have a debate on this important aspect at a later stage of the Bill. We had some debate on the matter in Committee. It relates to the important area of postcode prescribing and the way in which many groups feel that there is no rhyme or reason for the way in which certain health authorities allow prescribing of certain drugs. I have particularly in mind beta-interferon for MS sufferers and Aricept for those who suffer from Alzheimer's disease, but I could cite many other examples. The concern is that the commission, which is a potentially powerful new body, should be guided by national standards in order to ensure that there is not a continuation of that postcode prescribing.
At Committee stage the Minister rather chided me for proposing too limited an amendment in that the only national standards and guidelines referred to were those produced by NICE. Of course, there were national service frameworks. I have attempted to cure that in this amendment by including the important national service frameworks. The Minister said in Committee:
"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". —[Official Report, 1/3/99; col. 1389.]
Neither do I. I am perfectly happy to bring in the national standards. There were other national standards, and the noble Earl introduced an interesting amendment on those in Committee. It is, however, extremely important that NICE's standards are enforced by CHIMP. If that is not the case, what is NICE there for? Is everything purely voluntary within the health service?
The noble Baroness said that the Government would be concerned if there were an unacceptable delay in the implementation of guidance. She acknowledged that the Secretary of State for Health had the power to enforce compliance with NICE guidance under the terms of the National Health Service Act 1977. But she gave no commitment that the Government would use those powers to enforce the guidance. For instance, if CHIMP spotted in its reviews that a particular trust was not

583
observing the national service framework, what would be the consequence of that? What is a reasonable delay to expect an NHS trust to encounter before putting the national service framework into practice?
All in all, it is extremely important that the standards of NICE and those of the national service framework are enforced by the commission. There is a suspicion among many of the bodies that have promoted the amendment that the reason for not making NICE or national framework standards enforceable is cost—that automatically central funding will be required to ensure that local health authorities and trusts act on the recommendation, for example, to introduce a new drug. When the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, was Minister of State, she told an all-party group on MS in April 1998 that the Treasury was resistant to making NICE guidance mandatory for precisely that reason. If that is the case, it is worrying.
It is notable that in the case of the notorious 1995 beta-interferon circular to which I referred in Committee, the department did not provide extra money to assist the introduction of the new drug, even though that was national policy. There are issues here. The amendment is based on somewhat unhappy experience as a result of that circular and continuing forms of postcode prescribing. I hope that the Minister will be able to give extra comfort in that respect.
Of course one does not want national standards to be enforced in an over-prescriptive way. We had that debate in Committee. Nobody believes that is the best way forward. There has to be flexibility and understanding of the fact that different trusts operate in different ways. The broad principle that the national standards should be enforceable is one that a great many people support. I commend the amendment to the House. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have a little difficulty with this amendment. If one takes, for the sake of argument, a benign view of NICE's role and the way that the commission will operate, we are back to the point made by my noble friend Lord Renton the other day in another context, which was,
"Expressio unius est exclusio alterius".
In other words, if one mentions one thing on the face of the Bill, one is by implication excluding other things.
I agreed with the Minister when she said in Committee that it is not only the guidance from NICE and relevant national standards that the commission will want to take account of but a broader range of issues— especially those relevant to particular circumstances.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, the phrase "except in exceptional circumstances" is most unsatisfactory. We are talking here about guidance, not rigid adherence to a rule book. If it is said that the commission ought to be guided by the standards set by NICE, that implies that the system will allow some discretion and latitude. If one qualifies that by citing "exceptional circumstances", the messages that go out will be rather more confused. I return to the point that we do not want and cannot have the word
584
"guidance" used as a synonym for direction, yet there are overtones of just that in the amendment by virtue of the phrase "except in exceptional circumstances".
Clinical governance will only work and be acceptable to the medical profession if it is administered with a light touch and there is built-in flexibility. I am uneasy about the amendment for those reasons.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe. It would be difficult if the commission were only to take guidance from NICE and national service frameworks. As I understand it, NICE will not only advise about the appropriate use of drugs, but issue guidelines, and that is what they are—guidelines. Local hospitals and clinicians will develop appropriate protocols. Other organisations, not least the colleges, produce guidelines. It is inappropriate if the only standards to be used are those of NICE.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have returned briefly to a subject that evoked strong feelings in our debates at Committee stage. I have no quarrel with the broad objectives of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in moving this amendment. The setting of national standards will play a key part in delivering a truly national health services and ensuring that patients receive the best care. Our intention is clear. We want an NHS that offers dependable, high standards of care and treatment everywhere. The problems and distrust created by completely unacceptable variations in access to services and prescribing that have been echoed tonight are clear. The care provided should be appropriate to people's needs and effective in drawing on the best available clinical evidence and maximising health gain for the population. That is what drives our quality programme. At other points in the debates I have said that I believe that to be a comprehensive and coherent approach.
We take seriously the business of raising standards and promoting the consistent application of the best evidence. There is no difference between us as to that aim. But I share with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, concerns about the exact strength of the touch and how dirigiste we are about the way in which the commission goes about its work. I chided the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about his failure to give a definition that was not wider than NICE. He has come back with a definition of other relevant national standards. The world being as it is, he will not be surprised if I now criticise that particular definition in this amendment. Because we do not have a definition of it, it does not suggest who should make the judgment of what is relevant in this instance. I was very interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Patel, put in a bid for Royal College standards not to be omitted from the list of possible standards to be taken into account.
If the judgment as to what is a relevant national standard is for the commission itself, it is not clear what is to be gained by putting this on the face of the Bill. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, there is no indication of what the exceptional circumstances may be in which the commission is not to be guided by—that is another phrase that will be difficult to define—relevant

585
standards. We are all clear about the underlying intent, but there are considerable stumbling blocks as between this and sorting out legal definitions on the face of the Bill.
In connection with the duty of quality, we discussed in Committee the difficulty in foreseeing and defining now what national guidance or standards it might be appropriate to take into account in future. In the light of this amendment, I do not believe that we are any closer now than we were then to an answer that we can safely prescribe on the face of the Bill. I suggest that the difficulty in drafting appropriate provisions on points of this kind should cause us to ask whether it is right to attempt it in the first place. If we intend the commission to be guided, may we not be better advised to stick to guidance in this area?
In practice, I believe it is inconceivable that the commission would not be guided by national service frameworks, the work of NICE or other appropriate guidance. National service frameworks and the national institute will in particular be key points of reference and will be for guidance. There is a danger in having too tight a hold on both individual local decision-making about priorities and circumstances and individual clinical decisions as between patients and clinicians.
I hope that the noble Lord will forgive my saying that
I cannot accept this amendment any more than the earlier one, although I do not wish to deny the importance of the issue he raises.
11 p. m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Several different and interesting arguments have been used against the amendment. It was intended to be a light touch guidance; but clearly it has not been taken as such. The phrase "except in exceptional circumstances" was intended to do precisely that. However, it seems to have fallen foul of both the Minister and the noble Earl.
We are concerned that NICE has been set up but there is no real nexus with CHIMP as regards the legislation. We are worried that CHIMP is set up under the Bill but without standards to which it can refer. I am reassured by the noble Baroness's statement that it is inconceivable that CHIMP would not take on board the standards advocated by NICE and the national service frameworks. That may well be so. I hope that it is true. But time will tell.
We shall ponder on the points the Minister made in her response and perhaps return to the issue at another time. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 27 not moved.]
Schedule 2 [The Commission for Health Improvement]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 49, line 29, leave out ("he") and insert ("it").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 49, line 35, leave out ("(2)") and insert ("(3)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 49, line 37, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(2)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 15 [Functions of the Commission]:
[Amendment No. 31 not moved.]
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 12, line 10, leave out from beginning to ("and") in line 12.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of this amendment which we tabled at Committee stage as a probing amendment is to prevent the commission for health improvement from charging for its services. In the lengthy discussion at Committee stage, the Minister used the analogy of the work undertaken by the Audit Commission, including its value for money services, when NHS trusts pay individually for the work undertaken even when that work is part of a nationally commissioned study rather than being individually commissioned.
Our concern—as we made clear at Committee stage—is that such costs will inevitably come from hospital budgets and mean less money for patient care. The Minister made it clear that costs would come from that part of the budget allocated to administrative costs and that there need be no cost on patient care. But as we heard earlier, administrative costs in the NHS are not themselves excessive. We are not convinced by any of those arguments.
As I made clear in an earlier amendment, we see CHIMP as analogous not to the Audit Commission but to Ofsted: that it will be a regular inspection force concerned to maintain standards. As with Ofsted and unlike the Audit Commission's value for money studies, it will be part of a continuing series of inspections required by the Secretary of State as part of a programme of quality improvement. The trusts will not invite the CHIMP inspectors in; rather the inspection will be imposed upon the trusts. As with school inspections, there will be substantial costs incurred in preparing the necessary paper work for inspection which will fall on the administrative budget of the trust. That it should also then have to bear the commission's costs seems quite outrageous. It could not possibly be done without a special allocation that year to the administrative budget, which in effect means taking that year from the patient care budget. Unless there are allocations to the NHS budget from the Secretary of State to meet the costs of CHIMP, there is no way that its costs can be met without taking money out of the patient care budget.
In this case we take the view that the costs should be met from central funds and not from trust funds, which is the purpose of the amendment. The Minister replied that, if this were the case, the costs would be top-sliced from the sums already allocated to trusts. So be it, but this would have the advantage of making open and

587
transparent how much CHIMP is costing and, in so far as it hit trust allocations, that it was marginally at the cost of patient care.
The costs and benefits need to be weighed up at the national level by the Secretary of State, because he is the person who is imposing the inspection. It would be quite different if, as my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones suggested at Committee stage, it were a matter of management consultancy, where the trust called the commission in to advise it. In such a case it is quite fair that the costs be met by the local trust, for it is up to the trust to weigh the costs and benefits of the exercise and to judge whether it is worth while; but this, as I have made clear, is not what is being proposed.
What we have here is a regular inspection required by the Secretary of State. As such, we believe that this should be seen as a mechanism used by the Secretary of State to improve and maintain standards in the provision of healthcare, just as Ofsted is there to improve and maintain standards in education, and that its direct costs—like Ofsted's direct costs—should be met from the central health service's budget, preferably by an allocation of new money.
If successful, then over time its costs would be recouped by the extra efficiency it engenders within the service as a whole. If this is the case, then it should be viewed by the Secretary of State, and indeed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as an investment. The initial costs which would have to be borne now would over time be offset by a stream of benefits. But the cost benefit analysis must be for the Secretary of State, not for the local primary care or hospital trust. If Ofsted is the appropriate model, any inspection will impose enough costs in terms of preparation and paperwork. It adds insult to injury to suggest that the local trust should also pay for the direct costs of the inspection team.
I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I too remain uneasy after our debate on this subject in Committee. We are back to the territory of a previous amendment which focused on resources to implement the quality agenda, and this is yet another example.
I do not know what the annual operating budget of the Commission will be in future years, but it would be interesting if the Minister could give us an approximation. If in a few years' time that budget is charged out to trusts and health authorities, I cannot see how this could fail but to have an impact on the funds available for other areas of patient care. In many instances it would be an unbudgeted outlay. One can easily imagine cases where the commission is sent in to investigate a hospital on a false alarm, does a great deal of work and ends up by giving the hospital a clean bill of health. A fat bill at the end of that would be particularly galling to the hospital management.
I sense that there is a balance to be struck on this question, setting aside for a moment extreme examples like the one I have just given. There has to be a sense of ownership by a trust of whatever the commission recommends, and that is a point which the noble
588
Baroness made in Committee. The bill for achieving it, however, should not be so great as to place the hospital in graver difficulties than it was before. It means that the monitoring and policing of the quality agenda should, in large measure but perhaps not completely, be funded centrally.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, like the noble Lords who have spoken, I too have been reflecting on the debate we had at Committee stage. I drew attention then, and do so now, to the fact that charging is in itself not an unusual arrangement in the NHS. In this way, for example, the Audit Commission supports its statutory duties with regard to financial audit and its value for money studies. Audited bodies fund this work through fees paid to local auditors appointed by the Audit Commission. So NHS bodies are perfectly familiar with this approach and accustomed to the need to budget for this kind of activity. This approach to charging encourages greater local involvement and ownership and provides a greater incentive to ensure that prompt action is taken in following up advice and recommendations.
We have every reason to expect that the NHS locally will value the commission's input. The commission will have a clear role in providing advice and independent expertise. In its local reviews it will identify good practice and areas for improvement. Similarly, where the commission investigates local clinical problems, it will provide external advice and support to identify and address the root causes. In this way, the commission will help strengthen an organisation's capacity to assure and improve the quality of services it provides.
I made clear in Committee that, in the first instance, we intend to finance the commission centrally. But it remains the Government's view that, once the commission has demonstrated its effectiveness in helping the NHS improve quality and tackle service problems, there is merit in moving towards a system where more of its work is directly funded locally. However, I accept the noble Earl's argument that it is perhaps a matter of balance.
It may help if I address some of the concerns that have been raised about how future arrangements may work. The starting point is that arrangements for the recovery of costs must be fair, flexible and reasonable. The commission will recover expenditure only where it has properly incurred costs in carrying out its own functions. And it will be held properly to account for undertaking these effectively, efficiently and economically.
In that respect, I differ from the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. I see no reason why in the commission's rolling programme of reviews, given reasonable notice, we should not expect local NHS bodies to plan and budget for this activity in the same way as they do now for Audit Commission activity. However, I accept that we need to think carefully about the rather different circumstances where a local NHS organisation decides it needs to call in the commission "off-cycle", as it were, to help investigate or pre-empt a potential problem; or where, exceptionally, the Secretary of State decides to send in the commission to investigate a serious problem.

589
I recognise and understand the concern over the possibility of perhaps heavy extra costs falling on an organisation already in some difficulty, and I would certainly want to avoid deterrents to a body inviting early help rather than allowing a potential problem to fester.
I suggest that now is not the time to determine the detailed charging policy for the future, but I hope it will be helpful if I say that these are the kind of considerations we should weigh carefully when we come to do so. We need arrangements to ensure that the commission's role is valued and that its help is brought to bear promptly where it is needed, and this will inform any future plans in this respect.
In summary, our aim will be to ensure flexibility and fairness in charges made by the commission. There will be additional safeguards in that the Bill provides for the Secretary of State to determine the charges that may be made by the commission.
Important issues have been raised and what has been said today is valuable. We can take it into account in due course in developing our thinking on how charging arrangements will operate. I hope that in the light of the undertaking to take those considerations into account and the reassurances I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
11.15 p. m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply, although we are not totally satisfied with it. The words "fair", "flexible" and "reasonable" are easily said. It is also fair to say that it is reasonable for the trusts to plan and budget for those costs. But they are real costs and all local health authorities are under very tight budget constraints. However, I shall study the Minister's answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 12, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I hope that I can be both brief and satisfy the concerns of the House on this issue. In Committee it was suggested that qualified privilege would be more appropriate than the absolute privilege which was written into the Bill for the purpose of the commission for health improvement reports. Considerable concerns were raised and I agreed to take them away for further consideration. This amendment is the result of that consideration. We believe that it is important that the commission is able to be frank and open in identifying areas for improvement, and we will wish the commission to be able to make clear where NHS organisations are falling below the expected standards.
In doing so, however, we should not wish the commission to become involved in unnecessary litigation which could delay the publication of reports and otherwise disrupt its important work. Nevertheless, I recognise the concerns which were expressed in Committee about conferring absolute privilege on the commission. That may well be an excessive provision.
590
In the light of those concerns, we have reconsidered the position and have brought forward this amendment. Instead of absolute privilege, qualified privilege will protect the commission's reports against defamation unless it could be proved that the comments had been made with malice.
It is worth stating that we expect the commission to act fairly in producing its reports. It will need to do so if it is to be successful in winning the trust and respect of NHS patients and the healthcare professions. After the comments which were made in Committee and further reflection, we now believe that giving the commission qualified privilege is appropriate. It is not necessary to have explicit provision on the face of the Bill because under common law the commission's reports will be subject to that qualified privilege. Therefore, I hope that this amendment will address the concerns which have been expressed. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: My Lords, perhaps I may say how immensely grateful I am to the Minister for bringing forward this amendment and for taking on board so carefully the points raised in Committee from all sides of the Chamber.
I am convinced that this is the right way forward, not only as a means of leaving open the possibility of legal redress in very isolated cases but, much more important, as a means of ensuring that the culture of the commission will foster co-operation and trust. Removing the right of absolute privilege will go a long way towards doing that. I do not believe that there is any need to fear that without such a right the work of the commission will be in any way frustrated.
It is a highly satisfactory outcome for all concerned. I thank the Minister warmly for the trouble she has taken to bring it about.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I too thank the Minister. This is a very elegant solution. It is so nice to see the complete deletion of a subsection from the Bill, even at this time of night.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 12, line 34, leave out ("13") and insert ("13(4)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 16 [Obtaining information etc.]:
Lord McColl of Dulwich Lord McColl of Dulwich moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 13, line 22, after ("individual") insert ("or a deceased person").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 and 41 to 45. Noble Lords will remember that when this was discussed on previous occasions a plea was made that when it comes to confidentiality we really should have the same high standards on the face of the Bill as have been adopted by the General Medical Council. Why should the Bill have inferior standards of confidentiality?
Noble Lords may think that the medical profession is being over-fussy about the whole subject of confidentiality, but to us and to the patients it is of great importance. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that doctors are obliged to adhere strictly to confidentiality and can break that obligation only under exceptional circumstances, for instance, where a failure to disclose information may expose a patient or others to the risk of death or serious harm.
When the amendments were discussed before, the Minister agreed that they highlighted the important issue of confidentiality of information relating to individuals, and went on to say:
"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". —[Official Report, 1/3/99; col. 1434.]
We are concerned with absolutes, not "whenever possibles". The Minister went on to say,
"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 its functions".
In other words, she seemed to be saying that the means justifies the end. I am not sure that that is acceptable.
Amendments Nos. 35, 41 and 42 try to make sure that the same rights of confidentiality over medical records apply to deceased persons and patients no longer in contact with their doctor. In Amendment No. 37, we again emphasise that if an individual cannot be traced, confidentiality should, nevertheless, be protected. The Minister's answer to that was that the Government expect there to be "confidentiality wherever possible". However, I would suggest that confidentiality wherever possible and confidentiality unless it interferes with the work of the commission, are not tight enough provisions. In col. 1435, she expressed the concern that the provisions of Amendments Nos. 36 and 38 will impose too heavy a burden on the holders of confidential documents as they will require them to make a difficult judgment about what might be ascertained from their information when placed together with material outside their control. As far as concerns confidentiality, I believe that there should be a heavy burden on those who hold confidential documents. The Minister went on to say in col. 1437 that she would be happy to consider what further guidance or secondary legislation might be framed to cover what she described as "rare eventualities". It will be interesting to know whether she has had further thoughts about that.
Later on the Minister went on to say that she thought it would be wrong to prohibit the commission assessing information about deceased patients. We have no wish to do that. Our wish is to maintain confidentiality. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly to Amendment No. 43 in this group of amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in the debate in Committee cogently noted that it was important that such duties should be aligned with the general duties of confidentiality of the medical profession as generally understood. In the context of this
592
amendment, which inserts the word "serious" before "criminal offence" in line 13 on page 15, I note that the General Medical Council's recently issued guidance, Confidentiality: Providing and Protecting Information, says that disclosure of information may be justified,
"where a serious crime which would be likely to involve the risk of serious harm or death could be prevented or detected. Serious crimes will usually be crimes against the person, including abuse of children".
That is clear. Of course, it is not a precise legal definition, but it is clearly what the medical profession is bound by and understands to be the duty of confidentiality. One does not have to look far for a legal definition. The Police Act 1997 contains provisions on entry, and interference with property and wireless telegraphy in the course of the prevention or detection of crime. Section 63 of the Police Act 1997 defines serious crime as conduct which constitutes one or more offences if, and only if: it involves the use of violence or if one of the offences is an offence to which a person who has attained the age of 21 and has no previous convictions could reasonably be expected to be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of three years or more. That is a fairly clear definition. There was general agreement by both government and opposition when that provision was passed that that was a perfectly proper definition of "serious crime".
One could perhaps use the definition of "serious arrestable offence", if that was thought preferable, as defined in Section 116 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. Your Lordships may be relieved to hear that I shall not cite the full definition! However, that shows that the definitions are available. It is important that the Bill is aligned to the duty of confidentiality, as generally understood currently by the medical profession.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the hour is late, but these are important issues and I hope that the House will forgive me if I deal with them in some detail. I admire the brevity and lucidity of both noble Lords. I fear that I shall not be able to emulate it, but I shall do my best.
In Committee, a number of issues were raised, many of which have been repeated this evening. With the Committee's agreement, I agreed to take away those concerns and look again to see whether we could further strengthen the safeguards on confidential information, whether through the Bill or through secondary legislation or guidance. We have given this area considerable further thought. We have also had the advantage of further useful discussions with representatives of the medical profession, and have been able to explore their concerns in some depth. I hope that I may be able to help clarify the issues and to offer some important safeguards.
The overall context is that, in carrying out the majority of its functions, we expect the commission to work with anonymised data. Cases where the commission needs to look at confidential information that identifies individuals will be rare. They will usually occur only when it is conducting an investigation when there is a particular cause for concern. Our aim has been both to set proper constraints around the commission's

593
access to confidential information, and to ensure that when it does have such access the information is treated with due care and confidence. That is why Clause 16 sets out the circumstances under which the commission can obtain information and Clause 17 sets tight conditions on disclosure of information.
It may be helpful if I explain now the purpose of government Amendment No. 39. It aims to ensure that the definition of confidential information in Clause 16(6) is sufficiently broad to cover all information held subject to a duty of confidence. In reviewing these provisions in the light of the Committee stage debate, we concluded that there was a potential ambiguity in the original draft: it could be argued that in defining confidential information according to the terms in which it is held, the original definition did not cover information that should be held in confidence by virtue of the circumstances in which it is obtained. The amendment ensures that both sets of circumstances are now covered. It strengthens the protection offered by the provision and I hope that it will command the support of the House.
Before I turn to the other amendments it may help if I refer to a number of other safeguards on the commission's handling of confidential information, some of which go beyond what is on the face of the Bill. For example, only clinical members of the commission's review teams will be expected to access confidential patient information. They will be subject to the codes of confidentiality of their regulatory bodies and be under a duty of confidentiality. They would owe this duty to the individual concerned, and to the commission.
In addition, we expect that the contracts of employment of the commission's staff, both professional and lay, will contain provisions dealing with the issue of confidentiality. If it were necessary to enforce this, the Secretary of State would be able, under paragraph 7(6) of Schedule 2 of the Bill, to direct that contracts of employment contain such provisions. Knowing or reckless disclosure of confidential information without lawful consent is subject to a criminal offence under Clause 17. When we turn to the discussion of specific points of concern covered by the amendments, it is in the context that the commission will access confidential information only by exception and under carefully controlled circumstances.
Perhaps I may turn specifically to the first of the areas that I have highlighted. I refer to confidential information relating to deceased individuals or those who cannot be traced. I fully recognise that inappropriately obtaining or disclosing such information could, for example, cause grave and unnecessary distress to relatives. None the less, there are exceptional circumstances in which the commission would need to have access to information about such patients. We need to ensure that the scope of these clauses allows appropriate, but only appropriate, access.
There may be cases where the commission has concerns about a service where it suspects that there might be a risk to the health and safety of patients, but it would need to be able to access more records before
594
it could prove the risk. It would of course be able to ask for the consent of living people, but there would be difficulties in a case where a number of patient deaths had occurred which the commission wished to investigate. I am sure that the House will appreciate that it would be particularly unfortunate if we were to put obstacles in the way of what might be a most pressing case for investigation.
I do not pretend that there is a straightforward way through this process. As I explained in Committee, there are problems in placing the same protection for the living and the dead on the face of the Bill, as proposed in the first set of amendments. One particular problem is that, generally speaking, no one has a legal authority to give consent on behalf of a deceased individual for the access or disclosure of confidential information about him or her. That means that if the safeguards in Clauses 16 and 17 were extended to cover deceased people, as proposed in the amendment, the commission would have more limited ability to obtain or disclose information relating to deceased individuals than was the case with living individuals.
The lack of legal clarity here also gives rise to other issues. While I recognise the ethical obligation healthcare professionals have to respect the confidentiality of individuals after their death, it is unclear in legal terms how far the duty of confidentiality extends beyond a person's death, if at all. It is therefore unclear whether information on a specific deceased individual is held subject to a duty of confidence. The constraints in Clause 16(2) only concern information which is held subject to such a duty. We are continuing to give this particular matter close consideration.
It is a difficult issue to balance. The Government share the concern expressed to ensure that the confidentiality of information relating to deceased individuals is properly respected. However, we would not wish unduly to restrict the operations of the commission in its work. I believe that there is general agreement that the commission should work within a clear and enforceable set of parameters when handling confidential information relating to deceased patients.
The real issue here is whether the best place for those parameters is the face of the legislation. I hope that I have explained why I consider the amendment moved by noble Lords to be too restrictive; indeed, it could jeopardise the effectiveness of the commission in what might be some of the most serious investigations with which it is faced. Nor is there an alternative appropriate approach as far as concerns the Bill. Nevertheless, we do take the issue very seriously. I have already explained the way in which the commission and its staff would safeguard any confidential information they need to handle. Over and above this, we propose to draw up guidance in consultation with the professions to cover the circumstances in which the commission would be able to obtain confidential information about the deceased. We would then propose that the Secretary of State would direct the commission through his power in Clause 15(4) to adhere to this guidance in the course of its work. I believe that these arrangements would ensure the right balance, allowing the commission necessary

595
access to information in exceptional circumstances while ensuring any such information was handled with the greatest care.
I turn now to the disclosure of confidential information on the deceased. Again, the Government consider it very important that such information should be treated with the greatest respect. The amendments before us seek to apply Clause 17 to the deceased in the same way as to the living. The difficulty we face is that of all the circumstances in which Clause 17 provides that the commission may disclose information "with lawful authority", the most commonly used is likely to be where the individual concerned has given consent— under Clause 17(5)(a). We need to consider further to what extent the lack of consent available with regard to deceased individuals may pose difficulty in allowing the commission to act in the interests of the public.
It is important that we reach the right solution in the matter. If noble Lords will agree to withdraw Amendments Nos. 41 and 42, I shall undertake to continue to consider the matter. I hope to bring forward a proper resolution to what is, for the reasons that I have outlined, a difficult issue.
I now turn to the matter of untraceable individuals. The same general principles apply here. The amendment on this point would again bar the commission from obtaining confidential information in circumstances where it suspected there was a risk to the health and safety of patients but would need to be able to access more records before it could prove the risk. If it was not possible to trace the individual and obtain consent to access to the information, the commission would simply be unable to obtain this information, although it could be in the public interest that it should do so. Again I would argue that we should not put an absolute bar on access to information in such circumstances but should look instead to the safeguards I have outlined in terms of the arrangements for the commission's handling of confidential information.
In Committee concerns were raised that information should not be made available in a form which, in combination with other information, would enable the identity of an individual to be discovered. Two amendments in this group reflect this continued concern. There are practical difficulties surrounding this. As drafted, the provisions would tighten the duty on the body (for example, a hospital) making information available to the commission. While it is right and proper that we should expect such bodies to ensure they do not hand over data from which the identity of an individual can be deduced, it is simply not appropriate or reasonable to expect them to make an informed judgment about how this relates to information already in the hands of the commission or to assess with certainty what information the commission is likely to obtain in the future. I believe the test in the Bill on this point goes as far as is appropriate. However, we are considering the formulation of the provisions relating to information which identifies an individual and seeing if we can improve the clarity of the provision. I hope that this goes some way to meeting your Lordships' concerns.
596
Finally, concern was raised in Committee about some of the provisions in the Bill dealing with disclosure of information. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, deals with Clause 17(5)(e); that is, disclosure in connection with the investigation of any criminal offence triable in the UK. It has been suggested that this sets a lower threshold for disclosure than applies in primary legislation at other points of interface between the NHS and the criminal justice system. I have reflected on this provision and have some sympathy with it. I would, if I may, like to take a little longer to ensure we select the most appropriate precedent, but with your Lordships' consent I should like to take this point away and bring forward a suitable amendment at a later stage.
The final amendments deal with Clause 17(5)(h) which allows disclosure of confidential information where an individual is seen as a threat to the health and safety of other individuals. The amendments seek to substitute a test of, "risk of death or serious harm".
In this instance I have more difficulty with the proposed amendment. I believe that the precedent here argues more strongly for the form of words currently on the face of the Bill. In drafting these provisions we, of course, had close regard to the provisions in the ECHR. We are satisfied that this provision is compatible with the convention which your Lordships' House helped to give effect to through the Human Rights Act 1998. I believe that Clause 17(5)(h) is currently of adequate strength to prevent inappropriate disclosure of confidential information. It mirrors the wording under which the Health Service Commissioner operates. To restrict the provision in this Bill further would place the commission in the position that if it discovers information showing that a person presents a risk to patients, it may not be able to protect patients because of the strictness of the provision. In this instance, I believe further safeguard should be by way of guidance rather than primary legislation.
This has been an important debate, reflecting what I believe is a shared concern to strike the right balance between protecting patient safety and enabling the commission, where necessary, to act in the wider interests of the public. I apologise for the length of my remarks but I hope that I have been able to offer reassurances about the safeguards that will be in place to protect confidential information, to propose some respects in which I believe in the light of these debates we can improve the drafting of the Bill and to explain why other points are best handled other than through primary legislation. I invite the House to accept government Amendment No. 39, but I hope that the others will be withdrawn.
Lord McColl of Dulwich: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that thoughtful and careful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 36 to 38 not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 14, line 16, leave out ("in circumstances importing") and insert ("subject to").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 17 [Restrictions on disclosure of information]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 14, line 27, leave out ("15") and insert ("16").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 41 to 45 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 46:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
NOTICE OF AND ADMISSION TO MEETINGS ETC
(". —

(1) Subject to subsection (7) below, any meeting of a body described in subsection (8) below shall be open to the public, and the body shall not have powers to exclude members of the public from the meeting or prevent them taking a report of it.

(2) Public notice of the time and place of such a meeting shall be given by posting it at the offices of the body concerned at the time that the meeting is convened.

(3) There shall, on request and subject to payment of such charges as may be specified in regulations, be supplied to any person a copy of the notice convening such a meeting.

(4) Subject to subsection (7) below, there shall, on request and subject to payment of such charges as may be specified in regulations, be supplied to any person a copy of the agenda for the meeting as supplied to members of the body, together with—

(a) such further statements or particulars as are necessary to indicate the nature of the items included, and

(b) copies of any reports or other documents supplied to members of the body in connection with the item.

(5) The publication of any defamatory matter contained in documents supplied under this subsection shall be privileged, unless the publication is proved to be made with malice.

(6) The provisions of this section shall be without prejudice to any power of exclusion to suppress or prevent disorderly conduct or other misbehaviour at a meeting.

(7) Regulations may provide for the public to be excluded from such a meeting (whether during the whole or part of the proceedings) and for documents to be withheld from the public in specified circumstances.

(8) This section shall apply to any meeting or committee or sub-committee meeting of a Health Authority, a Special Health Authority, a Primary Care Trust or the Commission for Health Improvement. ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, in Committee my noble friend Lord Lucas made what I felt was a powerful case for removing from the Bill the blanket ability of primary care trusts and the commission for health improvement to exclude the public from their meetings. He suggested that there was absolutely no good reason why the arrangements for PCTs and the commission should be any different from those which apply to local authorities, which are allowed to close meetings to the public only in particular circumstances as specified in the Local Government Act 1972. My noble friend has now tabled a differently worded amendment to advance the same idea. This time though he has extended his proposal to health authorities and special health authorities as well as PCTs and the commission. The amendment takes as its starting point that there should be a presumption in favour of public access to meetings and formal arrangements to supply
598
all those who wish to attend with agendas and briefing papers. Subsection (7) then deals with the exceptions by allowing the Secretary of State to make regulations specifying those circumstances where it is appropriate for the public to be excluded and for the relevant papers to be kept confidential. I think that this represents a much more satisfactory formulation than that laid down in the Bill which allows PCTs and the commission virtual carte blanche to close their doors whenever they choose. So, on behalf of my noble friend, I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise to support this very well drafted amendment. We on these Benches are strongly prejudiced in favour of bodies which are open to the public unless there are extremely good reasons for closing their proceedings. The amendment takes on board all the principles that we would support. I urge the Minister to give as favourable a reply to the amendment as she can.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I would do anything to try to be helpful to the House at this time of night, even if I did not have sympathy, which I do have, with the intention behind the amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, in Committee and the noble Earl, Lord Howe, today, together with the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, have made clear their concern that public bodies should be accessible and responsive to the people they serve. Like the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, we are committed to the principles of openness and transparency of process and the need to build on these to ensure that the public are involved and informed and have an opportunity to see decision-making in action.
We have already taken action on that commitment. We have followed up the provisions in the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 with guidance to NHS boards on how best to open up meetings to the public. We have made clear to NHS boards that open board meetings are not a cosmetic exercise. They are not to be orchestrated events with decisions taken in closed session. Meetings must be used as an important and proper part of local accountability, demonstrating how and why decisions are made about local health services.
Perhaps I may turn to the circumstances in which the public may be excluded from meetings. Provision under Section 1(3) of the Public Bodies (Admission to Meetings) Act 1960 allows for the public; to be requested to withdraw where it is resolved by the body that,
"publicity would be prejudicial to the public interest by reason of the confidential nature of the business to be transacted".
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, had a particular concern that that goes on to allow for a request for the public to withdraw,
"for other special reasons stated in the resolution".
The amendment substitutes a power to make regulations providing for the public to be excluded from meetings in specified circumstances. It is worth bearing in mind that the clause as a whole is drawn up to cover meetings of committees and sub-committees as well as the main authority or board meetings. Any regulations would

599
need to cover all those circumstances, and we need to consider carefully what impact such provisions might have.
The current position is that guidance to NHS boards makes clear that any resolution to exclude members of the public must be taken in public and the outcome recorded in the minutes of the meeting. Such a resolution should state in broad terms the nature of the business to be discussed without breaching the confidentiality of the matter concerned. A statement made during the meeting provides immediacy and allows for the flexibility that may not result from specifying in regulations all the circumstances in which members of the public are to be excluded or documents withheld. I am unconvinced that this amendment offers a better course.
On the question of committees, I have already explained that NHS boards and the commission for health improvement are unlike local government, where there is a statutory provision for committees to conduct the business of the main body. NHS boards conduct the vast majority of business in their main meetings and the commission is likely to have similar arrangements. Again, existing guidance states that, where items of business are discussed in committees, that does not preclude an invitation for the public to attend those meetings. Neither should they be used as a means of diverting business which is rightly a matter for
600
discussion by the main board. Again, I am unconvinced that the approach of the amendment to committees and sub-committees is best suited to NHS circumstances.
I hope that I have conveyed the importance that the Government attach to openness and transparency in the conduct of NHS and related bodies. I have outlined the practical steps that we are already taking to strengthen these arrangements and which are very much in keeping with the spirit of the amendment. However, there are important respects—the handling of decisions on exclusion from meetings and the approach to committee and sub-committee meetings—in relation to which I am not convinced that the complex amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is better suited to the NHS and its public than our existing arrangements. Therefore, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for her full and helpful comments, which clearly merit careful study and reflection. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned at fourteen minutes before midnight.

  Education Action Zones
  Education Action Zones
  Tourism: Consultation
  Tourism: Consultation
  Scotland: Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Recommendations
  Scotland: Stephen Lawrence Inquiry Recommendations
  NHS Regional Office Budgets
  NHS Regional Office Budgets
  Medicines Advertising: Control
  Medicines Advertising: Control
  Appeal Court Workload
  Appeal Court Workload
  NATO and Kurdish Autonomy
  NATO and Kurdish Autonomy
  NATO: Nuclear Policy
  NATO: Nuclear Policy
  Sierra Leone: ECOMOG Presence
  Sierra Leone: ECOMOG Presence
  Kosovo
  Kosovo
  Iraq: Assassinations
  Iraq: Assassinations
  Gibraltar: Criminal Cases
  Gibraltar: Criminal Cases
  Iraqi-Turkish Pipeline: Damage to Control Network
  Iraqi-Turkish Pipeline: Damage to Control Network
  Iraqi No Fly Zone: RAF Response
  Iraqi No Fly Zone: RAF Response
  Nuclear Weapons: Policy
  Nuclear Weapons: Policy
  Consular Fees
  Consular Fees
  Exports: Support and Promotion
  Exports: Support and Promotion
  Sanctions Policy
  Sanctions Policy
  Live Sheep Exports
  Live Sheep Exports
  Genetic Modification: Authorising Bodies
  Genetic Modification: Authorising Bodies
  Provisional Seed Certification Scheme
  Provisional Seed Certification Scheme