Sitting of 18 March 1999

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

    Education SSA (Cheshire)
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: What recent representations he has received on the education standard spending assessment for Cheshire. [75574]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I have received a number of representations from Cheshire welcoming the £13.8 million increase in standard spending assessment and the fact that, this year, the revenue support grant matches that increase. That was never true of such allocations under the previous Government.
    Mrs. Winterton: Although I welcome any increase in real terms in education expenditure in Cheshire, does the Secretary of State accept that the present flawed methodology disadvantages shire counties such as Cheshire—compared with London and the south-east—in respect of area cost adjustment and pupil weighting? Will he introduce a reform of that methodology rather than leaving it to fossilise for a further three years?
    Mr. Blunkett: I can promise that my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will not leave the methodology to fossilise for 18 years, and that will make a difference. The area cost adjustment and the additional educational needs element are serious issues and we accept that there is a requirement to get them right. The problem was that the Local Government Association and others could not come up with an agreed programme of change in time. I would very much welcome the hon. Lady's contribution in that matter.
    Our allocation of money under the standards fund—from which Cheshire has already received £8 million—and of direct funding for class size reductions and nursery expansion is being undertaken fairly, and that funding is in addition to the standard spending assessment announcements.

    School Building Programme
    Dr. George Turner: If he will make a statement on measures to tackle the backlog in the school building programme. [75575]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): The Government have made significant extra resources available to help local authorities and school governing bodies tackle the backlog in the school building programme. In July 1997, we introduced the £1.085 billion new deal for schools. The comprehensive spending review has provided an additional £1.5 billion for schools capital, and a further £660 million to support private finance initiative projects. In total, we estimate that some £5.4 billion will be available for investment in school buildings over the next three years. In respect of this year's new deal for schools round, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State hopes to be able to announce the outcomes before Easter.
    Dr. Turner: I thank my hon. Friend for that response. Having seen the backlog build up in Norfolk over 20 years, I appreciate the Government's making that matter a priority. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is important that, as we enter the next millennium, our teachers should feel that their workplaces are suitable for it? The bids received by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will include many categories, but does my hon. Friend agree that we have been making do with mobile classrooms in Norfolk for far too long? He will be aware that, at Smithdon county high school in Hunstanton, far too many teachers have had mobile classrooms as their workplace for far too long. Will he ensure that careful consideration—and, it is to be hoped, a positive answer—are given to the part of the £32 million bid for the county of Norfolk that relates to that problem?
    Mr. Clarke: My right hon. Friend will have heard my hon. Friend's reference to the school in Hunstanton. I acknowledge that standards are driven up by good-quality provision of school building and that teachers need to be able to teach in good, healthy working environments. We inherited a substantial backlog from the previous Government and we are now investing at a much higher level than they ever did; by the end of this Parliament, we shall be investing twice as much every year as they invested in any year during which they were in power.
    Mr. Roy Beggs: The additional money for education is appreciated throughout the United Kingdom. Does the Minister agree that many public bodies, including education authorities, own a great deal of property and assets which are underused and could be sold to raise funds? Will he encourage the raising of money to be reinvested in new building and to upgrade the school estate?
    Mr. Clarke: I agree with the hon. Gentleman; that is why we are encouraging local education authorities to develop asset management plans in which they consider all the schools in their area and make a planned assessment of the maintenance, replacement and new investment that is needed for each school. Those plans

    1243
    will set out locally agreed priorities for capital expenditure and the approach proposed for tackling them. For that reason, we are holding consultations on the overall capital strategy and have provided a small amount to help local education authorities to develop those plans. We believe that that will lead to rational decisions on resources and better value for money for the teachers and pupils in the constituencies that we all represent.

    Literacy Hour
    Fiona Mactaggart: What is his assessment of the effectiveness of the literacy hour in primary schools; and if he will make a statement. [75576]
    The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Almost all schools are now teaching the daily literacy hour, which is having a positive impact on teaching methods and organisation of lessons. The literacy hour has already raised standards in schools that took part in the pilot national literacy project. Evaluations of the project, published in December by Ofsted and the National Foundation for Educational Research, show that, in less than two years, children who started some way below the national average in their reading scores made progress of between eight months and a year above what would normally be expected.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank the Minister for that reply. Is she aware of the Scottish Office-funded research into synthetic phonics? That research showed not only that children taught by that method were nine months ahead in their reading ability but that less than 10 per cent. had reading ages more than 12 months behind their chronological age, as compared with nearly a third of children taught by the analytical phonics method? Does the Minister agree that, in this era of national targets and nationally agreed teaching strategies, the Government have a duty to ensure that classroom teachers are aware of the most recent research so that they can improve and develop their teaching methods and achieve the demanding targets for success in reading at key stage 2?
    Ms Morris: I think perhaps we should not pick arguments with our Scottish colleagues when no arguments exist. My hon. Friend's comments show that the Government have succeeded in getting phonics accepted as a good way of teaching children to read. That is the focus of her question. We shall always reflect on the evidence about which phonics are best. However, synthetic and other phonics are included in the national literacy strategy that is taught to children in England.
    I believe that the research conducted in Scotland involved between eight and 12 schools, whereas the national literacy strategy is based on good-quality evidence gathered from the national literacy project. As always, we shall base our policies on good evidence to ensure that children are taught to read and write in the most effective manner. That is our standard.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister agree that the best step that could be taken to improve literacy in primary schools would be to publish the results of the tests that children take at seven as well as the average amount of money that is spent on each child and the average class size in each school? We could
    1244
    then see whether there is a correlation between money spent, class sizes and performance or whether the correlation is between performance and the persistent use of out-dated self-discovery teaching methods in too many schools.
    Ms Morris: One wonders why the Conservative party did not do any of those things when it was in power.
    Dr. Lewis: I wasn't here.
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman will not be here much longer if he tries to wriggle out of any responsibility for the previous Government's actions.
    There is nothing more important than ensuring that youngsters between five and seven learn to read and write as effectively as possible. If they do not learn those basic skills by that age, they will not be able to access the rest of the curriculum and they will become disaffected and disillusioned. The Government have already taken action not only on the literacy strategy but on class sizes. We have also ensured that information is available to parents. We have acted speedily to ensure that the information that is available to the public and to the wider community is more meaningful in terms of value added and can be measured from baseline assessments.
    There is already evidence that small class sizes in the important first year make a real difference. The Government are definitely taking credit for the fact that all the essential elements are in place. We will ensure that today's youngsters aged five to seven get a chance that their predecessors did not enjoy under the previous Government.
    Mr. Malcolm Wicks: I have attended four or five literacy hours, and already my spelling is showing some improvement—although there is no room for complacency. More important, I have found that children enjoy literacy hours, which are becoming a popular feature of primary school life. Does the Minister have any observations to make at this stage about the applicability of the literacy hour—particularly the reading of the text at the beginning—to the most able children, who may want to turn to the next page or even the next book, and to those who are struggling with literacy and who may need more intensive support on a one-to-one basis?
    Ms Morris: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. My experience of visiting primary schools in September was that children welcomed the literacy hour. Children like the sense of order, the pattern and the pace, and they know that they are improving. I take seriously my hon. Friend's points about our most able children and those who learn less quickly. He will be pleased to hear that the evidence demonstrates that all children, whether the most able or those with special needs, make progress under the national literacy strategy. That is good news for all children.
    We shall reflect on further advice to make sure both that the hour is used to the best effect for more able children and that those with special educational needs are properly supported. The Government will base our proposals on evidence of what works and will return to the matter in the near future.
    Mr. David Willetts: The Minister will know that that is not the evidence of the recent survey by the

    1245
    Association of Teachers and Lecturers, which revealed that 80 per cent. of teachers questioned believed that the literacy hour was not helping pupils with special educational needs and that 60 per cent. thought that it was not helping especially gifted children. Do not the questions of the hon. Members for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) provide two examples of the rigidity and inflexibility of the hour, which does not properly take account of synthetic phonics teaching methods or the needs of gifted children and those with special educational needs?
    Ms Morris: The hon. Gentleman must decide when he would prefer to believe. If he wants to believe the evidence of the ATL and teacher unions, let him do so, but I would sooner believe the evidence of Ofsted, NFER and independent research, which demonstrates that the literacy strategy works for all children. That is the bottom line. The policy is not about what teachers think; it is about which strategy the evidence demonstrates works with pupils. Pupils' reading standards are crucial.

    Primary Schools (New Classrooms)
    Helen Jackson (Sheffield, Hillsborough): How many primary schools will be acquiring new classrooms in the current academic year. [75578]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): That information is not collected centrally, but we expect that the key stage l class size initiative will fund additional classrooms at 600 schools in the current financial year and at a further 909 schools in 1999–2000. Funding continues to be available to meet agreed local priorities for school premises including new classrooms through the annual capital guidelines, the new deal for schools and local education authorities' own funds.
    Helen Jackson: I thank the Minister for that answer. He will know about, and not be surprised by, the huge welcome in Sheffield for the Government's funding for the reduction in class sizes to 30 in primary schools, which is beginning to be put into practice. He will also be aware that the money is scheduled to fund 45 extra teachers—which is most welcome—and three capital allocations for extra classrooms, one of which, at Marlcliffe, has been particularly welcomed in my constituency. However, consultations with primary school head teachers in my constituency have revealed that many want to reduce class sizes to 30, but will experience huge difficulties because of the shortage of rooms to accommodate children. The class size pledge has a knock-on effect on classrooms, not only on the staff who teach the classes.
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. I know what a welcome our programme has received in Sheffield and elsewhere in the country. I am particularly aware, as any Minister in my Department must be, of the vital contributions being made in Sheffield. I want to highlight the number of extra teachers who have been employed as a result of the initiative to reduce class sizes. On top of the extra 1,500 teachers in 1998–99, there will be an extra 2,500 teachers from next September to help to reduce class sizes. That is a long-term programme.
    1246
    I hope that my answer addresses the points that my hon. Friend made about the need to keep striving to reduce class sizes and raise educational standards.
    Mr. Don Foster: Does the Minister recall that before the last general election, the right hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett), now the Secretary of State, was told that the cost of meeting the class size pledge would be £60 million? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the budget now stands at £627 million and rising, which is 10 times more than the original estimated cost?
    Following the question of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), is the hon. Gentleman further aware that local authorities, not only in Sheffield, but throughout the land, now estimate that for the next two years, they need not 1,500, but 2,300 additional teachers and classrooms, at a cost of £159 million more than the Government are allocating? Does that not demonstrate that the Government have got their sums wrong yet again?
    Mr. Clarke: The hon. Gentleman must have misheard what I said. I said that we have spent enough money on the initiative to employ an extra 1,500 teachers in 1998–99 and an additional 2,500 in 1999–2000 from September, which more than meets his point. We have allocated resources; we have fulfilled our pledges. I should be a little disturbed if the Liberal Democrats joined the Conservatives in taking the view that class size had no impact on educational performance.
    Mr. Jonathan Shaw: One of the schools in my constituency that will be receiving a new nursery classroom is Ridge Meadow county primary. The building of the new classroom has been delayed because the school is in special measures. However, I am delighted to say that the hard work of Sue Robertson, the governors and all the teachers has meant that the school is now out of special measures. Will my hon. Friend assure me that, as soon as the inspectors' report hits his desk, he will quickly give Medway education authority and the school the green light to build the new classroom, to celebrate everyone's hard work in raising standards and the fact that the school has come out of special measures?
    Mr. Clarke: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating everybody associated with the school—the head teacher and the governors—on driving forward to take the school out of special measures. I am glad to say that that is characteristic of a number of schools which have found themselves in special measures. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he requests. I shall consider very carefully the specific proposals for new capital spending at the school, and recognise its achievement in reaching this point.
    Mrs. Theresa May: In addition to the provision of classrooms to reduce class sizes in primary schools, how many extra primary school classrooms have been brought into use to accommodate four-year-olds as a result of the Government's policy on early-years education? Will the Minister take this opportunity to accept the figures of the Pre-School Learning Alliance, which show that 1,500 pre-schools have already closed as a result of Government policy, and that more will close

    1247
    because primary schools are being encouraged to take four-year-olds and because extra costs are being imposed on pre-schools owing to the Government's policies on the minimum wage, holiday pay and national insurance?
    Mr. Clarke: As a matter of fact, I do not accept the figures of the Pre-School Learning Alliance. In fact, I discussed them in great detail at an event that the alliance organised just a couple of weeks ago. The figures that the hon. Lady has cited are not reliable. I recall that, in my county of Norfolk, the voucher scheme which her Government introduced created exactly the drama and worry about which she is concerned. We are looking—and continue to look—at demand for class size at all ages. We shall continue to review the matter and make statements as appropriate.

    Further Education Colleges
    Mr. Phil Hope: What support he is providing to further education colleges to raise standards. [75580]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): We are determined to ensure that standards are raised in further education colleges. To sustain that, we established a standards fund of £35 million this year and £80 million next year.
    Mr. Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Young people and mature students alike in my constituency are very much looking forward to the planned growth in further education. The Tresham institute, which serves many people in Corby, wants to play its part in raising skills and standards. It is concerned, however, about the pressure on it. As my wife, a senior lecturer at the institute, tells me every Friday when I go home, the institute has made 30 per cent. efficiency improvements in the delivery of further education. Will quality be maintained during such growth, and will the pressure on staff to deliver be too great? Will my hon. Friend assure me that growth will not be at the expense of quality and that the contribution that staff make to delivering that increase in standards will be recognised?
    Mr. Mudie: As one who is married to a head teacher, and given that the banning of the subject of education in the household adds to domestic bliss, I sympathise with my hon. Friend. We are very determined on standards. We shall unashamedly maintain pressure on further education colleges. We are intent on widening participation. We have a national target of an additional 700,000 students in higher and further education by 2002. We do not accept that the introduction of more people will lead to a drop in standards.
    When I met some college principals yesterday, I refused to accept that standards are affected by widening participation. We do understand that many people will come in with needs and problems, and that those must be accommodated, but the funds that we have put in to facilitate access and the money that we have put into the support fund will help further education colleges in that task.

    New Deal (West Sussex)
    Mr. Tim Loughton: How much has been spent on the new deal in West Sussex to date. [75581]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): To the end of January £206,538 had been brought to account in the West Sussex coastal plain unit of delivery on the new deals for young people and those over 25.
    Mr. Loughton: I am grateful for that answer, but is the Minister aware that Employment Service figures show that, in the West Sussex coastal plain unit of delivery, only 68 new-dealers have secured unsubsidised employment? I am sure that the Minister's maths are better than mine, but does he think that that represents good value for money?
    Given the announcement yesterday that my local electricity company has created 500 new real jobs in my constituency alone, will he admit that the windfall tax raid to create jobs might have been better deployed if the money had been left with the utility companies?
    Mr. Smith: Not at all, not least because those 68 people who have got the unsubsidised jobs might well not have done so without the new deal programme and the windfall levy. What the hon. Gentleman does not mention—I am surprised that he does not pay tribute to the achievement of his constituents in this respect—are the other 51 people who have got subsidised jobs through the new deal for young people. Is the hon. Gentleman not including them in his figures? They are in employment; they are in work, earning money. They would have been on the dole under the Government whom he supported.

    New Deal (Young People)
    Mr. Lawrie Quinn: How many young people in (a) Scarborough and Whitby, (b) North Yorkshire and (c)the United Kingdom have obtained employment through the new deal to date. [75582]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): New deal has made an encouraging start and in the North Yorkshire unit of delivery, which covers Scarborough and Whitby, 385 young people have found employment. In Great Britain, 58,500 have found employment.
    Mr. Quinn: My constituents and everyone in the country will be pleased to know that 385 people in the North Yorkshire delivery unit have found work. However, may I gently ask the Department whether, in an area such as my constituency, where there is a discrete travel-to-work area and where unemployment is more than 40 per cent. higher than the national average, it would be possible to focus on the actual area where there is most concern? A needs-driven agenda would enable us to do more work not only to give more help to the youngsters who have benefited from the new deal but to extend that to people over 55 who could benefit from it. We welcome the progress that will be made for those

    1249
    people. Many people in my constituency are looking to the Government to deliver in this area. I believe that we can, and I should like to have the statistics to prove it.
    Ms Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he is doing on behalf of his constituents and I know of the work that he is doing with my colleagues on linking educational standards with employment opportunities. He is right to point out that there are concentrations of unemployment in large units. I know that unemployment is 6.6 per cent. in Scarborough and Whitby, whereas it is 3.3 per cent. in the whole North Yorkshire unit of delivery. Obviously, the programme is designed to meet the needs of people who find themselves unemployed, and the purpose of the new deals, for the young unemployed, the long-term unemployed and—when it comes into being—for those over 50 is to focus on areas of greatest need.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: How much taxpayers' money has been spent on each of the young people who have obtained a full-time job through the new deal?
    Ms Hodge: The hon. Gentleman will know that it is far too early to make a rigorous assessment of the cost per job, but he will know that, for the first time, the Government are making a completely transparent and thorough assessment of our investment into all the new deals. We believe at this point that the figure per job is about £1,000.
    Ms Candy Atherton: Will my hon. Friend send a message of congratulation to the Employment Service in Cornwall? Does she agree that it has been particularly successful and innovative as a pathfinder of the new deal?
    Ms Hodge: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the people working in her local employment office on the excellent work that they have done. It is our view that they have been one of the most successful employment offices in finding jobs for unemployed people in that area. It is interesting to note that 18 per cent. more young people are moving off benefit in the pathfinder areas than in the non-pathfinder areas. That is further evidence, for those who still require it, that our new deal for young people is working.
    Mr. Damian Green: The Minister's complacency about the new deal flies in the face of the evidence. Will she confirm that yesterday's unemployment figures reveal that, since the national introduction of the new deal for young people, unemployment among young people has risen by 22,000, and has risen every quarter? Does she not recognise the plain truth that, in its first year of operation, the new deal is proving an expensive failure?
    Ms Hodge: It is typical of the Opposition—who never did anything to tackle unemployment—to criticise a programme that is demonstrating great success, even in its early days. Unemployment among young people has dropped by 50 per cent. since May 1997. That demonstrates the success of our programme.

    Individual Learning Accounts
    Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: What role individual learning accounts will play in the university for industry. [75583]
    The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): Many account holders will want to access the advice, guidance and tailored material that the university for industry will provide, precisely because it targets individual companies and the needs of individuals. Today we have launched the development plan for the university for industry. We have announced the board membership, including the chairman, Lord Dearing, and the vice-chairman, Tony Greener, who is chairman of Diaegio plc.
    Mr. Foster: Given the welcome tax incentives for individual learning accounts that were announced in the Budget, what message would my right hon. Friend send to businesses in my constituency and elsewhere to encourage them to contribute to individual learning accounts for their employees?
    Mr. Blunkett: The message was a strong one: if businesses are prepared to invest in individual learning accounts, neither they nor the recipient will have to pay tax or have it counted for tax purposes against them. There will therefore be a substantial incentive for the individual—and encouragement for trade unions, through their bargaining-for-skills programme and similar initiatives, to make the development of negotiations over skills and the investment in the skills needs of the future a crucial part not merely of modernising our economy, but of their contribution to ensuring the well-being and security of the work force in the years ahead.
    Mr. Phil Willis: We were delighted when the Government accepted the Liberal Democrat proposals for individual learning accounts. We are pleased that they have also rolled out the issue of tax relief for students and their families, and also from employers. Will the Secretary of State tell us, first, whether there will be limits on those contributions; secondly, when individual learning accounts will be available to all students; and thirdly, whether that will mean that, in the payment of tuition fees, money put in by individuals or employers will attract up to 40 per cent. tax relief?
    Mr. Dennis Skinner: If it's your policy, what are you worried about?
    Mr. Blunkett: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) puts it succinctly. If it is the Liberal Democrats' policy, I should be asking the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) the question.
    I announced the policy of individual learning accounts three years ago. We have been working with local partners and with training and enterprise councils to ensure that, when the accounts are launched, they are a great success. The first million will be available by next year, funded by £150 million of public money. There is a £500 cap. The standard rate of income tax is applied. As we shall see when the Moser report is published, this is a policy for

    1251
    investing in the basic skills needs of the vast majority of people who have few—or, in many cases, no—qualifications and skills.
    This is not a policy, unlike the previous vocational tax relief, to encourage people to follow, at public expense, leisure courses such as the piloting of aircraft and deep sea diving.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: I warmly welcome the recent announcement about individual learning accounts and the way in which they will encourage individuals to take responsibility for their own learning. Will they be available to right hon. and hon. Members and their assistants, and, if so, would my right hon. Friend encourage us to take advantage of them?
    Mr. Blunkett: I have been hoist by my own petard. Yes, I would encourage all hon. Members to take advantage of them, and I would encourage people to ensure that those who do not have basic skills can take up the scheme in a new and imaginative way. I had better stress once again that individual learning accounts will not be available for diving courses here or anywhere else in the world.

    New Deal
    Mr. Chris Mullin: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the new deal programme; and if he will make a statement. [755841
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): The new deal has made an encouraging start. More than 230,000 young people have started on the programme and more than 50,000 have already found jobs. A comprehensive programme of evaluation is under way, much of it being undertaken independently of Government. Four reports have already been published, more are on the way, and we shall release detailed information in May on how each area is doing against core performance indicators.
    Mr. Mullin: Has my right hon. Friend noticed that we have succeeded in attracting only about seven Tory Back Benchers to our deliberations this morning, and does he think that there is scope for a new deal programme to reintegrate some Tories back into the world of work?
    Does my right hon. Friend see any scope for allowing new deal steering groups greater flexibility to adapt their programmes to local conditions—for example, by awarding recognition to in-house training that does not necessarily produce a national vocational qualification but that may be every bit as relevant to job prospects?
    Mr. Smith: I know the close personal interest that my hon. Friend takes in the new deal in his constituency, and that is greatly appreciated by all those responsible for the programme locally. As to the challenge of what the new deal could do for the Conservative party, I have always been careful about the claims that I make for the new deal and even I would not suggest that the new deal would be capable of bringing indolent Conservatives into the Chamber, even at this late hour in the morning.
    1252
    The programme is giving young unemployed people in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere the chance—for many of them for the first time in their lives—to obtain rewarding work. I agree that we must develop the flexibility to ensure that the gateway and other training support can equip people to fill the vacancies that are available. The increase to £5 million for the innovation fund for the new deal in the Budget will enable us to carry forward precisely the sort of initiative for which my hon. Friend argues on behalf of his local partnership and others.
    Mr. David Willetts: I do not recall seeing the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) in the House last week in the Budget debate on education and employment, or the week before that, and what about the week before when we debated education in schools, when more Conservative Members were present than Labour Members?
    The Minister talks complacently about the new deal, but is he aware of what Personnel Today has called a crisis of confidence in the new deal among employers? Can he confirm that Allied Carpets is pulling out of the scheme and that Dixons, Bass and Marks and Spencer are finding it difficult to meet their recruitment needs through the new deal? Is it not a fact that no extra young people are finding jobs through the new deal compared with what would have happened anyway?
    Mr. Smith: No to all of it. First, the hon. Gentleman should use one of his brains at least to apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who was in the Chamber on the occasions to which he referred. Secondly, Lucy has had to be left outside the Chamber today, in case the hon. Gentleman's intemperate remarks should provoke her as they so evidently did during the education debate. Finally, it is not true that those companies have pulled out of the new deal. For example, Marks and Spencer has reported to me positive experience of the people that it has recruited and the progress that it is making on the programme. He is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    New Classrooms
    Charlotte Atkins: If he will estimate the number of new classrooms to be provided by September 1999.[75587]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I refer my hon. Friend to my earlier answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). We estimate that the key stage 1 class size initiative will fund an additional 600 classrooms in the current financial year and a further 900 in 1999–2000.
    Charlotte Atkins: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In Staffordshire, in January 1998, nearly 8,300 pupils were in classes of over 30; by September 1999, that figure is likely to be under 500. Does he recognise the particular problems of rural schools operating with mixed-age classes in buildings of limited size?
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. The kind of change that she has seen in Staffordshire is

    1253
    happening throughout the country, to the great benefit of educational standards. We are extremely conscious of the importance of the local school to rural communities, such as those in her constituency. Our policy is designed to raise standards in all schools, wherever they are situated. We have made it clear that no child should have to travel an unreasonable distance to school because of the class size limit and we are prepared to consider providing extra funding for an extra teacher when no alternative school is available within a reasonable distance.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Whatever importance is attached to lowering class sizes to below 30, surely it is even more important to reduce the number of children in classes of over 40. Will the Minister confirm the figures from his own Department stating that, in the first year of this Government, the number of children in classes of over 40 doubled? Why has that happened and when will he manage to get the number of children in classes of over 40 in primary schools back to the level that he inherited from the previous Government?
    Mr. Clarke: I can confirm that our plans will reduce the number of children in infant classes of over 30 from 485,000 in January 1998 to under 200,000 in September 1999—a drop of over 285,000. By September 2000, we expect fewer than 50,000 children to be in large infant classes. I am not aware of the particular school to which the hon. Gentleman referred, but its budget for the first year of this Government was inherited from the previous Administration. Thanks to this Government, substantial extra resources are going into schools to address precisely the issue about which he is concerned, and all the other issues of educational standards.
    Ms Joan Walley: May I give credit where credit is due and say how pleased I am that we have such a huge programme for new classrooms and school building programmes, particularly in Staffordshire and in Stoke-on-Trent? I thank my hon. Friend for the £2.5 million under the new deal, which will fund 10 new classrooms at Holden Lane high school in my constituency, where work commences tomorrow.
    My hon. Friend's policy is one of innovation and vision—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!]—because building new classrooms will enable us to implement our policy of lifelong learning and ties in with primary schools. Will he look at the accumulated backlog in respect of new classrooms in Staffordshire and in Stoke-on-Trent, which has resulted from 18 years of no improvements under the previous Government?
    Mr. Clarke: I thank my hon. Friend for her question. Such improvements are being made throughout the country. I certainly give her an assurance that I will look into the backlog to which she referred, but she was justified in using the words "innovation" and "vision". The fact is that we had 18 years of stagnation, but more resources are now going into building. Teachers' governing bodies are being creative about how those resources can be used to drive up educational standards. I travel around the country a great deal and it is truly inspirational to see what many people are doing with the resources that we have been able to let them have.

    Employment Zones
    Mr. Syd Rapson: What plans he has to help unemployed people aged 25 years and over in employment zones to find employment.[75588]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): We aim to have 15 employment zones throughout Britain up and running from April next year, with some 48,000 long-term unemployed people eligible for help. A key innovation in the zones will be personal job accounts, which will, for the first time, bring together funding from benefits, training and employment service programmes.
    Mr. Rapson: I thank the Minister for that answer. Could he explain to an old-fashioned sceptic such as me how the new personal job accounts will provide the flexible help needed by the unemployed?
    Mr. Smith: The rules of past initiatives have been rigid and have required that money can be used only for a particular purpose, whereas, under this scheme, the personal adviser, working in conjunction with the long-term unemployed client, will be able to plan a programme of training, work experience, enterprise and self-employment. If people want to be self-employed, the personal adviser will help them to move forward. Pooling funds that have previously be available only in a fragmented way will make a much more coherent and effective programme.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Does the Minister recognise that, contrary to his boast about the Government's policies, especially the new deal, instead of tourism and leisure businesses recruiting many more young people, at a recent trade function for one of the main trade bodies for tourism and leisure, it was revealed that not one business has taken on anyone under the new deal? Does that not show the complete bankruptcy of the Government's policies and the accuracy of what my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) said a few moments ago?
    Mr. Smith: No, it does not. It is more nonsense from a party that did next to nothing to help the long-term and young unemployed, and now cannot come to grips with the fact that the new deal has, according to independent evaluation, made an encouraging start. Tourism, leisure and catering are among those industries recruiting the most people from the new deal. From memory, I think that over a fifth of new deal recruits who are getting jobs are going into that sector.
    The hon. Gentleman should examine the hard evidence. He should compare the performance of the young, unemployed people who went through the new deal programme when the pathfinder areas were up and running with the performance when the new deal was not up and running in the rest of the country. That comparison has been made, and it shows that youth unemployment fell by 18 more percentage points in areas where the new deal was operating. That is proof that this programme is working and helping young people forward. Conservative Members should, as some of them have, get behind the new deal and help to make it a success, instead of carping and trying to make it a failure.

    Personal Adviser Service
    Kali Mountford: What is the role of the personal adviser service in respect of disabled people seeking work and training.[75589]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Under the new deal for disabled people, the personal adviser service offers those who are claiming incapacity benefits a client-focused service based on the needs of the individual disabled person. It gives those people access to an extensive range of specialist disability programmes. Personal advisers carry out initial assessments of a client's employability, arrange any specialist assessments that are needed, give advice on benefits and training issues, draw up employment-focused action plans and work with clients to carry them out.
    Kali Mountford: I am delighted with the response from my hon. Friend the Minister, which will meet many of the concerns that have been expressed by people with disabilities who have attended my surgeries. They are fearful that they will be forced into employment that is unsuitable for them, and that training opportunities will not recognise their needs. Personal advisers may not understand their problems of access to employment. Can they have an assurance that personal advisers will be thoroughly trained so that they know the local marketplace and how disabled people can get access to it? Disabled people need to be supported throughout their lives so as to ensure that they have a full opportunity to be citizens and not just people in receipt of benefits.
    Ms Hodge: Training for personal advisers is absolutely crucial, and is professional and individually tailored to ensure that they have the skills that are necessary to help this special group under the new deal. I endorse what my hon. Friend said. We know that, of the 2.6 million people who are on incapacity benefit, 1 million would like to work. It behoves us to try to break down the barriers to employment that far too many disabled people have faced for far too long.

    Adult Literacy
    Mr. Vernon Coaker: What estimate he has made of the numbers of adults with literacy problems; and what support is being given to them.[75590]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): Just over one in five adults—some 8 million adults of working age—have poor literacy skills, according to the 1997 "Adult Literacy in Britain" survey. A wide range of Government programmes offer basic skills provision for adults. By 2002, up to 500,000 learners a year will benefit.
    Mr. Coaker: Many hon. Members will be staggered by the information that 8 million adults have basic literacy problems. A number of those people will be the excluded, prisoners, and others with difficulties of all kinds. May I urge my hon. Friend to give as much prominence as possible to the recommendations in the Moser report,
    1256
    and to the individual learning accounts that are to be introduced? The present position is clearly unsatisfactory, and cannot be allowed to continue.
    Mr. Mudie: I think that the whole House will appreciate my hon. Friend's concern.
    Mr. Eric Forth: No.
    Mr. Mudie: That probably puts the right hon. Gentleman in a minority of one.
    Those 8 million people will be unemployed, on benefits or in low-paid jobs, and the figures demonstrate that they receive less training than others. My hon. Friend is right: we are awaiting the Moser report, whose publication is imminent, and we shall be prepared to work with it. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out we ascribe great importance to individual learning accounts, which can act as a catalyst for ordinary people who would not necessarily have considered going back to learning otherwise. They can pick up that £150, and embark on the road leading back to learning and to employment.

    Early-years Education
    Dr. Phyllis Starkey: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the provision of (a) playgroups and (b) nursery classes for early-years education.[75591]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Ms Margaret Hodge): Early-years services are planned in each local authority, so that the maintained, private and voluntary sectors all contribute to planning and providing early-education places for four-year-olds and, increasingly, for three-year-olds. As I announced yesterday, we are providing a further £500,000 in direct help for voluntary pre-school groups and playgroups with short-term financial difficulties. That will enable them to play a full part in the expansion of places.
    Dr. Starkey: I welcome the additional funds. In my constituency, despite the council's excellent early-years planning, playgroups and nursery classes in schools have drawn my attention to problems that they are experiencing in filling places. That is directly due to the aftermath of the nursery vouchers free-for-all. Will my hon. Friend keep the situation under review, and ensure that playgroups and nursery classes that are experiencing short-term difficulties have the finance to tide them over?
    Ms Hodge: Because we wanted to escape from the free-for-all, we introduced early-years development and child care partnerships, so that there could be proper planning for places in each local authority area. This year, for the first time, each partnership has undertaken an audit of both supply and demand in its area, so that there can be sensible provision.
    I shall continue to keep an eye on what is happening in Milton Keynes. I am currently considering the plan that it has submitted. I hope that the local authority itself will consider raising the age of admission to reception classes, if it has the capacity so to do.
    Mr. John Bercow: In the light of what she has said, will the Minister confirm that she agrees that

    1257
    the contribution of the pre-school playgroups—including the one that services the children of Marsworth, in my constituency, which I had the privilege of visiting last Friday—is just as valuable as the contribution of school reception classes? Given the primacy of personal choice for parents, does the Minister agree that, at no stage and in no way, should any parents feel that they are being pressurised or corralled into sending their children to school reception classes, as distinct from their preferred choice of pre-school playgroups?
    Ms Hodge: Of course we agree—the entire thrust of our policy demonstrates our belief that diversity in provision for children in their early years is absolutely crucial. Over the next three years, we shall be investing £8 billion in providing high-quality and affordable pre-school education, and £8 billion in early education and child care. The important thing is choice for parents, families and children. The choice should be theirs, and not be determined by a producer-led interest. I hope that, in his constituency, the hon. Gentleman will be supporting parents and their children, in ensuring that they are able to choose the setting that best suits children's needs.

    University for Industry
    Mr. Dennis Canavan: If he will make a statement about progress in establishing the university for industry. [75592]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. George Mudie): Good progress has been made towards establishment of the university for industry. A three-year corporate plan was recently agreed by Ministers as the basis for future planning. This morning, the university for industry announced its proposals to take forward its development and implementation. It intends to publish a summary of those plans shortly. Lord Dearing, the newly appointed board and Dr Anne Wright—the university for industry's chief executive—will lead that exciting work. The university for industry is on target to launch nationally in 2000.
    Mr. Canavan: Does my hon. Friend agree that the university for industry is one of the most positive and innovative projects on the education agenda? Bearing in mind that the official launch is supposed to take place next year, will he give us a bit more detail about the project? For example, will the university for industry basically be a national learning resource centre, a degree-awarding body, or both? To what extent will it use existing academic institutions to provide nationwide access to interactive learning technology in the home and the workplace, and in local schools and libraries?
    Mr. Mudie: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's warm welcome—
    Mr. Don Foster: Surprised?
    Mr. Mudie: I am not surprised at all, but very grateful, for my hon. Friend's warm welcome for the institution.
    1258
    The university for industry will not be a degree-awarding institution. It will be more a broker, bringing together existing institutions, and will—through the technology infrastructure—make individuals aware of services, courses and the availability of places. There is a separate UFI organisation for Scotland, and we are working closely with it in co-ordinating its activities.
    Mr. Andrew Lansley: The Minister will be aware that the Budget Red Book makes it clear that only £5 million is to be allocated to the university for industry, and that any other funds will have to be met out of the budget of the Department for Education and Employment. If Ministers have agreed a corporate plan, will the Minister say how much money has been allocated to the university for industry from within his Department's budget, and from which other budget it has been taken? Will he also explain to the House why, last Friday, when I talked to the training and enterprise council in Cambridgeshire and asked about the university for industry, I was told, "All we have seen is material suggesting that it will happen some time, but no one has told us anything about what it will do in practice"?
    Mr. Mudie: Similarly unhelpful and ungrateful comments are made about TECs—the hon. Gentleman should pay no attention to them. He should consider the fact that we have been appointing a board, a chief executive and a chairman—and we are delighted that Lord Dearing has accepted. The sum in the Red Book is for development costs. However, now that the corporate plan has been agreed, provision of £44 million will be triggered. The Red Book also does not show the considerable sums for development—about which, two Question Times ago, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) asked me—provided from European Adapt funds.

    New Deal (Young People)
    Mr. David Lock: What proposals his Department has to ensure that young people on the gateway section of new deal have the skills needed to hold down full-time jobs.[75593]
    The Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work and Equal Opportunities (Mr. Andrew Smith): The gateway help for young people includes jobsearch, careers advice and guidance and support with basic skills. There is also specialist help for those who have suffered homelessness, alcohol or substance abuse.
    Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that the gateway phase is vital to enable young people to move from benefit into work? Taking people from a life on the dole and giving them the skills necessary to hold down a job is a crucial building block for the first stage of their career. Will he join me in commending the valuable work done by the new deal advisers in Worcestershire, where the programme has been such a success, in preparing young people for work?
    Mr. Smith: I am pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the advisers and others working on the new deal in his county. They, too, will appreciate the active support that he has given the new deal. He is right to say that the gateway has been an outstandingly successful feature of the new deal. The continuity of support from personal advisers is greatly welcomed by
    1260
    clients and employers. The extra money made available in the Budget will enable us to develop pre-employment involvement in training on the part of employers and other still more intensive help to ensure that even the hardest to help get the maximum benefit from the gateway, thereby enabling them to move into productive employment.

Business of the House
12.31 pm
Sir George Young: Will the Leader of the House give the House the business for next week?
The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 22 MARCH—Opposition Day [8th Allotted Day]
Until about 7 o'clock there will be a debate entitled "Government Responsibility for Council Tax Increases" followed by a debate on Europe, America and the World Trade Organisation. Both debates will arise on motions in the name of the Liberal Democrats.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY 23 MARCH—Remaining stages of the Local Government Bill.
WEDNESDAY 24 MARcH—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Second Reading of the Access to Justice Bill [Lords].
THURSDAY 25 MARCH—There will be a debate on defence in the world on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 26 MARCH—Private Members' Bills.
The provisional business for the following week will be as follows:
MONDAY 29 MARCH—There will be a debate on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
TUESDAY 30 MARCH—Progress on remaining stages of the Employment Relations Bill.
WEDNESDAY 31 MARCH—Until 2 o'clock there will be debates on the Motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
Conclusion of remaining stages of the Employment Relations Bill.
The House will also wish to know that on Tuesday 23 March there will be a debate on reform of the structural and cohesion funds in European Standing Committee C and that on Wednesday 24 March there will be a debate on the deliberate release into the environment of genetically modified organisms in European Standing Committee A. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Tuesday 23 March:
European Standing Committee C—Relevant European Union documents: Unnumbered, Reform of the Structural Funds; Unnumbered, Agenda 2000: Cohesion Fund Amendment; 5480/99, European Regional Development Fund. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Reports: HC 34 xii (1998–99); Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxvii (1997–98).
Wednesday 24 March 1999:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Union document: 6378/98, Deliberate Release into the Environment of Genetically Modified Organisms. Relevant European Scrutiny Committee Report: HC 34iii (1998–99) Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 155-xxvi (1997–98).]
1262
The House will also wish to be reminded that, subject to the progress of business, it will be proposed that the House will rise for the Easter recess at the end of business on Wednesday 31 March until the start of business on Tuesday 13 April.
Sir George Young: The House is grateful for details of next week's business and an indication of business for the following week. We welcome the fact that the right hon. Lady has found time for a debate on the Stephen Lawrence inquiry.
Can it be right that at no time in the four weeks following the constitutional crisis that hit the European Union on Monday will the House of Commons debate that subject? Has not the House led the world in showing how the Executive are held to account, in combating fraud in the public sector and in promoting democratic accountability? Should not the voice of this House be heard in the critical weeks that lie ahead, not least on the proposed pay-offs for some members of the Commission and on the proposals put forward by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and others for validating future nominations?
Should not we also debate the crisis at the nationality and immigration department of the Home Office, where only six per cent. of calls get through and where people begin to start to queue at four in the morning? People end up being trapped in this country for six months or more because the Home Office has their passport. That department also has a backlog of 200,000 case files—occupying some 14 miles of shelving—many of which are inaccessible, because the garage in which they are stored is not considered safe to access.
Key meetings are being held this weekend in Washington and Rambouillet on the future of Northern Ireland and Kosovo. Can the Leader of the House tell us whether we might expect statements on either or both of those meetings at the beginning of next week?
Finally, the Leader of the House said on Tuesday that she would provide time for a debate on the White Paper on the reform of the second Chamber, now that the House of Lords Bill has left this House. When will that debate take place?
Mrs. Beckett: First, I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that this House and this country have taken a strong lead in combating fraud and promoting sound management, including sound financial management. I take his point that, because of the Easter recess, no debate is scheduled to consider the EU crisis. Equally, until the Berlin special summit next week, for example, it will not be clear what shape the relevant discussions will take.
I take the right hon. Gentleman's point about pay-offs, but he will be aware that the contracts which have led to such payments long pre-date this Government. In so far as we have redundancy arrangements in this House for members of the Executive, they do not depend on behaviour.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about validating nominations for EU Commissioners. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, the Conservatives have made their own nomination for the new Commission—accession to which would normally follow the European elections—without seeing the necessity to change the procedures. Indeed, they saw no need to do so when they were in power.

1263
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the crisis in the handling of immigration and nationality cases. All Members of Parliament are aware of those concerns and the problems caused. Part of the reason for the crisis is the work that is now having to be undertaken to lay the foundation for a better service—including work on providing new information technology systems. As for the nature and scale of the crisis, all those who were Members of this House eight to 10 ago years will be well aware that whatever the current crisis might be, it pales into insignificance compared with the situation then. Clearly, the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten the days when, under the Government of which he was a member, the backlog was six months' worth of post, which was not even opened, never mind dealt with. We need no lessons from the Conservatives on this matter.
We are doing our best to keep the House informed of the outcome of the meeting in Rambouillet and of the discussions on Northern Ireland. It is not clear what the outcome will be, but I will bear in mind the right hon. Gentleman's request for a statement. I cannot tell him, at this moment, whether I expect there to be the need for one at the beginning of next week.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I have undertaken to find time for a debate on the White Paper on House of Lords reform. It will not be held in the near future, but certainly it will happen before the summer.
Mr. Paul Flynn: May we have a debate on the role of the independent Members of Parliament throughout this century? Our parliamentary system has benefited from, and will continue to be based on, party political systems, but is it not right to look at what has happened in the past—and in recent years, as we now have a solitary independent Member of Parliament? Although we normally disapprove of politicians breaking their election promises, the role that has been played by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)—which has been unique and valuable in many respects, including his contributions on landmines, the honours system and warfare—has been so important that the honourable thing for him to do would be to break that election promise, seek election in Tatton next time and seek also the multiplication of his kind in this House.
Madam Speaker: Did the hon. Gentleman give notice to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)?
Mr. Flynn: I did not, but
Madam Speaker: If he had, the hon. Member for Tatton would probably have been too embarrassed to turn up.
Mrs. Beckett: It is rare that any hon. Member needs to be given notice of being paid great compliments. Of course, I take my hon. Friend's point. The role played by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) has attracted praise. I would normally hesitate to be drawn into commenting on the affairs of another political party, and I feel even greater caution when it is a political party of one.
Mr. Paul Tyler: Following the question from the right hon. Member for North-West
1264
Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on the developing situations in Kosovo and Northern Ireland and the European crisis, does the Leader of the House agree that if, particularly following the Berlin summit, it proves necessary to have a debate before Easter, the House could continue to sit on Maundy Thursday? We would all prefer to avoid that, but I hope that she agrees that it would be wrong for us to adjourn for our recess without debating those important matters.
We also hope for a statement before the recess on the Monopolies and Mergers Commission inquiry into the milk industry. The dairy sector is already in dire trouble, and the continuing indecision about the report and the failure to publish it so that it can be debated is causing huge concern. Will the Leader of the House communicate to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that milk producers are not in a monopolistic position, although milk buyers are in an oligopolistic position, and ask him to make a statement?
The Leader of the House may have noted that some questions were asked yesterday of the Minister for the Cabinet Office about the labelling of genetically modified food. He was not able to make a statement to the House, but I understand that a statement was made to a press conference this morning. Will she acknowledge that the issue is far too important for such treatment? There is wide public concern, and the House should be the first to hear of the Government's proposals.
Mrs. Beckett: If events occur in Kosovo, Northern Ireland or the European Union of such magnitude or clarity that it is necessary or possible to make a statement on them, the Government will of course bear that in mind. I said in my announcement that the House would rise subject to progress on business. I am not sure that all the hon. Gentleman's colleagues would share his enthusiasm for sitting on Maundy Thursday.
Mr. Eric Forth: They are all off on holiday.
Mrs. Beckett: I was not going to say that.
Of course I understand the concerns about the MMC report on milk. I cannot undertake for a statement to be made next week. The hon. Gentleman will know that these are difficult matters in which Ministers play a quasi-judicial role, so the report can be published only when all the right steps have been taken.
My understanding is that it is Agriculture Ministers, not Cabinet Office Ministers, who laid the regulations about labelling this morning and who may perhaps have held a press conference.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Following the request of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for a statement or debate about the Euro-crisis, has my right hon. Friend considered the possibility that the so-called crisis did not result in people like me shedding any tears? The truth is that I could almost revel in it. I could see the very core of the Common Market beginning to break up. Why do we need a Commission at all? Let us save a lot of money and not replace the 20 Commissioners. We have the Council of Ministers and the so-called Parliament. What else do we need? We must think the unthinkable at times like this

1265
and get rid of them. As for all the redundancy pay, the Tories have a cheek to talk about that, because nearly a dozen Tory Ministers got the sack, including Hamilton, and they all ran away with the redundancy money.
Mrs. Beckett: I am confident that my hon. Friend is seeking either a statement or a debate on those matters. He makes, as he will appreciate, a bold and sweeping suggestion and I doubt whether the Government will be able to come to such conclusions, certainly within the time scale of the business statement.
Mr. Humfrey Mahas: My constituent, Paul Connolly, was a civilian employed in direct support of United Kingdom forces in the Gulf war and has since suffered serious ill health. He is one of thousands of veterans who have suffered and not been compensated. Will the Leader of the House find time for a statement or debate on the issue of Gulf war veterans, their illnesses and when they might be compensated?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot offer the hon. Gentleman time in the near future for a debate on the serious problems suffered by his constituent, about which I am sorry to hear, as I know the House will be. However, the hon. Gentleman may find other opportunities to raise the matter in an Adjournment debate and he may also catch your eye, Madam Speaker. during the defence debate that I have announced.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: My right hon. Friend will know that the Channel 4 broadcaster, Sheena McDonald, was knocked over by a speeding police car in Islington last month and suffered serious injuries. I have since unearthed figures that show that, last year, 2,123 people were knocked down by speeding police cars answering 999 calls or other emergencies. Hundreds of people were seriously injured and 15 died last year, and those figures are not out of the ordinary. We see such carnage every year. Is there not a case for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to make a statement to the House about what advice and guidance he has issued to chief constables about how police cars are driven in such circumstances?
Mrs. Beckett: All hon. Members will share the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed, both about the tragic accident involving Sheena McDonald and about the other people who suffered injury or were killed. At the moment, I cannot call to mind the statistics for the percentage of accidents reflected by the figures that my hon. Friend has given, but I will draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. However, my hon. Friend will probably find that those are operational matters for chief constables, rather than directly for Ministers.
Mr. Michael Jack: Before the last Liberal leaves for his Easter holidays, may I press the Leader of the House to explain clearly why the House should not have its say on matters connected with the European Commission and recent events before the die is firmly cast with reference to its future? The Leader of the House will recall a debate in which we discussed the democratic deficit and questions of accountability in the work of the Commission and the European Union. Would not it be a
1266
good idea to have a debate before Easter so that we could make our contribution to the deliberations on the future of the Commission?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course no one is saying that there will be no debate: none of us knows how quickly those matters will be resolved. I am confident that hon. Members will take all the opportunities available to them, in the pre-recess debates, for example, and at Prime Minister's Question Time, to continue to raise those issues.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Caretakers are not normally well paid, and nor do they receive massive pay-offs when they resign. It seems to be different in the case of European Union Commissioners. Should we not have a debate soon on the fraud report? Should we not influence what our representatives do at the Berlin special summit, and should we not have a separate debate after the summit?
Mrs. Beckett: I shall bear my hon. Friend's remarks in mind. As I said to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) a moment ago, hon. Members who catch the Speaker's eye in our pre-recess debates will be able to raise many issues, of which that may be one. The original report from the Court of Auditors on EU fraud was debated in a European Standing Committee, as recommended by the Select Committee on European Scrutiny. The underlying concerns raised by hon. Members have therefore been under review, and that will continue to be the case.
Rev. Martin Smyth: May I reiterate requests for an early debate on Northern Ireland? Kosovo is an international issue, but Northern Ireland is a matter internal to the United Kingdom. In a week in which violence has escalated and in which there have been two brutal murders, we should not set Northern Ireland aside.
Will the Leader of the House investigate whether the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs might look into breaches of justice and human rights infringements in the United States of America, whose Foreign Relations Committee seeks to hold a hearing on the Royal Ulster Constabulary?
Mrs. Beckett: It is not for me to tell the Foreign Affairs Committee what it should debate, but I am sure that the Committee will note the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
The hon. Gentleman asked for a debate on Northern Ireland, saying rightly that we should not set that subject aside. Of course the Government will not set aside Northern Ireland, but I doubt whether events are moving at such a pace that we will be able to debate the matter before the Easter recess. I shall of course bear the hon. Gentleman's remarks in mind.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Albeit I have been lucky in gaining an Adjournment debate on the bombing of the Al Shifa plant on Wednesday, and although there is a defence debate on Thursday, should not the House receive a statement from either the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary on the political objectives—not the defence aspects—of the bombing? In particular, should not we have such a statement before anyone embarks on the counter-productive folly of bombing the Slays,

1267
thus creating a situation in Kosovo and with the Russians that would have endless consequences? In particular, may we have a statement on the Russian attitude to what has happened?
Mrs. Beckett: With respect, the Government are not responsible for the attitude of the Russian Government. Certainly, I take my hon. Friend's point that he is anxious to pursue issues on the objectives of bombing. I must disagree with his suggestion that political objectives are not a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence. Of course they are; the Secretary of State holds those responsibilities in common with other members of the Government, and they are very much part of his remit.
I must also take issue with my hon. Friend's suggestion that he has been lucky to gain an Adjournment debate on the matter. Assiduous is the word that I would use.
Mr. Forth: The Leader of the House will of course have read The Sun this morning, and she will therefore know that members of the outraged road haulage industry will hold a major demonstration on Monday about the costs that the Government have put on the industry. She will not know, however, that my constituent, Mr. Houghton, rang me this morning to make the same point personally. He fears for his livelihood, and for the livelihoods of his colleagues in the industry, as a direct result of what the Government are doing. Will the Leader of the House confirm that newspaper stories about a possible change of mind are true? May we have an early debate or a statement next week to coincide with the demonstration and to reassure the industry that the Government have got their policy wrong and will change it?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot promise an early debate, all the more because there will be every opportunity to discuss the matter during debates on the Finance Bill, which will come before the House soon. We all look forward with interest to hearing the case of those who have expressed concern. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that one must compare like with like: other costs for road hauliers are substantially lower here than in some of the countries with which the hauliers are making comparisons about fuel costs. I remind him that the highest increase in fuel duty during the past 10 years—13 per cent.—occurred in 1995 when the Conservative Government, of whom he was a member, were in power.
Mr. Syd Rapson: As my right hon. Friend has been unfairly blamed for all the problems with the millennium bug, does she accept the blame for the baby boom that will result from last night's over-indulgence in conception activity, no doubt because of the magnificent football match in which Manchester United stuffed the opposition?
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot find time for a debate on any of those issues during the next couple of weeks, or indeed in the near future. I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and hasten to assure him that I do not take responsibility for any problems that result from the millennium bug; I take responsibility for the action that
1268
the Government are taking to minimise those problems, and am happy to do so. I certainly take no responsibility at all for the other issues that he raises.
Mr. John Wilkinson: Yesterday, in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the Prime Minister said that
"appointments are of course always subject to parliamentary scrutiny".—[Official Report, 17 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1116.]
My right hon. Friend was referring to the necessity of United Kingdom appointments to the European Commission being approved in advance by the House—and rightly so, in view of early-day motion 437, tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), which states:
[That in the opinion of this House the names of British commissioners to serve in the European Union should be approved by the House of Commons before appointment.]
If the Prime Minister's words are to have any meaning, and as the British taxpayer funds, to some degree, the salaries and the pay-offs of the European Commissioners, will the right hon. Lady find it in her heart to heed the genuine feeling expressed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House to hold a debate on a matter whose gravity deserves the immediate attention of this Parliament? If her relationship with the Liberal. Democrats has any validity, could they not give up their Supply day on Monday for such a debate?
Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Gentleman refers to the pay-offs that might be due to retiring members of the European Commission. I remind him that, as I said earlier, the contracts under which any such moneys are due were not negotiated under the stewardship of the Labour Government. Secondly, he mentions the genuine feeling on both sides of the House; I appreciate and accept that some Members might have such feelings, but would point out to him that, as Conservative Members have felt the necessity to scrutinise those matters only in the past 10 days, the genuineness of their concern is called into question.
Mr. Martin Salter: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposals to privatise all or part of National Air Traffic Services have caused considerable concern to residents living near our major airports, to Members of Parliament who represent those constituencies and, most importantly, to the air traffic controllers, whose safety record is second to none? Has she been briefed on yesterday's successful lobby by the Institution of Professionals, Managers and Specialists against those proposals? Does she agree that a full parliamentary debate is needed on that important safety issue once the current consultation period is over?
Mrs. Beckett: I am aware of the great concern felt about those matters and of the consultation exercise. At present, I cannot undertake to find time for a debate when that exercise has been completed, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to its importance and the Government will take its results on board.
Mr. Christopher Gill: May we have an emergency debate on the crisis facing small abattoirs?

1269
Right hon. and hon. Members with abattoirs in their constituencies will be aware that, as a result of the impost of astronomical increases in meat inspection charges, prospectively from 1 April this year, many small abattoirs will be driven out of business. I use those words advisedly. Those abattoirs will not go out of business as a result of market forces or because they are not competitive; they will be driven out of business by the Government impost of those astronomically high charges. Once they close, they will never reopen and that will spell the end of the craft sector of the meat industry for all time.
Mrs. Beckett: I fear that I cannot offer to find time for an emergency debate on that matter. However, the hon. Gentleman might seek to raise the subject in the pre-recess debates.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: May I press the right hon. Lady on the complacent answer that she gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) regarding the road haulage industry? The Government normally pay a great deal of attention to what appears on the front page of The Sun, and we now know that there will be a white van jam in London on Monday morning. I draw the right hon. Lady's attention to the leader in this morning's edition of that paper, which says:
"Stop drivers being robbed at the petrol pump".
The Government's diesel price increases are astronomical, and it behoves the British public to remember that, every time they fill up their cars, £8.50 of every £10 they spend on petrol goes in tax.
Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Lady accuses me of complacency, but there was nothing complacent about my reply to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I simply pointed out that far higher increases in duty were imposed by the Government of which he was a member and of which the hon. Lady was a supporter.
I understand the concerns that have been expressed. As I said earlier, it is important for people to take account of other lower costs in the road haulage industry. The Budget that continued the use of the fuel escalator—which was introduced by the Conservatives—also froze vehicle excise duty for 98 per cent. of lorries and reduced the road tax for low-emission lorries. I remind the hon. Lady of the words of the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) when, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, he introduced the fuel escalator. He said:
"Any critic of the Government's"—
that is, the Conservative Government's—
"tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report. 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]
Mr. Phil Hope: My right hon. Friend will be aware that today sees the launch of the gift aid 2000 scheme by the Chancellor and Eddie Izzard—of whom only the latter is a cross-dresser. Millennium gift aid encourages people to give donations to support education and anti-poverty projects in the world's 80 poorest countries. For every £100 donation, the Government will give £30 in tax relief to the charities and voluntary
1270
organisations that do that excellent work. Will my right hon. Friend find time to debate that scheme in the House of Commons? Perhaps that debate could take place in the context of discussing other Budget proposals such as the review of charity taxation, which is under consultation. That will develop a range of new proposals which will support charities, individuals and business donations to charities, and which the voluntary sector will appreciate very much.
Mrs. Beckett: I thank my hon. Friend, who has always taken a great interest in the voluntary sector and in the work of charities, for that information. Like all hon. Members, we welcome the steps that the Chancellor felt able to take in the Budget to support and bolster the work of such organisations. I fear that I cannot offer to find time for a special, separate debate on that issue, but I feel confident that the matter can be explored during debate on the Finance Bill.
Mr. John Hayes: The Leader of the House has resisted calls by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) for a debate on the haulage industry. Will she make time to debate specifically the effect on unemployment in rural constituencies of the swingeing increases in diesel duty? The Leader of the House will know that many haulage companies are based in rural constituencies, where they are significant employers. I refer her to the excellent article by Tim Spanton that appears in today's edition of The Sun. It is a piece of investigative journalism for which the House should be very grateful. Will the right hon. Lady take note of that article and make time for a debate on the employment effects of the swingeing increases in petrol and diesel prices?
Mrs. Beckett: I always take note of what is said in newspapers such as The Sun. Indeed, I noted the great welcome The Sun gave to the Budget, which it said would advantage every group in Britain. I remind the hon. Gentleman of what I said to both the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride). First, it is important to compare like with like and to consider the haulage industry's overall costs, not just fuel costs. Secondly, the previous Government, of which the hon. Gentleman was a supporter, first introduced the fuel duty escalator. Thirdly, this is not the largest rise that has ever been imposed—that was imposed by his Government in 1995.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Will the right hon. Lady find time for a debate on the substance of early-day motion 436?
[That this House notes with concern the Prime Minister's Answer of 10th March, Official Report, column 358, that there is a 'net tax cut of £4.5 billion' for the coming year, because the total tax increase in the coming year is £7.1 billion; further notes that the Prime Minister's claim not to have raised taxes but to have cut them has been described by the eminent economist Anatole Kaletsky as `simply false'; recalls the Prime Minister's previous assertion that any Minister giving false information to the House would speedily correct the mistake; and calls on the Prime Minister immediately to correct his false assertion and apologise to the House.]

1271
That motion has been signed by 59 right hon. and hon. Members and relates to the Prime Minister's suggestion that there has been a net tax cut of £4.5 billion for the year ahead, whereas there will be a total tax increase of £7.1 billion in the coming year. Does the right hon. Lady agree that such a debate would give the Prime Minister or his spokesman ample opportunity to explain why, if their figures are right and ours are wrong, the eminent economist Anatole Kaletsky has described the Prime Minister's figures as simply false?
Mrs. Beckett: First, the hon. Gentleman asked me for a special debate, and I say to him, as I have said to others, that those matters can be aired in the debates on the Finance Bill. Anatole Kaletsky is certainly distinguished, but he is not necessarily therefore always right. I prefer to rest on the judgment of organisations such as the Institute for Fiscal Studies. In response to his assertion about the correctness of his figures over those given by the Prime Minister, I simply say to him that it was never possible in the past to trust figures given by his party, and it is not possible now.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate next Monday or Tuesday on the EU Commission's resignation and the special summit in Berlin? The Prime Minister has been aware for more than two months of the date of publication of the inquiry into fraud and nepotism in the Commission, and the date of the special summit was known for a similarly long time. There is, therefore, no excuse for the Government not having provided time for a debate. Will the right hon. Lady remind the House on how many occasions in the past we have had an opportunity to debate the issues relating to a summit of the European Council of Ministers in advance of the meeting, rather than afterwards?
Mrs. Beckett: Of course, there are arrangements for discussing issues relating to the European summit which broadly circle the pre-arranged regular meetings of the European Council. No such special arrangements have ever been made for informal or special Councils. Those matters can and will be aired in debate. The hon. Gentleman asserted that the Government should have found time for a debate on those matters early next week, but he wants to prejudge the outcome of the inquiry that was set up following the initiative of my colleagues in the European Parliament. The Government are not prepared to do so and we await the outcome of that inquiry.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Tomorrow, the business of the House will be a debate on implementing some of the recommendations of the Neill committee, particularly those relating to referendums. That has cross-party support and is firmly supported by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), of whom we heard a eulogy earlier. Will the Leader of the House pledge that her Government will enact all the recommendations of the fifth report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life? Will she further pledge that her Government,—particularly the
1272
Home Secretary, who is sitting next to her—will do nothing to block the enactment of the Neill committee's recommendations?
Mrs. Beckett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is perfectly well aware, as a result of a statement made by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary when the Neill report was published, that the Government are studying that report very carefully. I cannot give him the undertaking that he demands that there will be complete acceptance of all the recommendations. We are carefully examining those fundamental proposals.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to the request by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and in the light of the pitifully inadequate response by Ministers to the Budget debate, can we have an early debate, in Government time, on the Government's stealth taxes? Given that the Labour manifesto, of which I think I need to remind the right hon. Lady, says:
"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",
does she accept that it is incumbent on Ministers to explain, as they failed to do during the Budget debate, why people who have mortgages, who are married, who put petrol in their cars, who have pensions, who acquire savings, who buy property and who run businesses should all face a draconian increase in taxation under this Government?
Mrs. Beckett: That was a lengthy if not a very pertinent question. I am sure that all such matters can be raised in Finance Bill debates.
Mr. Owen Paterson: On 11 November, I secured an Adjournment debate on the crisis in the road haulage industry. The video of that debate is being shown all around the country at hauliers' meetings. The lamentable ignorance of the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and her failure to reply to the points made are much commented on. Three colleagues have brought up the subject this morning. Sadly, the Leader of the House has not taken on board the seriousness of the damage that will be inflicted not just on the strategic industry, which is in danger of losing 26,000 jobs, but on the whole economy. An uncompetitive haulage industry would damage every business in the land. We would be looking at another 26,000 job losses—more than would be lost in the west midlands were Longbridge to close. This is an urgent issue of national importance which affects every constituency. Could we please find time for a debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I say again to the hon. Gentleman, who accuses me of not taking on board the seriousness of the issue, that it is not for me to answer on this subject. I am here to discuss which debates we will have in the House. He asked for time for a debate and there will be all the time in the world during proceedings on the Finance Bill—he will be able to stay up until the small hours of the morning—to discuss the road haulage industry. He will then be able to circulate the video of those debates, which I am sure will gain even greater applause.
Sir Patrick Cormack: I appreciate that, when the right hon. Lady was planning

1273
the business of the House, she was not aware of the crisis about to erupt in the European Union. She has heard Members from all parts of the House express a desire for a debate on that matter. The business for next Tuesday and Wednesday is important—of course it is—but not as crucial or urgent as the Prime Minister hearing hon. Members' views, as he ought, before he goes to the Berlin summit. Will she rearrange Tuesday's or Wednesday's business so that the House has the opportunity to debate on the Adjournment the issues that will be discussed in Berlin? They are vital and relevant to every hon. Member and all our constituents. May we please have that debate?
Mrs. Beckett: I will certainly bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says, but cannot undertake to rearrange next week's business. Indeed, I suspect that there will not be much to do in such a debate, other than bemoan the events that have brought us to this pass. He can do that without a debate next week.

Point of Order
1.13 pm
Mr. Andrew Lansley: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will be aware of the understandable anger in the road haulage industry about the costs that the Government are imposing on it, and their complacent attitude to it, which has led to the prospect of a large demonstration in London on Monday. Have you received notice of any difficulty that the police may have in ensuring Members' access to the House on Monday under the terms of the sessional orders? Will any special arrangements have to be made?
Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that this House has dealt quite well indeed with such sizeable lobbies in the past. We have become accustomed to doing so over a good many years. I assure him that we shall do our utmost, as we always have done, to ensure that all steps are taken to enable those who are lobbying—quite peacefully, one hopes—to have access to their representatives, and that the lobby around the precincts of the Palace and in this House is conducted in the best possible order. I hope that Members who are involved in the lobby, and who want to see the people who are coming here, will support and help the authorities on Monday in their efforts to see that everything is carried out in the best possible order.

BILL PRESENTED
  ENERGY SAVING MATERIALS (VAT RELIEF)
  Mr. Alan Simpson, supported by Mr. Cynog Dafis, Mr. Matthew Taylor, Mr. Peter Bottomley, Mr. John McAllion, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Clive Efford, Sir Teddy Taylor, Ms Roseanna Cunningham, Mr. David Chaytor and Mr. John Hayes, presented a Bill to extend VAT relief on energy saving materials; to require the preparation of reports on energy saving materials; and for related purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on 26 March, and to be printed [Bill 68].
Opposition Day
[7TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Policing
  Madam Speaker: I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister.
  1.15 pm
  Sir Norman Fowler: I beg to move,
  That this House pays tribute to the high standards of policing in this country; endorses the priority of the last Conservative Government in increasing the strength of the police by over 15,000; but deplores the policies of the present Government, which are leading to reductions in police strength, cuts in services and the introduction of non-police patrols at a time when it is essential to build the best possible relations between police and public.
  The debate is set against the background of a much bigger national debate about the role and position of the police in Britain. That is, in my view, a debate of fundamental importance, in relation to which the Government risk adopting exactly the wrong policies for the challenge that we face. That debate has been given added force by the publication of the Macpherson report, and it is with that report that I start.
  The Macpherson report is undoubtedly important—not only because of the tragedy of Stephen Lawrence's murder, but because of the changes and reforms that the report points to, which we shall debate shortly. However, let me say first what the Macpherson report does not say and does not justify. It does not justify a generalised attack on the police service. It does not justify a generalised attack on the thousands of policemen and policewomen who do their job conscientiously and well, sometimes despite enormous difficulty and danger. It does not justify a generalised attack on the standards of the police in this country, which in my view remain high—probably higher than those of any comparable European country.
  Of course, errors must be put right and mistakes corrected, but we should be clear in our minds that we do not have a racist police service; the Macpherson report does not say that we have. Enemies of the police should not pervert the message of the report to that end.
  What we do have is a police service that, in one respect, leads Europe and, arguably, the world. It is not that the British police are better equipped, and goodness knows it is not because we have the strongest police service numerically; it is that there is greater trust between police and public in this country than anywhere else. Most people regard the police as their friends and allies. In February 1999, a Gallup poll in The Daily Telegraph found that no less than 83 per cent. of the public found the police mainly polite and helpful. Obviously, we need to extend that feeling of trust even more, but I very much doubt that such trust exists in France and Germany.
  The police service is not one of our worst, but one of our best services in Britain, and it has been consistently successful in its public order task since the second world war. Any Government who were to put that relationship at risk would deserve censure.
  None of what I have said is an argument against change; change is part of any organisation. When the police service was established, the police had to fight for
  1276
  acceptance, so there is nothing new in their fighting for acceptance, or improving their efficiency and effectiveness—but all that must be for a purpose. As the chief inspector of constabulary suggested a few days ago, the most important performance indicator is the local community satisfaction rate—how satisfied the public are with the local police.
  What do the public want of the police? They want an efficient police service, but they want more than that. They do not want a police service that simply reacts and responds to emergencies and emergency calls. According to the Gallup poll that I mentioned earlier, their greatest complaint is as follows. No less than 79 per cent. of the public agree with the statement that the police are invisible and that there are too few bobbies on the beat. In other words, what the public want is an extension of community policing. My concern, and the concern of virtually everyone whom I respect on the matter, is that Government policy is taking us in exactly the opposite direction. Rather than more police, we shall have fewer. Rather than better services, we shall have worse. Rather than trained police, we are being offered non-police patrols.
  I debated some of those issues with the Minister of State, Home Office on the "Today" programme this morning. It is always interesting when the Minister of State, rather than the Secretary of State, does an interview. I stress that I am not critical of that decision; I know how sensitive the Secretary of State can be.
  When I was Secretary of State for Social Services, I told my then Minister of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), that it was time that he raised his profile and did interviews on cold weather payments.
  Mr. Conn Pickthall: It did not do the right hon. Gentleman any harm.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I do not know what happened to my right hon. Friend. I also remember telling my other Minister of State, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), that he could tap his cigar over John Humphrys, rather than in my office. I think that it was in that spirit that the Minister of State was deputed to the "Today" studio to discuss the police.
  The Minister of State's account of Government policy on the police provided an entirely new perspective on the police service under this Government. The police service may think that it is under pressure but, according to the Minister of State, real-terms spending on the police is up, police forces are rolling in cash, and policemen are falling over one another as they patrol the streets of our towns and cities. As for non-police patrols, he has not even heard of them, or of the prospect of introducing them. That is the wonderful world of Walt Boateng.
  If that is the case, it is strange that those who must implement the Government's policy do not seem to see it in quite the same way. The response of the Association of Chief Police Officers to the 1999–2000 Budget settlement could have been written in reply to the Minister of State's injunction, "Let's be real". ACPO's response stated:
  "This settlement leaves the police service well short of what it needs. Let's be realistic. Government cannot expect any public service, least of all the police with their wide responsibilities, to meet all the public's expectations with such a shortfall."

  1277
  The Association of Police Authorities, which has a Labour chairman, said of the same settlement:
  "The overall increase in spending provision for police authorities in England and Wales is 2.7 per cent. Even when augmented by locally generated efficiency gains, this will be inadequate to meet the current demands facing police authorities, let alone provide for growth and investment."
  The Police Federation commented:
  "One of this Government's main manifesto pledges was to support law and order. But Treasury officials have swung the axe on police budgets. This will result in fewer police officers, the closure of local stations and a reduction in front line services."
  Who is right—Home Office Ministers or the police service, which has to manage as best it can with the budget that it has been given?
  I have figures calculated by the statistical section of the House of Commons Library. Between 1979–80 and 1996–97, there was a 354 per cent. cash increase for the police. In real terms—that is, above inflation—there was a 74 per cent. increase in those years.
  On the basis of this Government's spending plans, between 1997–1998 and 2001–02, there will be an 11.2 per cent. cash increase for the police, which amounts to a real-terms increase of 0.7 per cent. That is the difference in priority between the Conservative Government's policy on the police, and that of the present Government.
  Mr. Oliver Heald rose—
  Ms Hazel Blears rose
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, and then to the hon. Lady.
  Mr. Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour Members are obviously so embarrassed by Home Office Ministers' explanations that only three of them are present?
  Sir Norman Fowler: It is probably 0.7 per cent.
  Ms Blears: If, as the right hon. Gentleman says, expenditure on the police rose under the Conservative Government's stewardship, how does he explain that the 2.5 million recorded crimes in 1979 rose to 4.5 million when the Conservatives left office?
  Sir Norman Fowler: As the hon. Lady knows, crime came down steeply in the last four or five years of the Conservative Government. If she does not know that, she knows nothing about the crime position. However, I rather agree with the Home Secretary on that point. I do not think that there is a direct correlation between police numbers and crime. My point concerns not only crime. For the Home Secretary to make a speech only about crime figures would miss the whole point of the debate and, with respect, the hon. Lady is in danger of doing so.
  This debate is about not just crime rates, but public order and having the trust of the public. To achieve that, the police service needs credible strength, and nowhere and never has that challenge been greater than it is today in the aftermath of the Macpherson report.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the work of the police in the
  1278
  community extends beyond crime? One of the problems in Derbyshire in the past has been the investigation of fatal road accidents, which takes a heck of a lot of police time, a matter which I have pursued with Ministers. That matter is not crime related, but it is important to the public.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I agree, and it is a point that I shall try to develop. Crime and its prevention are obviously vastly important, but a range of other issues are fundamental to relations between police and public.
  To put the figures another way, the statistical section of the Library confirms that under the previous Government, there was an average annual increase in spending in real terms on the police of 3.3 per cent. a year. If that was converted to cash, this Government would be spending an additional £1.3 billion during the next three years. That is the difference.
  That is one reason why the previous Conservative Government were able to increase the strength of the police by 15,300. As far as I know, no one, not even the Minister of State, seriously believes that that is what the Government are about. Police numbers are not going up, but coming down. In the first 18 months of this Government, they have come down by about 800, and the fear of many chief constables is that, during the next two or three years, they will drop further.
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): In what month was the budget for 1997–98 set?
  Sir Norman Fowler: The budget for 1997–98, the budget that takes us forward—no, I do not know the answer. The right hon. Gentleman obviously knows the answer, so I shall let him give it.
  I am beginning to see a glimmer of the right hon. Gentleman's point. He is saying that the budget was set in the previous year. That is correct. But there was nothing to prevent the Government from increasing the budget. The right hon. Gentleman has used exactly the same arguments about inheriting spending commitments for the years after that. The Government must take responsibility for their spending in that period.
  Mr. Straw: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: No, let me finish. Even the Home Secretary concedes that the past three years—[Interruption.] If the Home Secretary wants to take part in the debate, will he listen?
  Mr. Straw: I will.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The past three years were undoubtedly and unquestionably the Government's responsibility. Is the Home Secretary challenging the fact—let me ask him directly—that, on average during our period in government, we spent 3.3 per cent. in real terms above inflation? Is he challenging the fact that, under his Government, that amount will be drastically reduced, to the extent that he will be lucky if he spends more than 1 per cent. in real terms above inflation over that whole three-year period?
  Mr. Straw: I will develop this point considerably in my remarks: the trend that we are following is similar to

  1279
  that which was followed from 1994–95. For example, in 1995–96, expenditure on the police increased by 0.22 per cent. I am glad that—after the right hon. Gentleman gagged so much at a simple question about the date on which that budget was set—he has, at long last, admitted that his Government set the budget for the police service for 1997–98. Was he saying that, having set that budget before the election, they would have increased it after the election, had they won? Was that the point that he was trying to make?
  Sir Norman Fowler: That was constantly done in respect of the second year, but—[Interruption.] Yes, of course it was. If the right hon. Gentleman does not know that, he does not know anything about how public spending was handled. His point is fascinating because he always goes for one or two years, but he refuses point blank to face the fact that, over the whole period of the Conservative Government, spending in real terms went up by more than 70 per cent. Does he—[Interruption.] If I may intervene in the Home Secretary's conversation, does he dispute that that is the case? The answer is that he does not dispute it; the fact is that he cannot.
  The Government do not have the same financial priority for the police. Why cannot the Home Secretary come clean on this issue instead of wriggling, which is typical of him? He is not giving financial priority to the police and he knows it. The inevitable consequence is that expenditure on the police is being cut and the man responsible is this Home Secretary.
  Sir Nicholas Lyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that cut is causing deep concern in the counties? In Bedfordshire, not only the police authority, but the chief constable has been moved to speak up because of the practical reductions faced by the police, which the Government disguise as 2 per cent. efficiency cuts.
  Sir Norman Fowler: What I find despicable about this whole debate is the Government's inability to come clean about what they are doing. They are wriggling and wriggling and wriggling because, in reality, they are cutting and cutting and cutting, but cannot admit it. That explains why there are only two and a half people on the Labour Benches.
  Sir David Madel: On the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell), is my right hon. Friend surprised that the average settlement is 2.7 per cent., yet all that Bedfordshire has been given is 0.8 per cent? Although the Minister of State has listened to us courteously, all that we have had is a Mona Lisa smile and no action.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I correct myself; there are four Labour Back Benchers in the Chamber. My hon. Friend is entirely right; Bedfordshire is one of the areas that have been affected greatly.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I hope that my right hon. Friend will not let the Home Secretary off the hook on the point about the 1997–98 budget. The Home
  1280
  Secretary said that that budget was the responsibility of the previous Conservative Government, which is entirely true. Does my right hon. Friend accept that one of the bases on which the Labour party secured its mandate to govern from the British people was unquestioning acceptance of the spending priorities and targets set by the Conservative Government? It obtained office, in large measure, on the basis of that undertaking. Does he agree that it was open to the Labour Government—if they really believed in their support for law and order—to increase that budget when they came into office in 1997?
  Sir Norman Fowler: Yes, that is exactly what I said. What I think is wrong, false and phoney about the Home Secretary's argument is that he uses figures and years selectively. He takes figures for one or two years and then tries to build up the Government's whole record on that period. If he uses the crime figures for that period to establish the Government's record, then surely to goodness he should use the police figures for the same period. I repeat that there was an average real—terms increase in spending of 3.3 per cent. a year under the previous Conservative Government. There is not the slightest prospect of this Government matching that, and they are not even attempting to do so.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that he should be addressing the Chair.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I was about to turn round to do just that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Sir Norman Fowler: May I continue?
  There have been reductions in manpower in the Metropolitan police in London, in Sussex, West Yorkshire, Kent, Essex, Nottinghamshire and Hertfordshire, as well as other forces. The strength of the City of London force is now below its 1979 level. No one can seriously doubt where policy is pointing, and many forces are not even attempting to add to their strength. The most that they can do is to try to retain the strength that they have and, for many of them, that is proving unsuccessful.
  It is not just police manpower that is affected: it is also the services provided. Police stations are being closed: not just those that are unused, but stations in busy areas such as Chislehurst and Biggin Hill. The Essex force is being forced to make economies and, as my hon. Friend the Member for South—West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel) said, there is a similar story in Bedfordshire, and the same applies to Cleveland.
  The position is so bad that even the Liberal Democrats have woken up to what is happening. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Both the Liberal Democrats."] I am glad that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) has woken up; he is 0.5 per cent. of his party present. Their spokesmen tour the country, and the leader of the Liberal Democrats—at least I think that he is still their leader—recently visited south Lakeland to express concern over the closures of Cumbrian police stations, as did the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) last month.

  1281
  The problem is that they have their photo opportunity and then forget to make any representations. As my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins) has pointed out, he is the only person to have expressed any written concern to the Government about police station closures in Cumbria.
  Mr. Tim Collins: My constituents are angry to find that petitions organised by Liberal Democrat councillors and the constant visits by Liberal Democrat MPs have not resulted in a single letter from a Liberal Democrat to the Home Office on this matter. Perhaps that is why only two of them are present in the Chamber at the moment.
  Sir Norman Fowler: It would be unfair of me to knock the Liberal Democrats, but if provoked I will.
  Mr. Michael Jack: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in the Home Secretary's own county of Lancashire, police officers in Preston told me last week that not only are they under complement this year, but they are envisaging cuts in police numbers next year? Does he agree that the situation will go from bad to worse?
  Sir Norman Fowler: My right hon. Friend typically puts his finger on a crucial point. We should be concerned about not just this financial year, but next year and the year after. Many chief constables say that they will do their best to struggle through this year, but if that continues to be the case next year and the year after, the consequences will be very serious.
  Angela Smith rose—
  Mr. John Hayes rose—
  Sir Norman Fowler: I shall give way for the last time to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Hayes: Will my right hon. Friend add Lincolnshire to his list of areas where there are crises of policing? We have similar problems there.
  Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reason why so few Labour Members are present today—indeed, there are more civil servants here than Labour Back Benchers—is that they are acutely embarrassed, because they know that this problem applies to their constituencies and their counties? Only a couple of Liberal Democrats are here into the bargain.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The same thing happened when we last debated the police grant. I think that half the Labour speeches actually opposed Government policy—although there was not much time, because the Minister of State spoke for 45 minutes. Had there been more time, we would have been able to hear more opposition.
  My fear is the fear expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire. I am afraid that the situation will get worse. Chief constables tell me that they may struggle through this year—although they are in difficulties—but that there will be worse problems in the next two years.
  1282
  What are the Government offering to replace what they are reducing? Well—as the Home Secretary will doubtless announce and reannounce in a moment—they are offering a number of schemes to "target" policing. The idea of hotspot policing comes from the United States, where it has been successful; but in the United States, schemes such as that and zero tolerance policing have been introduced at times when police strength has been radically increased. In New York, it has been increased by 7,000 in the last few years, and in the United States generally, there is a programme aimed at increasing it by 100,000. In that context, targeting makes a great deal of sense, because it is in addition to what is already being done. What our Government cannot do is introduce schemes of this kind as a substitute policy. They cannot introduce targeting and, at the same time, reduce the general strength of the police force.
  The Government have another plan. They are encouraging the idea of a non-police patrol. Let me explain what that is, for the benefit of the Minister of State. The concept was explained last summer by the chief constable of Surrey, Mr. Blair.
  Mr. Straw: No relation.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I take the Home Secretary's word for that. Nevertheless, although there may be no family relationship, the extent to which the Prime Minister has embraced the concept prompts a number of questions.
  According to Mr. Blair, two local authority patrols in bright red uniforms marked "Surrey police compliant", drawn from the welfare-to-work programme, will move around the high street, in radio contact with the police officer with direct responsibility for the area. I would have been inclined to laugh off the prospect, but next morning, The Guardian quoted the Home Secretary as saying that the chief constable's plans were "a real possibility". Since then, the Metropolitan police have been consulting on pilot schemes in London.
  I believe that patrolling the streets of our towns and cities is essentially police work. I speak first and foremost from the public's point of view. The public want not only the reassurance conveyed by a police presence, but the knowledge that they are dealing with trained men and women who meet high standards, who know their own patch, who will act with common sense and sensitivity and who believe that authority does not result automatically from the uniform that they wear, but must be earned. That is what policing is all about, and that is why I say that community policing should be our priority—a priority that is underlined repeatedly by the Macpherson report.
  The Home Secretary has replied by saying:
  "If you talk to the public they understand that you cannot have a police officer walking up and down their street all day and every day. You never had that. That was a myth about what happened in some golden age."
  The right hon. Gentleman is right, but that is because he gave an example that he knew to be self-evidently absurd. There never was an age in which every street was constantly patrolled. There was, however, a time when there were more police patrols than there are today, and there was a time when chief constables did not have to envisage council-employed redcoats patrolling town centres.

  1283
  Indeed, there was a time when the Home Secretary himself believed that all this was important. He says now that he cannot even express a view about police numbers, but back in 1995, he voted against a police grant order. He said then:
  "police services say they will have to cut police numbers."— [Official Report, 31 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 962.]
  Indeed, the Labour manifesto talked about getting more officers back on the beat.
  I believe that the issues raised in this debate are of fundamental importance. The importance of trained police on the beat goes beyond even the reassurance that they give. The generally good relations between police and public in Britain depend on the regular meeting, day by day, of policemen and policewomen with members of the public. It would be an act of supreme folly if police were to become a service remote from the public they serve.
  We cannot take that relationship for granted. We have to work at it constantly. Police patrolling may not hit the headlines in the same way in which crime hits the headlines, but it is vital in retaining public confidence.
  I am genuinely concerned that the Government's policies are taking us in exactly the wrong direction. I am concerned that they have reduced their financial commitment. I am concerned that police numbers are falling and services are being reduced. I am concerned about their policy on non-police patrols. I am concerned—particularly after this debate—about the Government's complacency about what has happened. If, as I fear, the Government's policies undermine the strength of the police service, the public will not forgive them.
  1.46 pm
  (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from "country;" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "notes that the previous administration's promises in 1992 and 1995 of an additional 6,000 police officers were never carried through and that police numbers instead fell; welcomes the additional £1.24 billion for the police service and the extra £400 million for the crime reduction programme which are to be provided over the next three years; supports the police in their crucial role in tackling crime and creating safer communities; and recognises the need for the police, as with other public services, to continue to improve efficiency and effectiveness and deliver best value in the interests of the whole country."
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) started his speech with a tribute to Britain's police service, and I fully associate myself and my Government with that tribute. However, I crave his indulgence in not following him on the issues raised in the Lawrence report. He was not necessarily to know it when preparing his notes, but—as he and other hon. Members will now know from the business statement by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House—there will be a full day's debate on the Lawrence report on Monday 29 March. As I told the House when making my statement on 24 February, I shall publish, next week, a full statement providing our full response, recommendation by recommendation, so that hon. Members are better informed of our response well in advance of that debate.
  Central to the claims made today by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield was the claim that police numbers started to decline only after the previous
  1284
  general election, and that that has been the responsibility only of the current Government. I should like to put the record straight. During both the 1970s and the 1980s, police numbers overall rose by 25,000. Although I should be happy to trade statistics—I should enjoy it—if the right hon. Gentleman wants to do so on the 1980s and very early 1990s, he should bear it in mind that the annual increase in the police service was just over 1,000, whereas the annual increase during the Labour Government of 1974–79 was 2,000.
  The overall 25,000 increase stopped at the beginning of the 1990s. It did so because the then Conservative Government made a calculated decision to end the increase in police numbers. As in many similar decisions, however, the only thing that the previous Government did not do was to announce their decision. That is confirmed by the then Home Secretary, now Lord Baker, at page 450 of his memoirs. He said:
  "I found, however, that while several of my ministerial colleagues and Tory MPs supported the police in public, they were highly critical of them in private. There was impatience, if not anger, that although we had spent 87 per cent. more in real terms since 1979, and had increased police numbers … there had still been a substantial rise in crime. 'Where is the value for money?' asked my colleagues.
  I had even heard Margaret Thatcher criticize the management and the leadership of the police."
  Lord Baker went on to describe the negotiations that he was having with the then Chief Secretary to the Treasury, David Mellor, who said that his time as a Minister at the Home Office had not
  "turned him into a friend of the police."
  He said that Mr. Mellor had said of police—words that I should never use:
  "They are overpaid, we've thrown money at them, and we have the highest level of crime in our history."
  That marked a clear decision by the previous Government in the early 1990s to stabilise expenditure on the police and to preside over a decline in numbers. In 1993, there were 128,300 police officers. By March 1997—only weeks before the general election—that number had fallen by 1,132. By March 1998, it had fallen to 126,856 and, by September 1998—the latest date for which figures are available—the overall figure had fallen to 126,500.
  What makes this debate such a spectacular own goal for the Conservatives is that all that decline took place during the period of budgets that they set. In 1998–99, I have presided over a higher rate of increase in spending than that was originally earmarked by the Conservative Government.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The right hon. Gentleman said that spending, as well as manpower, was stabilised in the 1990s. Will he now take the opportunity to correct that reply and to agree that in 1991–92 there was a 6.3 per cent. real-terms increase in spending, in 1992–93 there was a 3.6 per cent. increase, in 1993–94 there was a 2.1 per cent. increase, in 1994–95 spending was stable, in 1995–96 there was an increase of 2.6 per cent. and in 1996–97 there was an increase of 2.5 per cent? In five out of six years there were substantial real increases in spending. If the right hon. Gentleman is puzzled, he should consult the House of Commons Library statistics department.
  Mr.Straw: I was looking puzzled because the right hon. Gentleman's run of figures does not square

  1285
  with mine. We can exchange figures later. I am interested in arguing from the figures. I accept that, as Kenneth Baker said, real-terms expenditure on the police rose by 87 per cent. until the early 1990s, and police numbers reached their peak in 1993. However, the issue is whether the increase in spending had fed into police numbers.
  Extraordinarily, some hon. Members whose areas are receiving large increases in police budgets for next year, such as the 6.1 per cent. increase for Derbyshire, are complaining about forward spending under the plans for which we are responsible. I do not remember hearing Conservative Members complaining about the huge decrease in Metropolitan police numbers over which they presided. It was a decrease not of 200 or 300 or 1.000; 2,000 Metropolitan officers were cut between 1992 and the time of the most recent figures—all under budgets that were set or earmarked by previous Home Secretaries. The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis expects numbers next year to be within 75 of the numbers this year.
  Those are the facts. The previous Government made a covert decision not to increase police numbers, but they then made a public promise to increase police numbers—a promise that they comprehensively broke. Sometimes I weep for the Conservatives, because, if only they had consulted us, we could have told them that the least that they should do is make promises on which they will not be completely exposed within a few months.
  In their 1992 manifesto, the Conservatives promised to increase police numbers by 1,000 officers. Did they? Of course, they did not. They were 400 short. Having broken that promise, the then Prime Minister—never one to break the habit of a lifetime—decided to utter another promise in 1995, which he then went on to break. At the Conservative party conference in 1995, he said:
  "we have found the resources over the next three years to put, not 500 but an extra 5,000 police officers on the beat."
  What happened? Was the increase 5,000? Was it 500? No, it was zero. Numbers went down. In the period when the Conservatives promised 5,000 extra officers, numbers went down by 470—and Conservative Members wonder why they lost the last election, and why they completely lost the plot on law and order.
  Mr. David Drew: I was genuinely intrigued that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) did not mention police pensions in his speech. Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the significant problems with the budgetary situation is the pensions overhang?
  Mr. Straw: I agree, and a large number of unexploded time bombs—well past their set date—were left in the drawer of the desk that I inherited from my predecessor. The Conservatives deliberately decided not to publish a review of police pensions, even though they knew that action had to be taken.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield made a serious point when he said that there had been some increase in real spending in the 1990s, and he implied that that should have fed its way into an increase in police numbers. However, he omitted to say that, in the Police and Magistrates Courts Act 1994—for which he voted—the powers of the then Home Secretary to set police
  1286
  numbers were removed. My predecessor as Home Secretary, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), said:
  "In future the number of constables will be a matter for local decision … It is not a matter for me."—[Official Report, 26 April 1994; Vol. 242, c. 113.]
  The previous Government said that they had no power to determine police numbers—and then, only months later, they were promising to do just that.
  That is what is so incredible about the Conservatives' promises. They promised 5,000 officers—a promise which, by law, they prevented themselves from ever meeting. Rarely has there been such a reckless set of promises made by any party—even one as intent on defeat as the Conservative party.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I am interested to explore what the Home Secretary is saying. On 31 January 1995, he led his party to vote against a police grant which was substantially greater than any provided by the Labour Government, including the last one. One of his reasons for that was that he was getting complaints from chief police officers that numbers were going down around the country. Is he saying now that that was the wrong decision, or that he should not have used that argument to justify the Labour party's voting against the police grant?
  Mr. Straw: We were justified at that time because, as my figures show, there was virtually no increase at all in 1995–96—only 0.2 per cent. Also, we were not facing both ways on public spending. There were careful discussions within the shadow Cabinet about our pledges, and their public spending implications, before any of us were allowed to speak on them.
  The right hon. Gentleman has implied at the Dispatch Box that there will be significant increases in spending on the police. I wish to refer to the four letters that I wrote to him in October and November, asking about his party's pledges on police spending, and on public spending overall. One of many compliments that I am happy to pay the right hon. Gentleman is that he is an assiduous replier to letters. Indeed, I can think of some occasions when he has replied by return to letters even from me.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Once.
  Mr. Straw: No, on other occasions. Whatever else may be said about him, the charge that he sits on letters is not one that can be made against him. In an article in the Police Review, the right hon. Gentleman was reported as saying that
  "the Government lost out on the opportunity it had to make savings on its welfare budget … which could have been transferred to the police".
  On 7 October, I wrote to him, asking which bits of the welfare budget he was proposing to cut to transfer the money to the police. Nothing happened. He broke his usual habit of politeness and refused to send me a reply.
  On 2 November, I wrote the right hon. Gentleman another letter, to the effect of, "Norman,"—I call him Norman—"could I have a reply?" The next week—the week of the public spending plans—the shadow Chancellor dismissed our public spending plans for the next three years, including our police spending plans,

  1287
  as "reckless". He used that word, which made for some difficulties for the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield.
  To clarify the matter, I wrote to the right hon. Gentleman and said:
  "As this increase"—
  of £1.24 billion—
  "is part of that 'reckless' package of public expenditure, I should be grateful if you would let me know if you are now opposing it."
  Silence followed that letter, too. On 25 November—I thought that, although we are an efficient Government, something might have happened with the post—I wrote to him and personally delivered the letter. I did not want there to be any doubt that he had received it. What has happened between 25 November and 18 March? Absolute silence.
  Sir NormanFowler rose—
  Mr. Straw: Ah, we have a reply.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The pressure is obviously getting to the right hon. Gentleman. He is forgetting replies. I replied to Straw—as I call him—on the Floor of the House, during Question Time. I drew to his attention my record on social security. Is that beginning to twitch a little memory bud? I happen to believe in the importance of the House of Commons. I know that the right hon. Gentleman is a lovely National Union of Students man and loves shoving letters and challenges everywhere. Why does not he listen to what is said in the House of Commons?
  Mr. Straw: I have not had a reply. I was anticipating that the right hon. Gentleman would tell me how his plans to increase spending on the police squared with the shadow Chancellor's very clear statement that our overall spending plans, including spending on the police of £1.24 billion, were reckless, but he cannot do it because he knows that he has been silenced. He suggests that we have lost the reply, but that is not remotely the case. Never has the right hon. Gentleman replied to the point on the Floor of the House. If he has, let him produce the Hansard report to that effect.
  The right hon. Gentleman well knows that one of the ways in which each of us is rightly put on the spot, whether in opposition or in government—he has experience of both—is by the exchange of letters. He also knows that it is wholly discourteous not to reply to letters, especially in four times of asking. Which benefits would he cut in order to transfer the money to the police? How does he square his promise to increase police spending with the shadow Chancellor's clear dismissal of our increases as reckless?
  Sir Norman Fowler: I have given my reply. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I gave the Home Secretary my reply weeks ago.
  The right hon. Gentleman has been speaking for 20 minutes and has not said a word about the Government's policy on the police. It will be noted by
  1288
  police forces throughout the country that he is not addressing the problems of the police service, but is back to his old NUS debating days.
  Mr. Straw: What I have done—it is for others to judge how effectively—is to point out that what the Conservatives are implying about police numbers bears no relationship to the facts. Police numbers went down in each of their last seven years in government. No one in the country believes what the Opposition are saying about police numbers because they know that the promises—if they are promises—that the right hon. Gentleman is making from the Dispatch Box to increase public spending are wholly undermined by the shadow Chancellor. That is the simple truth.
  Mr. Bruce Grocott: May I suggest that we could get around the apparent problems with the postal service to everyone's satisfaction if, during my right hon. Friend's speech, one of his colleagues on the Front Bench would write a letter to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) and physically pass it across? By the end of the debate, we could expect a written reply.
  Mr: Straw: We look forward to the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield letting us have the Hansard reference for his reply so that my hon. Friend the Minister of State can deal with it in his winding-up speech. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will ensure that that is done, because it is extraordinary that, after all the questions, he has still not been able to say where the money will come from.
  Mr. Jack: Before we move on from the subject of correspondence, will the Home Secretary help me with an item of correspondence that I have received from the chief constable of Lancashire? She tells me that she got a 1.9 per cent. settlement, but she needs 3.9 per cent. to carry on. She has used her efficiency saving of 2 per cent. to bridge the gap, but, because of requirements under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 for reasons of new communications and information technology, she needs another £2 million. What do I say in my reply to the chief constable—in the interests of the safety of the Home Secretary, of course—to enable her police force to do its job?
  Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister at the Home Office at the time the policy was changed, so he knows all about it. I have a high regard for the chief constable of Lancashire, but the overall increase in police spending is 2.4 per cent. That is what has been agreed by the police authority, not the 1.9 per cent. to which the right hon. Gentleman refers. The police service in Lancashire accepts that it will have to make efficiency savings, and I believe they can be made alongside an improvement in output. That is the challenge for the police service. We are increasing resources significantly, including £1.24 billion over the next three years. That is 2.7 per cent. next year, 2.8 per cent. the following year and 4 per cent. the year after that. Those increases in central Government funding will be supplemented by money from council tax payers, and, overall, budgets are set to rise by 3 per cent. for the majority of police

  1289
  authorities and by 3.6 per cent. for those in the shire county areas, from which most Conservative Members come.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Are those figures in real or cash terms?
  Mr. Straw: They are in cash terms. One of the reforms of the previous Government was to talk in cash terms and not in the funny money of real terms.
  The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to his time at the Department of Social Security. I was one of the few people who bought a copy of the right hon. Gentleman's memoirs. I was able to do so, being an impecunious member of the Cabinet, because it was remaindered.
  Sir Norman Fowler: That is an old joke.
  Mr. Straw: It is a good joke. They were down to 50p. One of the points that the right hon. Gentleman made—it is a fair point—was about the need to obtain efficiencies from the health and social services. He said:
  "You can argue about the amount of resources devoted to health but what you cannot sensibly argue about is that the resources devoted to health care should be used to maximum effect."
  We were behind the Conservative party on the issue of efficiency in local government and public services, and I am willing to say that.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Labour did not say that at the time.
  Mr. Straw: No, but we should have done. What I find remarkable about Conservative Members is that they do not apply the clear lessons about efficiency in every other public service to the police. Conservative Members seem to imply that the police services have reached some level of perfection in efficiency, when everybody in the police services, as well as outside, knows that not to be the case. Lincolnshire has been mentioned; its chief constable is restructuring top tier management and merging some divisions to enhance community policing. In the Metropolitan police area, which I know best, they have a target of reducing sickness per officer by 11 per cent. in 1998–99 and a further 10 per cent. in 1999–2000.
  Across the country, reducing police sickness levels to the level of the median—not even below it—will save £35 million, which would be equivalent to the cost of 1,100 police officers on operational duties. The simple truth is that all the evidence—from the Audit Commission, Her Majesty's chief inspectorate of constabulary and local police authorities—shows that there is no direct relationship between the inputs and the outputs of the police service. Under the Conservative Government, a number of police forces received a reduction in funding, but achieved an increase in output, and the reverse is always the case.
  The Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee—a Conservative—was correct when he said that there is an enormous variation in the performance of police forces. We are trying to ensure that the level of each is raised to the level of the best. There is a clear challenge on efficiency savings, and I do not resile from it.
  1290
  Quite a proportion of police spending relates to non-pay matters. People who know the police service will know that a number of police officers are not engaged in front-line duties. We must release those officers for such duties. In our manifesto, we said that we sought to put more officers back on the beat, and we are doing that by, for example, reforming the Crown Prosecution Service and dealing with delays in the courts.
  The debate about police numbers has become rather abstract. One reason for that is that the boundary is shifting constantly between staff who are available to fight crime as uniformed or warranted officers or as civilians. It shifted under the previous Government, and it has shifted under this Government. It is crucial that we judge the effectiveness of the police service—just as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield judged all other public services when he was in government—not by scoring debating points on inputs, but by looking at outputs, setting clear performance benchmarks and judging those services.
  Mr. Hayes: The right hon. Gentleman speaks of benchmarks, but will he concede that they should not be just reactive or crime related? At present, police funding is largely to do with the level and nature of crime. If he gets the benchmarks wrong, he will exacerbate the problems to which he referred.
  Mr. Straw: I agree with all that the hon. Gentleman says. We seek to make the police service and the partnerships involved in dealing with crime more proactive. That is why we are putting £400 million into crime reduction, for example. The police are heavily involved in those partnerships, and it is possible to move from being reactive to being proactive.
  Sir David Madel rose—
  Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
  Let me give an example: if an area has a high incidence of crime and disorder, the police can firefight it day by day with response vehicles, but the way to solve it is to find out who is committing those crimes and to jail them.
  Mr. Hayes rose—
  Mr. Vernon Coaker rose—
  Mr. Straw: I promised to give way to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Sir D. Madel), and I shall later give way to, as they say in pantomime, the one behind me.
  Sir David Madel: The benchmarks that the Home Secretary wants the police to achieve are met in Bedfordshire, and partnership is improving. However, the population of the county is increasing all the time. Why is Bedfordshire's settlement so incredibly low? Even at this late hour, can the Home Secretary help us?
  Mr. Straw: It is a timeless verity that, under the police spending formula, some forces gain and some do less well. No one should accuse me of favouritism, because Lancashire has also done less well than other forces, and so has Bedfordshire. We have considered Bedfordshire's

  1291
  case carefully and spending per head of population is broadly in line, to within 50p, with the shire county average, even taking into account the fact that the increase in spend in the past year has not been as much as the chief constable or the police authority would have wished.
  Mr. Coaker: My right hon. Friend remarked earlier that police numbers are not the only important thing. They are important, of course, but, if we are to reduce crime, the partnerships created by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 will be important. Local people will work with the police to reduce crime so that everyone is involved. If we simply reduce the debate to a question of how many police are on the streets, we shall not tackle the causes of crime. We might feel good, and we might have a good debating point, but we would do nothing to make our communities safer.
  Mr. Straw: Chief constables, among others, have sought the freedom to decide how police money should be spent. We are all grown-ups here, and we all know that people will argue for more in the run-up to any Budget settlement. In opposition, I quickly learned when I drew the short straw—[HON. MEMBERS: "Short straw!"] Some might prefer to call the position of Labour local government spokesman a poisoned chalice. I remember that, when I was local government spokesman in the halcyon days of 1983 to 1985—when we dealt much more with the enemy behind us than with the Government in front of us—local authorities, and mainly Labour ones, used to scream and shout every year at Budget time about how services would collapse if the Budget went ahead, but, hey presto, it never happened.
  The police want flexibility. They have used the flexibility that the previous Government granted with our support in 1994 to make sensible, rational decisions about whether to put more money into, for example, having more uniformed, warranted police officers or civilian staff, or into more information technology and better equipment. It is far better that they have that flexibility.
  The final point made by the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield related to non-police patrol. I looked perplexed as he spoke because I remembered a debate in February 1996 on non-police patrol. In those days, we did not call it non-police patrol; it was the private security industry. Even under the Conservative Government, there were twice as many people in the so-called non-police patrol—the private security industry—as in the police service. The number increased substantially under the Conservatives, but I make no complaint about that.
  A large number of people who were not police officers were involved in patrolling and public safety duties, as there are today. A report from the Select Committee on Home Affairs said that the private security industry had to be regulated. During an Opposition day debate, we moved a motion to that effect, but it was voted down by the right hon. Gentleman and his party. As ever, however, the right hon. Gentleman faced both ways: he went through the Lobby to oppose what we said, but stood up in the House to support it.
  The right hon. Gentleman may have forgotten what he said, but, for the benefit of the wider public, I have
  1292
  it here. He first criticised me for saying that we could not have a police officer on every street corner. He said:
  "The implication for the public is that there will never be, under any Government in any circumstances, enough regular police to investigate every burglary and house break-in that happens in our great cities, such as London or Birmingham. That has not happened in the past"—
  there was no praying in aid of a golden age from the right hon. Gentleman then—
  "and there is no reason to believe that it will happen in the future."
  He went on to say:
  "We may regret that, but we should learn a lesson from it …we must all learn to take crime prevention seriously".
  We have accepted his advice, and we are taking crime prevention seriously. Today, he is saying that non-police patrol is some sort of left-wing plot or a figment of the imagination of the Liberal Democrats. He certainly says that it is nothing to do with him. But in 1996, he said:
  "Too often in the past 20 years, policy makers have not recognised what the private security industry can and should do in a modern society. It can help the citizen and the company to prevent crime by guarding premises, by supplying alarms and by handling cash in transit. But the private security industry's role goes beyond that and it is equally sensible to consider the duties carried out by the police and prison officers and ask whether those roles can be performed by the private security industry."—[Official Report, 13 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 887–88.]
  What Mr. Ian Blair is saying now is no different from what the right hon. Gentleman said then.
  Sir Norman Fowler: The Home Secretary is being absurd. What I was saying was utterly different. I challenge the right hon. Gentleman to give any quotation of mine in which I advocated using the private security industry to patrol the streets. I simply have not said that. In the quotation that he gave, I was referring to the movement of remand prisoners and other such matters. Whatever he says, I do not support the private security industry patrolling the streets as a replacement for the police. I have never supported that, and I have made several speeches on the subject. We are not even talking about the private security industry; we are talking about local authorities. Mr. Blair is talking about local authorities.
  Mr. Straw: I can only answer by reading one sentence:
  "But the private security industry's role goes beyond that and it is equally sensible to consider the duties carried out by the police and prison officers and ask whether those roles can be performed by the private security industry."—[Official Report, 13 February 1996; Vol. 271, c. 887.]
  As for local authorities, which are in the vanguard of so-called non-police patrol—
  Sir Norman Fowler rose—
  Mr. Straw: No, I shall not give way; I am answering the right hon. Gentleman's question.
  Those local authorities that are in the vanguard of non-police patrol are not new Labour but old Tory local authorities, namely Westminster and Wandsworth, and I commend them. Those authorities sensibly realise that there are complementary roles for so-called non-police patrol—whether undertaken by local authorities or by private security industries under contract—and the police service. That has always been the case. What the right

  1293
  hon. Gentleman said three years ago was wise and I hope that he will support our White Paper on the private security industry, when my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Home Office publishes it.
  Mr. Bob Russell: The past is the past. May we now deal with the present and the future? The shadow Home Secretary said that he is opposed to the privatisation of the bobby on the beat. Will the Home Secretary assure us that he, too, is opposed to the privatisation of the bobby on the beat and that Group 4 will not be patrolling our streets?
  Mr. Straw: Of course I am opposed to the privatisation of the bobby on the beat, and I want to make that absolutely clear. The police service must be directly delivered. However, I must also make it clear that, as we speak, throughout the country in Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat areas, members of Group 4, Securicor and many other private security firms are, for example, patrolling so-called private shopping areas, and quite rightly too. That complements the work of the police; it does not detract from that work, but assists the police in preventing and detecting crime. Instead of suggesting that that practice does not exist, has not existed and should never exist, it is crucial to accept that it is a reality and to work out ways in which we can improve it, not least by the regulation of the service.
  Sir Norman Fowler: I intervene again only to say that the right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House if he is suggesting that I advocate, or have advocated, the use of private security firms or local authorities to replace the police in patrolling duties. I have not done that during the 30 years in which I have taken an interest in police matters. I deeply resent the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is, as usual, trying to play the person, rather than make the argument.
  Mr. Straw: If that is the right hon. Gentleman's position, I accept his assurance. I was not misleading anyone; I was merely reading the words from the record and giving them their ordinary and natural meaning.
  The Labour Government came to power determined to reduce crime and the fear of crime. The police are the first to say that they cannot tackle crime on their own; local communities have a crucial role to play. The Crime and Disorder Act will strengthen those local partnerships. The Government made no promises on police numbers; at the election, we promised to relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat, and we are doing just that, as I have already explained, by streamlining criminal justice procedures, reforming the Crown Prosecution Service and improving police efficiency.
  Our aim is to make people feel safer and to ensure that the chance of their becoming victims of crime is reduced. Efficient, well-targeted use of police resources is the best way to achieve that. The public know that that is now our aim; they also know that we are intent on delivering it. That is why they so comprehensively supported our law and order agenda at the election and rejected the Conservatives.
  2.24 pm
  Mr. Richard Allan: I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to the House for being unable to stay until the end of the debate; I have to attend the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill at 3 pm. That Committee is a procedural innovation that is proving popular, perhaps more so than Opposition day debates.
  I should like to associate the Liberal Democrats with the comments praising the work of our police forces all over the country. As community-based politicians, we are immensely proud of the essential, important and successful work carried out by our community-based police service. In large part, that service commands the respect of the community through a tradition of policing by consent, which we want to continue. It is in that light that we want to talk about police numbers.
  We regret that we cannot support the Conservative motion and have tabled an amendment giving our view on police numbers. Although we agree with some of the sentiments in the latter part of the Conservative motion, it contains no apology for their period in government and we believe that a little humility around the kitchen table would be in order when discussing police numbers. At the same time, we are critical of the Government's view on the matter and are unable to support their amendment.
  Much of the argument seems to be about two key judgments. The first is whether size matters in the police service and the second is whether the Home Secretary is responsible for that. There is an analogy to be drawn with class sizes: not every class of 30 pupils is automatically better taught or more successful than a class of 40. However, the Government seem to have accepted that, in general, size does matter in respect of class sizes and that more teachers produce a better output. We argue strongly that similar considerations must apply to the police. Although a direct correlation cannot be proved in every force between an increase in the number of police officers and the success of that force, common sense suggests that a larger police force will generally lead to better results and a smaller police force will generally lead to less good results.
  In respect of whether the Home Secretary is responsible for police numbers, he has correctly referred to the technical legal position. It is interesting to hear Conservative Members, who were responsible for the legislation devolving responsibility to chief police officers, complain that the Home Secretary has not mandated police numbers. However, just as on class sizes the Government did not hide behind local education authorities' responsibility, but accepted that there is a direct correlation between the funds given to LEAs and the class sizes in individual boroughs, so the Home Secretary could give strong indications, and the funds to back them up, on police numbers, which could result in an increase in police numbers. On the other hand, if he gives no indication that that is his priority and there are no corresponding resources, there will be a fall in police numbers.
  As the Home Secretary points out, the Conservatives made some specific commitments. He left us to guess whether those commitments had been met, but Liberal Democrat and Labour Members know exactly what happened because, when the Conservatives were in power, we spent much time attacking them for the

  1295
  faults to which he referred. It is interesting to hear different arguments from Labour Members now that they sit on the Government Benches, which suggest that they no longer have the same interest in police numbers as they had when they were in opposition. When the Conservatives were in power, Labour's view clearly was that size did matter.
  While they were in opposition, Labour Members were clever in not committing themselves to increasing the numbers of police officers, but we believe that they gave the clear impression that they would do so. They strongly criticised the Tories for falling police numbers and their carefully worded manifesto stated that they would
  "relieve the police of unnecessary bureaucratic burdens to get more officers back on the beat."
  That allows them the get-out clause that there was no absolute commitment. However, the public expected the slogan, "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime", to mean more police officers, not fewer.
  Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, especially as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) resisted my attempts to intervene. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Labour's criticism of the Conservative Government was of hypocrisy, because the Conservatives constantly argued that they were providing more police officers, but failed to do so?
  Mr. Allan: I am content to accept that Labour's argument was about the hypocrisy of the Conservatives. Liberal Democrats also made the same criticism, which was levelled at an open goal created by the former Prime Minister, who set up that huge target but stepped aside and watched police numbers fall. However, at that time, when the public heard Labour's spokespeople calling for greater numbers of police or criticising the Conservative Government for allowing the numbers to fall, they understood that a Labour Government would not allow the same thing to happen. During the 18 months from 31 March 1997 until the production of the latest figures, there has been a fall of 781 officers in England and Wales. Since the election, 25 out of 43 police forces have faced cuts in the number of officers. The Government could have made that a priority if they had wanted to.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: While the hon. Gentleman is giving the House and the country a history lesson, would he care to go a little further back to when the Conservative Government first came to power in 1979? Police morale was at an all-time low and the police were threatening national strikes. Police morale was improved only by the Conservatives' commitment to provide, from 1979 throughout their period in government, a proper payment structure and proper support for the police. Prior to 1979—I know that the hon. Gentleman was very young then—the Liberal party was as bad as the Labour party for attacking the police.
  Mr. Allan: I am interested to hear history lessons, but I am not sure whether I wish to explore the boom and bust in police morale from the Callaghan Government in the 1970s onwards. That may not be germane to this debate.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. It is only fair, having taken
  1296
  interventions from the Government and Opposition sides, that he should now take one from his own Benches. Unlike the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins)—he used to represent Blackpool, but I cannot remember where else he went on his chicken run—I was a Member of Parliament in 1974. I recall how the Liberal party strongly supported efforts to improve police morale by ensuring that the police were paid properly. However, it is time for the Government to recognise that two wrongs do not make a right. The previous Government's failure in this area—they failed disastrously, as I know only too well because I was a member of a police authority for many years during the period of Conservative rule—is immaterial. We are trying this afternoon to identify what this Government will do about the situation that they inherited.
  Mr. Allan: My hon. Friend makes a valid point: we need to look across the spectrum of policing and other related areas.
  The introduction of non-police officers is an important consideration. Civilianisation programmes have been mentioned in discussing how far events have moved and the relevance of police officers. Police forces are recruiting more civilian officers to free front-line police officers from bureaucracy and time-consuming paperwork. We support that approach, which I hope is welcomed on both sides of the House. However, that does not explain why 10 forces have seen a reduction in their civilian staff since the general election. Seven forces have seen a fall in the number of both civilian and police officers, and that combined reduction must affect the impact of those police forces.
  We accept that there is more to tackling crime than police numbers, but our communities will not feel secure unless we get those numbers right. The Metropolitan police have been mentioned as a case in point. There is no doubt that they have faced the brunt of recent cuts. Since the general election, the Metropolitan police have lost 571 officers and 1,460 civilian staff—a 10.8 per cent. reduction. It is widely expected that that trend will continue, with recruitments not matching retirement levels. The Home Secretary said that Metropolitan police numbers will be within 75 of their current total. However, we must ask: 75 in which direction? The Home Secretary's careful wording suggests that the force will be 75 officers down—there would have been a bigger hurrah if he had announced an increase of 75.
  It is a crucial time for the Metropolitan police: they must recruit more officers, particularly from the ethnic communities in response to the Macpherson report. The downward trend in recruitment makes it harder for the force to achieve the targets that the Home Secretary will set. Figures published last week by the Home Office in response to a parliamentary question tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) show that the number of officers in local divisions of the Met is falling even faster than the headline total.
  The total figures show that, in an 18-month period, the number of officers fell by 571. However, the total for local divisions is 1,208 for the past two years. While the Met has lost 31 officers on average every month, the local divisions of the Met have lost 50 officers a month. That suggests that front-line policing is suffering as a result of the cuts.

  1297
  The Library has produced some useful analysis of police funding over the lifetime of this Parliament. I would like to examine the Government's record in this Parliament rather than their inheritance from the Conservatives. We criticised at the time of the election—and have continued to criticise ever since—the Government's decision to maintain Conservative spending plans. The Government repeat headline figures, and they have a wonderful knack of rolling three years' spending into one. The comprehensive spending review cited some very large numbers which become significantly smaller when we divide them by three and take account of the fact that they are announced several times for added impact.
  According to our analysis of the comprehensive spending review, total police funding will increase by 2 per cent. in real terms—that must be a good thing. However, over the lifetime of this Parliament, funding for police will increase by only 0.01 per cent. in real terms. In 1998–99, the police suffered real-terms cuts for only the second time in 20 years. The previous Government can take credit for their average real-terms increase of 6 per cent. in police funding. Potential police numbers under this Government are causing great concern, as is the increasing cost of police pensions, which was mentioned by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). We still see no ultimate resolution to that problem, which will continue to drain resources from front-line policing.
  As the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir Norman Fowler) mentioned, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Police Authorities have been critical of the Government. The Association of Police Authorities went further in describing the kind of struggle that police authorities are facing. It said:
  "all authorities will be walking a tightrope in balancing front line police numbers with the need to invest in the very latest technology."
  That is an area of critical concern. I recently visited the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and there is no doubt that a force such as that needs the latest technology as much as do the shire and the metropolitan forces on the ground. Police forces need sophisticated technology of a kind never seen before, which adds to the pressure. We do not want our forces having to choose between purchasing essential new technology and fulfilling their role of patrolling our streets. The police must have sufficient resources to carry out both of those essential functions, as well as the new functions—the partnership arrangements—under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, which Liberal Democrats welcome.
  The Government offer efficiency gains as the solution. We think that some efficiency gains can be made. We do not seek to protect the police by saying that no efficiency gains can be made. However, we do not believe that such gains will overcome the need for increased front-line policing. The role of the police is significant in that equation. The right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to the increased number of police officers required to support the community policing programme in New York. The chief police officer in New York, William Bratton, has made it clear that partnership community policing is the way forward. I point to the fact that New York now has twice as many officers per head as London, and that the London figure is continuing to fall. [Interruption.]
  1298
  We believe that the future lies with community policing and with providing sufficient funding to enable police forces to recruit an extra 6,000 officers. We believe that, in an era of resource accounting, it is very clear that the kind of money required—perhaps £120 million—to fund 6,000 additional police officers would reap rewards such as a lower crime rate and less damage to people in the community—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but there is far too much noise coming from the other Benches.
  Mr. Allan: We believe that, with that sort of investment—which would pay for 6,000 new officers—there would be significant rewards. That is not a waste of expenditure and it is not spending in a revenue sense, but an investment that would be returned through savings made elsewhere. That is the kind of spending that the Government, if they had the will, could have made this year, and which they should make in future years. We will continue to press for them to fund community policing. Every community needs an officer who is well known and with whom everyone can interact.
  Mr. Tyler: I am a great admirer of my hon. Friend. Does he recall that, in the previous Parliament, it was calculated that just £1 extra per year from each adult citizen would be required to increase manpower to the level that the chief constables felt was necessary in order to police this country properly? The Conservative Government failed to do that, but such is the nature of the task.
  Mr. Allan: There was publicity about that at that time. The public are willing to provide funds for safer communities and we, as a party, are not scared to tell people up front that if they want decent public services, they will be required to pay for them. We are prepared to stand on our platform and go before the electorate to tell them that if they want community policing, it will cost them. We believe that they would choose to support that proposal in overwhelming numbers. They will not support the cuts in the police services which will come about as a result of the total settlements from this Parliament and the financial situation inherited from the previous Government.
  Our final concern is that even if chief police officers had extra resources, it is questionable that they would be able to make the necessary recruitments to their force. We are extremely concerned to note that the number of applicants to the Metropolitan police dropped from more than 7,000 in 1995–96 to fewer than 5,000 in 1997–98. Parliamentary answers from the Home Office reveal that the number is still falling. I hope that the Minister, when responding in his usual informative way, will state whether the police service will be able to recruit extra officers if they can make the efficiency gains that he hopes for. I assume that he believes that those gains will lead to increased police numbers.
  2.41 pm
  Angela Smith: Having listened to the debate so far, I believe that hon. Members have become obsessed with numbers. I often have a great deal of sympathy with comments made by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), but listening to his contribution today, I wondered how the 1p increase in income tax will pay for all the Liberal Democrats' commitments, including extra spending on the police.
  We have missed the point of this debate on the strength of the police force, which is how the police relate to the community and how safe the community feels. The issue is not numbers, but the perception of crime in the community.
  When I intervened on the hon. Member for Hallam, I made the point that the Conservatives have, once again, misunderstood us. Our criticism of them, which we shall continue to make, is that when they were in government, they harped on about increasing police numbers. At the Conservative party conference, the former Prime Minister made the hasty statement that the Government would increase police numbers by 5,000. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, they had already taken away the power that would have allowed them to do so, but they made a promise that they could not keep. That was hypocritical and misled people, particularly because the promise was made at a time of rising crime.
  Crime has continued to rise. The way to deal with that is to involve the police in community policing. I am pleased that in Basildon we have had a crime prevention strategy and a partnership since 1990.
  Mr. Bob RussellIs the hon. Lady saying that her constituents, who live in the same county as my constituents, welcome next month's cut of 135 police officers and the disposal of a entire motorcycle fleet?
  Angela Smith: I understand why the hon. Gentleman won the recent golden anorak award from Tribune newspaper, but I urge him to be patient regarding my comments and the delivery of the anorak.
  I want to emphasise the importance of community safety partnerships, which were mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker). We are all grown-ups, so I can hazard the comment that it is not the size of the police force that matters, but how we use that police force in the community. The previous Government refused to deal with that problem and to make community safety partnerships statutory. As I said, we have had such a partnership in Basildon since 1990. It deals not only with crime, but with the fear of crime.
  I have spent much time in my constituency talking to youth groups, women's groups and pensioners. The fear of crime is the one issue that they all mention on every occasion. That has nothing to do with crime statistics. It relates to how they perceive their place in the community and how they think crime could affect them. There has been a distinct change in Government policy to deal with the fear of crime, which is leading to greater community safety.
  I pay tribute to the Basildon community safety partnership, which has won numerous prizes for its work. The previous high sheriff of Essex, which includes the constituency of the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell), said that Basildon was one of the best areas
  1300
  in the county and gave it several awards. Basildon residents do not normally take kindly to men who dress up in tights and frilly shirts and have silver buckles on their shoes, but on that occasion, we took the high sheriff to our hearts and appreciated the work that he did with us on community safety.
  The booklet produced by the partnership deals with four aspects of community safety and involved the police and the local council. It considers personal safety, property safety, business safety and community safety. John Robb, the chief executive of the district council, referred in the booklet to
  "initiatives aimed at reducing crime and increasing the quality of our lives."
  He made the point that the quality of our lives is directly affected by how we perceive crime in our community.
  Superintendent Dennis Sheppard, divisional commander for Basildon, said that crime affects us all. The previous Government would have been wise to take on board his following firm point:
  "If we are to further reduce crime and 'Build a Better Basildon' then each and every one of us has a part to play. Only by working together will we impact upon crime and thereby improve peoples' quality of life.
  The success of our Community Safety Partnership demonstrates what can be achieved when people work together towards a common goal."
  Later in my remarks, I shall give examples of how effective that work has been.
  I have been impressed with the personal dedication of the officers, from the council and the police, involved in the partnership. Ken Venables of Basildon council and Ray Williams of Basildon police have a unique working relationship. I commend it to other authorities, who could use it as a model of how to reduce crime and the fear of crime in their community.
  The strength of that relationship lies in the way in which the police have developed the role of community safety officers. Brett Mercer, who covers my area, is highly regarded in the community and has become a friend to its people. Officers such as Di Capon and Darren Griffiths, who work in another part of my constituency, have made the effort to get to know the community and individuals know that they can contact them.
  I was recently contacted by petition by the residents of a local estate who are concerned about what is often called petty crime, although that is the wrong name for it. It includes vandalism and breaking into and damaging cars. We should never underestimate the impact of such crime on the lives of individuals. My response was to write to the police and ask what they could do about it. I asked if I could examine the policing records for that area and discuss the matter. They responded not only by discussing the problems with me, but by asking for the names and addresses of residents who would like to talk to them. They are prepared to meet residents, deal with their complaints and discuss how they can help. That is a significant step forward in community relations and demonstrates the strength of the police in the local community.
  I should like the Minister to take note of and comment on earlier remarks about the private security industry. During the day, the Iaindon shopping centre in my constituency is bustling, lively and friendly, but in the evenings, a gang of youths, some as young as nine or 10,

  1301
  run around the centre vandalising the place. The police can take few measures to deal with that because the owners of the shopping centre will not co-operate. Henley's Management Ltd., which manages the centre for the owners, refuses to co-operate or to talk to me, the police or the local council.
  It is all very well giving local councils and the police the statutory authority to work together, but unless the owners of properties such as shopping centres play their part, the role of the police, community and council will be limited. I have approached the company to suggest a meeting. There is an argument for installing CCTV in the area, or perhaps for making greater use of local private security, but unless the owners of such shopping centres co-operate, the role of the police is limited. The police are playing their part, so will the Minister consider whether there is a way to involve owners of shopping centres and private areas, lock them into community partnerships and impose on them a statutory duty to co-operate with the police and the council?
  I want to emphasise the effectiveness of policing. We all recognise that resources are under pressure, but there are ways effectively and intelligently to use the police force, working in the community, to reduce crime. What matters is not police numbers but crime reduction and how communities feel.
  Car crime is a problem in Basildon. We have what were seen in the 1960s and 1970s as wonderfully designed housing estates, where children can play and through which cars cannot go. All cars must be parked outside the estates, so people cannot see them from their front doors. As a result, theft of and from cars in Basildon was the highest in Essex. It was a serious problem. As I said, one cannot underestimate the impact of such crime. Auto crime amounted to 33 per cent. of total crime in my constituency—phenomenally high.
  The council and the police have targeted resources in the shorter term, which has led to massive reductions in car crime. Theft of cars reduced from 240 a month to 115—it halved. How was that achieved? Operations such as "Biteback"—a significant title—raised the profile of the police, and the local force was restructured. There has been a major shift of emphasis from reactive policing to problem solving. In addition, much stronger links between the police and the community were built, giving the police intelligence of who was responsible for crime.
  Many of us are aware that very many relatively minor—I use that word cautiously—crimes are committed by very few people. A disproportionate amount of car crime was being committed by a small group of people. The police were able to deal with that because they could address the people responsible. The police identified the community safety partnership as being responsible for such an achievement.
  The police have looked not only to the past, but to the future. The Basildon festival leisure park—the major leisure park for the entire south-east—has recently been built. It has 1,500 car parking spaces, and 20,000 people visit the centre each weekend. There are marvellous leisure facilities, such as night clubs, discos, bowling, cinemas and eating places. One might think that car crime would increase in such circumstances. However, the police and the council have used their resources intelligently. They worked with architects for two years prior to the opening of the development, which resulted in
  1302
  the provision of a special building for monitoring 24-hour closed circuit television. Security guards are also on duty 24 hours a day. In the first six months of the park's operation, there were six reported cases of auto crime. Few facilities of that size could boast such a record. The strength of the police must lie in the community safety partnerships that they are establishing.
  Police in my area have also been involved in tackling crime at its root. They deal not just with crime, but its causes and how it ballooned to such an extent under the Tories. Under the Basildon bonus scheme, in partnership with schools, pupils who are least likely to be able to find jobs on leaving school have been identified. Although there is not a direct link between people who are unemployed and crime, there is no doubt that unemployment, which rocketed under the previous Government, fuels an atmosphere in which crime flourishes. Projects involving schools and mentors from the police and local authority have been aimed at supporting such kids and giving them confidence and self esteem in order to divert them from offending. Such efforts have a long-term impact on crime figures.
  We must tackle crime holistically. We cannot just say that the number of police officers has a direct impact on crime. We must also consider how those police officers are employed and how they are used in the community. The Government have given the police extra strength under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. The statutory duty to work with the community has empowered the police.
  The Tories have got the issue very badly wrong. By concentrating just on numbers, they have failed to understand the community problems that crime causes. People want to know not just how many police officers there are in Essex or how much money is being spent, but what measures will affect them and prevent them from becoming victims of crime. That is what effective community policing achieves. Crime cannot be seen in a vacuum; it must be seen as part of our community. The sooner that we understand that we need such an holistic approach, which this Government have taken with community safety projects and the Crime and Disorder Act, ensuring that all of us feel part of the community effort to address the problems, the sooner we will tackle the problem that the Tories failed to tackle.
  2.55 pm
  Mr. Andrew Hunter: About half an hour ago, the Home Secretary was speaking about police performance, to which the hon. Member for Basildon (Angela Smith) referred. Neither would dispute the proposition that no single measure can accurately reflect police performance. If, as the Audit Commission says,
  "the public has a right to expect that increased spending will lead to improved performance",
  it is fair to say that there is no direct link between the number of police officers and the effectiveness of the police force in preventing and detecting crime. Nevertheless, as I understand it, the essence of Opposition Members' arguments is that the Government's spending plans for the police for the next three years threaten both the quality of the service that our police forces can provide, and the maintenance of manpower levels. That is exemplified in reports that suggest that, for the financial year 1999–2000, 1,000 officers could be lost from the Metropolitan force.

  1303
  My speech comes from a Hampshire perspective. My constituency is admirably served by the Hampshire constabulary and a competent police authority. I shall make just three points. The first is somewhat technical. I hope that the Minister will be able to reply later in the debate or, if not, through correspondence in due course. The Government announced a three-year freeze in the standard spending assessment methodology, but it is unclear precisely how that affects the police SSA. In each year since 1995–96, the percentage of police SSA distributed on 1994 officer establishment has been decreasing by 10 per cent.—50 per cent. in 1995–96, 20 per cent. in the financial year that ends shortly and 10 per cent. next year.
  Some police authorities are confused about whether that annual 10 per cent. drop constitutes a change in methodology, and will therefore be frozen, or whether it is an inherent part of the methodology, and will therefore continue. According to one's interpretation, Hampshire is looking at the loss of a not insignificant £1.8 million.
  Secondly, even if we disregard the methodology issue, the Government's pronouncements on future funding give rise to very great concerns about both the quality of policing and establishment levels. During the 17 years of Conservative government, spending on the police, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have acknowledged, increased each year by an average of 3.4 per cent. over and above inflation. As a result of the comprehensive spending review, however, we are considering increases for the next three years that are only marginally above the rate of inflation. That must be compared with the 6.1 per cent. increase which the Association of Chief Police Officers estimates is required to maintain the existing quality of services and to take on new pressures.
  Under Conservative—and, to be fair, for a period, under Liberal—control, Hampshire county council and Hampshire police authority made the maintenance of its combined establishment of civilian and officer manpower a priority. Modest progress was made in just four years; a little under 200 new posts were created. The question now facing us is how sustainable is that increase. Given increases that barely match inflation, some would say that we face a doomsday scenario. The present establishment and quality of service cannot be maintained without the most serious implications for council tax. The so-called 2 per cent. efficiency drive is likely to compound the problem instead of curing it because, as the Audit Commission found, little more than a quarter of 1 per cent. of efficiency savings is to be found.
  Therefore the reality behind the Government's rhetoric appears to be lower service, poorer-quality, fewer officers and higher council tax.
  In the next few years, identifiable budget pressures will make it even harder to maintain today's establishments. I shall not go into details because the Minister of State is aware of the arguments. There is worry about the funding on public safety of the radiocommunications project, once it is up and running—worry about whether there are adequate funds for it within the financial settlement envisaged for 2000–01. There are capital implications as well as current spending implications. There are similar worries about funding of the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service. If there are to
  1304
  be increased overheads as a result of expansion and for other reasons, those must be met by increased levies on local police authorities.
  The Labour election manifesto made much of a pledge to promote law and order. In reality, the Treasury must work on the budgets. In the words of the Police Federation press release of 2 December,
  "This will result in fewer police officers, the closure of local stations and a reduction in front line services."
  So much for being tough on crime.
  3.1 pm
  Mr. David Drew: This debate on policing matters is especially opportune. Although Labour Members would criticise the Opposition motion, many useful points will be raised in the debate which I hope will inform, not only ourselves, but the police force and those who look on the police as their protectors.
  I shall speak briefly on the three obvious issues. The first is the operational changes that police forces are being asked to undertake. The second is funding—I would not disagree with some of what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) said about funding problems. The third issue is the welfare and payment conditions of serving police officers.
  The debate comes at a useful time because I shall spend tomorrow night with the local police in my town of Stonehouse. I try to get out with them every three months or so; I believe that it is useful for all hon. Members to see how the police function. I whisper this very softly, but every time that I have been out with the local police they seem to have a quiet night, so I am regarded as a good-luck charm; other Friday nights are not so wonderful. I have yet to see that much action, but I hope to enrich my perspective.
  Our police authorities have undergone enormous change since their somewhat controversial establishment. Their true impact is as yet unclear. Some of us would argue that policing still has a resonance within the local government framework, and that there have been dangers in isolating it from other service provision, but those police authorities are extant and we must face up to all the implications.
  Many other changes have taken place, not least the one that I am constantly made aware of when I go out and listen to constituents. In the past 10 to 20 years, policing has changed. It is now much more about targeting resources and fighting crime directly, which is not necessarily commensurate with the high-visibility presence of police on the beat. That poses a dilemma. In a rural or semi-rural area, such as the one that I represent, constituents will not see so much of the police. I assure them that there is a lot of policing going on—there is plenty of action behind the scenes. However, they cannot have it both ways. The time that the police spend walking the beat cannot be spent chasing criminals—and most of us would presume that the latter is the most effective way for the police to use their time.
  That links with the ministerial statement, made yesterday, I believe, that the Government were prepared to consider changing the location of police stations, different ways in which the police could be tasked to perform their duties and so on. I welcome that because, although there should be a debate on the subject and

  1305
  although we should be very much affected by what constituents tell us, we cannot believe that the police service is static. It must evolve and move with the times. Criminals are mobile, so we must make the police as mobile as possible.
  The need for change has been acknowledged and acted on in my local police force, in Gloucestershire. A year ago, we restructured the police force into three new divisions, and beneath those are inspector areas, under the command and control of inspectors. The three in my area are Inspector Cheryl Thomas in Stonehouse—with whom I shall spend some time tomorrow night—Inspector Dave MacFarlane in Stroud and Inspector Mike Barton in Dursley. I have spoken to each in turn. Interestingly, they all welcome that additional responsibility, and the police on the ground thoroughly understand it.
  The re-organisation has freed some people for specialist work in different teams. It is not without criticism—Chief Constable Tony Butler has had to go out and spell out to his force what he is doing and why he is doing it—but, in the main, it seems to have been welcomed and to work well.
  Interestingly, we have just got rid of beats in Gloucestershire; we now have a system of parishing, which seems more sensible and which we can all understand. We were never sure what a beat was, who patrolled it and where they would be at any moment.
  I shall now discuss the budgetary situation. In Gloucestershire we have an historical problem that pre-dates May 1997. Ours is a relatively small police force. The area is neither urban nor rural and, although it has a population of more than 500,000, that population is well spread, causing locational and funding difficulties.
  Like the hon. Member for Basingstoke, I believe that we would have welcomed some re-jigging of the standard spending assessment. We would always argue in Gloucestershire that, because we never fit any of the criteria exactly, we do quite badly out of funding mechanisms. That is true, not only of policing, but of local government and of our health authority.
  I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to keep that subject on the agenda. I urge him to ensure that the funding mechanism is as fair and transparent as possible. Might it be at all possible for him to find some more money for Gloucestershire? He knows that I have been in correspondence with him and he knows that we are about to meet—I hope sooner rather than later—to discuss some of the funding difficulties. We had a relatively low increase of 1.4 per cent., which is causing the police force some pain, especially as it is a small force. It is more difficult for a force of that size to accept the notion of 2 per cent. efficiency savings. Having suffered under the previous Government, the force has been asked to take even more difficult decisions on how to eke out the budget this time.
  Therefore I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take back to the Home Office the message that the Gloucestershire police are trying very hard. They have introduced many of the changes that are needed, but the budget is not as good as it could and should be, and we may need to address that, if not this year, in future years.
  Before I conclude I shall mention two points, one of which I raised with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), and which I was surprised, if not staggered, that he did not mention—the pension
  1306
  overhang. It is a major problem. I have re-read the police pension review that was published last March. None of us can hide from its findings. The previous Government may have had a good reason for not undertaking such a review earlier, but we have published it and gone out to consultation. The pension issue cannot be avoided for much longer. In a couple of years, we in Gloucestershire will be spending more than 20 per cent. of our budget to keep up with pension payments.
  In no way am I attacking the police or saying that we should not pay a good pension. However, the way in which we are currently funding pension payments, including the police provision from their own pocket, is not sustainable in the long run. We all know that. If we claim otherwise, we are fooling ourselves. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us when policy decisions are to be taken following consultation, and how we will move matters forward.
  One of the reasons why police pension payments are so high is that so many police leave the force early. That may be partly a result of attacks on the police. Also, the fact that policing is such a physical job means that they must be at peak fitness. We know about the difficulties, which must be taken into account in long-term plans to improve the welfare of the police. We must ensure that we provide adequate funding and organise policing in the most effective way.
  In conclusion, I shall deal with some of the dilemmas confronting the police. It is a pity that the Liberal Democrat Benches are so empty today. It is good to see that the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) is present. I assume that his hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Mr. Jones) is elsewhere, as today is the last day of the festival.
  The race course in my area has decided to hold a three-day meeting over the millennium, which will require extra policing and the participation of all the emergency services. I have been told, and I am sure that I will be told again tomorrow night when I go out with the police, that the race course will be paying its bar staff about £70 an hour during the night of the millennium. It is quite within its rights to do so, but try to persuade the emergency services, including the police, that it is all well and good for them to work on their normal pay or perhaps a little extra over the same period. They will simply be fulfilling their normal responsibilities, although they will get time off in lieu.
  I know that the festival will go ahead over the millennium and bring considerable revenue to Gloucestershire, but we need to think through our attitudes to the police. We take their work for granted. That is why it is so important that we get their pay, conditions and welfare right. We must deal with the pensions issue and ensure that our police operate as efficiently as possible. That can be achieved only if we give them the wherewithal to do their job as well as they can.
  3.13 pm
  Mr. John Hayes: The police services in Britain are struggling, by their own account. The chief constables said that the latest settlement is well short of what is required. The Association of Chief Police Officers stated that even allowing for efficiency gains, the settlement is inadequate to meet current demands, still less new challenges.

  1307
  I shall deal with five aspects of policing that all relate to the number of police in our police authorities. First, the increase in police numbers that took place during the 1980s and early 1990s has not been matched since. I take the Home Secretary's point that that process began in the early 1990s. It is interesting to note that if the figures are analysed closely, shire areas were disproportionately affected by that tailing off. I shall deal with the reasons for that later.
  During the past two or three years, most police authorities have been hit by declining numbers. One of the problems is the relationship between crime rates and police numbers. We heard earlier of the assumption that if crime rates fall, a related fall in the number of policemen is justifiable. That is a fundamental error, reflecting a misunderstanding of the role and purpose of policing. It links policing to crime in too direct a way. The correlation is not so simple.
  My second point relates to policing style. I shall not—nor, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would you allow me to—deal with the hyperbole and overreaction in the Macpherson report, although it might be appropriate to say that it is time that hon. Members stood up for our public servants against the ludicrous charge of institutionalised racism. I understand that we shall have the opportunity to do that in a future debate.
  Police style is related to numbers. If we believe that the style of policing appropriate for the modern age mainly involves crime-solving, and that it is essentially reactive—like the ambulance service, perhaps—we denigrate the role of prevention, the importance of public morale, and the importance of police morale and complements. Policing should be about civil order and social service. The choice is between the fire brigade or ambulance service model, and the "Dixon of Dock Green" or "Heartbeat" type of policing.
  We have heard that there was never any golden age in policing, but I reject the idea that the public do not want more bobbies on the beat—more friendly policemen whom they get to know, who are part of the community, who have particular responsibilities to a locality and who are seen in a positive light by the public. I am sure that is what people want. We must ensure that the policing style reflects that legitimate public demand.
  Such a style of policing involves patrolling. In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) spoke of the importance of policemen being seen to patrol—bobbies on the beat, patrolling on foot and by car. Such non-adversarial policing is good for maintaining links between law enforcement officers and the public. The Minister will remember that one of the conclusions of the Scarman report was that there was a danger of the police becoming a remote elite, who were not just hostile to a particular part of society, but anti-people and distant. Part of non-adversarial policing—of the bobbies on the beat culture—is to forge a closer bond between public and police.
  My third point entails crime and the fear of crime. All public surveys suggest that the fear of crime is profound. Dealing with that fear should be part of the policing agenda. That will not be accomplished by a style of policing largely based on crime reporting, crime detection and effective emergency reaction.
  1308
  That brings me to my fourth point, which is about funding. In Lincolnshire, for example, we do not have enough crime or enough of the right type of crime to attract additional resource. [Laughter.] The fact that Labour Members laugh shows that they have not taken notice of what I said earlier. If policing is linked solely to the nature and level of crime, it ignores the role of the police as preventers of crime, the creators of social order and the custodians of a bond between people and the law.
  That role is fundamental. If the police are seen as involved solely in clearing up serious crime, that removes aspects of their role such as visiting schools to forge links with young people. That role has largely disappeared in many constabularies because the police simply do not have the manpower for it. That approach, which, from their reaction, is clearly supported by some Labour Members who do not approve of such policing, has done much damage in divorcing the public from the police.
  If the grant settlement is tied to a reactive style of policing—a crime-led style of policing—it inevitably reinforces that style of policing, because the police will have only sufficient funds to deal with emergencies. They will not have the latitude to develop innovative policies in non-adversarial policing.
  Mr. Drew: Is not the hon. Gentleman missing the point that crime and disorder strategies and partnerships allow the police to work with other elements within their communities to ensure a full coverage of all the issues about which he speaks?
  Mr. Hayes: The problem with crime and disorder strategies is that they may become solutions looking for problems. The crime and disorder strategy must be geared up to the preventive non-adversarial policing that I described, and resourced accordingly—I will deal with the standard spending assessment later.
  The Minister of State nods, but there is little evidence to suggest that there is a satisfactory solution to the issue of the extra cost of policing rural communities. A research project is under way and I shall be looking for an assurance when the Minister replies that that will be published in the early part of this year so that we can study it. I hope that future settlements will take account of its findings.
  At the moment, there is only patchy evidence of any serious commitment to considering the different policing needs of different parts of the country, and, worse still, how different parts of the country need to be funded in a way that is sensitive to their local needs. If policing is funded according to national criteria which are insensitive to particular demands—for example, those of sparsely populated areas—it will be inappropriate for such areas.
  The staff in my chief constable's office made that very point to me this morning. To be honest, they did not complain about this year's settlement, although they were disappointed with the Government when the settlement was aggregated over two years. The Home Secretary said that that was because the Government had inherited the previous Government's spending plans—as though a Government coming into office with a massive majority and a mandate would not set their own agenda and say that, having looked at the situation closely, the figures would have to be changed; as though that would not have been part of a legitimate democratic decision.

  1309
  What nonsense. In Lincolnshire, as in so many other shire counties, aggregated over two years the settlement is disappointing.
  My fifth concern is that a problem also arises from the way in which the governance of police is likely to be changed by making police authorities best value authorities. The danger is that the targets that will be set by which the police will be judged are likely to reinforce the style of policing which I described earlier. The targets and measurables will be based on detection rates and measures of efficiency. It is hard to measure the intangible benefits from local community policing, such as school visits, in a way that can be related directly to crime and clear up rates, detection and efficiency. The problem with making police authorities best value authorities is that we shall set in stone targets and measurables—tangibles—which will reinforce an undesirable type of policing which is far removed from that which the public want.
  The inclusion of police as best value authorities, inappropriately shoehorned into a structure that is essentially designed for local government, will reinforce many of the problems. It will also challenge the tripartite governance of the police, which is so valued by the police and the public. It will lead to a nationalisation of the police by setting uniform national targets by which the police will be judged, and by decreasing the role of local police authorities, possibly even impinging on chief constables' ability to make their own decisions on operational matters.
  Some of those problems are long-term issues, and some are strategic issues, and it would not be fair to blame everything on the Government. [Interruption.] The Minister of State will know that I am renowned for my generosity and I do not want to tarnish that reputation today.
  High expectations were raised when the Government took office, and they have no one but themselves to blame for that. Every interest group possible was told that the Government would deliver for them. That was certainly true with regard to police and law and order matters. The fact that there are fewer policemen on the beat in Spalding in my constituency now than there were five years ago is a cause of real concern to my constituents. They do not understand why the Government have not delivered on their pledges, have broken their promises and disappointed the people of Lincolnshire and elsewhere in Britain.
  The Minister may legitimately say that some of these issues are strategic, but we will reply with equal legitimacy that the Government have made a slow start in addressing these strategic matters and have disappointed not only the people of Lincolnshire, but the people of Britain.
  3.26 pm
  Ms Hazel Blears: I appreciate that one of the great strengths of the House is the diverse perspective that hon. Members bring to our discussions. But listening to some contributions this afternoon, I genuinely wonder whether Conservative Members have any idea what it is like living in an inner city, trying to cope with the explosion of crime that has taken place in recent years, and whether they have any understanding or appreciation of what my constituents face daily as they live with crime, burglary, robbery, violence and massively escalating theft.
  1310
  It is right to set today's debate in a context. Conservative Members do not like to be reminded of uncomfortable figures; they prefer those that support their arguments. But we must examine the massive explosion in crime during the 18 years of Conservative Government. I shall confine my remarks to Greater Manchester, the area that I represent and know. In those 18 years, recorded crime rose by 130,000. That is a massive figure. Crimes against the person tripled in those years. Burglary increased two and a half times to a massive figure of 75,000 burglaries a year. Unbelievably, incidents of robbery increased 12 times, from 494 in 1979 to 6,296 in 1997. It may well be that resources have been put into the police, but the results of those resources have been pathetic. They did not deliver what the people wanted.
  My constituents want crime to be reduced and burglars and robbers to be caught, convicted and sentenced. They also want the good, effective community policing. I say to the hon. Member for South Holland and—
  Mr. Hayes rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Lady giving way, or just hesitating?
  Ms Blears: I was simply hesitating because I could not remember the hon. Gentleman's constituency.
  I say to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) that my police force regularly goes into primary and secondary schools, investing a huge amount of time and resources in trying to ensure that young people can grow up with a sense of moral values, knowing the difference between right and wrong and trusting the police. We recognise that it is in working with young people that we shall begin to reduce the menace of crime that threatens those whom I represent. That is the context in which we should be talking about police numbers this afternoon. I am particularly worried about the increase in violent crimes—which threaten people's sense of safety and security—in many inner-city areas. Not only crimes that have been committed, but fear of crime limits people's willingness and ability to take part in normal community activities. Even the police now recognise that the links between unemployment, poverty, deprivation and crime are incontrovertible. Therefore we have to rebuild our communities if we are to tackle their long-term problems of crime.
  The Opposition have a short and selective memory. They have concentrated on certain figures this afternoon, but I, for one, will never let them forget that their policies led to the massive explosion in crime, certainly in my city. Over 18 years of Tory Government there was excessive consumption for a few and a life of real hardship for the many.
  Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Blears: No.
  The Government have had to pick up the pieces after the community breakdown and disintegration that took place over those years, which is a huge task. Labour Members readily acknowledge that progress will not be achieved overnight and that our communities will not become safe and secure within a short time, but if we are

  1311
  to be successful we will have to be much more imaginative and creative about the way in which we run all our public services. That includes the police.
  Mr. Hayes: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Blears: Time is short, so I do not intend to give way.
  We need to examine the figures closely. The Audit Commission has said that there is no direct correlation between police numbers and the detection of recorded crime, but it has also said that there are significant variations in performance between police forces. The clear-up rate on burglaries in the best-performing metropolitan force is almost twice that of the worst. In particular, the Welsh police forces seem to do very well; they clear up 43 per cent. of burglaries, but only 11 per cent. of burglaries are cleared up in Greater Manchester.
  To me, those figures say that questions need to be asked about how the police are working, how they are conducting their business, what they do in different areas and how we can learn from best practice. For example, why can Cumbria police detect 33 per cent. of recorded crime and Derbyshire police only 20 per cent? Those numbers are more complicated for the Opposition to deal with because they require thought and analysis, and they need to be worked through. Perhaps that is why the Opposition choose to rely on the crude numbers relating to simple police strength. The figures relating to performance raise difficult issues for us to tackle, but, if we are to achieve sustainable long-term improvements, we must be prepared to analyse them.
  The Audit Commission report says that there is little direct correlation between the number of police officers employed, the work that they do and the targets that they achieve. The police have now recognised that they cannot simply tackle crime on their own and that they have to work in partnership with others. That would add value to the money that we spend on the police.
  The police are not some separate force, but integral to our communities. They work with the housing, education and social services, business and voluntary sectors as well as with the community. Bringing that expenditure together and making sure that we get added value from it is that task that faces us.
  Local people do not particularly want more crime to be detected, although that would help. They want crime to be reduced, or not to be committed in the first place. We must shift the emphasis of the conduct of policing from simply trying to detect crime once it has happened—because, by then, there is already a victim and communities are being destroyed—to addressing the start of the process, to make sure that we concentrate on reducing and preventing crime.
  To achieve that objective the police must work with other partners, such as local councils, to design better street lighting and work on housing estates, and with the business community to set up closed circuit television systems, for example. In the development at Salford Quays, which is a prime industrial development, local businesses are helping to fund extra police services and the installation of closed circuit television.
  1312
  Those businesses recognise that it is in their best interests to make sure that the police force perform properly and competently.
  The police also have to work with the public. I will welcome the anti-burglary initiatives that will be announced in the next few days. They will mean that many of my constituents will be physically safer in their own homes, but the overriding objective must be to strengthen our local communities. That means that the police must use ways of working that are very different from those that they used in the past.
  If we want to make our towns and cities places in which people want to live, work and bring up their families, we have to make sure that people have pride in their areas. They also need the confidence and the strength to combat the criminals themselves, but that ability has been lost from many of our communities. People live in fear and are often unwilling to give evidence when they witness crime. They do not feel that they have a stake in the community and do not feel safe and confident enough to intervene.
  I am pleased that imaginative, innovative and creative work is being done in many police forces up and down the country, and we should recognise and applaud that. Resources are being put into diverting young people from crime, not only through school visits, but through involvement in practical projects on the ground. I shall give two examples from my constituency. The Gears project is funded by the police, the probation service and the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, and those bodies bring together youngsters with a particular interest in motor bikes.
  Those youngsters might have stolen motor bikes—[Interruption.] As a keen motor cyclist, I have a great interest in that. Those bodies bring young people together to build their own racing motor bikes. They are acquiring skills and receiving training in welding and engineering, which is diverting them into much more positive activity, and there is also an element of excitement for them.
  If we are genuinely to divert young people from crime, we cannot simply invite them along to a youth club for a game of football, ping-pong or whatever. Young people want to be involved in exciting activities that give them a buzz and make life worth living, and our motor cycle project has been extremely successful in diverting young people from crime.
  The second constituency example is a project run by my local rugby league team, Salford Reds. The club has an incredibly successful youth development programme and works with other organisations. The police are very supportive of the project and people visit primary schools—not only to get the youngsters playing rugby league, but to get them along to matches and involved in the club so that they feel that they have a stake in their city. That is so important in making sure that we build the self-confidence of those communities. Projects that divert our young people from crime are very important.
  The police are working in new ways. We are putting an awful lot of resources into video surveillance. In areas with a lot of crime and disorder, parents often deny that their youngsters are responsible for causing trouble, but they react swiftly and effectively if they are confronted with video evidence of their children committing crimes and making other people's lives a misery.

  1313
  Targeted policing means that our police meet every week to consider the causes of incidents and target their resources on the hotspots of crime. The police draw in officers from the housing department and the local authority and make sure that they consider the full spectrum of reasons for crime taking place in our community. They do not simply patrol the beat; they direct their activities to where maximum effect will be achieved and crime will be reduced.
  In Salford we have a wonderful witness support scheme, which has been acknowledged in the Home Office document "Speaking up for Justice". It supports witnesses from the day that they witness a crime all the way through the process until they are able to give evidence in court. We must have more than a court-based scheme. We must say to people who are brave enough and strong enough to stand up and give evidence in difficult circumstances, "We are with you, we will support you, we will help you and we will take you through the whole process." I commend Salford's witness support scheme as an example of good practice.
  All those are new ways of working. The police service should not remain static. The world is changing and the police service, and all our public services, have to change, too. We believe in public service, but we also believe in getting value for money from the investment that we make. Up and down the country, innovation is taking place and the old numbers game is over. It is not enough for Governments simply to allocate the resources, wash their hands, step back and not take any responsibility for results.
  The huge variations in detection rates show us that some factors make some forces more successful than others. Those are difficult issues, but tackling them is the only way to achieve sustainable, long-term success. We are not about short-term thinking; this Government will be in office for a long time to come. The people in Salford whom I represent are delighted that, at long last, they have a Government who take their views seriously. The Government are getting involved in a partnership and in setting local priorities and targets. They will have the levers to drive up those standards. They have a Government who are listening, and I believe that it is because the Conservative Government did not listen and were out of touch that they are now out of office. Long may that remain so. I urge hon. Members to dismiss this motion.
  3.40 pm
  Mr. John Greenway: It is disappointing that some colleagues were unable to speak in this debate, but doubtless they will find other ways of voicing their concerns about the state of the police service in their constituencies.
  The Home Secretary failed to deal with the central point in the Opposition motion that police numbers are falling as a direct consequence of the policies of the Government. When he was not making personal attacks on my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), he seemed to be saying that the budget that the Government have allocated to the police is challenging but adequate. The Opposition say that the police funding settlement under Labour for the next three years is insufficient to maintain an effective police service. The direct consequence will be fewer
  1314
  police officers—not hundreds fewer, but potentially thousands fewer—which will undermine the fight against crime and the Government's law and order strategy.
  Angela Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Greenway: No, I shall not give way.
  From Essex to Cumbria, Bedfordshire to Gloucestershire and Lincolnshire to North Yorkshire, police numbers are going down, and we have heard much about that this afternoon. We believe that there is room for improvements in efficiency, but the Government insist on a 2 per cent. across the board efficiency gain in each of the next three years, and the effect of that will be inconsistent across the country. It penalises the very forces—many of them are the smaller, rural forces—that have already taken action to improve efficiency within their force. There was no better example of that than the one given by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) about Gloucestershire.
  Sensible changes in the police estate will take years—not months—to implement. I refer particularly to yesterday's welcome report from the Audit Commission, "Action Stations". I am quite frankly astonished that the Home Secretary did not find time to refer to it in his 40-minute tirade.
  Ministers have still not said how the 2 per cent. annual efficiency savings will be judged, but their impact cannot be in question: there will be fewer officers and a reduced service to the public just at a time—and this is central to our motion—when it is most essential to build the best possible relations between the police and the public.
  The Home Secretary criticised the record of the previous Conservative Government. I shall briefly highlight four points. First, crime rates fell by 15 per cent. between 1994–95 and 1997–98: the source of the figures is the Audit Commission's 1997–98 report. Secondly, the number of constables increased in England and Wales by 2,322 between April 1992 and March 1997. The source for that is a written answer by the Secretary of State for Wales when he was a Minister in the Home Office. The average time that police constables spent in public increased by 4 per cent. between 1994–95 and 1996–97: again the source is the Audit Commission in its 1996–97 report. That report also stated:
  "Most forces had increases in their funding in real terms between 1993/94 and 1996/97."
  The Home Secretary seemed to forget what he said in his press statement a year ago announcing Labour's first police grant report settlement for 1998–99. He said:
  "The police are the only local authority service to have had an increase greater than inflation in each of the last four years."
  That is, four years in which the budgets were set by a Conservative Government. He has the audacity to come here today with a weak defence against the motion and to criticise that record.
  Mr. Collins: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Greenway: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall not give way.
  The Home Secretary clearly thought that such increases were a good thing. What has now persuaded him to change his mind, or did he not fight hard enough in the comprehensive spending review? Concerns about

  1315
  resources in the first Labour police settlement were brushed aside with the excuse that all the Government were doing was sticking to Tory spending plans. We heard the same point made again today, and we heard it on Tuesday when the Home Secretary had the audacity to use that as an excuse not to find money for closed circuit television cameras.
  What do we find when the Government escape the shackles of budget constraints set by the mean old Tories and new Labour is free to do its own thing and put its money where its mouth is? The public and the nation should know what "tough on crime" really means under new Labour. What we got was a 1 per cent. cut in last year's settlement. We have got what the Police Superintendents Association has described as the worst spending round in a generation. The tragedy is that there are two more years of the same still to come. What a complete lack of political commitment to the police from a Government who seem intent on running down the police service! That lack of commitment risks a demoralised police force, from which the only gainers are the criminals. The losers will be our constituents: the general public.
  The debate has shown that the demands we make on the police are greater than ever before. The police service throughout the country is overstretched. More and more police officers suffer from stress-related illnesses and violence through assaults. Our constituents want more visible policing. Much is made of zero tolerance—the in phrase is hotspot policing. Whatever name we choose, for the policy to be successful, it must be manpower intensive.
  We need more officers, not fewer. They will have to implement the provisions of the new Crime and Disorder Act 1998, establish community partnerships, be responsible for policing millennium events, tackle vehicle crime, make our city centres safe late at night, build on the success of Operation Bumblebee to reduce burglary and Operation Eagle Eye to reduce street robberies, and respond every hour of every day to major road traffic accidents.
  Those intractable problems cannot be solved by soundbites, by local authority or private patrols, or by a sudden conversion to CCTV cameras as a cheap way out—as we heard on Tuesday. Those initiatives should support the police, not be seen as a substitute for the police. Anyone who talks to police officers regularly will know that the police service wants to do an even better job and make our communities safer. Increasingly, the police feel betrayed by a lack of support from the Government.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield drew attention to what the Police Federation rightly said—that Treasury officials had swung the axe on police budgets. Like the Police Federation, several hon. Members have predicted fewer police officers, the closure of local stations and a reduction in front-line services in their areas, and those predictions are now coming true. That is not what the people of this country voted for in May 1997, and it will weigh heavily against new Labour when it chooses to face the country in two or three years' time.
  1316
  What we heard from the Home Secretary was the same old display of complacency and commitment bordering on contempt. We ask no more than that the Government should match the Conservative commitment towards the police. They should match the pledge made by the Leader of the Opposition in Reading at the weekend to halt this decline in police numbers.
  Hon. Members from both sides of the House must know that chief constables, police authorities, serving police officers and their constituents are deeply concerned about falling police numbers. This afternoon they can show how much they share that concern by supporting our motion.
  3.49 pm
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): This morning, I went straight from the BBC studios—where I engaged in a debate with the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler)—to the streets of Peckham, where I joined two dedicated serving police officers on their patrol of a local estate. That was a necessary and salutary corrective, following my experience of debating the issue with the right hon. Gentleman. His rantings and ravings on police numbers—[Interruption.] Yes, that is what they are. The right hon. Gentleman's rantings and ravings bear no relation to what is actually happening.
  While the right hon. Gentleman goes on and on about police numbers, police officers working on the ground with the public are responding to the challenge that they have been set by a Government who are determined to bring about the partnership between police and public that is the real answer to the problem of reducing and preventing crime. The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 creates the necessary context—a context within which we are devoting new resources to tackling the challenges of policing as we move into the next millennium. To pretend otherwise is to live in a fantasy land—the sort of fantasy land in which the right hon. Gentleman dwells all too often for the purpose of making political points about police numbers, and which the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) sought to perpetuate.
  Ms Candy Atherton: As my hon. Friend will know, we in Cornwall will have a particular policing problem in August, when there will be a total eclipse of the sun. Can he or our right hon. Friend the Home Secretary help in any way?
  Mr. Boateng: My right hon. Friend has visited Cornwall to meet the chief constable, members of the police authority and members of the public. We shall respond in due course to the anxieties that my hon. Friend has expressed so eloquently in recent months.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No, not at this point.
  The lesson from Devon and Cornwall is being repeated throughout the country. It suggests that police and community should come together to deliver safe and secure communities. To get hung up on the issue of police numbers, as the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield does, is to miss the point. This Government are applying an unprecedented level of resources to the task of policing our country.

  1317
  The hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) demonstrated real concern about Lincolnshire, and the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. Hunter) was equally concerned about Hampshire; but when we compare what Conservative Members say with what has actually happened, we see a stark contrast between the two. Under a Labour Government, Lincolnshire's budget has been increased by 4.4 per cent. That is a larger increase than it had under the Tories at any time during the last three years of their Administration. The hon. Gentleman ought to be saying thank you, rather than pointing the finger of blame at the Government. The hon. Member for Basingstoke also whinged about resources, but, under this Labour Government, his local force received a 3.3 per cent. Increase—above the national average—in its budget.
  I visited Hampshire recently, and I commend the excellent work of the Hampshire police. In fact, the number of police increased by 38 in the six months between March and September 1998. That simply does not bear out the suggestion by Opposition Front Benchers that we are letting the police down. The reverse is the case.
  Sir Norman Fowler: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Boateng: No.
  What we are doing is putting the emphasis on police efficiency and effectiveness, which is where it belongs. We are pursuing an agenda that has been endorsed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs, by the Audit Commission and by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. All those bodies recognise that to see the issue in terms of numbers alone is to miss the point.
  The Tories really have lost the plot in regard to the policing of our country. We are determined to pursue this debate in ways that bring communities and police closer together, and recognise the importance of the targeting initiatives that we launched in Peckham this morning. We are devoting new resources—some £5 million out of a total of £250 million—to underpinning our crime reduction strategy, in addition to the £1.24 billion settlement.
  The hon. Member for Ryedale was disparaging about closed circuit television, but it is cementing a partnership not just between police and public but, importantly, between the police and the private sector. That partnership is delivering in shopping malls and public spaces up and down the country: delivering, under a Labour Government, something that a Conservative Government consistently failed to deliver. Why are we delivering that? We are delivering it because we have learned the lessons of modern policing, which are about spreading good practice and building on the excellent work that the police are doing throughout the country.
  Let me give an example. We have learned from auto crime, including thefts from vehicles, that it is not enough to be reactive: it is not enough to be in the business of spouting the simple rhetoric that we hear from Conservative Members. The police must be supported in their job of gathering criminal intelligence. It is necessary to support their proactive approach, which is about disrupting the market in the supply of stolen goods and which is intelligence led and problem orientated, and about backing that up with resources that deliver. Those resources must deliver in terms of promoting a sense of
  1318
  well-being and security among the public, and also in terms of meeting the demand that chief constables and the men and women on the ground properly make of their Government.
  What is that demand? It cannot be seen simply in terms of numbers; it also provides a context for the sort of partnership that was described by my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Basildon (Angela Smith). We are talking about people working on the ground in order to cut the ground under the criminal: people working on the ground to ensure that local authorities, through the youth service, are working not against, but alongside the police and diverting young people from crime and offending. We are talking about those who do the business of policing. That is not about rhetoric—the sort of rhetoric that we hear from Conservative Members—but about delivering a reality based on partnership between the police and the public and, importantly, on the significant resources that this Government alone have managed to deliver to the police in recent times.
  Those resources mean that we are able, together, to reduce crime. They mean that we are able to prevent crime. They enable us to proceed on the basis that together we can beat crime, and undermine criminal activity. That is what we intend to do. We intend not to engage in empty rhetoric about numbers, but to engage in the serious business of delivering a strategy on the ground that reduces and prevents crime. Nothing will stop us from doing that—working with the police and the public to promote a safe and secure society.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 315.

  Division No. 118]

  [4 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Fallon, Michael

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Bercow, John

  Fraser, Christopher

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Garnier, Edward

  Body, Sir Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Boswell, Tim

  Gill, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Gray, James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Green, Damian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Greenway, John

  Burns, Simon

  Grieve, Dominic

  Butterfill, John

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Hayes, John

  Chope, Christopher

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Clappison, James

  Horam, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Howard, Fit Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Colvin, Michael

  Hunter, Andrew

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Key, Robert

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Day, Stephen

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan, Alan

  Lansley, Andrew

  Faber, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lidington, David

  1319

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Loughton, Tim

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Luff, Peter

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Spring, Richard

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Streeter, Gary

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Syms, Robert

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Madel, Sir David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Malins, Humfrey

  Thompson, William

  Maples, John

  Townend, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Tredinnick, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Trend, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Moss, Malcolm

  Wardle, Charles

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Waterson, Nigel

  Norman, Archie

  Wells, Bowen

  Ottaway, Richard

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Paice, James

  Whittingdale, John

  Paterson, Owen

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Pickles, Eric

  Wilkinson, John

  Prior, David

  Willetts, David

  Randall, John

  Wilshire, David

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Robathan, Andrew

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Ruffley, David

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Mr. Tim Collins and

  Shepherd, Richard

  Mr. Oliver Heald.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies(NE Fife)

  Allen, Graham

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Caplin, Ivor

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Casale, Roger

  Austin, John

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Baker, Norman

  Chaytor, David

  Ballard, Jackie

  Chidgey, David

  Banks, Tony

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barnes, Harry

  Clapham, Michael

  Barron, Kevin

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Battle, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clwyd, Ann

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Coleman, Iain

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Connarty, Michael

  Benton, Joe

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Cooper, Yvette

  Berry, Roger

  Corbett, Robin

  Best, Harold

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Betts, Clive

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Blackman, Liz

  Cotter, Brian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cousins, Jim

  Boateng, Paul

  Cox, Tom

  Borrow, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Crausby, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Brake, Tom

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Dalyell, Tam

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Darvill, Keith

  Burden, Richard

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Burgon, Colin

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burstow, Paul

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  1320

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Denham, John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Dismore, Andrew

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Dobbin, Jim

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Doran, Frank

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Dowd, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Drew, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Laxton, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Leslie, Christopher

  Efford, Clive

  Levitt, Tom

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Linton, Martin

  Etherington, Bill

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Fatchett, Rt Hon Derek

  Love, Andrew

  Fearn, Ronnie

  McAllion, John

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fisher, Mark

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Fitzsimons, Loma

  Macdonald, Calum

  Flint, Caroline

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Flynn, Paul

  McIsaac, Shona

  Follett, Barbara

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  McLeish, Henry

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McWalter, Tony

  Foulkes, George

  Mallaber, Judy

  Fyfe, Maria

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Galloway, George

  Marek, Dr John

  Gapes, Mike

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Martlew, Eric

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Maxton, John

  Gorrie, Donald

  Merron, Gillian

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Grocott, Bruce

  Mitchell, Austin

  Grogan, John

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Moore, Michael

  Hancock, Mike

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Morley, Elliot

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mountford, Kali

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Mudie, George

  Heppell, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hill, Keith

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoey, Kate

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Home Robertson, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hope, Phil

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Olner, Bill

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hurst, Alan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Pearson, Ian

  Illsley, Eric

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jamieson, David

  Plaskitt, James

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Pond, Chris

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Ms Jenny(Wolverh'ton SW)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Purchase, Ken

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Rammell, Bill

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rapson, Syd

  1321

  Raynsford, Nick

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Rendel, David

  Stott, Roger

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Rooker, Jeff

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Rooney, Terry

  Stringer, Graham

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rowlands, Ted

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann(Dewsbury)

  Roy, Frank

  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

  Salter, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Todd, Mark

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Sawford, Phil

  Touhig, Don

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Trickett, Jon

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Singh, Marsha

  Tyler, Paul

  Skinner, Dennis

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Miss Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Watts, David

  White, Brian

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Snape, Peter

  Wills, Michael

  Soley, Clive

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wood, Mike

  Spellar, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. David Clelland.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House pays tribute to the high standards of policing in this country; notes that the previous administration's promises in 1992 and 1995 of an additional 6,000 police officers were never carried through and that police numbers instead fell; welcomes the additional £1.24 billion for the police service and the extra £400 million for the crime reduction programme which are to be provided over the next three years; supports the police in their crucial role in tackling crime and creating safer communities; and recognises the need for the police, as with other public services, to continue to improve efficiency and effectiveness and deliver best value in the interests of the whole country.

  Roads
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.12 pm
  Mrs. Gillian Shephard: I beg to move,
  That this House believes that the Government, having promised an integrated transport policy, are creating a standstill Britain and failing to deliver the immediate benefits promised before the general election; notes that 94 per cent. of passenger travel and 91 per cent. of goods moved within the UK is by road, so that a modern and efficient roads network is vital for UK prosperity and competitiveness; notes that the condition of UK roads is deteriorating; condemns the Government for cutting the programme of motorway and trunk road improvements to 37 schemes, which will increase the congestion and pollution which the Government say they oppose, despite raising the tax burden on the road user to £33 billion per year, of which less than one sixth is spent on transport; and calls upon the Government to stop hitting the road user with ever-higher taxes as a substitute for real policies to reduce congestion and pollution and to get Britain moving again.
  The Labour party came to power pledging immediate benefits for the travelling public from its transport policies. Its manifesto promised
  "an effective and integrated transport policy at national, regional and local level that will provide genuine choice to meet people's transport needs."
  Two years on, where are those benefits? There has certainly been plenty of spin. The Government have churned out more than 100 glossy publications and consultative documents on transport. Friends of the Earth has described the Government's style as "carry on consulting".
  There has been no shortage of photo opportunities. The travelling public have been treated to images of the Deputy Prime Minister posing at a bus stop—unfortunately for him, with one of his two Jaguars just within camera shot waiting to pick him up. They have seen him strap-hanging on the London underground—for just one stop, I think—to prove his public transport credentials. Those credentials were subsequently rather damaged by the revelation that he took a Royal Air Force helicopter, at public expense, to switch on the Blackpool illuminations. This week in the tabloid press there have been some fetching pictures—I suppose that one has to call them glamour pictures, although, thankfully for us all, they were not on page 3—of the Deputy Prime Minister delivering a lecture from the jaws of the deep on the need for the rest of us to use the bus more. The Sun called it "scuba skiving".
  There have been promises, promotional pamphlets, photographs and hot air—plenty of that—but no immediate benefits for the travelling public. The Government's transport policy has achieved increased fuel taxes, cuts in transport spending, a slashed roads programme and no reductions in congestion and pollution. It is small wonder that a recent BBC MORI poll showed that just 3 per cent. of people think that the Government are doing a good job on transport. People know that they are paying more and getting less.

  1323
  The Government want the public to believe that they have not increased taxes. Despite the Prime Minister's denials in the House and elsewhere, figures from the House of Commons Library show that taxes are set to be £7.1 billion higher next year as a direct result of the Chancellor's first three Budgets. Increased taxation for the motorist is part of the Government's stealth tax attack. They are hostile to the motorist. They attack what they call car dependency as though it were an illness. They appear not to realise that, for many, the car is a necessity, not a luxury.
  Petrol in Britain is now the most expensive in Europe. Of every £10 that the travelling public pay at the pumps, £8.50 goes straight to the Exchequer. As the Automobile Association has said, it is as though the Chancellor
  "is using motorists as a private piggy bank".
  Adding together increased fuel tax, VAT and increased excise duty on all vehicles except sit-on lawnmowers, it became clear this week that not even the Mini has a small enough engine to qualify for the Chancellor's much trumpeted reduction in vehicle excise duty: road users will be paying to the Exchequer around £33 billion this year. The Government will be taking £9 billion more from road users in extra fuel tax during this Parliament than would have been the case if our policies had remained in place.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Does my right hon. Friend anticipate, as I do, that the Minister of Transport will say that the escalator was of the Conservative party's invention? To pre-empt the jeering Labour mob, will she confirm that this Government increased the escalator by a full 20 per cent. in the Budget?
  Mrs. Shephard: We introduced the fuel escalator when fuel was cheaper in the United Kingdom than in Europe and we needed to meet our CO2 targets. This Government have increased the fuel escalator. We oppose that increase. As we did with whisky duty, the Government should review the global effect of their policies on road travellers and reduce that tax burden.
  The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): To set the record straight, will the hon. Lady confirm that the last five increases under the Conservative Government in the taxes about which she is talking were 10 per cent, 10 per cent., 13 per cent., 10 per cent. and 7 per cent?
  Mrs. Shephard: No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will confirm later that he has imposed an extra £9 billion on the motorist during this Parliament, together with cuts in public transport and the roads programme.
  The people worst affected by the Government's policies, as the AA regularly points out, will not be those with two Jaguars, but people for whom a car is a necessity. It is a secure, convenient means of transport for women, the elderly and families, as well as for those who live in the countryside, where 85 per cent. of households have and need a car.
  Mrs. Christine Butler: May I advise the right hon. Lady that one of the Jaguars of the Deputy Prime Minister is a bicycle?
  Mrs. Shephard: That is the best definition of Jaguar that I have heard for some time. I look forward to the next photo opportunity and seeing the Deputy Prime Minister on a bicycle disguised as a Jaguar.
  1324
  This will not be the end of the Government's taxation on motorists. They are preparing three more taxes; congestion charging, motorway tolls and a tax on workplace parking. It is no good the Government promising that the income will be hypothecated to invest in transport improvements, because they also promised, before the election, that there would be no tax increases under the Labour Government. I am afraid that no one will believe them.
  The Government are saving their worst example of highway robbery for business. Company car tax is to be increased—but at least the Chancellor announced that in his Budget. Curiously, he failed to announce that he was increasing the price of diesel by more than 11 per cent.—or more than 6p a litre. He played down the fact that he was setting the price of a tax disc for large trucks at a rate 11 times higher than the average in Europe.
  The day after the Budget, the Road Haulage Association set up a telephone helpline to advise haulage companies planning to register abroad. There were 700 calls on the first day. However, moving abroad is perhaps what the Government want. In a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) on 23 February, the Minister said that all hauliers who operate internationally
  "can take advantage of lower prices elsewhere."
  At least we know.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Did not the price of DERV increase by 60 per cent. between 1990 and 1997? Why did the considerations that apply in 1999 not apply between 1990 and 1997?
  Mrs. Shephard: If the hon. Gentleman does his sums, he will realise that he is talking about a period of seven years, and he is talking about price increases.
  Many smaller haulage companies cannot afford to move abroad, and many do not operate internationally. They will go out of business. This week, The Times, on the basis of a letter sent by a number of business organisations, estimated that transport tax could cost 50,000 haulage and associated jobs in three years.
  The Minister of Transport is a sensible man.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
  Hon. Members: Oh!
  Mrs. Shephard: Does the hon. Gentleman wish to correct me?
  Mr. Davies: I wish to refer to the point made before the right hon. Lady's last, excellent point. May I draw to her attention the fact that the overall costs of running a typical firm of 50 38-tonne trucks—when corporation tax and labour costs are taken into account—are higher elsewhere? In the Netherlands, costs are 50 per cent. higher; in Belgium, 68 per cent.; and, in France, 35 per cent. The assumptions of that ridiculous article have not been made public, because it costs more to run companies in continental Europe.
  Mrs. Shephard: I would not advise the hon. Gentleman to tell that to the average British trucker.

  1325
  He might regret it. The Minister of Transport—normally a sensible man—told the Freight Transport Association a month ago that British hauliers were not suffering any serious disadvantage. I would like to read to him a letter faxed to me today by Mr. David Burton who runs a small transport company in Whissonsett, in Norfolk. He said:
  "I am contacting you for help and to lobby this Government regarding the terrible plight of UK hauliers. As you are aware we cannot compete with unfair competition from continental hauliers due to this Government's insistence of the fuel duty escalator. I and my wife have built up from nothing to a profitable company employing 17 employees from a small rural village in mid Norfolk over the last 20 years. This is now very much in jeopardy due to vast differences in fuel duty. We have in the last month lost an valuable contract running to Spain due to unfair competition and also another contract to Holland and Germany is under scrutiny by our customer, asking for a reduction in rates which will be the final straw. We are desperate for help and cannot survive much longer."
  I appeal to the Minister to listen to Mr. Burton—an authentic voice from the smaller end of the business—to reduce the tax burden and to play his part in saving 50,000 jobs.
  Mr. Matthew Taylor: The right hon. Lady's concern for that haulier and the lorry industry—and for motorists in general—is clear. Will she make it clear whether the policy of her party is now to end the fuel escalator, and whether the shadow Chancellor has agreed that with her?
  Mrs. Shephard: I have said that we think the Government should do as we did with whisky duty and review the global effects of their policy on the haulage industry and reduce the tax burden. That is what they should do—they are in charge.
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: The right hon. Lady is developing policy on the hoof. Is she proposing that we freeze duty on diesel, or cut the duty?
  Mrs. Shephard: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening—I suppose that he was bemused by the glamour pics. What I said earlier was what I just said to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). I could hardly put the position more clearly. He may recall that we voted against the increase in the Budget.
  The Government have increased road taxes, affecting every man, woman and child in the country. That is despite their promise that there would be no tax increases under Labour. The travelling public—the people who were promised immediate benefits under Labour—are entitled to ask why. Clearly, despite the Government's desire to hide behind a green smokescreen, this is not being done for environmental reasons.
  The stark fact is that, following the Budget, the Government's tax take from road users will increase this year by £1.6 billion. Spending on transport is to be cut for each of the next three years, as the Department's own figures confirm. Thus, there will be no investment in public transport to provide a choice for motorists, as promised in "Consensus for Change."
  The then Labour transport spokesman, now Secretary of State for International Development, said that her intention was that people should be
  "caught in traffic jams when driving to work to see clean fast buses whizzing by and determined to leave their cars at home."
  1326
  She was right on one count. We have the jams—but where are the buses?
  As John Dawson of the AA said,
  "The Chancellor's environmental excuse for hitting motorists is wearing very thin."
  He said that the Budget is
  "a purely revenue generating measure which impacts most on less well off families and those living in rural areas without any realistic public transport alternatives. No country in Europe spends so little of what it takes from motorists on its transport system."
  Dr. George Turner: Does the change in policy that the right hon. Lady is making on the fuel escalator—which, I understood, was introduced by the Conservative Government for environmental reasons—mean that she is abandoning a commitment to achieve the environmental objectives, or does she have alternatives to suggest? Many of us who represent rural areas understand the concerns that she is raising. The county that we both represent has more to lose—literally—in land mass by global warming than most.
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman makes his point, whatever it may be. I have made it absolutely clear why we voted against the Government's punitive increase in diesel duty. I remind him that he, too, has many hauliers in his constituency.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Surely the Government are misunderstanding the point. It is not that lorries will cover fewer miles, but that companies will flag out to other European countries. They will carry on transporting, but far more cheaply than is possible in this country.
  Mrs. Shephard: From what we understand from the Minister, the Government's policy is to attract foreign companies here to add to our pollution and congestion. The Government cannot claim that the extra tax that they have raised is used to reduce congestion and bottlenecks. Last July's roads review slashed the roads programme from more than 140 targeted improvements to only 37, and it will be up to a decade before many of those are completed.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: May I take it that the Conservative party no longer supports the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions? If so, what measures would the right hon. Lady put in place that would have the same effect as our taxation measures?
  Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady should listen to the case that I am making. The Government are imposing swingeing tax increases on road users. They have made cuts in overall transport spending, depriving road users of public transport alternatives. They slashed the roads programme, which would have reduced congestion and pollution.
  The local transport settlement amounted to a real-terms decrease in cash for local authority road schemes, and that is set to continue for the next three years. The December survey by the Institution of Civil Engineers found that the maintenance backlog had increased by 40 per cent. since 1996 and now stands at a total of £160 for every vehicle licence holder.

  1327
  The Opposition support an integrated approach to transport. We agree that we must make the best use of what we have, in the way that is most sustainable for the environment. We support the responsible use of the car and responsible roads investment to reduce congestion and pollution. When in office, we invested £26 billion in roads and nearly the same amount in public transport. Our policies levered in more private funds to increase public transport choices.
  The Government have broken their pre-election promises on transport. There have been no immediate benefits for the travelling public. Their answer to transport problems is to tax the motorist off the road and to put hauliers out of business. Their swingeing stealth tax increases are hitting every man, woman, child and business in the country. They are cutting investment in public transport and our roads. They are creating a standstill Britain. I urge the House to support the motion.
  4.34 pm
  The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "commends the Government for taking a far-sighted and more integrated approach to roads policy than the previous administration; notes that the previous Government's 'predict and provide' approach to road building has been discredited and that the present Government has instead taken a realistic and practical approach based on the five criteria of integration, the economy, the environment, safety and accessibility; notes further that the previous Conservative Government's grandiose but impractical wish-list of schemes for which funding was not available has been replaced by a targeted programme of improvements, all of which can be started within seven years; welcomes its increased and more rationally-based spending on roads maintenance; and applauds the Government for tackling the problems of congestion and pollution, thereby ensuring that the road transport system operates for the benefit of individual people and the UK economy as a whole."
  I strongly deprecate these attacks on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. He is a sensitive soul and will no doubt have been deeply offended by the remarks of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). If she chooses in future to start a debate with an attack on my right hon. Friend for his obsession, as she put it, with media opportunities, she should advise her colleague, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), not to send letters round to all Conservative Members saying:
  "Central office will be using the debate to mount a major media operation."
  That may be the pot calling the kettle black.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
  Dr. Reid: I have not actually said anything yet, but I will give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Lansley: I thought that it might be unwise to wait until the right hon. Gentleman had said something. As he purports to understand the road haulage industry, can he tell me how much it costs to fill a 1,000 litre tank with diesel in the United Kingdom and in Belgium?
  Dr. Reid: I cannot give the exact cost, but I have looked into the matter and I can use the same example
  1328
  used by the hon. Member for North Essex in the weekend newspapers, and give the costs for 50 trucks of 38 tonnes each, assuming that they are flagged out and paying all the relevant costs in the United Kingdom, France, Belgium and the Netherlands respectively. We are entitled to make that comparison. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked me a question on a subject in which he purports to be interested, so he should listen to the reply.
  For a fleet of 50 38-tonne trucks, if we include the social costs, national insurance, taxation, corporation tax, employees' costs, fuel and vehicle excise duty, the additional cost in France, as compared with the United Kingdom, is about £425,000 a year; in the Netherlands, about £600,000; and in Belgium, about £800,000.
  I take the competitiveness of the road haulage industry extremely seriously—I shall meet representatives of the industry next Tuesday and will be pleased to listen to them and to discuss the industry's future—I understand that it is a fiercely competitive world and that there is overcapacity in the United Kingdom; but let us not exaggerate to the extent of blaming all the problems with competitiveness on the fuel escalator or on VED. We need a balance if we are to do justice to the industry.
  Mr. James Gray rose—
  Dr. Reid: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to read the first sentence of my speech. I intend to start at the beginning, which is always a good place to start.
  I listened with attention and admiration to the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk. I listened with attention for any mention whatever of the previous Government, whose legacy was our starting point, and with admiration because of her sheer oral dexterity in managing to speak for 25 minutes without mentioning that Government. There was no hint of self-criticism, no shred of remorse and not even a suspicion of guilt.
  Let me remind the House of the starting point of the Labour Government's challenge on roads and transport. We inherited an awful legacy from the previous Government. We inherited road traffic set to grow by more than 33 per cent. over the next 20 years, and congestion, costed by the Confederation of British Industry at £20 billion per annum to business, set to double over the next 20 years. We inherited roads that kill or seriously injure more than 45,000 people a year. We inherited roads that add substantially to local air pollution, hastening the deaths of thousands of vulnerable people each year. Perhaps above all, we inherited no choice in public transport—a system in which all non-road transport had been allowed to decline for two decades. Those two decades saw reduced bus usage, reduced rail freight, reduced rail patronage and, above all, a road infrastructure that by every statistic issued even by the then Conservative Government was in the worst state of repair of any roads since records began.
  Mr. Hilton Dawson: My right hon. Friend mentioned the legacy of 18 years of Conservative Government. In my constituency, we have the legacy of a quarter of a century of Tory rule in Lancaster and the interminable Tory years in Wyre. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the problems caused by the scandalous condition of the moss roads network which blights the entire rural community in the Wyre district?

  1329
  Is he aware of the appalling condition of bridges throughout Lancashire and of the desperate need for the Heysham-M6 link, which the previous Tory Member of Parliament resisted for so many years?
  Dr. Reid: My hon. Friend makes his point well, and we and the wider nation are now aware of it. What was the Tories' policy to tackle the problems? Was it a plan for the future? Was it the development of public transport services? Was it the provision of choice? No. It was to produce every year an ever-lengthening wish list of roads—roads that were never funded, timetabled or finished, because they were never started. I shall remind the House of that cruel deceit that was perpetrated annually on the people of this country by the previous Conservative Government.
  Mr. John MacGregor: If the right hon. Gentleman really believes that—it is a travesty of what happened, and I hope if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to make that clear—why has he slashed the roads programme, substantially reduced expenditure and cut the transport programme generally?
  Dr. Reid: I shall give the right hon. Gentleman an example—the House may find this illuminating—of the fantasy league of roads that was produced every year by the Conservative Government. In 1990, which was around the time that the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Transport, the Conservatives' wish list had 500 roads on it. They boasted proudly that it was costed at £30 billion, but it was funded only up to £1.26 billion. That was a deceit, because it was a pretence that—
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Reid: Conservative Members are very keen and I can see some of the young bulls getting up. They will get their chance in the ring in a moment. The Conservative Government pretended that they could build £30 billion worth of roads with £1.26 billion of funding.
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Why cut it then?
  Dr. Reid: It was the Conservative Government, as a gesture towards the real world, who cut the list between 1990 and 1995 from 500 roads to 250 and, finally, two years ago, to 150. They were the only Government in history to cut paper roads faster than they were building actual roads.
  Mr. Stephen Day: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way to a 50-year-old bull. I feel as if he is waving a red rag at me, because my constituents do not recognise the description of the previous Government's so-called wish list. Can he explain to me why a road that was a third built under the previous Government has had its eastern and western sections cancelled by this Government? That was not a mirage of a road, because a third of it is there. Can we please have the other two sections?
  Dr. Reid: Because of the delicate way in which the hon. Gentleman put his point, I shall look at it and see what can be done. [HON. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] I said that I
  1330
  shall look at it. The reality is that we have changed the policy and the programme because we are not prepared to deceive people.
  The policy that we inherited was one of increasing congestion, with its associated costs and inconvenience, increasing pollution with its increasing damage to health, and increasing intellectual paralysis, as the Tory Government stood like rabbits transfixed in the headlights of a million oncoming juggernauts. I cannot pretend that we will turn that mess around overnight. The transport system is like a supertanker and it cannot do a pirouette. I realise that our transportation system is inadequate: it could not be otherwise because it is still largely the product of the legacy that were left. Inevitably, we have to deal with that. Although change will take time, we have already started with some success.
  If congestion on our roads is to be tackled, we need to increase the amount of freight carried by rail. Under this Government, for the first time in more than quarter of a century, we have increased rail freight by 12 per cent. For the first time for more than 25 years, we now have more rail freight year on year—12 per cent. more last year and 16 per cent. more so far this year.
  Sir George Young rose—
  Dr. Reid: I shall give way to the right hon. Gentleman. As the originator and developer of congestion charging, he is entitled to come to the Dispatch Box.
  Sir George Young: For sheer effrontery, it would be difficult to match what the right hon. Gentleman has just said. The increase in freight by rail was secured by privatising the rail system, a policy that the Labour party did all it could to obstruct.
  Dr. Reid: For the first time in 25 years, in the first year of this Government, rail freight increased. Part of that, last year and this, was no doubt the result of privatisation. Part of it was because of the political backing and the money put into infrastructure grants for rail freight as a direct policy of this Government to reduce congestion on roads.
  Mr. Simon Burns: How much?
  Dr. Reid: A 16 per cent. increase in the first six months of this year—
  Mr. Burns: Of what?
  Dr. Reid: In tonnes per kilometre of freight carried on the railways. I shall send the hon. Gentleman a note and an abacus to make it easier for him.
  If the waste and inconvenience of traffic jams are to be reduced, we must offer people a choice.
  Mr. Jenkin rose—
  Dr. Reid: I will give way if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to finish a paragraph. I may get through one yet.
  If the waste and inconvenience of traffic jams are to be reduced, we must offer people a choice, a real alternative to using the car. Over the past three years there has been a choice. Use of railways has increased—as the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) said,

  1331
  there has been a 25 per cent. increase in passengers—and there has been a reversal of the decline in bus passenger numbers in many areas. If crowded inner-city roads are to be improved, we must encourage the use of buses, and, for the first time in decades, the Government have begun to halt that decline and to turn it around.
  We are making progress, and, unlike the previous Government, we have provided resources commensurate with the task of encouraging and developing public and private sector public transport systems. We have increased funding for capital maintenance of trunk roads by 50 per cent., from £200 million to £300 million, and we will end the decline of the condition of the trunk road network.
  We will increase funding for making better use of that network by 60 per cent. by 2001–02. We have established a £50 million safety budget for small trunk road safety schemes, and a new programme of targeted improvements. We are committed to start a realistic programme of 37 schemes costing £1.4 billion within seven years, and we set out the relevant dates last December.
  Mr. MacGregor indicated dissent.
  Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman may laugh, but when he was Secretary of State, he presided over 500 schemes that had starting dates ranging from any time between now and the millennium after next.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Reid: I must give way to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor).
  Mr. MacGregor: The Minister must know that the £1.4 billion is to be spent over seven years. We spent almost that amount on new road schemes in a single year.
  Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman was not spending the same amount every year as we are spending over seven years. It is true that we have, for two reasons, diverted our emphasis from building new roads to road maintenance. First, we discovered—as did the previous Government—that we cannot work on a predict-and-provide basis, and that we cannot build our way out of congestion. Secondly, the dreadful state of the roads means that we will pay more in the long term by failing to maintain our roads in the short term than we would if we spent a decent amount of money on them. We have reallocated resources, and we make no apology for that.
  Unlike the previous Government, we have made sure that every target road is funded and that we are capable of delivering it. We have been especially keen to construct bypasses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Where?"] My first statement as Minister of Transport was made two and a half days after I was appointed, and I was delighted to announce a programme that included 19 bypasses—almost four times as many in a single statement as the previous Government declared during their final four years in office. My statement included three bypasses shelved by the previous Government that I had reinstated. I think that every hon. Member would agree that bypasses are beneficial.
  Dr. George Turner: I hope that I do not impose on the mood of generosity that my right hon. Friend has been
  1332
  displaying, but he will know that my constituents were promised a flyover at the Hardwick roundabout near King's Lynn. The promise was repeated for 14 years, but the flyover was never delivered. I respect the Government's honesty, and, although the pie-in-the-sky flyover is not to appear yet, my constituents will welcome the fact that the Government have said that there will be a flyover. May I tell my constituents that there will be a start on the project during this Parliament?
  Dr. Reid: Before every hon. Member intervenes with a local bypass suggestion, let me remind my hon. Friend of what I have said before: if hon. Members have a specific case to raise, would they write to me about it? My hon. Friend can certainly commend to his constituents the honesty of the Government.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Reid: I will give way to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), but it must be the last intervention. I must make some progress.
  Mr. Jenkin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Naturally, we welcome the bypasses that he is building, but nine bypasses over seven years pale into insignificance against the 160 plus that we built during our 18 years in office. The Government are failing to live up to the expectations that they generated when they stood for office two years ago.
  Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment. However, we are building 19 bypasses, not nine. Those 19 were announced in a single statement.
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley rose—
  Dr. Reid: I have to make some progress.
  Mr. Gray: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister has been on his feet for 20 minutes to speak on a motion about the Government's road policies without yet having mentioned the Government's road policies. Is not that a disgraceful waste of Back-Bench Members' time?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister has taken a large number of interventions, which do not help him to make progress on his speech. Points of order of that sort only slow down the whole process.
  Dr. Reid: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker; that has ensured that I take no more interventions.
  Unlike the previous Government, we have a coherent strategy, and it was set out in our White Paper in July last year. We are establishing integrated local transport strategies as well as national ones. We base our approach on partnership. There will be partnership with local authorities, to whom we are prepared to hand over decision making on 40 per cent. of trunk roads and we shall ensure that they have the resources to back those decisions. There will be partnership with the private sector; we have already announced three design, build, finance and operate trunk road projects. That brings us to the meat of the subject, about which the hon. Member for

  1333
  North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) asked. Those projects are for the A13 in east London, the Al in Yorkshire and the A2-M2 in Kent; they are designed to harness the energies of both the public and private sectors.
  As further evidence of that partnership, I am pleased to announce today the go-ahead for a private initiative project to fund the construction of the A 130 bypass in Essex. The Government will provide £92 million to Essex county council to help fund construction on the A130. The poor reliability of the existing road has made it difficult for south-east Essex to attract business, investment and jobs. The scheme demonstrates that central and local government can work together effectively. It is integration in action: improving transport, aiding local regeneration, improving safety and creating jobs.
  Apart from the differences that I have outlined, I hope that there are points on which the Government and the Opposition can agree. Streetworks are among the largest blights on Britain's roads. People are sick and tired of the disruption and inconvenience of prolonged streetworks. We intend to act on that and have made it plain that we shall authorise local authorities to penalise utilities or contractors for work that is overdue. We therefore entirely support the thrust of the private Member's Bill promoted by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser). We want to hold consultations on the mechanics of any such legislation to ensure that we have the best and most effective mechanism to minimise the disruption caused by streetworks.
  The terms of the hon. Gentleman's Bill would pre-empt that desire. However, I am glad to tell the House that the hon. Gentleman and I have held fruitful discussions and he has assured me that he is willing to co-operate in taking account of those points and I am hopeful that we can find a way forward. In any event, we want to act as speedily and effectively as possible to reduce the disruption and inconvenience of prolonged streetworks.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Reid: In view of my direct reference to the hon. Gentleman's Bill, the House would expect me to give way to him.
  Mr. Fraser: I am most grateful to the Minister for his comments on my Bill. I hope that it will be one step in a positive direction for Government support on a matter that currently has all-party support; we shall continue to work on that matter.
  Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that note of all-party consensus, because in other areas the Government are prepared to take the hard choices that the Opposition are no longer willing to face. We have provided a new mechanism for reducing congestion, while providing a new income stream for transport initiatives. Congestion charging will provide local authorities with powerful new tools to tackle congestion, both through the charges themselves and through the additional transport investment that the income from the charges will allow them to fund. The right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk attacked congestion charging in her speech. I have to tell her that I cannot claim all the credit for that idea. Credit where credit is due: the concept was invented
  1334
  and developed by the Conservatives, by no less a person than the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire. The 1995 Green Paper stated that the Conservative Government held
  "a presumption in favour of legislation"
  on congestion charging. I am not so churlish as to deny the Conservatives the credit that is due to them, but am rather taken aback by their apparent modesty in claiming their birthright on congestion charges.
  I was even more surprised to read the robust comments of the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway). In debate on the Greater London Authority Bill he said that the Conservative party did not rule out the possibility, at some time in the future, subject to consultation, of having a look at congestion charging. It is not as if Opposition Members know where they stand on that issue. I am reminded of the words of Churchill about Baldwin' s Administration:
  "They have decided to be undecided, resolved to be irresolute, adamant for drift, solid for fluidity and all powerful to be impotent."
  That just about sums up the Opposition's approach to some of the issues that they have raised today.
  The right hon. Lady referred also to the haulage industry, and particularly to vehicle excise duty and fuel. I assure the House that we recognise the impact that taxation can have on competitiveness and profitability. That is why we must strike a balance between legitimate environmental concerns and the transport needs of the industry. I shall listen carefully to what the Road Haulage Association representatives have to say when I meet them next Tuesday. However, we firmly believe that we can best help the industry—and particularly hauliers—by creating a climate of sustainable economic growth and long-term investment.
  Let us examine some of the Budget measures. We have reduced main corporation tax to 30 per cent. and small companies corporation tax to 20 per cent. Moreover, from 1 April 2000, companies with profits of up to £10,000 will pay corporation tax of only 10 per cent. Companies with profits of up to £50,000 will benefit from relief given to ease the transition from the new starting rate to the 20 per cent. rate. Employees of haulage businesses will benefit from the new 10p starting rate of income tax from this April and employers will benefit from reduced national insurance contribution levels from 2001.
  Those are only the general initiatives; the Budget also contained specific measures for hauliers. We have frozen road duty levels for 98 per cent. of all lorries—I thought that the Opposition would applaud that move. The reduction in VED for cleaner lorries has doubled from £500 to £1,000. The duty rates on ultra-low sulphur diesel have been reduced relative to ordinary diesel and the duty rates on road fuel gases have been cut by no less than 29 per cent.—one of the biggest ever cuts in duty.
  The Opposition's suggestion that the Budget does nothing for haulage firms is a grotesque misrepresentation of the facts. It is all about balance. Vehicles with an 11.5-tonne drive axle weight—to which the Opposition like to refer—cause significant road damage. That is why their road duty rates were set as they were, although we froze 98 per cent. of other rates.
  The Opposition are also suffering from amnesia about the fuel duty escalator. I remind the House that the previous Government introduced the fuel duty escalator

  1335
  in 1993 and committed themselves to maintaining it until 2000. The right hon. Lady accused us of placing a burden on industry of 6 per cent. a year. She seems to have forgotten that 5 per cent. was imposed by the Conservatives and only 1 per cent. by Labour. We made that imposition in recognition of our need to act if we are to continue to lead the world on climate change.
  As for the firms that are moving abroad to avoid the so-called excessive burdens, I gave the comparative figures for the whole cost earlier in the debate. I admit that it is a complex matter: I do not suggest for a minute that it is not possible to engineer a formula that would achieve savings. I want to talk to the industry about that and other matters. However, international haulage firms with 50 38-tonne lorries based in the Netherlands and Belgium—the countries with which we are invited to make a comparison—will face costs additional to the levels that I outlined earlier.
  In view of the Conservatives' declared opposition to the fuel duty escalator and VED rates, I have done their Front-Bench spokesmen the courtesy of spending time reading through the speeches that Conservative Members made in government, so that I can consider their criticisms and how publicly they voiced them. Since Norman Lamont introduced the fuel duty escalator, there have been eight Budget debates and a huge number of transport debates. Not once during those years did tonight's Opposition spokespersons express a scintilla of criticism.
  In the Budget debate of March 1993—the Budget that introduced the fuel duty escalator—the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk hailed the Chancellor's statement as a Budget for business. She not only acquiesced in that Budget, but lauded it.
  Mr. Jenkin: What was the price then?
  Dr. Reid: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman. In the debate on the Budget of November 1993, the hon. Member for North Essex, who will wind up for the Opposition tonight, waxed lyrical about the Chancellor's weight and stature, the heaviness of his task and, above all, his courage and the toughness of his decisions. In that Budget, which was lauded by the hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor increased the fuel duty escalator by 66 per cent.
  Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should now recall the words of that Chancellor, who during that Budget statement, which both he and the right hon. Lady lauded, declared:
  "Any critic of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report, 30 November 1993; Vol. 233, c. 939.]
  All we can say to the Conservatives tonight is, "Hello sailor."
  On roads, as on transport in general, we have set out an agenda for a generation, a radical platform for action and a programme for progress, with which I am sure the vast majority of hon. Members are pleased and proud to be associated.
  5.8 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: I begin by declaring an interest in that I am a non-executive director of a company that has a transport subsidiary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Well, at least that gives me an insight into the effect of the Chancellor's measures. I want to speak primarily as a former Secretary of State for Transport who had a substantial roads and road-building programme and as a Member of Parliament for a rural area who sees the damage that the Government's policies are doing. I shall focus on the roads programme.
  The Minister of Transport does a good cabaret turn and has a sardonic wit, which was demonstrated in his opening remarks comparing his Government's performance with that of our Government. He could scarcely conceal the smile on his face as he quoted the figures, and I shall, I hope, demolish his case.
  I am glad that we are having this debate because I have frequently spoken in the House, both as Secretary of State for Transport and, since I left office, as a Back Bencher, in favour of a major roads programme. I want to develop my case because the Government's actions are extremely dangerous for the country's future transport infrastructure.
  I shall first set out the background that existed when I was Secretary of State for Transport and with which the right hon. Gentleman must now deal. As he knows, about 90 per cent. of all road traffic, both passenger and freight, consists of cars. I am all in favour of—and was myself determined to introduce—measures to change that balance, particularly for freight. I find it rather ironic that he is now claiming the credit for the current increase in rail freight, which is entirely due to the policies that I introduced in the Bill to privatise the railways, which his party completely opposed. I knew that the focus on the customer and the drive that the private sector produces would be the only way in which to achieve a switch of freight from road to rail. I am delighted that that strategy is working and that our policy achieved it.
  I am in favour of as much switch as possible, but we must face the fact that, however much switch one achieves and however much one improves public transport, there will still be a substantial year-by-year growth in the use of roads by cars and lorries. We all know that many people must make essential journeys by car, especially in rural areas. Also, it is most people's aspiration to be more mobile. What is the first thing that young people want when they leave school and start to earn? About 80 per cent. want to own a car and to use it. We must face that fact as we develop transport policy.
  There are two other background points. It has often occurred to me that one of the reasons why the climate is sometimes against road building and the car is that so many officials in Departments and national media commentators live and work in London. In London, the issues are entirely different because it has a good public transport network. In London, when we were in government, we spent much more on public transport than on roads. It was a different matter in rural areas, but I used to find it extraordinarily difficult to get the argument going about the needs of rural areas.
  All Members of Parliament who represent rural areas know that public transport cannot replicate all the journeys that people want to make in rural areas. Therefore, a heavy emphasis must be placed on road investment in not just rural areas but many market towns

  1337
  and others outside the metropolis. I have often felt that the national debate just does not mirror the real needs of people in rural areas. Any Secretary of State for Transport who travels around the country knows that the greatest representations are made on improvements to the road programme, such as bypasses, and so on. A Secretary of State for Transport ignores such representations at his peril.
  Mr. Norman Baker: As a former Minister, does the right hon. Gentleman agree with the conclusion of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, which reported to his Government, that new road infrastructure generates journeys that otherwise would not be made?
  Mr. MacGregor: That intervention was absolutely splendid, because it raised just the point that I was about to address. The Tories were not building any new roads. I stopped the last proposed new road—the additional proposal on the east coast as an alternative to the A 1— because I did not think that it was necessary or desirable. It would have created what the hon. Gentleman suggested. There is a big distinction between building entirely new roads and substantial road schemes to widen and improve—not just maintain—the motorway and trunk road network, and bypasses.
  Dr. George Turner: The right hon. Gentleman and I come from Norfolk, and he will know that the dualling of the All is still not complete after 30 years of waiting. Similarly, improvements to the A47 have been awaited throughout that period. Given what he has said, should not we have expected action and completion during the 18 years in which he was able to deliver?
  Mr. MacGregor: The plain fact is that, when the Conservative Government came to power in 1979, no part of the All was dual carriageway. I was a Member then, and it used to take me four hours to travel from London to Norfolk. Now, the vast majority of the road is either motorway or dual carriageway, and my journey time has been halved. This Government will never implement the programme on the tiny bit left—the key part. I do not know what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. The Conservative Government made a huge improvement, but we shall not see any improvement from this Government. He knows that the major A47 Norwich southern bypass has hugely improved the position in Norfolk.
  I must tell the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Dr. Turner)—I was going to make this point later—that 13 bypasses were built in my constituency while the Conservative Government were in office. [Interruption.] Most of them were not built while I was Secretary of State for Transport; I did not authorise any of them when I held that office. I worked very hard for them for my constituents outside that period in office. Two more such bypasses are needed, but they will never be built under this Government. I defend our record entirely—including in Norfolk. I am very glad that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, because it enabled me to make a point which I hope everyone in Norfolk will recognise.
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not give way again, because I know that many hon. Members want to speak.
  1338
  On new roads, it is important to recognise that the road projects that we are talking about, the expenditure on which has been so deeply slashed by the Government, are designed for improvement of the infrastructure, and include motorway widening schemes and bypasses. If one calls bypasses new roads, okay, those are new roads, but they are highly desired by everyone in the locality and are environmentally friendly.
  I want to comment on the integrated transport programme. Integrated transport is a fine-sounding phrase, but we actually promoted it during our period in office by aligning road and rail, aligning airports and so on. Much more alignment of bus and rail journeys is taking place as a result of privatisation than was ever achieved by central planning. That is evidenced by the fact that the White Paper recognises that no new road network is necessary—in other words, the road network that we established was the right one for an integrated transport planning policy.
  The massive hole in the Government's integrated transport policy stems from the fact that they have devastated the road programme, thereby neglecting the one area of transport that takes 90 per cent. of the traffic. That is not what is meant by integrated transport policy. In my view, it is a disadvantageous approach to transport.
  That brings me to the road programme generally. The Minister of Transport was far less than fair to my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard); she repeated the figures for expenditure undertaken during the Conservative Administration: £48 billion on transport infrastructure, of which £26 billion was spent on roads. Given that 90 per cent. of traffic goes by road, the fact that just over half of our spending was devoted to roads shows that we did not have an undue bias towards them, but that we acknowledged the importance of expenditure on them.
  The balance has now gone completely the other way; that is devastatingly serious.
  Mr. Gordon Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: No, I will not give way.
  In my last year as Secretary of State for Transport, we were spending just over £2 billion on the road programme—the Highways Agency programme. By 1998–99, that had reduced to £1.3 billion and it will reduce in the next three years, although road maintenance will increase. However, the increase in road maintenance in the next three years will bring back the relevant figures, in real terms, to precisely what I was spending on that work in 1993. I do not understand how the Minister of Transport can criticise us for neglecting road maintenance when he is claiming a great deal of credit for the increase that he is making, which will simply bring us straight back to where we were.
  Mr. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: No; I am sorry, but I will not give way. [Interruption.] Well, I will give way in a moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] All right; in fairness to my hon. Friends, I will not.
  Therefore spending on road maintenance has not been substantially increased. Moreover, new road projects—bypasses, improvements to motorways and so on—

  1339
  have been cut almost to nothing. Four hundred national road schemes were carried through in the period between 1979 and 1997–400 in 18 years. The Government are planning 37 schemes over seven years. That is the difference. It would take 70 years, under the Government's programme, to achieve what the Conservatives did. That is why the Minister was wrong in the comparisons that he drew.
  The worrying aspect of all this is that the combination of all those factors will lead to increasing congestion on our roads and increasing uncompetitiveness, as well as a decline in road maintenance in local authority areas. That brings me to the subject of local authorities.
  Mr. Prentice: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. MacGregor: No.
  On detrunking, I support the Government. Their proposals to detrunk a substantial number of roads and pass them back to local authorities make sense. I often noticed that some national road schemes had less of a priority at local level than the local road scheme which failed to be included in that national programme. I therefore perfectly understand the principle of detrunking. However, it makes sense only if money goes with it, and I believe that there are only one or two new road projects in this year's transport settlement, the expenditure on which has almost reduced in real terms. Eighty schemes were requested—normal local authority schemes, not detrunking schemes. If one adds the detrunking schemes and examines the programme that the Government are offering, detrunking is a poisoned chalice for local authorities. No funding is going with the programme, so nothing will happen and all those road schemes will be frozen. The Government will try to blame the local authorities, but the fault will lie with the Government.
  I shall say a word or two about DBFO—design, build, finance and operate—schemes and motorway tolling. I introduced the DBFOs and I am in favour of them. The Minister has just announced such a scheme—the A130—which I welcome, as I know the great need for it. However, I am worried about DBFOs. When I initiated the programme, I intended that in due course we would be able to introduce motorway tolling. The DBFO schemes to improve motorways would be financed by real income from motorway tolling. That is extremely important.
  If the Government concentrate all new road schemes on DBFO and claim the credit—justifiably—for the private sector involvement, they will pile up enormous public expenditure later on the DBFO schemes. Those should be accounted for separately. Motorway tolling would provide genuine money to pay for such schemes, so there would be a genuine private finance initiative, genuinely costed and properly implemented. There is a serious danger if all future road schemes, or most of them, are done by DBFO. I hope that the Government will look to that.
  I make no apology for having argued for motorway tolling. I issued a Green Paper proposing it, and I still think that it is the right way to improve our motorways. It gets revenue in to provide a better service. When the technology is available, which is the problem at present, the policy should be pursued. I regret that the Government
  1340
  are not putting enough initiative and push behind attempts to improve the technology. Congestion charging is entirely different and gives rise to many more problems than motorway tolling.
  On the fuel duty escalator, I shall add one or two points to those that my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk made. The environmental background to the introduction of the fuel duty escalator in 1993 has changed. There have been huge reductions in toxic emissions as a result of catalytic converters and other improvements in technology. Toxic emissions have fallen by 30 per cent. since 1993. That is a much more effective contribution to the global warming target than the fuel duty escalator will achieve.
  Reducing toxic emissions acts directly on the issue. The fuel duty escalator has outlived its usefulness. It is producing tiny, if any, environmental benefits. All the revenue coming in from it is going not on environmental expenditure, but elsewhere. Let us admit that it is a means for the Chancellor to raise revenue for other purposes, and it does not achieve its objective.
  Mr. Graham Stringer rose—
  Mr. MacGregor: No, I am not giving way.
  I strongly support the Government in their endeavours to reduce toxic emissions and in the improvement of the technology of cars. I would happily endorse any programme to pull in polluting cars, impose heavy fines for lorries and so on. I believe that what the Chancellor introduced in a puny way could be developed further. The vehicle excise duty reduction on 13 types of car out of several hundred is another example of a flashy new scheme pulled out of the hat to look good, but which does not amount to much. I hope it will be built on, because it is the right way to tackle matters.
  Dr. Reid: The scheme is a start.
  Mr. MacGregor: A pretty modest start, if I may say so.
  The fuel duty escalator is not the way to deal with the environmental issue, because it is causing more harm than the environmental benefits that it may produce. It is causing huge harm to rural areas, people on low incomes and those who depend on their car. People are coming to us in droves to complain about the Chancellor's Budget, as is the road haulage industry. It is time to end the fuel duty escalator.
  My conclusion is simple. While the Government speak about an integrated transport policy, the country is seeing the results in practice and it does not like what it sees, as the recent BBC poll showed. The Chancellor talks of improving the nation's investment in infrastructure, but is destroying it by not putting anything like enough money into it. Anyone in business knows that one should be spending about 10 per cent. of the value of one's capital assets every year on their renewal, or certainly as much as depreciation. We have a capital asset here of £230 million, but we are spending practically nothing on maintaining and renewing it. Not only is that damaging the economy, but it is already clear that the electorate has tumbled to the fact that the Government's transport policy is failing the nation.
  5.25 pm
  Mrs. Diana Organ: There is now widespread consensus that the past road policy of simply building, or wishing to build, more and more roads was not sustainable, could never be the answer to traffic growth and congestion, and would not in itself provide efficient transportation for people, goods and services.
  The Conservative Government's policy was dominated by deregulation, privatisation and a road building frenzy. The damaging consequences of that policy are starkly illustrated in rural areas such as the Forest of Dean.
  First, the 1985 bus deregulation led to the decimation and fragmentation of bus public transport, so that by 1997 even the main market towns in the Forest of Dean were not connected to one another by a bus service. That forced many rural dwellers on low incomes to sacrifice much in order to maintain a car on the road. If they did not do that, they were at the mercy of and wholly dependent on a dwindling public transport network, or they ended up isolated.
  The other strand of the previous Administration's policy was privatisation, which had an equally detrimental effect. In 1992, a short but strategically crucial section of road was privatized—the Severn bridge. In that deal, tolls were allowed to be increased greatly and could be collected one way only. That was carried out without consultation, without public representation from local communities and without a study or a consideration of the impact that that would have on regional traffic flows and movement.
  The main impact was on the roads of the Forest of Dean. They have become rat runs for lorries avoiding the tolls. Any heavy goods vehicle travelling from the west midlands or east of Gloucester to south Wales looks to those roads as a rat run. A regular census shows that, between 1992 and 1998, there has been an increase of more than 10 per cent. in the number of heavy goods vehicles of 3.5 tonnes and over trying to avoid the tolls. That is an extra 100 vehicles a day. Roughly 40,000 extra vehicles a year go through village communities along the A48, A40 and A4136, and often parts of those roads are unsuitable to such traffic, which causes noise, damages buildings, affects the quality of life and threatens the safety of pedestrians.
  The third part of the previous Conservative Government's predict and provide policy of more and more roads was equally threatening. There had been a proposal in the early 1990s to build a multi-million pound A40 extension from Gloucester westwards. That would have brought extra development to the river Severn floodplain, increasing the possibility of flood damage, and taking away many wonderful water meadows and sites of valuable flora. Fortunately, that scheme faced widespread opposition and, thankfully, was rejected.
  This Government's integrated approach to transport has already shown real benefits and is a realistic way forward in the Forest of Dean. The integrated approach is inclusive. It consults, but realises that local communities can often solve their own transport problems and become effective.
  Children in Berry Hill primary school looked at the problem that many of them had of travelling to and from school in cars because their parents were concerned about their safety. The children questioned each other about their journeys, plotted a route for a bus to take them to
  1342
  and from school, and then took the initiative, writing to bus companies to ask whether they would be interested in running a bus service. With a little funding from the local authority, the scheme went ahead. Now, that school has a bus service which the children say is enjoyable and a real social opportunity for them, and which has reduced early morning congestion.
  The Government recognise that local solutions can often be valuable, and their policy of allowing local authorities to draw up local transport plans, setting out their proposals for the management, maintenance and development of local roads, works. My local authority, Gloucestershire, thinks that that is definitely a better approach. The plans not only must be sustainable, but must involve all local parties in their execution.
  In October 1998 I carried out a constituency-wide consultation on the Government's transport White Paper. It was widely recognised that all community parties must be involved, as should the planning authority, which has a major role to play on transport issues. Where developments are sited, how big they are and their impact on traffic flows and transportation are crucial.
  A legacy of housing's predict and provide days was a proposal to build 2,000 houses on green-field sites around the village settlements of Sedbury and Tutshill. That area is close to Chepstow, the M4 and the Severn bridge. The present Government's housing policy says that new housing must be sustainable, centred on economic centres and it must follow the sequential principle. Those criteria meant that the proposal was rejected, thankfully—principally because it was recognised that 2,000 new homes would generate a vast increase in commuter traffic. People would have moved out of the urban areas of Avon and south Wales to those new homes and, consequently, commuted daily by road to their jobs in those centres.
  We have inherited a lot of failures in the Forest of Dean, but they are being addressed. The Labour Government have invested £50 million in rural transport and, in the Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a 20 per cent. increase in that spending—it will rise to more than £120 million over the next two years. That is a significant increase on previous levels and the rise in bus fuel duty rebate will also help.
  The increase has already had a significant impact on rural public transport in the Forest of Dean, delivering 11 new bus services, and, for the first time, we have a Sunday service to Gloucester. It has also led to the appointment of a transport broker and co-ordinator who will consider how rural areas can develop the increasing numbers of innovative community transport and car-sharing schemes.
  In addition, the announcement of a national half-price concessionary fare scheme for pensioners has been widely welcomed by the 29 per cent. of my constituents who qualify. I hope, as they do, that it can be delivered as soon as possible.
  Instead of building more roads, the Government have changed the focus of road investment and their top priority is maintaining and managing existing roads and getting them to work better. Our major concern is safety, because 70 per cent. of fatal accidents occur on rural roads. Excessive speed is the main cause of a third of those accidents. In our surgeries every week we all hear the distressing tales that are brought to us by the relatives of victims of such accidents.

  1343
  The A48 had a dreadful history of accidents. A route study of the road was undertaken because it was identified as atypical, due to the accident level. The Highways Agency made available £268,000 and a comprehensive package was introduced, including speed cameras, high-friction surfacing on the approaches to bridges, warning signs, gateway signs for villages, white lining to upgrade laning and the giving of directions and other traffic-calming measures.
  The results of those measures have been phenomenal and very impressive. Accident and casualty statistics have come down, to 35 accidents and 50 casualties in 1998 against a high of 64 accidents in 1989 and 68 casualties in 1992. A similar programme has been outlined for the A40, in order to improve safety on that road. I hope that that programme reaps the same benefits.
  This year's local transport capital settlement for Gloucestershire is the highest yet, with a large element of the £9.25 million going on improved maintenance on those important roads. There is a £2 million package for safety schemes, such as that for the A48. Although that allocation is generous, I must make my plea for the Government to look favourably on bids to improve the A4136, which is a prime access route to the heart of the forest and its industries. We were unsuccessful with our £11 million major scheme, and I understand why—it does not come within Government policy—but I hope that future bids from Gloucestershire for sections of that road to be upgraded, for the safety of road users and pedestrians alike, will be treated favourably.
  The A48 and A40 are trunk roads that have been identified in the trunk roads review for possible detrunking. This is a complex and emotive issue, and there will need to be widespread consultations—which did not happen under the previous Government on the Severn bridge changes—on the implications of detrunking those routes and how that will affect the communities and the economy of the Forest of Dean, which rely heavily on manufacturing.
  The county council was concerned that it would not obtain sufficient funding for maintenance should those roads be handed over to the local authority. It tells me that it has been seriously reassured by the discussions that it has had with the Government about the grants allocated for those roads. The officers tell me that they are happy about the funds moving across, which they say will meet their requirements. That offers us an opportunity to control and manage the heavy goods vehicles that are avoiding the Severn bridge tolls. By the imposition of weight restrictions, with exemptions for lorries accessing the Forest of Dean, we shall tackle another of the problems inherited from the previous Administration.
  Transport problems will not be solved overnight: that takes time. This is a huge issue, but the Forest of Dean has already benefited from the Government's policies. They are making headway at a local level to improve transport for all the community.
  5.36 pm
  Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the opportunity to discuss roads and transport issues generally. I am pleased that the Tories have used their Opposition day for that purpose. It is pity that the debate
  1344
  is not longer. However, the Tories have blotted their copybook by the words they have chosen for their motion—which is brazen, to say the least. It is a year zero motion that pretends that nothing happened between 1979 and now, and that they have no responsibility for the transport system that we have today.
  Our present transport infrastructure has been built up—or not built up—over the 18 years of a Conservative Government. If the Conservatives want to maximise their influence on transport issues, they should have a little more humility and recognise that they made mistakes when they were in government. There is no indication of that in their motion. It shows their usual arrogance—the arrogance that caused them to lose the last election.
  An alternative Tory motion might have been,"That this House adopts a policy of collective amnesia in respect of the years 1979 to 1997, ignores the catastrophic failure of Tory transport policy during those years, and begs for the Tory party to be allowed to reinvent itself." That is what the motion says if we read between the lines. Incredulity is the word that describes the Tories' approach.
  The Conservatives talk about congestion and pollution, which they seem to be concerned about in the motion. Between 1979 and 1997, motor vehicle traffic increased every year—cumulatively by a total of 75 per cent. There was a growth of traffic for each type of vehicle, but the largest increase was in cars, at 82 per cent. In 1979, when the Tories came to power, the mileage covered by cars in the United Kingdom was 200 billion km. In 1997, that figure had reached 370 billion km, which is almost twice as much, whereas the figures for bus and motorcycle usage dropped during that period.
  It is clear that under the previous Government there was an increase in traffic, congestion and pollution. If the Tories want us to take their transport policies seriously, they must acknowledge that fact and start from a new base, not from the fictional base in the motion.
  Mr. Gray: What about the Government's policies?
  Mr. Baker: I shall come to the Government's policies in a moment, but we are discussing the Conservative motion. If the Tories think that I am going to let them get off scot-free, given their motion, they have another think coming.
  The Tories could not build their way out of a crisis. The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made a reasonable contribution based on his experience as a former Secretary of State for Transport. However, the fact of the matter is that the Tories had a substantial road-building programme; I am happy to acknowledge that. Capital expenditure on roads was more than £50 billion between 1979 and 1997. Between 1986 and 1996, almost 1,700 km of motorway and trunk roads were completed. As the 1989 White Paper "Roads to Prosperity" stated, that was the biggest road-building programme since the Romans. Some of them were not built, as we have heard, but a considerable amount was undertaken and completed. But what has been the result of that road-building programme? It has been more congestion, more pollution and more transport problems.
  We cannot build our way out of transport problems. There is no point in going on about which bypasses are not here and which trunk roads are not there; we cannot

  1345
  solve transport problems by building more and more roads. I thought that all hon. Members had learned that lesson, but it seems that the Conservatives have unlearned it.
  Before Conservative Members complain about the effect of the Budget on the motorist, they should bear in mind that between 1974 and 1996, according to Government figures—the last Government's figures, in fact—the real cost of motoring fell by 3.5 per cent. Over the same period, rail fares rose in real terms by 74.8 per cent. During those Tory years—and, indeed, the years of Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan—bus fares rose by 57.5 per cent. We must deal with the fundamental flaws in our transport system. Building more and more roads is an antiquated 1950s solution, which I hope the Conservatives will now reject because it simply will not work.
  In an earlier intervention, I referred to the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. That report demonstrated beyond doubt that building more and more roads and creating more and more road space—that includes the widening of roads, as well as the building of new roads—leads to an increase in the number of journeys that are made. People are now commuting from Reigate to Watford; they would never have done so before the M25 was built. Some hon. Members may see that as an example of freedom, but I see it merely as the undertaking of an unnecessary journey. It is a great pity that so many journeys are now made by road that were not made by road previously.
  Mr. Jenkin: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously suggesting that the M25 should not have been built?
  Mr. Baker: I am suggesting that its creation has led to a huge increase in the number of vehicle movements. Before it was built, I used to travel along roads close to the hon. Gentleman's constituency, I think. I used to use the Al28. Progress was slow—there were traffic jams—but the number of vehicle movements increased dramatically as soon as the M25 was built.
  I shall now deal with road fuel duties. We have heard from numerous speakers about the escalator introduced by the Conservative Government. When the Conservatives are cooing to the Automobile Association about how much they sympathise with it, they should remember that between 1992–93 and 1996–97 the revenue from all duty and value-added tax on road fuel was £80 billion. During the same period, only £16.1 billion was spent on public transport. [Interruption.] If the Conservatives want to blame the Government—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Some hon. Members are interrupting the hon. Gentleman's speech, which is not allowed.
  Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for defending me so stoutly.
  The Conservatives appear to be arguing that the present Government are taxing motorists unfairly, and using the money for other purposes. I must tell them that they did the same when they were in government. We are not allowed to use the word "hypocritical"—I believe that it is unparliamentary—but what they did then is significantly at variance with what they are saying now.
  Mr. Tim Loughton: Does the hon. Gentleman not realize—I am thinking
  1346
  particularly of diesel fuel duty—that by raising the escalator to such a level, and so many times, the Government are simply replacing the fumes from British lorries with fumes from Belgian, French and German lorries? There is no environmental gain whatever.
  Mr. Baker: I accept that there is a problem with the fuel duty escalator as it relates to the road haulage industry. I have met Steve Norris to discuss that very issue. I think that the Government should concentrate on increasing European Union levels rather than on reducing them here, but I agree that there is a problem that must be dealt with.
  Although we are debating a Conservative motion, let us waste no more time on the Conservatives. Theirs has been a catastrophic catalogue of failure—a lamentable indictment of their hopelessly ineffective and inappropriate dogma over 18 years—but let us now leave them to one side. Let us leave their great car economy—the Great Britain snarl-up; let us leave the biggest road-building programme since the Romans—the biggest traffic jam of all time—and consider the Government's roads policy.
  I welcome the fact that the Government produced a White Paper on transport, and that it contained radical and good ideas. Ministers and hon. Members will appreciate that I am not averse to criticising the Government when they get it wrong, but the fact is that the Government produced a good White Paper on transport. The trouble is that not much action has followed it. The jury is still out on whether the Government will deliver everything that they said in the White Paper that they wanted to do.
  Part of the problem has been that, although there has been some very good thinking in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, its thinking has not been matched by support from elsewhere in Government. "Blair and Brown on the line"—perhaps the wrong type of Chancellor—has been offered as an excuse for delaying action in changing the Government's transport policy from road to rail.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. A trend seems to be emerging in some speeches, which I might be able to stop now. References to other hon. Members should include their constituency name or their title. Perhaps "the Prime Minister" or "the Chancellor of the Exchequer", for example, would be better terms of reference in the Chamber.
  Mr. Baker: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I entirely agree with you, and apologise for making those references.
  I shall be happy with the Government when they have introduced the Strategic Rail Authority. The Deputy Prime Minister—for all his commitment, and that of his Ministers, which I do not doubt—has, so far, not been able to secure parliamentary time for introduction of legislation on that authority, for which there is no substitute. Shouting at train operating companies is not a substitute for proper legislation on a strategic rail authority.
  We are also still unclear about the powers of Railtrack. We still do not know what Alastair Morton will be doing, or what investment will be made in rail transport. If the Government are to turn their words into positive action, we will have to have from them some definite answers and clear action.

  1347
  I acknowledge that the Budget contained some positive measures, such as the very long overdue one ending company car abuse. I was very pleased to see that. I was pleased also that the Budget contained money for rural buses.
  The Budget made a start on changing vehicle excise duty. However, I agree with the right hon. Member for South Norfolk that that will go only a very short way. It is no use saying that the provision was only a first step—why not take all the steps in one go? Only 9 per cent. of cars now on the road are 1100 cc or smaller. Therefore, only one in 11 cars will benefit from the Government's VED changes. Moreover, only 5 per cent. of 1998 new car registrations were 1100 cc or smaller. Therefore, only one in 20 of those cars will benefit from the change.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real significance of the VED changes is not the single change this year, on cars below 1100 cc, but the announcement that, next year, a completely variable VED system will be introduced? Is he aware that the new VED system has been delayed because of an argument about the best way of measuring—by engine size or emissions—a variable VED system? The Government have accepted the research and come out in favour of measuring emissions. That is why it has taken so long. As I said, the real improvement will be made next year, when the fully variable VED system is introduced.
  Mr. Baker: I should like to think that the hon. Gentleman is right. However, the Government have been in power for almost two years, and I should have thought that—not just in this Budget, but in the previous one—they could have analysed the matter and proposed a proper solution. I am always suspicious of Governments who embark on reviews and consultations, as those are often used as an excuse for inaction. Nevertheless, I hope that he is right, and that we shall have some action on the matter in the next Budget.
  My greatest criticism so far of the Government's transport policy is on road traffic reduction. When in opposition, many Labour Members—including the Minister for Transport in London, who is in the Chamber—were committed to real reductions in road traffic levels. There was a recognition that, for environmental, health and social reasons, we could not continue increasing the number of vehicles and vehicle miles driven on our roads.
  The intellectual argument on the need to stop the increase has been won. Hundreds of Labour and other Members signed up to road traffic reduction. At the end of the previous Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) promoted his Road Traffic Reduction Bill. Subsequently, the hon. Member for Ceredigion promoted his Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill. At the start of this Parliament, the Government were committed to road traffic reduction, but that has changed. In a written answer that I received from the Minister for Transport in London on 3 November last year, the policy changed to:
  "we need to reduce the rate of road traffic growth."
  1348
  I am afraid that that is the Conservative policy with life breathed back into it by the new Government. In layman's terms, it means that the Government are going to deal with congestion by allowing more cars on the road doing more mileage. That is a wrong policy.
  Further on in the written answer, the Minister said:
  "we want to see an absolute reduction in traffic in those places and streets where the greatest environmental damage is done"—[Official Report, 3 November 1998; Vol. 318, c. 458.]
  The implication is that traffic levels may go down in places such as Chester, Bath or York, but overall levels of road traffic in this country will go up. That is a failed, unsustainable policy that the Government must correct. The parliamentary answers that I have received from the Minister and her colleagues in recent days have been opaque, so I should like her to tell us clearly the projections for road traffic growth during this Parliament. What is the Government's aim? Which areas will have actual reductions in traffic levels? What will the overall effect be?
  Another more recent written answer on 12 January said:
  "Using the National Road Traffic Forecast model it is estimated that with these policies"—
  set out in the previous paragraph—
  "in place traffic would grow by 37 per cent. by 2010 relative to 1990 vehicle kilometre levels."—[Official Report, 12 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 189.]
  That is almost identical to the previous Government's figures for growth if no action was taken. What is the Government's policy on road traffic reduction? Will the Minister guarantee that by the end of this Parliament the amount of traffic on our roads will be lower than at the moment? If she will not, she should withdraw her name from the letters and motions that she signed in the previous Parliament and accept that she was wrong. I hope that she does not have to do that. I hope that I have misunderstood the policy and there will be an absolute reduction in road traffic during this Parliament. I look forward to hearing from her on that.
  To sum up, the Conservatives have a bit of a cheek in tabling the motion. They undermine their case with their words. The Government have published a White Paper, but they have not yet enacted the measures in it. We want some action before the end of this Parliament.
  5.52 pm
  Mrs. Christine Butler: I sincerely thank my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport for his efforts in securing the A130 private finance initiative bid, worth £92 million for Essex. Many hon. Members, on both sides of the House, will welcome that. If I had not heard that announcement today, I would have been asking for it. My right hon. Friend's decision is right. It is the right answer to the high rate of accidents, the crushing congestion and the unremitting costs to travellers and the economy of south Essex caused by a road that amounts to nothing less than a blockade at times.
  South-east Essex is heavily populated, with almost a third of a million people in 40 square miles. Essex people are some of the most enterprising in the country, but without that important road scheme our local economy could stagnate. Castle Point, Southend, Rochford and Rayleigh are aware of the problems and are getting together in a sub-regional approach to explain what we need to keep business thriving and to steer a course towards success in the region.

  1349
  Road safety has not been mentioned enough in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) mentioned it, but it is worth returning to the subject. I could weep at the toll that the present A130 is having on families in Essex, many of whom are from my constituency. Any level of personal injury from road traffic accidents is unacceptable, but this road has a terrible record. The jams, bunch-ups and pile-ups all point to one solution: the scheme that my right hon. Friend the Minister has announced this evening. Some sections of the route are so narrow that one tractor might cause tailbacks for miles in the morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst), who is sitting next to me, has probably experienced that many times on the way to his constituency. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has listened to the arguments, and I thank him for throwing a lifeline to south Essex.
  Other hon. Members want to speak, so I will not say all that I intended to say. However, I wish to refer to sustainability. The word trips easily off the tongue, but it is an important word. For the first time, we have a genuine attempt, through joined-up thinking across all Departments, to try to deliver sustainability. Those attempts should not be sneered at. We have hardly begun, and there is more to follow in legislation.
  We cannot go on deciding where houses go, where major transportation corridors might be, where inward investment must locate and where jobs are created without considering all of them in parallel. Without such planning—and the tough decisions that will follow—we will get nowhere. That is a message that we have taken on board. We will deal with it in the regional plans after 1 April, when the regional development agencies start to work with the regional chambers to deliver sustainability, along with increases in GDP per capita.
  To deliver a sustainable economy with more investment and more jobs—along with sustainability in the environment—is not easy. That is why it has not even been attempted before. Now it is being attempted. We should stop the snide remarks and the party politics and give credit to the Government for what they have done so far, and for the measures that we will take in the not-too-distant future.
  5.58 pm
  Mr. Peter Luff: In approaching the debate, I was not sure what tone of voice to adopt—whether it should be sadness or anger. In the hope of winning the sympathy of the Minister for something that I will say later in my speech—a matter with which she is well familiar—I will adopt the tone of sadness, which I shall try to combine with honesty and brevity.
  The brevity is made possible by the excellent speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who said many of the things that I would have wished to say. The honesty is forced upon me by the admission that I was never comfortable with the fuel duty escalator, and I am certainly not at all comfortable with its increase and continuance under this Government. A question of straw and the camel's back comes to mind. When the back is breaking, it is time to take the straw off.
  Road haulage is a big employer in my constituency. I cannot pretend that that is always particularly welcome, because of the severe environmental impact that it has on
  1350
  many villages in the vale of Evesham. However, it is there, it is inevitable, it is not going away and it creates many jobs.
  The modern economy is dependent on road haulage, as has been generally accepted in what has been a constructive debate. I had a visit from a haulier at my constituency surgery on Saturday, who said that it would be a good idea to organise a week-long strike of the road haulage industry—if it could be guaranteed that it would be total. For the first couple of days, the British people would say that it was wonderful that the roads were empty; on days three and four, as the supermarket shelves started to empty, they would feel rather differently; by the end of the week, they would be crying for the lorries to get back on the roads. I think that that haulier was right.
  That operator told me that he is spending £500 a lorry to increase the size of the tanks, so that he will only ever have to fill up in France. He reckons that he will recoup the cost of the new tanks within two and a half journeys to and from the continent. The Chancellor should think about that. I was in Ulster last week, talking to hauliers and taxi drivers. The land border and the devaluation of the euro make the problem even worse there. I imagine that hardly any petrol or diesel is sold in Northern Ireland these days.
  When a Government have got something wrong, there is no shame in admitting it. It is time for the Chancellor to admit that he has got it wrong and to reverse the changes. The Minister's clever statistics in his opening speech do not bear critical scrutiny, and the fact is that there is now a huge and unjustifiable differential.
  I hope that the Government will be sympathetic to intervention in local problems where road haulage is an environmental issue, as in my constituency. I have written this week to the Deputy Prime Minister, asking him to intervene in my patch where there is a bad problem with road haulage, as three counties meet at one point and there is no effective integration. If the Government's integrated transport strategy is to mean anything at all, it should mean intervening in such situations.
  Conservative Members have made the point—Labour Members may also have done so, but if so, I missed it—that the increase in petrol duties and the token reduction in vehicle excise duties will have a devastating impact on poorer motorists in rural areas.
  Mr. Chaytor: Has the hon. Gentleman seen the latest research, available in the Library, by Mr. Skinner and Mr. Fergusson of the Institute of European Environmental Policy, which exhaustively analyses the impact of different policies on different categories of motorist? It proves fairly conclusively that the Government's policy of reducing the fixed costs and increasing the variable costs helps poorer motorists. I suggest that he looks at the research before making—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Luff: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I happen to agree with the spirit of what the hon. Gentleman said. I find it a little difficult to argue with the principle of reducing the fixed costs and increasing the variable costs, but it must be done in a much more meaningful way. The token reduction in vehicle excise duty will have no impact

  1351
  at all on my poorer constituents. They cannot afford to change down to smaller cars, because of the capital costs involved.
  There is a direct financial impact on my rural constituents, who have no realistic hope of a comprehensive bus service ever being restored to their villages, even if the odd improvements here and there are welcome. Those people depend on their cars for getting to the doctor, to work or to school, and for doing their shopping. The Government's policies are having a disproportionate effect on my poorer constituents, especially in areas such as the Vale of Evesham, where there is no real prospect of any significant improvement in public transport.
  Those people have a democratic right to freedom of movement. At the end of the 20th century and the beginning of the 21st, the freedom of mobility is as important as the freedom of speech was to previous generations. As democrats, we should respect that principle.
  The Minister talked about the increase in the budget for repairs and maintenance on trunk roads, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk largely demolished his argument. At county council level, the budget for road repair and maintenance has been squeezed out of sight, and especially in rural shires. I do not know what the standard spending assessment for road maintenance in Worcestershire is, but it is made irrelevant by the disgracefully low SSA for social services.
  Everything that should be available for other services is poured into social services. That must be right, because the protection of vulnerable people by social services departments should be a priority in any civilised society, but the result is that the potholes in Worcestershire are becoming a disgrace, the roads are becoming dangerous and maintenance is falling alarmingly behind schedule. To be fair to the Minister, there is not much that she can do about that, because the problem is the Government's underfunding of social services in rural shires.
  I share my right hon. Friend's concern about detrunking. Given the squeeze on county council finances, there is a real risk that detrunking will impose a huge and unaffordable burden on county councils, which will then get the blame for not maintaining the roads effectively. To be fair, I should say that the Highways Agency is doing a good job bringing the roads up to scratch, prior to detrunking, and I wish to put on record my deep gratitude to the agency and the Government for what has been done to the A449 between Worcester and Kidderminster, which will make what was a killer road much safer.
  I am slightly less grateful for the Government's failure to act in the matter of the Wyre Piddle bypass, and that also raises important wider points. I am glad to see a smile on the Minister's lips because we have talked about that bypass on many occasions. It is also important because it would bypass the town of Pershore in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer). It was next in the queue. Worcestershire has done well on bypasses, because we have the Broadway, Worcester Western, Norton-Lenchwick and Evesham bypasses. They have all been built without the significant traffic generation consequences that the Liberals fear, and they have provided a genuinely better environment for the people of those towns.
  1352
  The Wyre Piddle bypass has been turned down twice by this Government, and they now propose a non-roads solution. I understand that there are non-roads solutions to urban traffic problems, but there are no non-roads solutions to rural bypasses. A community such as Wyre Piddle faces problems caused by bottlenecks and heavy lorries going to the landfill sites. Of course, the Government may have heard that I have nearly been involved in two accidents with lorries in Wyre Piddle, but they do not want the road built because they hope for a by-election in Mid-Worcestershire. However, they would get a shock if that were to happen. I ask the Minister to reconsider that decision on a road with no adverse environmental consequences. Not a single tree would be cut down for that road.
  I am very disappointed by a response I received yesterday from Ministers. They said that they would not visit Wyre Piddle to observe the situation, and the ground they gave for that decision was extraordinary:
  "Any visit in advance of that consideration"—
  of the case in this year's local transport plan bid—
  "would be premature."—[Official Report, 17 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 669.]
  When else are they to visit except before they make a decision? After a decision is made, it is clearly too late. The Anchor in Wyre Piddle is a fine pub: I hope that I can have a drink with the Minister there and that we can discuss the problem. She is a reasonable woman, and I am sure that she will be able to see the case for the road.
  In conclusion, I wish to raise a point of principle. We in Worcestershire want two bypasses: Bordersley and Wyre Piddle. They could both be paid for out of a fraction of the increase in fuel duty that will be paid by Worcestershire motorists over the next three years. If the Government hypothecate only a tiny bit of that increase in revenue, they will make the lives of dwellers in rural England far better.
  6.8 pm
  Ms Rosie Winterton: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is important to get roads policy right, not only for the sake of our economy—many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to 90 per cent. of all journeys being made by road—but because of the need for policies that will reduce congestion. Congestion damages not only business, but the environment.
  I am a member of the RAC Foundation's public policy committee, and I am sure that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be pleased to learn that the RAC welcomed the "New Deal for Transport" White Paper, and said that it represented a good change in approach from the predict and provide model of the previous Government, under whose stewardship road and bridge maintenance deteriorated alarmingly. The new approach of improving management of the trunk road network, and investing in road maintenance so that maximum use of the network can be made, is the key to improving the lives of motorists, as the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) pointed out, although he is no longer in his place.
  Motorists have also welcomed the radical change of approach in hypothecating revenue from road pricing to improve public transport, and the Government's strong commitment to improving urban and rural public transport

  1353
  so that there is a viable alternative to car journeys. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, local transport plans have a vital role to play in achieving the Government's integrated transport plan.
  The Government's priority of maintaining existing roads and bridges must be reflected at local authority level. It is difficult to overestimate the importance of routine planned maintenance of roads. Maintenance is not just about improving road safety for car users; it can improve the quality of life for those living near roads and it can reduce noise pollution. A good road surface is important for pedestrians, cyclists and motor cyclists.
  When he was not referring to pubs in Wyre Piddle, the hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) referred to the problems created by potholes. I very much agree with what he said. A war on potholes would be welcome, if the Minister could declare one.
  The general situation is not helped by the constant digging up of roads by public utilities so that pipes can be mended or cables laid. Local authorities seem unable to get to grips with doing anything about that problem, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport's statement provided good news for motorists in the form of a Bill on public streetworks. Government support for that will be very welcome.
  Mr. Owen Paterson: Before the hon. Lady leaves the subject of local government and roads, would she reflect on a national study by the County Surveyors Society, which indicated that £5.25 billion must be spent if local authority roads are to be brought up to the standard set out in the local authority code of practice?
  Ms Winterton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for calling attention to the previous Government's failure to invest in roads. That failure is also reflected in a parliamentary briefing from the Automobile Association. It notes that the backlog in roads maintenance will cost £5 billion, which is plainly the result of the actions of the Conservative Government.
  It is important that the 23 million motorists in the United Kingdom should be represented on the forthcoming commission for integrated transport. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me when the commission's membership is likely to be announced, and if she could give us an assurance that road users will be properly represented.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport stressed how important integration is. There is an excellent example in Doncaster of how the Government are integrating transport through the funding of support for the North Bridge road project and the building of a new transport interchange. The existing road takes more than 60,000 vehicles a day. Queues over the bridge are horrendous during rush hour, and pollution levels rise. Access to the railway station is difficult and unreliable. Communities outside the town centre become isolated because of access problems.
  The project will reduce congestion, and it will let the council introduce a quality bus corridor which will give buses priority over other vehicles, and allow for segregated facilities for cyclists and pedestrians. It is an excellent example of how roads can be used to promote integrated
  1354
  transport. It brings together access to rail-based transport, major improvements to public transport and improvements for general traffic. All that will assist in the economic regeneration of Doncaster, while also reducing pollution. It is a good example of joined-up Government thinking.
  Along with the Doncaster interchange—a partnership between Government, the local authority and the private sector—that North Bridge road project will make it easier for people who want to change from one mode of transport to another to do so. That is integrated transport at its best and it is welcomed in my constituency.
  The Conservative Government's road policy failed the people of Doncaster; in 1994, funding for the North Bridge relief road project was withdrawn by the Tories after £7.5 million of public money had been spent to put the scheme together. The Labour Government are making integrated sustainable transport a reality; that is good news not only for the motorist, but for cyclists, motor cyclists and pedestrians. I assure my right hon. and hon. Friends that my constituents and I already see the results of that new approach, which we warmly welcome. I congratulate the Government on taking swift action to put right the dismal record of the previous Conservative Government.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. James Gray: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), although that name does not have the same resonance and romance as "the hon. Member for Wyre Piddle"—my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff), who spoke before her and whose well-argued speech we all greatly enjoyed.
  Labour's pre-election pledge on transport promised "immediate benefits" to the travelling public. I cannot remember whether it was one of their early pledges or a general pledge, but nothing could be clearer than "immediate benefits". However, if we are to believe the representatives of the AA, with whom a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House had lunch today, the travelling public are bitterly disappointed by the fact that they have seen no benefits of any kind—immediate or otherwise. Before the Budget, the level of satisfaction with the Government on transport was about 15 per cent.—the worst of all their satisfaction ratings. Since the Budget, public satisfaction with Labour's transport policies has gone off the Richter scale; some say that it is about 3 per cent., others that there is zero satisfaction among the travelling public.
  It is an absolute disgrace; the Government have had two years to do something and they have done nothing. I say "nothing", but the speech of the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central was a classic example of what the Government have done; they love expressions such as "joined-up Government" and "integrated transport White Paper". However, let us consider the White Paper and what it promised. Where is the strategic rail authorities Bill? Where is the tonnage tax promised by the Minister when she gave evidence recently to the Transport Sub-Committee? She gave a strong indication that a tonnage tax would be introduced. Where is it? Nowhere.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what he has just told the House bears no relation to what I said to the Transport Sub-Committee. I ask him to withdraw those remarks.
  Mr. Gray: We seem to have touched a raw nerve. If what I said bore no relation to the hon. Lady's evidence to the Sub-Committee, I would happily withdraw it and apologise. However, my clear impression and—I think—that of other members of the Sub-Committee who are in the Chamber of the hon. Lady's evidence was that she and her colleagues in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions were passionately in favour of the tonnage tax, that she hoped that it would be included in the forthcoming Budget and that she would be extremely disappointed if it were not. That is all on record.
  Ms Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. George Stevenson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: If I may, I should prefer to give way to the hon. Gentleman, who is one of my colleagues on the Sub-Committee.
  Mr. Stevenson: I fear that I must tell the hon. Gentleman that his recollection is incorrect. Although there was a significant amount of debate and questioning on the tonnage tax—which, by the way, relates to shipping, not to roads—my hon. Friend the Minister gave no such commitment as the hon. Gentleman suggests.
  Mr. Gray: I accept that; there was no firm commitment, merely a clear impression. Under instruction from my Whips, I shall take no further interventions on that point, but we can read the record of the proceedings of the Sub-Committee and of today's debate.
  There is huge disappointment among the travelling public about all Labour's transport policies. Those policies have amounted to nothing: all mouth and no trousers, like so many of Labour's other policies. As a result of last week's Budget, the Government have hit rock bottom in public perception of their record on motoring. The Government's aim seems to be to tax the private motorist off the road. Currently, private motorists throughout the nation pay about £1,000 a year in taxes on petrol and car ownership. That figure includes the towns. In rural areas, it is twice that amount: people pay £2,000 to £3,000 a year to run their cars. In rural areas such as my constituency, most families—even the poorest—have two cars. So we are talking about motoring expenses of £4,000 or £5,000 from very small incomes.
  The Government have put up petrol prices by an extraordinary 6 per cent., and apparently the escalator will continue. The Government make great play of the fact that a Conservative Government introduced the escalator—and they are right. However, when people ride an escalator at a department store or an hotel, they get off when they get to their destination. Now that United Kingdom petrol prices are more expensive than those of any other country in the world, I suggest that we have got where we are going. We are very close to achieving our
  1356
  Kyoto targets. We have achieved 10 per cent. of our 12.5 per cent. target and will easily attain the full 12.5 per cent. through changes in energy generation.
  The Government also propose congestion and parking charges, both of which would do nothing but hammer the private motorist. They are revenue-raising proposals and have nothing to do with the environment. It is significant that, having given his imprimatur to the proposals as environmental taxes, the Deputy Prime Minister was then packed off to the Maldives for a bit of shark fishing so that he could not comment during the Budget process. The truth is that they are not environmental taxes: they will not reduce car use, help with congestion or cut pollution levels. The proposals are aimed simply at raising a large amount of revenue, and it is important for the Government to come clean and admit that.
  Worst of all is the tax on lorries. Earlier in the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) challenged the Minister of Transport to disclose how much tax would be paid on a 1,000-litre tank of petrol. It will now cost £644 to fill that tank in the United Kingdom, but £340 in Belgium. The vehicle excise duty for 38-tonne, five-axle lorries has increased from £3,310 to £5,750 in Britain. The comparative figure in France is £269. That is an outrageous increase.
  The Government are determined to tax the private motorist off the road and the lorry driver off to the continent. It is a disgrace and, like the rest of the Government's transport policies, amounts to nothing. The Government are all talk and no trousers, except when it comes to taxing the motorist into the ground.
  6.22 pm
  Mr. David Chaytor: I welcome the progress that the Government have made on roads policy over the past two years. It is fair to say that the political landscape has been transformed in all aspects of transport policy.
  As time is short, I shall make three brief points. The first concerns traffic reduction. The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) was the only hon. Member to refer to the report of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment, which was produced in the early 1990s when the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) was in office. That report concluded that new roads do not reduce congestion but, as the right hon. Gentleman said, its real significance was in signalling an end, once and for all, to the predict and provide model.
  The report found that it is impossible, on this small island with a population of 56 million people, for all those people to exercise their right to use a motor car as and when they see fit because the freedom they wish to exercise is impossible to achieve. The more people believe that they can simply drive wherever they want, whenever they want, the less likely their chance of doing so because the motorways will seize up. That point is central to the Government's transport and roads policy. We cannot assume that we can continue to exercise our personal freedom indefinitely. We all have a responsibility to understand that point and to take action.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport referred to a remark made by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) about the hypocrisy in the

  1357
  Conservative party of those who argue that, on the one hand, they support its policy, and that of the Government, of reducing carbon dioxide emissions to meet the Kyoto targets, but that on the other hand, they oppose the fuel duty escalator and other restrictions on private motoring.
  I would not mind if Tory Members said that they were opposed to the Kyoto protocol and they supported people's right to drive their cars whenever they want. That, at least, would be consistent. It is not intellectually consistent for them to say that they support environmental measures and are all in favour of cutting carbon dioxide emissions, but that they want to do nothing about that in their roads policy. That goes further than hypocrisy; it is schizophrenia. The division in the Conservative party between those who profess to support the environment and those who are simply mouthpieces for the road haulage lobby is growing by the day. It is equally as great as the Conservatives' divisions on Europe, and sooner or later, it will cause an equally serious crisis in the party.
  My second point concerns my constituency. If I may, I will tell a brief story. Thirty years ago, a railway line connected Bury to the smaller towns to the north and to the Rossendale valley even further to the north. Thanks to Lord Beeching, that line was closed, and a few years later, a large motorway, the M66, was constructed. After that, areas of land adjacent to the motorway were developed for housing. Thousands of new houses were constructed, and many of them attracted two-car families. Shortly after its construction, therefore, the M66 became clogged up with traffic. What an indictment of our transport policy it is that over 30 years, we shut down the railway system, built roads, put new houses next to them and clogged them up with cars. The people who wanted to get out to work in the conurbation further to the south were simply unable to do so.
  My final point concerns the fuel duty escalator. I referred in an earlier intervention to the recent research available in the Library which proves conclusively that the fuel duty escalator is fair, effective and workable. It proves conclusively that it does not damage the interests of low-income households in rural areas, because the lowest-income households do not have cars. It proves conclusively that the policy shifts the balance of taxation from those who can least afford to pay to those who can well afford to pay.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. David Faber: I am grateful for the opportunity to make a brief contribution late in this debate, not least because it saves me from having to instigate, at a later stage, an Adjournment debate on a road in my constituency.
  First, I strongly associate myself with the earlier remarks of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the previous Conservative Government's record on building bypasses and the effects of this Government's policies on the road haulage industry. I am proud to have successful members of that industry in my constituency, one of whom I spoke to this morning, when he described the Government's current Budget plans for the industry as idiotic.
  My colleagues have referred also to the slashing of the roads budget. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) that the Government have misunderstood the problems of people in rural areas, especially poorer areas, and their dependency on their car to take their children to school, go to work and do the weekly shop.
  1358
  In his opening speech, the Minister of Transport said that he hoped that hon. Members who had individual constituency cases would write to him rather than raising them in the debate. I am happy to say that hon. Members on both sides of the House have ignored his strictures. They were right to do so if, like me, they have been trying to contact Ministers for the past six months by post, through speeches in the House or by invitations to the constituency. I know what a forlorn hope that can be.
  I make no apology for mentioning a road in my constituency that illustrates the grave problems that the Government will face on detrunking. In July last year, the Government issued their paper, "A New Deal for Trunk Roads in England", which, referring to the south-west, said:
  "A number of smaller scale but badly needed measures are under way or planned in the South West which address safety or capacity problems at particular points on the trunk road network. They will proceed regardless of the outcome of studies affecting the roads."
  The A36, which runs through my constituency, is a main regional road. It runs from Southampton on the south coast to join the A46 at Bath, and on into Wales and the midlands. It is a vital inter-regional link which carries huge amounts of heavy traffic. I am especially concerned with one small link: the Codford to Heytesbury bypass, which is considered by local police to be the most dangerous part of the A36.
  On several occasions under the previous Government, I took representatives from local parish councils to see the Minister of Transport's predecessor, John Watts. By the general election, it had been agreed that a design, build, finance and operate project would go ahead, and it was almost certainly at the top of the council's priorities. Designs had been submitted and bids were prepared, but in July came the bombshell that this main regional route was to be detrunked, and that not only would the scheme be cancelled, but the road would no longer be central Government's responsibility.
  The width of the small link is the same as it was when it was built as a turnpike in the 19th century. The narrowness causes frequent blockages, and the junctions and bends are lethal. One junction on the brow of a hill is a constant source of accidents, but the most dangerous stretch is the turning out of the village of Upton Lovell£a blind bend that the police acknowledge is the most dangerous on the road between Southampton and Bath, and which I, like the locals, refuse to use. We all prefer to drive several miles through other villages in order to gain access to the main road.
  I am sorry to say that the stretch of road has been the scene of tragic accidents. In 1991, 16-year-old Matthew Armes was killed when he was hit by a car while sitting on his bicycle outside his front door. I have stood with his mother at the very spot where he sadly died. A second cyclist, Mr. Terry, was killed on the same stretch of road in the same year. A year later, there were three accidents in a fortnight just near the spot where Matthew died. This year, there has already been one fatal accident on that stretch of road. Two days before that, a child was critically injured in a crash at the junction on the brow of the hill to which I referred.
  All this may sound like a purely local issue, but I make no apology for raising it because road safety and the wider issue of detrunking is important. Local people are horrified that, by detrunking the road, the Government are

  1359
  effectively washing their hands of the problem. Worse still, although county councils have always been compensated for taking responsibility for roads following detrunking, Wiltshire county council has been told informally that there is to be no compensation.
  The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) made great play of how her county council was happy with its negotiations with central Government, yet Wiltshire county council has still not been told whether the road is to be detrunked, when it is to be detrunked and whether there will be any compensation. The Under-Secretary is shrugging her shoulders.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is attempting to elicit. I understood him to say that the road had been detrunked and that there would be no compensation. Detrunked roads for which a local authority has asked will lose no status. There will be fair funding to ensure their life-long maintenance. Such matters are on-going between the Highways Agency and local authorities.
  Mr. Faber: With respect, life-long maintenance is not the same as improving a stretch of road which the local police have acknowledged is the most dangerous in the region.
  I am aware that other hon. Members want to participate, so I shall leave the Under-Secretary and the Minister of Transport, who I am glad to see is back in his place, with the issue. Perhaps I can at least secure an undertaking this evening that the Under-Secretary's officials will contact the county council to explain the true status of the road and that, if the road is to be detrunked, they will work with the county council to ensure that compensation is paid. Perhaps, too, all records on that stretch of road that are held by the Highways Agency will be made available to the county council.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Christopher Leslie: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak briefly in this debate. Several issues have already been raised, so I shall not repeat them.
  One of the most striking features of the debate has been the U-turn of Opposition Members—and not only on the number of roads that they want in the roads programme. We knew that that number started at 500 back in 1990, and that it fell to 150 by 1997, but from the way in which they have spoken in this debate, one would think that they wanted to throw in another couple of hundred for good measure.
  Not only has there been a U-turn on that but, more interestingly—despite the fact that, in 1994, the Conservative Government increased diesel duty by 13 per cent.—Conservative Members have said that they actually want to cut diesel duty. They therefore have a responsibility to say how they intend to raise the millions of pounds of revenue for vital public services that that duty generates. There will be some interesting things for us to consider in tomorrow's Hansard.
  I believe that the Government's strategy is more realistic about tackling congestion, is realistic in the sense of prioritising infrastructure investment where necessary, and focuses on the necessary integrated public transport strategy that has been missing for so long. The extra
  1360
  funding for transport—£1.7 billion in the next three years—is extremely welcome, providing new opportunities to reduce congestion. It will also help to move people out of cars and into more effective methods of public transport.
  The Chancellor announced many things in his Budget. One of the announcements for which my constituents were most grateful was that relating to the capital modernisation fund. That will double infrastructural investment across all public services during the life of this Parliament, and it highlights the many ways in which transport infrastructure investment will benefit.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport said that the Highways Agency was being refocused on better maintenance, the more effective use of existing road space, and a greater emphasis on the environment and road safety. The legacy left by the Conservative party was one of individual car growth spiralling out of control, pollution and an unfortunate increase in the number of road casualties. At last—it is about time—we have a Government who are tackling these things at a comprehensive strategic level.
  Most importantly, I want to take the opportunity to say thank you once again to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their approval of the A650 Bingley relief road. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hurrah."] I am glad to hear hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber greet that announcement with such acclaim. I was bowled over with excitement when the announcement was made. I am so proud that, after 27 years of my short life and a 35-year wait by my constituents, a £60 million, 5 km stretch of dual carriageway is being prioritised. Work is scheduled to start in 2001–02. That is an extremely welcome announcement, and contrasts with the failure of the Conservative party ever to get things under way.
  The road will increase accessibility to the local town centre and help the local economy, enabling businesses to move about more easily instead of being stuck in congestion. It is a cost-effective scheme and it will do a tremendous amount to regenerate Bingley town centre. Apart from the generally improved environment that will result, pollution will reduce significantly as decreased congestion causes emissions of smoke and particulates from vehicles to fall.
  On road safety, I hope that the average of 35 casualties that have taken place in Bingley each year will be almost eliminated because roads and pedestrians will be separated. That is a very important point.
  I have taken the liberty of setting up a working group in my constituency to consider how we may use the Bingley relief road go-ahead to benefit integrated public transport development. I have brought together a local Railtrack representative and representatives of the Northern Spirit train company, First Bradford bus company, Keighley district bus company and several user groups to see how we can use the free thoroughfare that we shall have on the Bingley main street to further public transport development.
  I am delighted that this relief road will create enormous potential for my constituents in public transport. I am very proud of the Minister. I repeat that my constituents are extremely pleased, delighted and happy with the Government's road policy.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The policy of the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) seems to be that there should be new roads for Shipley, but not for anywhere else. We do not regard that as a satisfactory policy. I should point out to the hon. Gentleman that we voted against the diesel duty increases in the Budget, so there was no U-turn today. Indeed, we voted against the diesel duty increases in the previous Budget. The hon. Gentleman should read Hansard.
  The Prime Minister said that he wants Europe to be more like America. The price per litre of unleaded petrol is 67.89p in the UK, whereas in the US it is 15.9p. There is rather a big gap between the Prime Minister's rhetoric and the reality.
  I particularly enjoyed the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who made a strong case for a substantial programme of trunk road and motorway renewals and improvements. He rightly pointed out that the 400 schemes that we produced over 18 years are not matched by the mere 37 schemes that the Government propose over seven years.
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) could not say whether he thought that the building of the M25 was a mistake, which rather sums up Liberal Democrat policy. He mentioned the subject of traffic growth. We are against the increase in congestion and pollution which has been caused by the Government's policies.
  Mr. Baker rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I will not give way, as I am short of time.
  I thank my colleagues and the Labour Members who contributed to the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) mentioned the Wyre Piddle bypass and the problems at Bordersley.
  My hon. Friend the Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) was absolutely right again about the escalator. We introduced the escalator with the intention not that it should go on for ever, but that, when we got to the top, we should get off.
  It is utter cant for the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) to justify the tax increases in terms of the environmental policy. We have met our Kyoto targets. He is promoting coal-fired power stations, instead of cleaner gas-fired power stations. Coal-fired power stations contribute far more to environmental pollution than cars. Petrol duty increases will contribute virtually nothing towards reduced CO2 emissions.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) made a moving speech. His concerns about the detrunking of the A36 and A46 are significant, and I am sure that the Minister of Transport took them on board. My hon. Friend's comments reflect the fact that the roads programme is a matter of life or death.
  We all enjoyed the speech by the Minister of Transport, possibly more than he did. We must be fair to him—he has inherited a mess that is not entirely his fault. [Interruption.] His colleagues have landed him in it because of the commitments that they have made and the cuts that he has been landed with. We were stirred by his loyalty to his boss. Perhaps he will pass on our apologies if his boss bursts into tears as a result of the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard).
  1362
  We welcome the Minister's announcement about the A130, which is a tribute to our skills as an Opposition in calling for the debate. I also welcome the Minister's endorsement of the Streetworks Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mr. Fraser).
  The Minister complained about the accident statistics that he inherited from the previous Government. The statistics are better than those of any European country, by miles. That shows that he was scraping the bottom of the barrel.
  Mr. Robert Key rose—
  Mr. Jenkin: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for not giving way, but I have very little time.
  Transport taxation has rocketed under the Government. As the House of Commons Library confirms, the Government will raise an extra £9 billion in fuel duties over the lifetime of this Parliament, over and above what was planned by the Conservatives. However, new taxes on motoring and the motorist do not end there.
  In the most recent Budget alone, there is an extra £270 million from company car drivers. There are extra taxes on business, especially small businesses, through the increase in national insurance for the self-employed. There is the punitive vehicle excise duty rate on 40 and 41 tonne trucks, which is more than 11 times higher than the equivalent rate in other EU countries.
  All that compounds the overwhelming impression that the Government do not begin to understand the circumstances of the road haulage sector. The industry is manifestly in a state of crisis, yet the Budget piles on even more pain and taxes.
  People's livelihoods are being destroyed and 50,000 jobs are set to go. This is all the more evident now than it was before the Budget, yet, to the Freight Transport Association, the Minister of Transport could only say:
  "While it is a problem, it is hardly the massive one that it's made out to be. I'm convinced that you don't suffer from any serious disadvantage."
  What planet is he living on? Now the Prime Minister acknowledges the problem. In the House yesterday, he said:
  "I certainly understand the problems of the road haulage industry as it has set them out."—[Official Report, 17 March 1999; Vol. 327, c. 1120.]
  What happened between the Freight Transport Association's conference and the Prime Minister's statement yesterday? It happens to be the Budget. Yet, as -though in mitigation, the Prime Minister has the gall to add that he has now given a £400 million subsidy in low-sulphur fuel discounts. A subsidy—is he serious? Has he forgotten that the Budget has just increased the duty on ultra low-sulphur diesel by 9.82 per cent? Yet he calls it a subsidy. He has just clobbered the road haulage industry with a massive tax increase and he insults the industry that is underwriting his increases in public spending by claiming that it is receiving a subsidy.
  That blindness is matched only by the comments of the Minister for Transport in London, speaking just after the Budget, when she said:
  "many foreign hauliers … are now moving to the United Kingdom and using it as a base for their operations."

  1363
  She added:
  "We perceive haulage firms from mainland Europe moving their operations into this country."—[Official Report, European Standing Committee A, 10 March 1999; c. 8–9.]
  She can only mean that they are coming here with foreign registered trucks, burning cheap foreign fuel to mop up the UK competition.
  To add further insult to injury, speaking to the Freight Transport Association conference, the Minister of Transport said:
  "I have never met a businessman yet who goes out of business and says it is his fault."
  How out of touch can the right hon. Gentleman be?
  From the reports of Downing street briefings today, and for all the Prime Minister's supple body language, we know that the Government are still in complete denial about the catastrophe that the haulage industry faces. No wonder there will be a demonstration of the industry's despair in London. The chaos will be the fault of the right hon. Gentleman and his Government. He would do well to say this evening that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will agree to see representatives of the road haulage industry for the first time, because that might do something to diffuse the crisis.
  Dr. Reid: In view of the hon. Gentleman's commendation of that demonstration, will he stop his weasel words, get up on his two feet, and tell us whether he supports the demonstration that is to take place on Monday which will disrupt and inconvenience London?
  Mr. Jenkin: Of course I do not support the demonstration. The right hon. Gentleman knows that the truckers have been driven to this despair by the Government's policies. He would do well to acknowledge the destruction that his policies wreak. Where is all the money going? It is not going on transport, because transport spending is falling. The previous Conservative Government, in their last year in office, spent £4.9 billion on transport, and were planning to spend £5.2 billion in 1997–98. The comprehensive spending review shows that the Government are spending only £4.7 billion this year, falling to £4.6 billion next year, and falling further to £4.5 billion the year after that.
  On trunk road and motorway improvements, the Conservative Government spent £1 billion a year between 1994–95 and 1996–97. The Government will spend only £300 million a year between 1999 and 2002. Spending on local road improvement schemes will increase next year by a paltry £1 million to £624 million—a cut in real terms. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk described, the backlog of repairs is getting even worse. No—for all the glossy brochures and reannounced initiatives, the Government's priority is not transport. The reason why motorists must pay tax of £8.50 out of every £10 spent at the petrol pump is to pay for the Government's profligacy and incompetence in other departments.
  The Government have increased—
  Mr. Ivor Caplin: What about the money for the health service?
  Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Gentleman talks about the health service, but the Government have increased social
  1364
  security spending—tax credit spending—by £38.4 billion and are squandering billions of pounds on the so-called new deal for the unemployed, ignorant of the fact that their other policies are throwing people straight back on the dole.
  Two years into the Parliament, we have only endless consultation and not a single transport Bill. Britain needs a Government who can think creatively about solving Britain's transport problems. Labour inherited creative thinking from the Conservatives—for example, a £20 billion investment programme for the railways—and that is how we transformed so many state-owned transport industries.
  We provided the new ideas in the past, and the Conservatives will have to provide the new ideas in the future, to get Britain moving again. Two years ago, Labour promised an integrated transport policy, but it is delivering a standstill Britain.
  6.50 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): The hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) made his only salient point at the beginning of his contribution: he confessed, albeit without apology, that the Government inherited a mess in respect of road and rail transport because of the previous Government's total failure even to begin to consider what is central to our policies—an integrated transport strategy.
  An integrated transport strategy was supported by my hon. Friends the Members for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ), for Castle Point (Mrs. Butler), for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) and for Shipley (Mr. Leslie). Each and every one of them could detail to the House how the Government are improving the lives of their constituents by introducing policies and funds to create integrated transport strategies. Those strategies relieve overdependence on the private car and play their part in reducing not only congestion, but pollution.
  Every contribution made from the Conservative Benches was fascinating, because the Conservative party is doing a major U-turn on every transport policy that it inflicted on this country for 18 years.
  Mr. Faber: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Jackson: No, I am afraid that I am almost out of time.
  The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made a particularly interesting contribution. Apparently, he managed to obtain 13 bypasses for his constituency, but he complains that he needs another two. If I remember rightly, he agreed that we had to move away from what had been Conservative party— and provide—because putting more and more tarmac on our roads does nothing but encourage more car journeys.
  The right hon. Gentleman's contribution was also interesting because he wants to introduce motorway tolls, which I understand is not Conservative party policy, although we know that the Conservatives would introduce congestion charging. However, they would never, ever hypothecate the sums so raised to the improvement of transport, which is our policy in respect of the Greater London authority. [Interruption.] It is in the Bill.

  1365
  The hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) somewhat ungraciously neglected to accord to the Government credit for the help that they gave to the hon. ember for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis) when he took his Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill through the House. The hon. Gentleman asked particular questions; no, of course I cannot guarantee that there will be the reduction in traffic about which he spoke by the end of this Parliament. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport made clear in his opening remarks, changing direction is like manoeuvring a supertanker, which cannot be turned on a sixpence. However, our commitment to achieving not only a reduction in road traffic, but an absolute reduction, stands firm.
  Two central themes emanated from the contributions of Conservative Members: their unwillingness to acknowledge that they introduced the fuel duty escalator and their inability to accept that the major rises in the escalator occurred under the previous Administration, as we have had occasion to say. The price of DERV has risen by 7p since May 1997; under the previous Government, it rose by 26p.
  Conservative Members also made much of the fact that they put funding into trunk road maintenance and local road schemes. This Government have increased funding for local road maintenance to almost £2 billion—the figure was frozen for four years by the previous Administration—and there is almost £250,000 in additional funding for the bridge programme. We have given a clear commitment on the 37 road schemes which we announced, with a budget of £1.4 billion. The figures for trunk road maintenance are £651 million for 1998–99 and £780 million for 2001–02, and there has been an additional £550 million for making better use of our roads.
  Conservative Members were much concerned about what they claimed was an unbearable burden on our freight industry. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport will meet representatives of the haulage industry. Conservative Members do no favours to the companies in their constituencies if they do not point out to those hauliers the facts of the case. If hauliers moved to the continent, the real burden would be the infinitely higher rates of corporation tax—the United Kingdom has the lowest—and infinitely higher social costs on the mainland of Europe.
  Mr. Paterson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Ms Jackson: No.
  The net differential with haulage companies in France has been estimated at almost £450,000 in France, almost £600,000 in the Netherlands, and more than £800,000 in Belgium. If Conservative Members are seriously committed to their constituents and are really concerned about retaining jobs in their areas, they should give the industry the facts, as my right hon. Friend most certainly will.
  Another issue which was raised by more than one hon. Member was detrunking. The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) spoke of a particularly tragic incident in his constituency on the road that is proposed for detrunking. Detrunking does not mean a reduction in status, and discussions are continuing between the local authorities and my Department. Nor does it mean that there will be inadequate funds to maintain such roads throughout their lifetime. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Gentleman.
  1366
  My hon. Friends made many valid points on safety. The Government are committed to ensuring that our roads are safe. We want there to be a shift and we want to offer real choices for travel, so that we begin to reduce the dangers on our roads. Conservative Members would apparently abolish the fuel duty escalator. They have clearly given up any commitment to meeting the environmental targets of Kyoto. [Interruption.] They have washed their hands of taking any steps to improve our environment and to reduce congestion on our roads. They would go back to the old predict and provide strategy on road building. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber.
  Ms Jackson: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Conservative Members shed crocodile tears about what they regard as the horrendous impact on rural communities of the fuel duty escalator. The Conservative Government pillaged rural communities. They took away roads, jobs, houses, health care, village shops and village schools. Now, suddenly, Conservative Members are caring, but what was significantly missing from their contributions was any mention of the 30 per cent. of people in this country who have no access to private transport. Where would those people be now if Conservative policies had continued?
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question accordingly put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 121, Noes 302.

  Division No. 119]

  [6.59 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  & Howden)

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Day, Stephen

  Bercow, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan, Alan

  Body, Sir Richard

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Boswell, Tim

  Faber, David

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Fallon, Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fraser, Christopher

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gibb, Nick

  Bums, Simon

  Gill, Christopher

  Butterfill, John

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Gray, James

  Chope, Christopher

  Green, Damian

  Clappison, James

  Greenway, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  (Rushcliffe)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Hawkins, Nick

  Colvin, Michael

  Hayes, John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cran, James

  Horam, John

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  1367

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Robathan, Andrew

  Johnson Smith,

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Key, Robert

  Ruffley, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Shepherd, Richard

  Lansley, Andrew

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Leigh, Edward

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Lidington, David

  Spring, Richard

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Steen, Anthony

  Loughton, Tim

  Streeter, Gary

  Luff, Peter

  Syms, Robert

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher& Walton)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Townend, John

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Tredinnick, David

  Madel, Sir David

  Trend, Michael

  Malins, Humfrey

  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

  Norman, Archie

  Wilkinson, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Wilshire, David

  Page, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Paice, James

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Paterson, Owen

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Pickles, Eric

  Prior, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Randall, John

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ainger, Nick

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Allan, Richard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Allen, Graham

  (NE Fife)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Canavan, Dennis

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Caplin, Ivor

  Austin, John

  Casale, Roger

  Baker, Norman

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Banks, Tony

  Chaytor, David

  Barnes, Harry

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Barron, Kevin

  Clapham, Michael

  Battle, John

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Beard, Nigel

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Clelland, David

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clwyd, Ann

  Benton, Joe

  Coaker, Vernon

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Coleman, Iain

  Berry, Roger

  Connarty, Michael

  Best, Harold

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Betts, Clive

  Cooper, Yvette

  Blackman, Liz

  Corbett, Robin

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Blizzard, Bob

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Boateng, Paul

  Cousins, Jim

  Borrow, David

  Cox, Tom

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cranston, Ross

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Crausby, David

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Browne, Desmond

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Burden, Richard

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Burgon, Colin

  Dalyell, Tam

  Burstow, Paul

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  1368

  Darvill, Keith

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Kemp, Fraser

  Denham, John

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Dobbin, Jim

  Khabra, Piara S

  Donohoe, Brian H

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Doran, Frank

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Dowd, Jim

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Drew, David

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Laxton, Bob

  Edwards, Huw

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Levitt, Tom

  Fatchett, Rt Hon Derek

  Linton, Martin

  Feam, Ronnie

  Love, Andrew

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  McAllion, John

  Fisher, Mark

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Flint, Caroline

  Macdonald, Calum

  Flynn, Paul

  McDonnell, John

  Follett, Barbara

  McIsaac, Shona

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  McLeish, Henry

  Foulkes, George

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Fyfe, Maria

  McWalter, Tony

  Galloway, George

  Mallaber, Judy

  Gapes, Mike

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Gerrard, Neil

  Marek, Dr John

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Gorrie, Donald

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Grogan, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Maxton, John

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Meale, Alan

  Hancock, Mike

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hanson, David

  Mitchell, Austin

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Moore, Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Morley, Elliot

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Heppell, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Hesford, Stephen

  Mudie, George

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mullin, Chris

  Hill, Keith

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Hoey, Kate

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Home Robertson, John

  Oaten, Mark

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hope, Phil

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Olner, Bill

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Öpik, Lembit

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hughes, Simon (Southward N)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hurst, Alan

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hutton, John

  Pearson, Ian

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Illsley, Eric

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Plaskitt, James

  Jamieson, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Jenkins, Brian

  Pond, Chris

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Pope, Greg

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  1369

  Purchase, Ken

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Rapson, Syd

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Raynsford, Nick

  Stott, Roger

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Rendel, David

  Stringer, Graham

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Rooker, Jeff

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Rooney, Terry

  (Dewsbury)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rowlands, Ted

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Roy, Frank

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ruane, Chris

  Timms, Stephen

  Ruddock, Joan

  Tipping, Paddy

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Todd, Mark

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Sawford, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dennis (Wotverh'ton SE)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Tyler, Paul

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Singh, Marsha

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Watts, David

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  White, Brian

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wills, Michael

  Snape, Peter

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Soley, Clive

  Wood, Mike

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Woolas, Phil

  Spellar, John

  Worthington, Tony

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Stevenson, George

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments):—
  The House divided: Ayes 272, Noes 123.

  Division No. 120]

  [7.12 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Ainger, Nick

  Boateng, Paul

  Allen, Graham

  Borrow, David

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Austin, John

  Burden, Richard

  Barnes, Harry

  Burgon, Colin

  Barron, Kevin

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Battle, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Bayley, Hugh

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Beard, Nigel

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Canavan, Dennis

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Casale, Roger

  Benton, Joe

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Chaytor, David

  Berry, Roger

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Best, Harold

  Clapham, Michael

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  1370

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hurst, Alan

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hutton, John

  Clelland, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Clwyd, Ann

  Illsley, Eric

  Coaker, Vernon

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Coleman, Iain

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Connarty, Michael

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W& Hessle)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Cousins, Jim

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Cox, Tom

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Cranston, Ross

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Crausby, David

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Cunliffe, Lawrence

  Kemp, Fraser

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Khabra, Piara S

  Darvill, Keith

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Dawson, Hilton

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Laxton, Bob

  Denham, John

  Leslie, Christopher

  Dismore, Andrew

  Levitt, Tom

  Dobbin, Jim

  Linton, Martin

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Love, Andrew

  Doran, Frank

  McAllion, John

  Dowd, Jim

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Drew, David

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Macdonald, Calum

  Edwards, Huw

  McDonnell, John

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  McIsaac, Shona

  Fatchett, Rt Hon Derek

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Fisher, Mark

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  McWalter, Tony

  Fitzsimons, Lorna

  Mallaber, Judy

  Flint, Caroline

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Flynn, Paul

  Marek, Dr John

  Follett, Barbara

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Maxton, John

  Foulkes, George

  Meale, Alan

  Fyfe, Maria

  Merron, Gillian

  Galloway, George

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Gapes, Mike

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Gerrard, Neil

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Morley, Elliot

  Grocott, Bruce

  Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)

  Grogan, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mullin, Chris

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Hanson, David

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Heppell, John

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Hesford, Stephen

  Olner, Bill

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  O'Neill, Martin

  Hill, Keith

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Hoey, Kate

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Pearson, Ian

  Hope, Phil

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Pickthall, Colin

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Pike, Peter L

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Plaskitt, James

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Pollard, Kerry

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Pond, Chris

  1371

  Pope, Greg

  Stevenson, George

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Stott, Roger

  Purchase, Ken

  Stringer, Graham

  Rapson, Syd

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Raynsford, Nick

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  (Dewsbury)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Rooker, Jeff

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Rooney, Terry

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Timms, Stephen

  Roy, Frank

  Tipping, Paddy

  Ruane, Chris

  Todd, Mark

  Ruddock, Joan

  Touhig, Don

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Trickett, Jon

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Sawford, Phil

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Singh, Marsha

  Watts, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  White, Brian

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wills, Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Woolas, Phil

  Snape, Peter

  Worthington, Tony

  Soley, Clive

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mrs. Anne McGuire and

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Clappison, James

  Allan, Richard

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  (Rushcliffe)

  Baker, Norman

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Bercow, John

  Colvin, Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Body, Sir Richard

  Cran, James

  Boswell, Tim

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

  & Howden)

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Day, Stephen

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Faber, David

  Bums, Simon

  Fabricant, Michael

  Burstow, Paul

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Butterfill, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Fraser, Christopher

  (NE Fife)

  Gibb, Nick

  Cash, William

  Gill, Christopher

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Goodlad, Rt Hon Sir Alastair

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  1372

  Gray, James

  Norman, Archie

  Green, Damian

  Öpik, Lembit

  Greenway, John

  Ottaway, Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Page, Richard

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Paice, James

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Paterson, Owen

  Hancock, Mike

  Pickles, Eric

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Prior, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Randall, John

  Hayes, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Rendel, David

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Ruffley, David

  Hunter, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Johnson Smith,

  Shepherd, Richard

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Spring, Richard

  Key, Robert

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Steen, Anthony

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Streeter, Gary

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Syms, Robert

  Lansley, Andrew

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Leigh, Edward

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Lidington, David

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Loughton, Tim

  Tredinnick, David

  Luff, Peter

  Trend, Michael

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Tyrie, Andrew

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Wardle, Charles

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Waterson, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Wells, Bowen

  Madel, Sir David

  Whittingdale, John

  Malins, Humfrey

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Maples, John

  Wilkinson, John

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Wilshire, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Moss, Malcolm

  Mr. Oliver Heald and

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Mr. Tim Collins.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House commends the Government for taking a far-sighted and more integrated approach to roads policy than the previous administration; notes that the previous Government's `predict and provide' approach to road building has been discredited and that the present Government has instead taken a realistic and practical approach based on the five criteria of integration, the economy, the environment, safety and accessibility; notes further that the previous Conservative Government's grandiose but impractical wish-list of schemes for which funding was not available has been replaced by a targeted programme of improvements, all of which can be started within seven years; welcomes its increased and more rationally-based spending on roads maintenance; and applauds the Government for tackling the problems of congestion and pollution, thereby ensuring that the road transport system operates for the benefit of individual people and the UK economy as a whole.
  It being after Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55 (Questions on voting of estimates, &c.) and the Order [16 December].

  ESTIMATES, 1999–2000 (NAVY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 2000 a number not exceeding 48,340 all ranks be maintained for Naval Service, a number not exceeding 18,330 for Service in the Reserve Naval and Marine Forces, and a number not exceeding 200 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Naval Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

  ESTIMATES, 1999–2000 (ARMY) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 2000 a number not exceeding 135,420 all ranks be maintained for Army Service, a number not exceeding 76,700 for Service in the Reserve Land Forces, and a number not exceeding 6,000 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Land Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

  ESTIMATES, 1999–2000 (AIR) VOTE A
  Resolved,
  That during the year ending on 31st March 2000 a number not exceeding 58,070 all ranks be maintained for the Air Force Service, a number not exceeding 26,000 for Service in the Reserve Air Forces, and a number not exceeding 430 for Service as Special Members of the Reserve Air Forces under Part V of the Reserve Forces Act 1996.

  ESTIMATES, EXCESSES, 1997–98
  Resolved,
  That a sum not exceeding £2,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to make good excesses of certain grants for Defence and Civil Services for the year ended on 31st March 1998, as set out in HC 239.

  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 1998–99
  Resolved,
  That a further supplementary sum not exceeding £2,946,254,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to complete or defray the charges for Defence and Civil Services for the year ending on 31st March 1999, as set out in HC 237, 238 and 310.
  Ordered,
  That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing Resolutions relating to Estimates, Excesses, 1997–98, and Supplementary Estimates, 1998–99: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Alan Milburn, Dawn Primarolo, Ms Patricia Hewitt and Mrs. Barbara Roche do prepare and bring it in.

  CONSOLIDATED FUND (No. 2) BILL
  Mrs. Barbara Roche accordingly presented a Bill to apply certain funds out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the years ending on 31 March 1998 and 1999: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 66].

  Arts Funding (Westminster)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hill.]
  7.28 pm
  Ms Karen Buck: London is home to a flourishing and diverse artistic community. We are truly fortunate in that we host centres of excellence in the performing and fine arts that draw on a magnificent heritage going back for centuries. However, the arts are not only a heritage from the past. We also have a thriving modern cultural sector that reaches into new mediums of delivery and celebrates our dynamic multicultural present.
  Culture and the arts are not an optional add-on for a society that has resources to spare. They give expression to our humanity, enrich our lives, stimulate the imaginations of our children and act as a barometer of our self-esteem. We should be proud of what we do to promote the arts in our society and cautious of those who see the arts as a frivolity or as one more consumer good to be left to the market to deliver.
  Fifteen months ago, I was delighted to attend a celebration of the arts in Westminster at the London Palladium, set up by Westminster city council. Westminster's gala nights for the arts were grounds for pride on the part of the council. They showcased the enthusiasm and talent among our schoolchildren and youth in music, dance, drama and the carnival arts. They demonstrated the dynamic that exists when the artistic traditions of China, Bangladesh, the Caribbean and the many countries whence our asylum seekers come meet modern Britain's world of classical, rap and rock music.
  My purpose in seeking this debate tonight is to give expression to the profound disappointment I now feel at Westminster city council's decision to slash funding for the arts and community groups in central London. That disappointment is all the more acute because it contrasts with the positive support and statements of support given by the borough up to and including its recent gala nights for the arts.
  Only a few months ago, Councillor Harvey Marshall, chair of the arts committee, said:
  "Westminster is certainly the capital and it must be the heart of the arts in London and the country. We shall continue to support the arts at all levels, for the benefit of residents, businesses and visitors."
  At the beginning of last month, the council cut its funding to all but one of the 24 arts organisations that it had supported. Cuts ranged from 6 per cent. to the complete loss of grant. Decisions came out of the blue for many groups, and they were taken in a thoughtless, blustering manner that made a mockery of the pious words of Councillor Marshall just weeks earlier.
  Out went the grants to the orchestra of St. John's, Smith square. Out went the grant to the Photographers Gallery. The Yaa Asentewa centre lost four fifths of its grant, and it is struggling for its life. That organisation may need to make changes in the services that it delivers, but I must wonder about the message being sent to black Londoners by the loss of support for the only Londonwide black arts centre.
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: My hon. Friend will recall that I was a Westminster councillor in my previous

  1375
  life. For 10 years, I was opposition spokesperson on the arts committee, where, on what was otherwise a highly politically polarised council, we were able to achieve a great deal of consensus because of the chairmanship of the then Councillor Roger Bramble, a great supporter of Yaa Asentewa and some of the more avant-garde arts. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is particularly demeaning that, now that Roger Bramble has moved on, Westminster is taking a much more right-wing approach towards the arts? The situation at Yaa Asentewa illustrates the way in which Westminster is targeting arts that support the ethnic minorities. In addition, the council is targeting the avant-garde arts organisations—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I am afraid that I must interrupt the hon. Gentleman.
  Ms Buck: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who is completely right.
  I need not explain to the Minister the importance of carnival in my constituency. The Yaa Asentewa is among the centres at which carnival arts are nurtured and promoted. They are of great significance, particularly to Afro-Caribbean residents.
  The most recent edition of the bulletin, "The Arts in Westminster", advertises the fact that the Yaa Asentewa has been funded by the local single regeneration budget to run a holiday play scheme and an after-school club involving drama and music skills as well as basic skills tuition in literacy and numeracy.
  Cuts have also fallen on the Serpentine gallery, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, the English National Opera and Ballet, Paddington Arts, Wigmore hall, Photo Works Westminster, the Soho Theatre Company, London Print Workshop, the Institute of Contemporary Arts, Westminster Youth Dance Scene, Alternative Arts—which was singled out for praise by Councillor Marshall just weeks earlier—and more.
  In all, £360,000 has been cut from arts organisations. That has been partially offset by some small additional funding, but 15 per cent. of the arts budget—£230,000—has been lost to the arts in the borough. I should like to deal briefly with the borough's arguments in justification of that action.
  Westminster claims that the Government have cut support to the borough. Yet the December policy and resources budget paper admitted that the grant settlement meant that
  "the position for next year is better than expected".
  Since then, the council has received additional money for education and several other additional special grants. As standard spending assessments have been agreed for a three-year cycle, there is no justification for panic spending cuts.
  Westminster has long been, and remains, one of those authorities that raise the smallest proportion of spending from the council tax. Only £1 in every £10 spent by the council comes from the council tax payer—a proportion virtually unchanged since 1995. As a percentage of budget, Westminster's council tax requirement was the fourth lowest in the country in 1997, and the fifth lowest last year. Those figures give the lie to claims that the
  1376
  Government have been excessively punitive towards Westminster and that council tax payers bear too much of the spending burden.
  I cannot fail to mention the fact that Westminster is sitting on reserves of £84 million.
  The council also ignores the fact that Westminster, which has the highest concentration of arts organisations in the country, benefits from inward investment because of its support for the arts. Westminster's local economy benefits from tourism and visitors, half of whom cite the arts as a reason for their visit. The London Arts Board invests £2 million in arts provision in Westminster, and the city is also a major recipient of lottery arts funding. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will respond to that point in his reply, as it will help to disabuse us of the notion that local council tax payers are subsidising national organisations from which they receive no benefit.
  The other important counter-argument to the charges laid by Westminster lie in our schools. Many of the institutions savaged by grant cuts have an excellent record of work with school children. Wigmore hall states:
  "The £8,000 cut in funding restricts the Hall's ability to fund an education officer … our schools projects complement the national curriculum and to date they are offered almost exclusively to schools within Westminster. As the city does not have a Music Co-ordinator, the Hall arranged for teachers to meet regularly to share ideas and good teaching practice … the relationship developed and Wigmore Hall raised funds to employ an administrator to arrange inter-school activities and a pool of musical instruments."
  The Institute of Contemporary Arts has listed educational initiatives that will have to be scaled down, including a consultancy scheme on the deeply and multiply deprived Mozart estate, developing teaching and learning materials with teachers and community groups and organising evening taster sessions for residents. The Photographers Gallery drew attention to recent community projects that involved working with the Marylebone Bangladeshi society, Soho parish school, deaf artists from the area and others. The Serpentine gallery warns that a 48 per cent. cut will
  "have a serious impact on the Gallery's education programme and the service it can offer to residents … half the children who attend the Saturday Art Club are Westminster children and they have priority … these activities and policies are now in jeopardy."
  In conclusion, I should like to raise three points. First, Westminster is wrong to make damaging, philistine and financially devastating cuts to arts and community organisations. Secondly, it is repugnant to attempt to pin the blame on the cost of asylum seekers to the local community.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: I know the subject to which the hon. Lady is turning. Does she agree that that was a coda to the central problem, which is that the Government had decided to take millions out of Westminster's budget in respect of people who come in for the day as visitors? The figures for several of the institutions that she has mentioned show that, to a great extent, they service people from outside Westminster, rather than purely Westminster people.
  Ms Buck: I have attempted to make it clear that the funding Westminster gives to community organisations is directed to the benefit of local residents and school

  1377
  children, and funds projects involving work with local schools and community groups, so it is not right to make the allegation that the right hon. Gentleman makes.
  As for the right hon. Gentleman's point about cuts in funding to the borough in previous years, he is absolutely correct to say that a change was made to the spending formula in 1997. Westminster objected to that; the council sought and was not refused leave to have a judicial review of that decision. However, that decision was taken in 1997, and the local elections were fought in 1998, after the decision had already been incorporated into the Budget. The manifesto did not say a word about the fact that the council would seek another round of cuts—indeed, the council prided itself on the fact that, thanks to its good housekeeping, it was able to sustain front-line services and maintain a low council tax. However, immediately after the local elections, an axe was taken to community, voluntary and arts organisations.
  To return to the point about asylum seekers, I want to express my anger about the fact that some extremely vulnerable people who have arrived in this country are being blamed for the crisis in arts funding. Although in recent years many London councils have borne too large a part of the financial burden for a matter that should be dealt with at national level, Westminster council knows full well that the new Government are taking several measures to assist central London boroughs, including Westminster, with the cost of asylum seekers. Those measures include an additional £130 million grant to help London boroughs, which was announced before Christmas. The combination of proposals to assist other communities to take a fair share of asylum seekers and the additional money means that it is completely wrong to attempt to pin the blame on asylum seekers. I believe that was a cynical and provocative playing of the race card for which there is no excuse.
  The arts and community groups deserve nothing but praise for the work that they do, and have done, in Westminster and for the campaign of persuasion that they have run in recent months in an attempt to influence the council to change its decision. The London Arts Board and the National Campaign for the Arts should also be commended for their vigorous support at this difficult time. The arts will survive in Westminster because our communities and our institutions are strong, but much damage has been done to both morale and vital services.
  I know that the Minister cannot write me a cheque—although, if he did, I would certainly not tear it up. However, I would be grateful for a sign that he and the Government recognise the value of the arts in the deprived, multicultural Westminster community and that he shares my regret about the damage being done to arts institutions.
  7.41 pm
  The Minister for the Arts (Mr. Alan Howarth): As is her way, my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) has done a service to Londoners and to us all by securing this debate. I am grateful to her for raising the issue of funding for the arts in Westminster, and for speaking with such vigour and strength of feeling.
  I want to place the problems with which the arts have been confronted in Westminster in the context of this Government's policy for the arts. To us, it is a central and
  1378
  welcome responsibility of Government to support the arts. The arts are integral to the quality of our lives, private and public. For the experience of the arts to be accessible to all people, there is an inescapable obligation on Government to act to bring that about. It is a responsibility that falls on both central and local government.
  We have been willing to find the money that the arts need. The settlement we achieved in the comprehensive spending review will put an extra £125 million into the arts over the next three years—the largest increase for a generation at least, and is in stark contrast to the recent history of arts funding in this country. In announcing my Department's funding plans for the next three years, we intend that the Arts Council and the bodies it funds should have greater certainty over the coming period and an unprecedented opportunity to plan strategically.
  Beyond money, we are working to create an environment in which the arts can thrive and satisfy audiences across the country. We want access, as I have said, to ensure that the arts are for the many, not the few. We want excellence, because we believe in it for its own sake. We want education, so that people's enjoyment of the arts is enhanced and because that is our investment in the long-term future of the arts and in the quality of life of our society. We want a healthy arts economy, because it underwrites the rest of our objectives and provides jobs. In the United Kingdom, the creative industries have been growing at about twice the rate of the economy as a whole. They already employ more than 1.4 million people—5 per cent. of the total employed work force.
  All those principles will be enshrined in the funding agreement we are currently preparing with the Arts Council. We are investing on the condition that the recipients of public investment—our partners—share our commitment to excellence and innovation, access for all, education and the creative economy. We believe that the administration of funding for the arts should be cost effective. Accordingly, the Arts Council is restructuring to deliver a better service to arts practitioners. It will be a leaner, more effective organisation. Many of its current responsibilities will be delegated in future to the regional arts boards, bringing funding decisions closer to the people most affected.
  I am happy to be able to tell the House that, in the coming year, the Arts Council and the London Arts Board between them will invest £36 million in Westminster. Like my hon. Friend, however, I am very unhappy about the view that Westminster has taken of its own responsibilities in the coming year.
  Our system of public support for the arts will work as it should only if everyone plays a part. Responsibility must be shared between the Arts Council—in distributing grant-in-aid and lottery funds—the regional arts boards, local authorities and other funders, such as business sponsors and the European Union. One partner cannot retreat in the expectation that others will pick up the tab. Our artistic ecology is fragile. The confluence of funding streams that keeps many precious artistic enterprises afloat is finely balanced: damming just one tributary can be enough to leave them high and dry.
  My hon. Friend will understand that, as Minister for the Arts, I cannot and do not wish to determine local priorities in Westminster or any other authority. If the arm's length principle applies to the way in which the Arts Council and regional arts boards distribute grant-in-aid, it must

  1379
  also apply to local government spending on the arts. The accountability of Westminster city council is to its electors. If the people of Westminster do not believe that their council is getting its priorities right, they can seek to persuade their locally elected representatives to take a different course of action. They can also express their dissatisfaction through the ballot box.
  It has already become clear that cutting funding to arts organisations is not a soft option for a local authority. When damage is gratuitously inflicted on the cultural life of an area, there is a public outcry, both from the artistic community and from local people. So it has been in the case raised by my hon. Friend. Her voice and mine are but additions to the many who have criticised the actions of Westminster city council.
  Trevor Phillips, chair of the London Arts Board, has written eloquently in the Evening Standard of Westminster's lamentable decision, of the joyless, miserable and depressing vision of the chairman of Westminster city council's arts committee, Councillor Harvey Marshall, and of the ugly whiff of bigotry that he detects. Peter Hewitt, chief executive of the Arts Council, has said that he is deeply disappointed by Westminster's actions. The Evening Standard itself, in an editorial, has described Westminster's decision to cut arts funding as one that smacks of Philistinism and narrow-mindedness, and has deplored the damage that Westminster will do to the education of its children.
  I can only agree. Westminster's cuts to arts funding will do damage to arts organisations of high reputation. To name but a few of the hardest hit, we are talking about, as my hon. Friend told us, the orchestra of St. John's Smith Square, the Royal Philharmonic Orchestra, the Photographers' gallery and the Institute of Contemporary Arts. Another is the Serpentine gallery. Westminster's grant to the gallery is spent on education, but it will now be reduced from £58,000 to £28,000. Last year, more than 500 teachers, mostly from Westminster, attended workshops run by the gallery. The gallery runs regular events for three local primary schools. Disabled people attended 12 similar events. The reduction in funding can have only the most serious implications for all those activities.
  That is happening in the heart of our capital city, which is one of the world's great capitals of the arts, attracting artists and performers from within and beyond our shores. London's audiences create the opportunities for London's performers; they treasure and insist upon the public support that is indispensable to the vitality and quality of the arts in London.
  The particular organisations that I have mentioned will have to bear reductions of between 47 and 100 per cent. in their local authority funding. For smaller organisations, cuts of that order can have a devastating, if not terminal, effect. For their larger colleagues, they are still deeply undermining. Twenty-three arts organisations in Westminster are to suffer. Those that will bear lesser cuts to their funding will still be damaged.
  As in the case of the Serpentine gallery, to which I have already referred, so too with Wigmore hall—my hon. Friend described the damage to its educational programme—the Institute of Contemporary Arts, the Photographers' gallery and other organisations,
  1380
  where Westminster's dereliction will hit the activities that put most back into the community, such as arts education. Dr. Nicholas Tate, the chief executive of the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority has said:
  "It has become very clear to us how powerful is the contribution of the arts to a whole range of skills and attitudes that are vital to learning right across the curriculum, and indeed to employability."
  Westminster's schools face many difficulties and challenges. The arts offer to schoolchildren, not just the high fliers but those who are disaffected and see too little prospect for themselves in formal education, a kindling of the imagination and opportunities for personal development, which we should grasp and not reject. It is not some social elite that suffers when the arts are cut, but people—adults and children—who might otherwise have little or no opportunity to experience what the arts have to offer.
  The harm done to individual organisations aggregates into a bleaker picture overall. A community in which those in authority care about its culture, reflecting the values of the people whom they represent, has depth and substance. It has pride and it presents itself proudly to the world. The damage that the authority may do to itself through a cut of £360,000 in investment in arts organisations in the city of Westminster, through discouraging tourists, investors and employers, not to mention the detrimental impact on education, is incalculable.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State negotiated the substantial increase in arts funding during the comprehensive spending review, he did not do so with the intention of filling, in retrospect, the gaps left by local authorities. When we see the Arts Council offering the Serpentine gallery an increased grant of £80,000 in the coming year, while Westminster city council withdraws £58,000; when we see the London Arts Board upping funding to the Unicorn children's theatre by £8,000, while Westminster withdraws £17,000; when we see the way in which funds channelled through my Department are negated by cuts by Westminster, we feel a sense of betrayal.
  We all know that when a local authority sets its budget, some hard choices are inevitable. There are many competing demands for funding, of course. From time to time, funders of arts budgets need to alter patterns of support—perhaps because the management or the artistic output of an organisation is not what it needs to be. But, as my hon. Friends the Members for Regent's Park and Kensington, North and for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) have made clear, there is no persuasive rationale for what is planned by Westminster. It intends to cut the funding of the organisations I have listed by nearly 30 per cent. for no decent reason.
  The chairman of Westminster's arts committee, Councillor Harvey Marshall, has stated that one reason for the cuts is a reduction in central Government support for the council. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) also made that point. I will give the House the facts. The standard spending assessment for Westminster city council—the pot from which arts funding is drawn—has risen by 5.2 per cent. compared with 1998–99. That compares with an average increase for inner London of 4.2 per cent. Overall, the total external support for Westminster will rise from £187.72 million to £192.74 million in the coming year.

  1381
  I turn to the most extremely offensive aspect of what Westminster has done. As my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North told us, Councill or Marshall has stated his view that cuts in the arts are necessary to pay for asylum seekers in the borough. Again, I will set out the facts. Westminster has by no means the largest task among the London boroughs in dealing with the number of asylum seekers needing support. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already responded to pleas from local authorities for more assistance, making an extra £30 million available to support new arrangements for asylum seekers, focusing on London and Dover in particular. Local authorities will be able to recover from Government the costs which fall to them of accommodating and supporting asylum seekers. Those steps have been welcomed by both the Association of London Government and the Local Government Association.
  Councillor Harvey Marshall proposes an equation—more asylum seekers equals less art for Londoners—which should shame the local authority whose arts committee he chairs. The politics of making scapegoats is
  1382
  ugly, nasty and unacceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North expressed her anger about that. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster offered a plea in mitigation, but it will not suffice. He is a thoroughly decent man, and must be as ashamed as any of us of what his Conservative colleagues have said and done.
  It is a relief at least to be able to say that Westminster's attitude towards the arts and its policy are an aberration. They are exceptional. Although there are certainly other authorities where we would welcome stronger support for the arts, and for museums as well, I pay tribute to the many local authorities whose commitment to the arts is unhesitating and strong, and who are actively developing their cultural strategies. Just as joined-up Government is necessary in Whitehall, so it is necessary between central and local government in terms of the arts as in other sectors. I value our partnership at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport with the Local Government Association and with other individual local authorities and look forward to developing it further.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Eight o'clock.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the President of the Council 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. [76824]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Between 2 May 1997 and 28 February 1999, special advisers in my Department have made one visit overseas in an official capacity. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the President of the Council if she will name the Ministers in her Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76181]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the answer my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office gave on 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 651. Neither I nor the Parliamentary Secretary use an electronic box.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Hamilton v Al Fayed Case
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General when he was first notified of(a) the libel claim by Neil Hamilton and (b) the Court of Appeal hearing on appeal from the Queen's Bench Division; when he first responded to Mr. Hamilton's solicitors; when he decided to intervene in the case; when he first notified the House that he was intervening; and for what purpose. [77125]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General was first notified that Mr. Neil Hamilton was pursuing a libel action against Mr. Al Fayed in a letter from Mr. Hamilton's solicitors dated 30 June 1998. A response was sent to Mr. Hamilton's solicitors on 7 July 1998 saying that the Attorney-General did not propose to be represented at the hearing. the Attorney-General was notified that the Court of Appeal had granted leave to Mr. Al Fayed to appeal against the decision of Mr. Justice Popplewell in a letter from Mr. Al Fayed' s Solicitors dated 24 November 1998.

  Following consultations with the House Authorities, the Attorney-General decided to seek to intervene in the action in December 1998. A letter recording that decision was sent to the Clerk to the House on 7 December 1998.
  712
  The purpose of the Attorney-General intervening was to present submissions to the Court of Appeal as to parliamentary privilege, in furtherance of the interests of the House.

  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Attorney-General if he will place in the Library the Solicitor General's skeleton argument and appendices used in the Hamilton v Al Fayed case, together with a transcript of proceedings. [77126]

  The Solicitor-General
  I have arranged for a copy of my skeleton argument, together with its appendices, to be placed in the Library. It is important to note, however, that there were several modifications to the argument when presented orally. I have also placed in the Library a note prepared for the Court on the role of HM Attorney-General as intervenor in these proceedings. I am afraid that a transcript of the proceedings is not available and would take some weeks to prepare and approve. The Court of Appeal has reserved judgment in the matter, but as soon as an approved version of the judgment is available I will arrange for that, too, to be placed in the Library.

  Serious Fraud Office (Secondments)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Attorney-General how many secondments have been arranged in each year since 1995, between staff employed by the Serious Fraud Office and the relevant Financial Services Regulator. [76971]

  The Attorney-General
  No secondments were arranged in 1995. One secondment to a regulator or disciplinary body has been arranged in each subsequent year. In addition, one secondment was arranged prior to 1995 and was in place in 1995, and one secondment to the Financial Control Directorate General of the European Commission took place between 1994 and 1997.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Minister for Science
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on how many occasions the Minister for Science has met officers or representatives of(a) Diatech Ltd., (b) Innotech Ltd., (c) Floranova Ltd., (d) Floranova Service Corp America, (e) Elite Seeds, and (f) Floranova s.a., Costa Rica, since becoming a Minister. [73134]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]I am informed that on no occasion has Lord Sainsbury met with officers or representatives of any of these companies acting in an official capacity since his appointment. I understand that he has met with Christopher Stone of Diatech Ltd. on a number of times on a personal basis, but on no occasion were any aspects of the work or investments of any of the companies placed in the blind trust discussed.

  Kvaerner Govan Yard
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the
  713
  Government's support for shipbuilding in the United Kingdom, with particular reference to the Kvaerner Govan yard. [74881]

  Mr. Battle
  To support the UK shipbuilding industry, I established in July 1998 the Shipbuilding Forum whose membership comprises representatives of the shipbuilding industry, its unions, equipment suppliers and customers, both private and public sector. Also involved are the training organisations and relevant Departments. The Forum's terms of reference from me were to consider the current situation of the shipbuilding industry and how to improve its competitiveness so as to increase its share of the European market, leading to increased output, profitability and employment. The Forum is currently preparing an Implementation Plan which it plans to deliver to me within the next few months. These Recommendations—currently more than 40—are to all the participants, not just to the Government. The Forum believes that these Recommendations will go a long way towards a marked improvement in the fortunes of the UK shipbuilding industry and I look forward to reading their Implementation Plan.

  My Department gives Shipbuilding Intervention Fund grants to eligible UK yards, including Kvaerner Govan, at the maximum level permitted by the European Union's Shipbuilding Regulation and the Scottish Office made an offer to Govan of a grant under the Regional Selective Assistance programme.

  EU Life Patents Directive
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy in respect of the appeal by Italy and the Netherlands to the European Court of Justice against the EU Life Patents Directive. [74827]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 5 March 1999]It is primarily a matter for the Council and European Parliament (as the institutions who adopted the Directive) to lodge the defence against the Netherlands' application seeking to annul Directive 98/44/EC on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions. EU member states had the opportunity to intervene in this case. The Government have carefully considered the terms of the Dutch action before the European Court of Justice and a decision has been taken not to intervene. We do not wish to add anything to the Council's arguments already lodged before the Court in response to the Dutch action.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [75882]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend 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 drafts of Select Committee reports, or parts of reports including their conclusions, before publication. Nor, to the best of my
  714
  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.

  British Exports (Euro)
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions he has had with the European Commission on the impact of the current value of the euro on British exporters. [76253]

  Mr. Byers
  I have had no such discussions.

  Longbridge
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if BMW has applied to his Department for grant to make a new(a) Mini and (b) Rover 35 at Longbridge. [76259]

  Mr. Byers
  (a) No. (b) Yes.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry 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. [76461]

  Mr. Byers
  Appointments made to my Department's public bodies since 1 November 1998 are shown on the attached tables with their positions and an indication of whether they receive remuneration.

  Department of Trade and Industry appointments to public bodies from 1 November 1998

  Public body and name of appointee

  Position

  Remuneration

  Biotechnology and Biological Science Research Council

  Dr. John Padfield

  Member

  Yes

  Coal Authority

  Eric Hassall

  Deputy Chairman

  Yes

  Malcolm Edwards

  Executive Member

  No

  Albert Schofield

  Executive Member

  No

  Design Council

  Hamish Brice

  Member

  No

  Penny Egan

  Member

  No

  Dick Powell

  Member

  No

  Sir William Stubbs

  Member

  No

  Roy Williams

  Member

  No

  Hearing Aid Council

  Alan Rudge

  Member

  Yes

  Gillian Booth

  Member

  Yes

  Janice Barnett

  Member

  Yes

  Monopolies and Mergers commission

  Professor J. Beatson

  Member

  Yes

  David Jenkins

  Member

  Yes

  Roger Munson

  Member

  Yes

  Linda Christmas

  Newspaper Panellist

  Yes

  Professor Donald Trelford

  Newspaper Panellist

  Yes

  Charles Wilson

  Newspaper Panellist

  Yes

  Sarwar Ahmed

  Newspaper Panellist

  Yes

  William Gibson

  Newspaper Panellist

  Yes

  Gerald Holbrook

  Newspaper Panellist

  Yes

  Joyce Hopkirk

  Newspaper Panellist

  Yes

  Eve Pollard

  Newspaper Panellist

  Yes

  Gill Owen

  Newspaper Panellist

  Yes

  G. H. Stacy

  Member

  Yes

  715

  Department of Trade and Industry appointments to public bodies from 1 November 1998

  Public body and name of appointee

  Position

  Remuneration

  National Consumer Council

  David Hatch

  Chairman

  Yes

  Persons Hearing Consumer Credit Licensing Appeals

  Nicholas Baxter

  Member

  Yes

  John Bridge

  Member

  Yes

  Persons Hearing Consumer Credit Licensing Appeals (continued)

  William Cran

  Member

  Yes

  Alexander Dalglish

  Member

  Yes

  Anthony Sharp

  Member

  Yes

  Post Office User's National Council

  Robin Aaronson

  Member

  No

  Elizabeth Stanton Jones

  Member

  No

  Janet Langdon

  Member

  No

  Paul Calderwood

  Member

  No

  Clara Arokiasamy

  Member

  No

  David Lane

  Member

  No

  Sheila Hoyle

  Member

  No

  John Fryer

  Member

  No

  Edward Vidler

  Member

  No

  Gary Hepburn

  Member

  No

  Post Office User's Council for Scotland

  Dr. Tom Begg

  Chairman

  Yes

  Peter Jeary

  Member

  No

  Henry Johnson

  Member

  No

  Dr Sylvia Hopwood

  Member

  No

  Post Office User's Council for Wales

  Richard Edwards

  Member

  No

  John Davies

  Member

  No

  David Williams-Masinda

  Member

  No

  Michael Marritt

  Member

  No

  Scottish Consumer Council

  Yvonne Gallagher

  Member

  Yes

  Dr. Alex Wright

  Member

  Yes

  Andrew Raven

  Member

  Yes

  Jeremy Mitchell

  Chairman

  Yes

  Alastair Robertson

  Member

  No

  Simpler Trade Procedures Board (SITPRO)

  N. H. Rose

  Member

  No

  S. Probert

  Member

  No

  D. E. Wakeford, MBE

  Member

  No

  A. W. Russell

  Member

  No

  UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA)

  Stan Gordelier

  Executive Member

  Yes

  Welsh Advisory Committee on Telecommunications

  Karen Counsell

  Member

  No

  Jon Simonds

  Member

  No

  Richard Edwards

  Member

  No

  Warren Ward

  Member

  No

  Ian Lebbon

  Member

  No

  London and South East Regional Development Board

  David Langford

  Member

  No

  Tushar Raja

  Member

  No

  North West Industrial Development Board

  Raymond Armstrong

  Member

  No

  Kirit Pathak

  Member

  No

  South West Industrial Development Board

  Neville Gibson

  Member

  No

  Brian Sherwin

  Member

  No

  Barbara Speirs

  Member

  No

  Yorkshire, The Humber and East Midlands Industrial Development Board

  Neil Adnitt

  Member

  No

  Tony Berryman

  Member

  No

  Human Genetics
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the members of the working group of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority that recently considered issues relating to human cloning; if he will list in the case of each of those members the outside interests that were declared; and if he will indicate which of those members have academic qualifications in(a) ethics, (b) psychology, (c) philosophy and (d) sociology. [76240]

  Mr. Battle
  The members of the joint working group were nominated by the Human Genetics Advisory Commission (HGAC) and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The group was chaired by the Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne (HGAC). It also comprised Dr. George Poste (HGAC), Professor Christine Gosden (HFEA) and Dr. Anne McLaren (HFEA).

  All members of the HFEA and HGAC, whose membership covers a wide range of experience and backgrounds including ethicists, psychologists, philosophers and sociologists, made full contributions to the report and approved it in its final form for publication.

  The declarations of interest of all members of the HGAC and HFEA are available for public inspection in accordance with, "Quangos—Opening the Doors", Cabinet Office Guidance (June 1998). Full details of members' academic qualifications are not held centrally, and will not indicate all relevant experience. Requested information held for members of the working group is as follows:

  Reverend Dr. John Polkinghorne KBE FRS
  Chairman, Advisory Committee on Genetic Testing. Member of the General Synod and the Board of Social Responsibility of the Church of England, Fellow of the Royal Society, Past President of Queens' College Cambridge.

  Dr. George Poste CBE FRS
  Chief Science and Technology Officer, SmithKline Beecham Plc. Fellow of the Royal Society, Board member, SmithKline Beecham Plc, Non-Executive Chairman, Cerebrus Holdings Plc, Non-Executive Chairman, DiaDexus (USA).

  Professor Christine Gosden
  Professor of Medical Genetics, University of Liverpool, Liverpool Women's Hospital. Past chair of the MRC Unit's Ethical Committee.

  Dr. Anne McLaren DBE FRS
  Principal Research Associate, Wellcome CRC Institute, Cambridge. Member of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics and the European Commission's Group of Expert Advisers on Ethics.

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to respond to the report on human cloning from the working group of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. [76238]

  Mr. Battle
  The Government are giving careful consideration to the report of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, "Cloning Issues in Reproduction Science and Medicine", and will publish its response as soon as possible.
  717
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry with effect from what date Sir Colin Campbell resigned as Chairman of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission; and what reasons he gave for his resignation. [76236]

  Mr. Battle
  Sir Colin Campbell resigned as Chairman of the Human Genetics Advisory Commission on 5 February 1999, as he was anticipating non-executive responsibilities with a major insurance company, and in case HGAC should in future return to consider genetics and insurance wished to remove himself from any possible future conflict of interest.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the review of the Assisted Areas map and the timing of its conclusions. [76666]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]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.

  Unfair Dismissal
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made of the annual additional number of claims for unfair dismissal that will be made as a result of the reduction in the length of the qualifying period of employment to one year. [76669]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]We shall be publishing estimates in the Regulatory Impact Assessment once the order has been laid before Parliament.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate he has made for(a) small and medium enterprises and (b) larger companies of the average cost resulting from an employee taking maternity leave. [76674]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]The cost to an employer from an employee taking maternity leave will depend on many factors, most significantly, how many weeks of maternity leave are taken and what the employee's length of service is.

  Minimum Wage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of the minimum wage on organisations which offer board and lodging as part of their remuneration package. [75577]

  Mr. Byers
  The impact of the national minimum wage on organisations which provide board and lodgings as part of their remuneration package will vary in the light of their particular circumstances.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Foreign Language Broadcasting
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations he has received on the provision of foreign language broadcasting in the United Kingdom(a) on television and (b) on radio; and if he will make a statement. [72628]

  Janet Anderson
  The Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority license a number of channels which provide foreign language services to UK audiences. The television channels are available on the satellite and cable medium, whilst the radio channels are aimed at local audiences.

  My Department has not received any representations on the provision of foreign language broadcasting in the UK for either television or radio where the target audience is principally within the UK. I have received several representations in respect of foreign language satellite television stations broadcasting from within the UK but aimed primarily at audiences abroad.

  I am writing to the hon. Member with details of the licensed services and will place copies of my reply in the Libraries of the House.

  Wembley Stadium
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) when the contract to establish the Wembley Trust with the FA and the English Sports Council will be announced; [75852]

  (2) how much money has been spent on the purchase of Wembley plc by (a) the English Sports Council and (b) the Government. [75853]

  Mr. Banks
  Lottery funding of £120 million has been awarded by the English Sports Council towards the purchase of the existing Wembley stadium from Wembley plc, and its reconstruction as a National Stadium for football, rugby league and athletics. No Government funding has been provided.

  The English National Stadium Development Company is responsible for taking reconstruction work forward. The English National Stadium Trust, which already exists as a charitable company limited by guarantee, will act as a watchdog for the public interests in the project.

  The Wembley sale was finalised on 15 March. We now have a firm foundation from which to drive the National Stadium project forward which is great news for the 2006 World Cup bid, and our efforts to bring major international sporting events to this country.

  Millennium Experience
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will announce the ticket prices for the Millennium Experience at Greenwich. [78042]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company (NMEC) has today announced the pricing structure for entrance to the Millennium Experience at
  719
  Greenwich. This includes attractive discounts for families and groups. I have placed the full text of the NMEC's News Release in the Libraries of the House.

  Prices for the Millennium Experience at the Dome were confirmed as:

  £

  Group rates

  'Family Five' ticket: (2 adults + 3 children or 1 adult + 4 children)

  57.00 (@ 11.40 each)

  Senior Citizens Groups (of 15 or more)

  12.00 each

  Adult Groups (of 15 or more)

  17.50 each

  Individual rates

  Single adult

  20.00 each

  Children under 5

  Free of charge

  Children ages 5 to 15 inclusive

  16.50 each

  Student card holders

  16.50 each

  Senior Citizens

  18.00 each

  JS40 holders

  12.00 each

  Education rates

  Student group/college group visits

  14.50 each

  School visits (all ages)

  8.00 each

  Education Tours Scheme for Schools (ages 8 to 16)

  1Free of charge

  1 As part of the NMEC's pricing strategy up to 1 million free tickets will be made available for children through the Education Tours Scheme for schools

  The NMEC has announced the prices seven months ahead of tickets going on sale to the public to allow the travel industry to finalise its prices. The NMEC is also in detailed negotiations with rail and coach operators about discounted travel to the Dome. National Express coach operators have confirmed that they are proposing to offer, subject to negotiation, a discount travel deal offering a combined return coach ticket and admission to the Dome for £29.99 from anywhere in England, Scotland or Wales.

  The Government agree with the NMEC that these prices represent value for money and will enable the Company to achieve its forecast 12 million visitors to what will be the largest concentration of educational, inspirational and entertaining attractions under one roof anywhere in the world during 2000.

  Athletics
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proposals he has for the World Class Performance Programme for the United Kingdom's top athletes. [78043]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The Sports Cabinet met for the second time on Wednesday last week and decided on a package of Lottery support to back our top sportsmen and women.

  The Government will shortly lay before Parliament an Order which will make the UK Sports Council a Lottery distributor and earmark a percentage of the Lottery Sports Fund for them to distribute for the UK's best sportsmen and women for them to train and prepare for competition.

  A joint scheme has already been pioneered by the four Sports Councils for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
  720
  This decision builds on that scheme and its success, makes a strong commitment to future funding, and, for the first time, ensures that the top UK athletes from whatever part of the country are backed by a single unified and well run scheme.

  Regular and independent reports to Ministers and to the UK Sports Council on the way the money is being spent, and its effectiveness in helping the UK's top athletes to maximise their potential and achieve sporting success, and in bringing medals and championship titles to the UK, will be built in from the outset.

  This programme will be closely linked to the development of the UK Sports Institute. The Government has already announced the new direction it is giving with more of the Institute's facilities built throughout the country where athletes actually want to live and train, and a strategic Headquarters to co-ordinate services and set standards across the national network.

  As a consequence, the balance of expenditure between Headquarters and regions will change with more being spent on the regional facilities in line with the results of wide consultation of athletes and governing bodies which the Sports Councils have carried out, and the required funding for capital work on the Headquarters building being accordingly substantially reduced. The Headquarters will concentrate on its crucial role of oversight of the provision of the best in sports science and medicine, and quality assurance of the network sites, and will now be the direct responsibility of the UK Sports Council.

  In line with that policy, Ministers have now decided that greater emphasis should be placed on training and preparation programmes. The proposed Order will earmark a percentage of Lottery funding, which should generate £20.5 million for the World Class Performance and Events Programmes.

  Within this sum of Lottery funding, it is expected that the UK Sports Council should have about £2 million annually to help attract to and stage major sporting events in this country. The Sports Cabinet sees a close link between these programmes. They will both benefit all parts of the UK fairly, where close joint working is needed if we are to succeed on the international scene—and the best possible place for a top performance is in front of an enthusiastic home crowd against the best world competition.

  These two programmes will be closely co-ordinated with the work of the four Home Country Sports Councils, who will continue to back excellence in sports which compete separately as England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and in helping to identify and support up-and-coming talent.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Immigration and Nationality Directorate
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of applicants' passports held at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate awaiting a decision; what arrangements he will make for temporary travel documents to be issued for those whose applications are
  721
  delayed as a result of reorganisation at IND; and what proposals he has for offering compensation to those who are disadvantaged as a result of the delays. [76615]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate has estimated the approximately 22,000 passports are currently being held. Travel Documents will be issued only to people who have valid leave to remain in the United Kingdom. It is, therefore, not possible to issue documents where an application for leave remains outstanding, although passports will be returned to applicants when they need to travel. Compensation will

  Year

  Number of SIDs in prisons of persons aged under 21 years

  Number of SIDs in remand centres of persons aged under 21 years

  Number of SIDs in young offender institutions of persons aged under 21 years

  Total number of SIDs

  Number of SIDs of prisoners aged under 21 years

  1988

  8

  —

  1

  37

  9

  1989

  9

  1

  2

  48

  12

  1990

  5

  3

  2

  50

  10

  1991

  1

  —

  4

  42

  5

  1992

  1

  2

  4

  41

  7

  1993

  1

  1

  1

  47

  3

  1994

  6

  3

  1

  62

  10

  1995

  4

  2

  2

  59

  8

  1996

  5

  1

  6

  64

  12

  1997

  —

  4

  5

  68

  9

  1998

  6

  3

  5

  83

  14

  SIDs—self-inflicted deaths

  Notes:

  1. Establishments have been categorised according to their main role only. Establishments that have more than one role have been placed in the category that represents their primary function (i.e. Doncaster is a local prison which also holds a significant number of young offenders).

  2. Not all self-inflicted deaths conclude with a verdict of suicide.

  Thomas Tangney
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons Thomas Tangney was considered suitable for transfer to Ford Open Prison. [77321]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Mr. Tangney met the criteria which need to be satisfied before a transfer to open prison conditions takes place. These criteria were set out in my reply to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 11 March 1999,Official Report, column 332. The decision to transfer Mr. Tangney to open prison conditions was taken by Ministers on the recommendation of the Parole Board in line with normal practice in these cases.

  Europol
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 267–68, if the National Criminal Intelligence Service can access the Schengen Information System without the unanimous agreement of the Schengen states. [77165]

  Kate Hoey
  Direct access to the Schengen Information System (SIS) by the National Criminal Intelligence Service and other law enforcement agencies could be secured only if the United Kingdom was a member of the SIS. The SIS is part of the Schengen acquis, which will be incorporated into the European Union on the entry into force of the Treaty of Amsterdam. In accordance with 722
  be paid only in cases of maladministration where the costs are reasonable and have been actually and necessarily incurred: each case will be treated on its merits.

  Suicides (Prisons)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many suicides there have been in prisons, remand centres and youth detention centres in each of the last 10 years; and how many were of persons under the age of 21 years. [76936]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The information is given in the table.

  Article 4 of the Schengen Protocol, any request by the United Kingdom to take part in some or all of the existing provisions of the Schengen acquis is subject to the agreement of the thirteen Schengen states. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary stated in his reply to the right hon. Member on 12 March 1999, Official Report, columns 380–82, the SIS is one of the areas of the acquis in which the United Kingdom intends to seek participation.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 10 March 1999,Official Report, columns 267–68, what initial increased use of Europol facilities and sharing of information has taken place since the signing of the Treaty of Amsterdam. [77166]

  Kate Hoey
  Although the Treaty of Amsterdam was signed on 2 October 1997, it has not yet been ratified by all member states. It is not therefore in force.

  As I indicated in my reply of 10 March 1999, Official Report, columns 267–68, Europol has not yet taken up its full range of activities. Increased use is generally being made of the Europol Drugs Unit (EDU). In 1997, the EDU handled a total of 2,608 requests for information from member states' law enforcement agencies, compared with 2,053 requests in 1996. Of these, 984 requests (453 in 1996) emanated from the United Kingdom, channelled through the National Criminal Intelligence Service on behalf of United Kingdom law enforcement agencies. In 1998, the United Kingdom was the second largest user of the information exchange facilities provided by the EDU.
  723
  From a total of 2,298 requests for information, 394 originated in the United Kingdom. The majority of requests relate to illegal trafficking.

  New Prison, Peterborough
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) when he expects to make an announcement about his proposal to build a new prison in Peterborough; [77446]

  (2) on whose authority labour councillors in Peterborough have been informed that an announcement on a proposed new prison in Peterborough will be delayed until after the European election in June. [77447]

  Mr. George Howarth
  I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions expects to determine within the next three weeks the Prison Service's appeal against Peterborough City Council's refusal to grant planning permission for the construction of a new prison in Peterborough. I am not aware that any information about that decision has been given to local councillors.

  "Jailbirds: Through the Gates"
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if each of the prisoners appearing in the BBC1 documentary, Jailbirds: Through the Gates, on 15 March, had individually given permission to be filmed; and if he will make a statement. [77463]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Yes. Prisoners individually featured in the programme gave their written consent. Prisoners were warned, where possible, prior to filming taking place and all prisoners were given the opportunity not to appear.

  Asylum and Immigration Appeals
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will pay compensation to those whose applications to the Immigration and Nationality Department have been delayed by the failure to operate the full casework information technology application and changeover to the new system. [76442]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We very much regret the current delays to applications being considered in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. It has always been our practice to consider making ex gratia payments in individual cases where applicants are able to demonstrate, with full supporting evidence, that they have actually and necessarily incurred additional costs.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 16 February 1999,Official Report, column 651, what has been the extent of the temporary reduction in service standards and numbers of casework decisions in the Immigration and Nationality Department; and when he expects the full casework information technology application to be operational and the previous throughput of casework to be achieved. [76441]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The temporary reduction in service standards does not apply to all areas in the new Directorate. The Public Caller Unit, for example, has been able to maintain productivity throughout the 724
  reorganisation, and indeed it is now exceeding previous productivity rates. However, in other areas there has been a fairly significant reduction in service and productivity during the months of January and February, when we were moving offices. Now that much of the move has been made, the position is improving: productivity has been rising and we are mounting special exercises to target priority cases such as work permits. Our aim is to reach the levels of throughput previously achieved within a few weeks.

  In recent discussions with my officials, Siemens Business Services have maintained that the revised schedule for introduction of the full Information Technology solution will be achieved. This would mean pilot implementation beginning in the summer with roll-out being completed early next year.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the extra time applicants are having to wait for the Immigration and Nationality Department to resolve their cases as a result of the failure to operate the full casework information technology application. [76443]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The disruption caused by the reorganisation of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) has meant some temporary delay in the processing of cases, particularly during the months of January and February. The position is improving: productivity has been rising and we are mounting special exercises to target priority cases. In the majority of straight forward cases, the delay is now a matter of weeks only. The expectation is that the situation will continue to improve.

  We do, however, recognise that there is a large backlog of IND cases, the great majority preceding the reorganisation. There are, for example, currently 104,356 cases in IND' s central Work in Progress Store, many of which are over five years old. Our plans for dealing with this backlog are set out in the Government's White Paper "Fairer, Faster and Firmer—A Modern Approach to Immigration and Asylum".

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Packaging Industry
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he is proposing to tackle the devices used by companies to avoid making contributions under the packaging waste regulations; and if he will make a statement. [76382]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency and the Scottish Environment Protection Agency have a duty to monitor compliance with the packaging Regulations. In the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 335–37, I welcomed the efforts being made by the Agencies to strengthen their enforcement programmes and I understand that the Environment Agency has started the process for taking proceedings against a number of companies which failed to register in 1998.
  725
  I also said that I would be asking the Agencies to publish their monitoring programmes and report half-yearly as to the number, size and sector of businesses checked for registration, data provision and for compliance with the recovery and recycling obligations.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received over his proposed changes to the share out of the percentage activity obligations within the packaging industry; and what plans he has to review the percentages. [76383]

  Mr. Meacher
  As I stated in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) on 28 January 1999,Official Report, columns 335–37, my Department will very shortly be issuing a consultation document on the proposed changes to the percentage activity obligations. All responses to the document will then be taken into consideration.

  Urban Parish Councils
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many urban parish councils he has approved within the boundaries of unitary councils; if he will list the council areas concerned; and if he will make a statement on the statutory powers given to the urban parish councils. [76619]

  Ms Armstrong
  Under the Local Government and Rating Act 1997, the Secretary of State has approved 8 new parishes within unitary authority areas: Allerton Bywater, and Horsforth in Leeds; Southsea in Portsmouth; Beverley, and Cottingham in the East Riding of Yorkshire; Headland in Hartlepool; East Cowes on the Isle of Wight; and Mossley in Tameside. Using the Department's standard statistical definition of urban areas and population from the 1991 census, with the exception of Allerton Bywater, all the new parishes can be defined as urban. These parishes have the same statutory powers as any other parish council.

  Telecommunications Developments
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what guidance his Department has issued to planning authorities about their consideration of new telecommunications developments and the controls which they have over their siting. [76628]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Planning policy guidance on telecommunications development is set out in Planning Policy Guidance note 8 (revised December 1992), supplemented by Appendix E to DoE Circular 9/95 and by the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning on 4 November 1997,Official Report, columns 152–53. Copies of that answer were circulated to local planning authorities at that time. In addition, my Department has published in March 1996 a Code of Best Practice for local planning authorities and telecommunications code system operators on telecommunications prior approval procedures as applied to mast/tower development. We intend to consult shortly on draft guidance to accompany the changes to the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted
  726
  Development) Order 1995 announced by my right hon. Friend in a written answer on 16 November 1998, Official Report, columns 343–44.

  Public Rights of Way
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to announce proposals to extend access to the countryside for horse riders, cyclists and recreational vehicles; and if he will make a statement. [76613]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government's "Framework for Action" for improving access to the countryside, which I announced to the House on 8 March 1999,Official Report, columns 21–33, comprises a package of measures intended to benefit all those who enjoy informal recreation in the countryside. Horse riders, cyclists and users of recreational vehicles gain access mainly through the rights of way network and the improvements proposed to the network will therefore be of particular interest to them. We are keeping their interests in mind in developing detailed proposals.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many civil servants in his Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76809]

  Mr. Meale
  As the Secretaries of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, for Trade and Industry, and for Education and Employment share responsibility for the Government Offices in England, this answer also covers the Government Offices.

  The following numbers of staff in DETR(C) and its Agencies, and in the Government Offices, have signed an agreement to disapply the 48 hour limit:

  Number of staff

  DETR(C)

  37

  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency

  28

  Driving Standards Agency

  0

  Highways Agency

  10

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  1

  Planning Inspectorate

  1

  Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre

  49

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  0

  Vehicle Inspectorate

  0

  Government Office for the East of England

  0

  Government Office for the East Midlands

  3

  Government Office for London

  1

  Government Office for the North East

  0

  Government Office for the North West

  4

  Government Office for the South East

  3

  Government Office for the South West

  0

  Government Office for the West Midlands

  3

  Government Office for Yorkshire and the Humber

  7

  1 Currently ten staff are discussing whether there are sound operational reasons to sign a waiver

  727
  The standard terms and conditions of service for staff are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations 1998. The Regulations do not require employers to keep records of the number of workers who refuse to sign an opt-out agreement and therefore no central records have been kept. Compliance costs are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Waste Paper Processing
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the implications of the High Court judgment of November 1998 on the dispute between the Environment Agency and Mayer Parry Recycling Ltd.; and if he will make contact with representatives of the waste paper processing industry on this matter. [76968]

  Mr. Meale
  A statement on the High Court judgment in the Mayer Parry case, which took account of judgments by the European Court of Justice, was issued by the Environment Agency on 16 November 1998. As matters stand, we do not have anything to add to that statement. We have no plans to make contact with the waste paper processing industry on this matter but we are considering representations which this industry has made about the implications of the judgment.

  "A New Deal for Transport"
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has(a) to approve and (b) to initiate developments relating to airports before the completion of the economic impact studies covering airports and air services announced in "A New Deal for Transport"; and if he will make a statement. [76986]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Airport development is promoted by developers through the normal planning process, though major schemes will usually be decided by the Secretary of State following a public inquiry. Airports projects for which planning applications have already been made, or are expected to be made shortly, will not be within the scope of the Regional Air Services studies, because it would cause duplication and delay if we were to study projects which are being considered in the land use planning system at the same time; the study will therefore examine a range of scenarios based on those projects either going ahead or not going ahead, and will concentrate on strategic medium and long term issues.

  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what progress has been made on the study of the economic impact of regional airports and regional air services announced in "A New Deal for Transport"; when these studies will be completed in the(a) North of England, (b) Midlands and (c) South West; and if he will make a statement. [76985]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The studies of regional airports and air services in the North of England, Midlands and South West announced in the "A New Deal for Transport" White Paper have all now been commissioned and are expected to report in the summer. In line with our White Paper commitments, each study will include an examination of the link between air services, economic growth and regeneration in the regions concerned. In 728
  accordance with our integrated transport policy, the studies will also consider surface access to the airports concerned.

  Mercury Pollution
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of(a) the level of mercury pollution in groundwater, (b) its source and (c) the remedial action needed. [76952]

  Mr. Meale
  Environment Agency monitoring of groundwater has not shown concentrations above the analytical detection limit, and mercury is generally not present in groundwater. However, there may be sites where processes using mercury (including parts of the millinery and electrical industries) have resulted in contamination, with consequent risks to groundwater, although mercury contamination from such sites would not be widespread. The Groundwater Regulations 1998 prohibit the discharge of mercury to groundwater, and provide for controls over activities which might result in the discharge of mercury to groundwater.

  Air Rage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many incidents classified as air rage there have been on UK carriers in each year since 1990; and if he will make a statement. [76949]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Under the Mandatory Occurrence Report Scheme currently established by article 106 of the Air Navigation (No. 2) Order 1995, the commander of a UK registered or operated aircraft must report to the Civil Aviation Authority any incident"endangering, or if not corrected would endanger, the aircraft, its occupants or any other person".

  The CAA's MORS database does not have a classification of "air rage" and it is therefore not possible to provide the figures requested. However, we have recently reviewed the 1997 MORS reports relating to passenger behaviour. This revealed some 88 incidents of disruptive behaviour by passengers which had actual or potential safety implications. Of these, some 24 incidents involved physical violence or the need by the crew to restrain a passenger.

  It is because of the lack of accurate information on the scale of the problem that we have established a new system for airlines to report to the CAA all incidents of disruptive behaviour by passengers on board UK aircraft. The first figures from this new reporting system should be available later this year.

  Leasehold Reform
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many responses he has received to his consultation document on leasehold reform; and if he will publish them. [77123]

  Mr. Raynsford
  We had received 643 responses to the consultation paper by the requested date of Friday 12 March, and we are likely to receive some additional late ones. All responses will be made available to the
  729
  public, barring those which we have been asked to treat as confidential. We will announce the arrangements for their inspection in due course.

  Waste Incinerators
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what incentives the Government are providing to increase the use of waste incinerators. [75962]

  Mr. Meale
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]The Government are considering the role of waste incinerators with energy recovery as part of the review of the waste strategy for England and Wales. Their consultation paper Less Waste: More Value published in June 1998 said:
  The Government's view is that, alongside a move to a higher level of recycling, a move to a higher level of incineration with energy recovery is necessary over the next 10–15 years in order to move to a more sustainable waste management system.

  They also sought views on this approach and asked how the role of energy recovery as part of an integrated approach to waste management could be enhanced.

  A draft of the new waste strategy which takes into account the responses to the consultation document will be published later in the spring.

  Buses (Access)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what discussions he has had with bus manufacturers on the development of buses to provide improved facilities for(a) elderly and (b) disabled people. [77274]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Manufacturers have been closely involved throughout the process of developing standards for accessible buses. Meetings have taken place with a cross section of representatives of industry and with individual bus manufacturers on both technical and operational matters. An informal consultation on regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to require improved access to buses and coaches took place in 1998, and a formal consultation on the draft regulations is planned for this year.

  The regulations will progressively require a lower first step height, provision for wheelchair users and other passengers with a wide range of disabilities, starting in January 2000. End dates are also being proposed for all regulated buses and coaches to ensure that over a reasonable timescale they all become fully accessible.

  Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to announce his response to the Countryside Commission's report on the future funding and management of Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty. [77272]

  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects to make a decision about the future status and management of the South Downs. [77313]
  730
  Mr. Meale
  We are still looking carefully at the issues dealt with in the Countryside Commission's advice relating both to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty generally and to the South Downs in particular. We hope to announce some conclusions soon.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the(a) borrowings and (b) borrowing limits of each local authority for each year for which figures are available since 1990. [77440]

  Ms Armstrong
  The latest information on levels of debt outstanding for each local authority in England relates to 31 March 1997. I have today placed this information in the Library of the House. Information for earlier years could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Under Part IV of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, local authorities may borrow for any purpose relevant to their statutory functions. Their total liabilities in respect of outstanding borrowing and other forms of credit must not exceed their Aggregate Credit Limit. The main effect is that authorities may borrow for capital expenditure up to the amount of the credit approvals issued to them by the Government. They may also undertake very limited temporary borrowing for revenue purposes. The Aggregate Credit Limit changes frequently and figures are not collected centrally.

  Heathrow (Terminal 5)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects the public inquiry on Heathrow's proposed Terminal 5 to reach a decision. [77310]

  Mr. Caborn
  The public inquiry closed on 17 March and the Inspector has said that he expects to take up to two years to produce his report. The Secretary of State will need to give the report full consideration before reaching a decision.

  Planning
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many representations he has received from hon. Members concerning planning matters in 1999. [77309]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Comprehensive information is not available in the form requested and could not be provided except at disproportionate cost.

  Green Belt (Leicestershire)
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many acres of Green Belt there were in Leicestershire at the latest available date. [77311]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There is no designated Green Belt land in Leicestershire.

  Bengal Tigers
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment
  731
  he made during his visit to India of the prospects for the future of the Bengal tigers and the steps India is taking to protect them. [75690]

  Mr. Prescott
  During my visit to India I addressed the Millennium Tiger Conference and, as a guest of the Indian Government, visited Ranthambore Tiger Reserve where tiger numbers are slowly recovering as a result of positive protection and co-operation to meet the needs of local people.

  I was impressed by the clear commitment to tiger conservation shown by the Indian Government and in particular, by Suresh Prabhu, the Indian Environment Minister, and Director of Project Tiger, Mr. P. K. Sen. However, in spite of their efforts, and those of many committed Indian officials, reserve wardens and NGOs, tigers in India still face serious threats. These are set down in the Millennium Tiger Conference's final communiqué and include the loss of habitat to large scale development projects; habitat degradation from livestock grazing and increased human population; and poaching to supply the continuing demand for tiger body parts.

  The Conference agreed to address these by recommending that land use policies recognise the importance of tiger habitats and that revenues from Protected Areas be reinvested in tiger conservation. The meeting also emphasised the importance of improving legislation and strengthening enforcement. The Declaration calls for more effort from consumer countries in controlling domestic trade in tiger parts and derivatives, an issue that the CITES Tiger Missions, launched in London by my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Fatchett), will pursue when visiting range states including India, and consuming countries such as Japan, in the early summer.

  Whilst in India, I announced the UK's intention to join the Global Tiger Forum, together with a new grant of £50,000 to go towards enforcement work in India and an Indonesian project to protect the Sumatran tiger. This brings the UK's total contribution to tiger conservation to £200,000 over the past two years.

  Oceans (Environmental Protection)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on his discussion with Vice-President Gore about protecting the world's oceans. [75692]

  Mr. Prescott
  During Vice-President Gore's visit to London on Saturday 30 January 1999, we discussed protection of oceans. I stressed to him the opportunity offered by this year's consideration of oceans and seas by the UN Commission on Sustainable Development to make progress both on the protection of the world's marine environments and the way in which the UN system handles the issue.

  Housing Policy Green Paper
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if the Housing Policy Green Paper will consult on proposals to help homeless people; and if he will make a statement; [77303]
  732
  (2) when he expects to publish the Housing Policy Green Paper; and if he will make a statement. [77304]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Housing Policy Green Paper will be published later this year. It will consult on a number of proposals to help meet our objective to offer everyone including homeless people the opportunity of a decent home.

  As I indicated in my earlier reply to a Question from my hon. Friend on 1 March 1999, Official Report, columns 519–20, we intend to consult widely on any proposals for strengthening the assistance and protection available to homeless people but no date has been set for completion of the necessary consideration of the steps that might be taken in this respect.

  Travellers (Millennium Celebrations)
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) if his Department, in conjunction with the Ministry of Defence, will carry out an audit of sites within the ownership of the Crown which could be made available for the temporary encampment of travellers over the period of Christmas 1999 and the millennium celebrations; [77478]

  (2) how many authorised sites for travellers exist within England and Wales large enough to accommodate more than 150 caravans and several hundred people over the period of Christmas 1999 and the millennium celebrations; [77477]

  (3) what arrangements are in hand within his Department, the Home Office and the Welsh Office jointly to identify sites which could offer temporary provision for large gatherings of travellers over the period of Christmas 1999 and the millennium celebrations; [77476]

  (4) what arrangements his Department and the Welsh Office have made to use (a) the National Gypsy Council and (b) other bodies to ensure that travelling families are made aware of facilities that the Government propose to make available to travellers over the period of Christmas 1999 and the millennium celebrations. [77475]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are over 300 authorised local authority Gypsy caravan sites in England and Wales although we know of none which would accommodate more than 150 caravans. My Department does not hold data on the capacity of privately owned Gypsy caravan sites. The Government have no plans to make Crown land available specifically for Gypsies and Travellers proposing to celebrate the millennium.

  My Department and the Home Office have recently published joint good practice advice for local authorities and the police for managing unauthorised camping by travellers generally. The good practice was developed with the assistance of a number of groups representing Gypsy/Traveller interests, including the National Gypsy Council.

  We want local authorities and the police to develop joint protocols to ensure proper and sensitive management of traveller encampments, including effective handling of any problems of crime and disorder which may arise particularly with large encampments. As part of this exercise, local authorities should be identifying acceptable stopping places for travellers.
  733
  The Home Office are also undertaking a series of visits to local authorities to ensure their preparedness to deliver emergency planning responsibilities over the period of the millennium celebrations. Areas under consideration include the management of serious public disorder resulting from large gatherings of people, irrespective of whether Travellers are involved or not.

  Floorcoverings Classifications
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on the request by the British Carpet Manufacturers Association for a delay in making a decision on the European Classifications of Floorcoverings for reaction to fire. [77298]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The decision on the reaction to fire for floorcoverings was postponed in December 1998 to permit consultation with industry and will be tabled again in April 1999. In the meantime, I have met the British Carpet Manufacturers Association and they are aware that a further delay is unlikely to be supported by the European Commission or other Member States.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Running Costs
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), representing the House of Commons Commission, what was the annual cost of running the House of Commons in each of the last five years; and what was the cost excluding major new building work for the latest available period. [76937]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The administrative cost of running the House of Commons is given in the table.

  Costs of running the House of Commons 1993–98

  £000

  Vote

  1993–94

  1994–95

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  Administration

  62,738

  65,302

  68,190

  68,290

  72,878

  Works

  23,762

  26,497

  28,416

  31,900

  35,068

  Sub Total

  86,500

  91.799

  96,606

  100,190

  107,946

  Porticullis House

  7,662

  6,292

  15,633

  30,002

  37,281

  Total

  94,162

  98,091

  112,239

  130,192

  145,227

  Figures are outturn figures. This excludes the cost of the pay and allowances of Members of Parliament.

  Early-day Motions
  Mr. Butterfill
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what, in each of the three most recent years for which figures are available, were(a) the total costs relating to early day motions and (b) the average cost of the reprinting of individual motions when names were added. [77436]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  I have been asked to reply.

  I will write to the hon. Member as soon as possible and place a copy of my reply in the Library of the House.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Police Complaints
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she will lay before Parliament the 1998 Annual report of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints for Northern Ireland; and if she will make a statement. [77926]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  The 1998 Annual Report of the Independent Commission for Police Complaints is being laid before Parliament today. The Report, which follows the format of previous years, comments on the work of the Commission in 1998, its 11th year dealing with alleged complaints against the RUC.

  I should like formally to record the Government's thanks to the Chairman and Members of the Commission and to the staff for their continued excellent work during this past year and for producing this Report. In this respect, I would like to highlight and endorse the Chairman's introduction to the Report in which he says that in spite of the already heavy workload of (Commission members and) staff, and the extra demands on them in facilitating the transition to the establishment of the Ombudsman's office, their
  "commitment, professionalism and enthusiasm stand as a tribute to each and every one of them."

  I know that the police, particularly in Complaints and Discipline Department, have shown similar commitment, and I would like to place that on record also.

  The work on establishing the Office of the Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland is continuing and we will be re-advertising the Ombudsman post shortly. This is an important new office, which, along with the other changes in policing that are in train, should contribute further to improving public confidence in the police in Norther Ireland.

  The 1998 Report notes that there was a reduction of nearly 15 per cent. in the number of cases of complaint received by the Commission, compared with the number received in 1997, down from 3,111 to 2,651. The figures since 1991, however, have remained around the 2,500 level. It also notes that the number of cases for mandatory supervision has remained at about 100 and the number of discretionary cases was lower than expected at 171. Of the 2,383 cases closed in 1998, 562 were withdrawn, 682 were dispensed with (usually because a complainant would not co-operate with an investigation) and disciplinary action was considered in over 1,000. The DPP directed 5 criminal charges, there were 19 formal disciplinary charges and 104 informal disciplinary actions.

  In light of the appalling murder of Rosemary Nelson, I think it important and appropriate to highlight the reference in the report to the complaints made by and on behalf of Mrs. Nelson. The Commission refer to their "serious concern" about the conduct of the investigation. They raised these with the Chief Constable and me last Summer. As a consequence, the Chief Constable appointed Commander Mulvihill, with the approval of the ICPC, to continue the investigation. The ICPC will shortly be issuing its statutory statement on the conduct of this to

  735
  the Chief Constable and complainants. As is normal the investigation file will then be sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions for consideration.

  A number of additional points are worth recording. One is the Commission's helpful historical analysis of the evolution of the complaints system in Northern Ireland. Another is the decision to supervise all complaints alleging intimidation of solicitors. As we have already told the Commission, this is a sensible and helpful approach to a contentious subject. A third is the decision to take on a small number of cases concerning incivility. These may be regarded by some as less serious allegations, but to complainants they are all serious, and I think it important to audit such cases in the way the ICPC has done.

  Finally, the Government echoes the concluding words of the Chairman that:
  "The Commission has been variously described over the years by some as "toothless" and often as "ruthless". In fact, it has been neither."

  Boundary Commission
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if she will announce the names of the two newly appointed members of the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission. [77927]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  I am pleased to announce that I have recently issued warrants of appointment for the Northern Ireland Boundary Commission to Mrs. Joan Elizabeth Ruddock and Richard McLaughlin QC. I have also been informed by the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland that he has appointed hon. Mr. Justice Coghlin to the position of Deputy Chairman of the Commission.

  Incontinence Beds
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many beds dealing with incontinence are available in Northern Ireland in(a) all service hospitals, (b) general hospitals, (c) specialist hospitals, (d) teaching hospitals and (e) hospitals in other categories. [77032]

  Mr. McFall
  The information requested is not collected.

  Parades Commission
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the preliminary view of the coming year's parades is to be published by the Parades Commission; to whom the preliminary view of the coming year's parades is formally submitted; to whom the Parades Commission is formally accountable; on what parades the Parades Commission has issued a formal determination since its inception; how many parades have taken place which have contravened rulings made by the Commission; and if she will make a statement on the work of the Parades Commission over its first 12 months. [76930]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]The current text of the Procedural Rules, one of the three statutory documents published under the Public 736
  Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998, indicates that the Commission will
  "express an informal broad view of the overall pattern of parades in the areas in which they are contentious" (Procedural Rules, p1, para. 1.2).

  The Commission is currently reviewing the Procedural Rules, together with the Code of Conduct and the Guidelines, in line with its statutory remit, and has issued its proposed changes to the documents in draft form for consultation. One of the proposed changes to the Procedural Rules is the removal of the requirement to make a preliminary view. In reaching its decisions in respect of contentious parades in the 1998 season, the Commission set out clearly the action it considered necessary by parties to parades disputes in order to remove the need for Commission involvement. Therefore, it considers that to issue a preliminary view in 1999 would simply be to restate what is already in the public domain.

  The Chairman and his colleagues on the Commission will, of course, consider carefully the responses they receive in relation to the documents, including proposals relating to the preliminary view. The revised documents are, as the hon. Gentleman knows, subject to Parliamentary approval before publication.

  In relation to accountability, the Commission was established by Parliament under the Public Processions (Northern Ireland) Act 1998 as an independent body. In addition to the statutory requirements in relation to the Code of Conduct, Procedural Rules and Guidelines, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is required to present to Parliament the Commission's Annual Report on the discharge of its functions for that year.

  I have placed in the Library of the House a list of parades in relation to which the Parades Commission has issued a determination since receiving its statutory powers enabling it to impose conditions on parades.

  Statistics on the number of parade which have contravened the Commission's rulings are not available.

  Finally, I wish to congratulate the Parades Commission for their integrity and commitment over the last year. They have a difficult job and they have carried out their role in a totally fair and impartial manner in the best interests of all the people of Northern Ireland.

HEALTH

  Waiting Periods (Heart Conditions)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the waiting periods for(a) angioplasty, (b) angiogram procedures and (c) heart by-pass surgery in each health trust. [74887]

  Mr. Hutton
  Available information on the number of patients waiting for angioplasty and heart by-pass surgery by health authority is shown in the table.

  An angiogram or angiography is the main means of investigating the need for these procedures. Dye is injected into the blood stream and radiology is used to view the vessels. This is not a surgical procedure and information on waiting lists is not available centrally.
  737

  Specialty: Cardiothoracic Surgery

  Name

  Total

  0–2 months

  3–5 months

  6–8 months

  9–11 months

  12–14 months

  15–17 months

  18+ months

  Bradford Hospitals NHS Trust

  58

  17

  13

  11

  9

  5

  3

  0

  South Tees Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  488

  198

  148

  81

  61

  0

  0

  0

  East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  460

  217

  100

  84

  59

  0

  0

  0

  Leeds Teaching Hospital NHS Trust

  707

  200

  199

  161

  111

  26

  10

  0

  The Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  572

  203

  161

  128

  79

  1

  0

  0

  Northern and Yorkshire Region total

  2,285

  835

  621

  465

  319

  32

  13

  0

  Northern General Hospital NHS Trust

  671

  223

  174

  155

  97

  14

  8

  0

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  311

  177

  83

  37

  12

  1

  1

  0

  Scunthorpe and Goole Hospitals NHS Trust

  7

  7

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Glenfield Hospital NHS Trust

  452

  230

  120

  74

  27

  1

  0

  0

  Trent Region total

  1,441

  637

  377

  266

  136

  16

  9

  0

  North Staffordshire Hospital NHS Trust

  411

  148

  76

  76

  66

  41

  4

  0

  Walsgrave Hospitals NHS Trust

  327

  134

  96

  43

  39

  15

  0

  0

  Birmingham Children's Hospital NHS Trust

  104

  56

  33

  10

  3

  2

  0

  0

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull Hospitals NHS Trust

  181

  129

  41

  9

  2

  0

  0

  0

  University Hospital Birmingham NHS Trust

  775

  53

  206

  238

  229

  49

  0

  0

  West Midlands Region total

  1,798

  520

  452

  376

  339

  107

  4

  0

  Cardiothoracic Centre, Liverpool NHS Trust

  696

  349

  134

  108

  43

  49

  13

  0

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  43

  16

  12

  6

  8

  1

  0

  0

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  600

  185

  168

  103

  86

  49

  9

  0

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  884

  260

  196

  170

  126

  93

  39

  0

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  363

  161

  100

  66

  26

  6

  4

  0

  Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  North West Region total

  2,586

  971

  610

  453

  289

  198

  65

  0

  Papworth Hospital NHS Trust

  811

  345

  200

  148

  106

  12

  0

  0

  Ipswich Hospital NHS Trust

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Norfolk and Norwich Healthcare NHS Trust

  54

  39

  6

  4

  3

  2

  0

  0

  Eastern Region total

  867

  385

  207

  152

  109

  14

  0

  0

  Royal Free Hampstead NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wellhouse NHS Trust

  2

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Guy's and St. Thomas' Hospital NHS Trust

  1,009

  350

  266

  194

  166

  28

  5

  0

  St. Mary's NHS Trust

  84

  54

  20

  8

  2

  0

  0

  0

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  384

  137

  114

  94

  34

  4

  1

  0

  King's Healthcare NHS Trust

  222

  130

  80

  11

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  974

  333

  207

  170

  177

  87

  0

  0

  Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust

  107

  94

  10

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Hammersmith Hospitals NHS Trust

  69

  56

  7

  4

  0

  1

  1

  0

  University College London Hospitals NHS Trust

  396

  157

  102

  77

  46

  7

  7

  0

  Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust

  837

  346

  209

  132

  84

  52

  14

  0

  London Region total

  4,084

  1,658

  1,016

  691

  511

  179

  29

  0

  Mid-Kent Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Brighton Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust

  575

  220

  146

  100

  55

  36

  18

  0

  The Oxford Radcliffe Hospital NHS Trust

  310

  134

  71

  42

  51

  12

  0

  0

  South East Region total

  886

  355

  217

  142

  106

  48

  18

  0

  United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust

  526

  288

  141

  73

  22

  2

  0

  0

  Royal Cornwall Hospitals NHS Trust

  37

  33

  3

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Devon and Exeter Healthcare NHS Trust

  10

  9

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust

  584

  149

  145

  109

  94

  72

  15

  0

  South West Region total

  1,157

  479

  289

  183

  117

  74

  15

  0

  England total

  15,104

  5,840

  3,789

  2,728

  1,926

  668

  153

  0

  Suicide
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to raise public awareness of the rate of suicide by young men; and what support he will give to the Doctor Patient Partnership Campaign, Suicide: Helping Men Cope. [76741]
  738
  Mr. Hutton
  The Department continues to work in collaboration with users of mental health services, the voluntary sector and professional bodies with a view to reducing discrimination, improving the lives of people with mental health problems and contributing to a reduction in suicide rates. We welcome the campaign
  739
  launched by the Doctor Patient Partnership. This campaign complements other efforts to focus upon the mental health needs of young men, such as the Department's own helpline Campaign Against Living Miserably, launched in December 1997 in Manchester, which targets young men at the onset of depression. We regularly meet the Samaritans, who backed the Doctor Patient Partnership campaign, to look at other initiatives to reduce suicide rates in young men.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the Doctor Patient Partnership's campaign Suicide: Helping Men Cope. [76577]

  Mr. Hutton
  We welcome the campaign launched by the Doctor Patient Partnership to reduce suicide rates among young men. It complements other efforts to focus on the mental health needs of men such as the Department's own helpline Campaign Against Living Miserably, launched in December 1997 in Manchester and aimed at young men. The Department continues to work in collaboration with users of mental health services, the voluntary sector and professional bodies with a view to reducing discrimination, improving the lives of people with mental health problems and contributing to a reduction in suicide rates.

  Nurses
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many former nurses, who had been out of the profession for more than five years, have(a) been charged and (b) not been charged for back to nursing courses since his announcement that they should be provided free of charge. [76389]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]The information requested is not available centrally.

  Education consortiums are working with National Health Service trusts and education providers to ensure that refresher training is available free of charge to nurses seeking to return to NHS employment.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 205, concerning the Royal Commission on Long-Term Care if he will set out a timetable for his consideration of, and taking of decisions on, the Commission's recommendations. [77111]

  Mr. Hutton
  There is already action in hand relating to several of the Royal Commission's recommendations. Others will require fuller consideration over the coming months.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 205, concerning the special grant for carers if the remaining £424,673 will be paid in 2000–01 and 2001–02. [77112]

  Mr. Hutton
  Payment of allocations of a special grant to local authorities is dependent each year on Parliamentary approval. In the case of the carers' special grant, payment will, subject to approval by Parliament of the special grant report for 1999–2000, be dependent on a number of conditions including provision of an action plan and demonstration of progress on that plan. The 740
  allocations to individual local authorities of the funding of £50 million for 2000–01 and £70 million for 2001–02 will be determined according to a formula, using the most recent data available. It is therefore not possible to confirm detailed final allocations for future years at this stage.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what changes have taken place, by health authority area, in the number of child dental registrations since June 1996; and what steps have been taken to encourage the registration of children up to five years of age with a general dental practice; [75441]

  (2) what changes, by health authority area, have taken place in the number of dental registrations of (a) children and (b) adults since the introduction of the 15 month registration period. [75432]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 march 1999)Information on the number of child patients registered with a General Dental Service (GDS) dentist at 30 June 1996 and 31 January 1999 by health authority (HA) in England, together with the percentage changes, has been placed in the Library.

  The comparisons between June 1996 and January 1999 are affected by the reduction in the registration period to 15 months for all new registrations from September 1996 and by a reduction in the number of duplicate entries. The introduction of the Personal Dental Service (PDS) in October 1998 will also have affected figures since some GDS practices which became PDS pilots transferred their patients into the PDS.

  Dentists are given monthly payments for registering children, and for children up to 5-years old these payments are higher in deprived areas to encourage dentists to register more children in these areas of high oral health need.

  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list, by health authority area, the number of dental practices(a) which accept all NHS patients, (b) whose NHS lists are closed, (c) which accept on NHS lists additional family members only and (d) which accept children for NHS treatment only if their parents are private patients. [75431]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]The information requested is not available centrally. It is the responsibility of each health authority to be aware of the availability of dental services in their area.

  Xenotransplantations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the independent assessors to be used to scrutinise clinical trials relating to xenotransplantation, indicating which has expertise in animal welfare issues. [76502]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]As is common practice in peer review, the names of independent external assessors appointed to advise on applications submitted to the United Kingdom Xenotransplantation Interim Regulatory Authority (UKXIRA), are not disclosed. As a condition of their
  741
  appointment, all assessors are required to sign an undertaking confirming that they have no conflicts of interest which might affect their assessments.

  Regulatory control of the welfare of animals potentially to be used as sources for xenotransplantation lies with the Home Office. A Code of Practice on the welfare of high health status pigs as xenotransplantation source animals is currently being developed by the Home Office (Scientific Procedures) Inspectorate. In considering any application, the UKXIRA would expect to see evidence of animal welfare standards at least equal to those to be included in the Code of Practice. However, the UKXIRA also recognises that there may be circumstances in which advice on the animal welfare aspects of specific applications is required. The appointment of appropriate assessors is currently being pursued.

  North Durham Health Care NHS Trust
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to respond to the recent report on the PFI Scheme at North Durham Healthcare NHS Trust. [77987]

  Mr. Denham
  I have today placed copies of a response to the report in the Library.

  Incontinence Beds
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds dealing with incontinence are available in England and Wales in(a) all service hospitals, (b) general hospitals, (c) specialist hospitals, (d) teaching hospitals and (e) hospitals in other categories. [77031]

  Health authority total expenses in respect to clinical negligence

  £000

  Health authority code

  Health authority

  1996–97 Haa04c—mc9–340

  1997–98 Haa04c—sc340

  QA2

  Hillingdon HA

  (7)

  (423)

  QA3

  Kensington, Chelsea & Westminster HA

  2,016

  511

  QA4

  Enfield & Haringey HA

  6,834

  362

  QA5

  Redbridge & Waltham Forest HA

  —

  (111)

  QA6

  Bedfordshire HA

  —

  500

  QA7

  Berkshire HA

  (733)

  738

  QA8

  Buckinghamshire HA

  1,108

  2,923

  QA9

  Cambridge & Huntingdon HA

  —

  624

  QAA

  Bexley & Greenwich HA

  (480)

  (1,301)

  QAC

  Bromley HA

  (442)

  48

  QAD

  Croydon HA

  418

  (787)

  QAE

  East Kent HA

  2,377

  1,150

  QAF

  West Kent HA

  —

  2,199

  QAG

  Kingston & Richmond HA

  —

  2,327

  QAH

  Lambeth, Southwark & Lewisham HA

  580

  98

  QAJ

  Merton, Sutton & Wandsworth HA

  173

  481

  QAK

  East Surrey HA

  (126)

  75

  QAL

  West Surrey HA

  1,787

  (716)

  QAM

  East Sussex, Brighton & Hove HA

  202

  801

  QAN

  West Sussex HA

  965

  208

  QAP

  Barking & Havering HA

  —

  431

  QAQ

  Barnet HA

  389

  572

  QAR

  Brent & Harrow HA

  1,608

  508

  QAT

  Camden & Islington HA

  1,604

  1,222

  QAV

  Ealing, Hammersmith & Hounslow HA

  10

  210

  QAW

  East London & The City HA

  348

  1,023

  QAX

  North Essex HA

  715

  763

  QAY

  South Essex HA

  1,144

  596

  QC1

  South Lancashire HA

  57

  (113)

  QC2

  Liverpool HA

  642

  (228)

  QC3

  Manchester HA

  —

  1,193

  QC4

  Morecambe Bay HA

  117

  295

  742
  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not available in the form requested. Bed data are collected by broad ward classification rather than by clinical specialty. The data are also collected only from National Health Service trusts and there is no split between the different types of hospitals. The publication, "Bed availability and Occupancy for England" contains information for individual NHS trusts along with summary tables for England.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to reply to the letter of 11 January from the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton in respect of Mr. N. Peed and dentistry in Crediton. [77452]

  Mr. Denham
  I replied to the hon. Member on 17 March.

  Clinical Negligence Costs
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list for each health authority the expenditure on(a) damages for negligence and (b) out-of-court settlements for each of the last five years. [77305]

  Mr. Hutton
  Until recently, health authority accounts did not separate clinical negligence costs from others made under legal liability and personal injury. We cannot, therefore, give figures going back 5 years. In addition, the accounts do not distinguish between costs incurred through court awarded damages and those arising from out of court settlements. We are, however, able to give details of total clinical negligence costs by health authority (HA) for the last two years, and these are in the table.
  743

  Health authority total expenses in respect to clinical negligence

  £000

  Health authority code

  Health authority

  1996–97 Haa04c—mc9–340

  1997–98 Haa04c—sc340

  QC5

  St. Helens & Knowsley HA

  1,033

  (418)

  QC6

  Salford & Trafford HA

  —

  979

  QC7

  Sefton HA

  381

  174

  QC8

  Stockport HA

  —

  (1,051)

  QC9

  West Pennine HA

  —

  (124)

  QCA

  East Norfolk HA

  1,189

  1,400

  QCC

  Northamptonshire HA

  1,541

  1,615

  QCD

  North West Anglia HA

  482

  403

  QCE

  Oxfordshire HA

  1,480

  54

  QCF

  Suffolk HA

  982

  534

  QCG

  Barnsley HA

  926

  18

  QCH

  North Derbyshire HA

  1,269

  (343)

  QCJ

  South Derbyshire HA

  (38)

  3

  QCK

  Doncaster HA

  939

  (46)

  QCL

  Leicestershire HA

  —

  780

  QCM

  Lincolnshire HA

  (360

  843

  QCN

  North Nottinghamshire HA

  533

  419

  QCP

  Nottingham HA

  611

  347

  QCQ

  Rotherham HA

  3,814

  1,117

  QCR

  Sheffield HA

  —

  398

  QCT

  Bury & Rochdale HA

  —

  491

  QCV

  North Cheshire HA

  307

  1,179

  QCW

  South Cheshire HA

  976

  515

  QCX

  East Lancashire HA

  682

  (2,017)

  QCY

  North West Lancashire HA

  —

  557

  QD1

  North & Mid Hampshire HA

  683

  86

  QD2

  Portsmouth & South East Hampshire HA

  1,572

  602

  QD3

  Southampton & South West Hampshire HA

  —

  456

  QD4

  Isle of Wight HA

  79

  31

  QD5

  Somerset HA

  367

  201

  QD6

  South & West Devon HA

  3,448

  699

  QD7

  Wiltshire HA

  —

  41

  QD8

  Avon HA

  371

  684

  QD9

  Birmingham HA

  3,577

  2,526

  QDA

  Wigan & Bolton HA

  —

  1,892

  QDC

  Wirral HA

  635

  309

  QDD

  Bradford HA

  3,757

  202

  QDE

  County Durham HA

  1,318

  1,008

  QDF

  East Riding HA

  1,441

  420

  QDG

  Gateshead & South Tyneside HA

  697

  82

  QDH

  Leeds HA

  1,315

  1,810

  QDJ

  Newcastle & North Tyneside HA

  5,957

  —

  QDK

  North Cumbria HA

  —

  539

  QDL

  South Humber HA

  (586)

  968

  QDM

  Northumberland HA

  —

  122

  QDN

  Sunderland HA

  52

  980

  QDP

  Tees HA

  2,272

  1,293

  QDQ

  Wakefield HA

  1,374

  (652)

  QDR

  North Yorkshire HA

  526

  264

  QDT

  Calderdale & Kirklees HA

  —

  245

  QDV

  Cornwall & Isles of Scilly HA

  —

  1,064

  QDW

  Dorset HA

  543

  (578)

  QDX

  North & East Devon HA

  183

  294

  QDY

  Gloucestershire HA

  497

  217

  QEA

  Coventry HA

  QEC

  Dudley HA

  688

  2,196

  QED

  Herefordshire HA

  (35)

  149

  QEE

  Sandwell HA

  521

  514

  QEF

  Shropshire HA

  698

  562

  QEG

  Solihull HA

  —

  919

  QEH

  North Staffordshire HA

  435

  1,667

  QEJ

  South Staffordshire HA

  —

  594

  QEK

  Walsall HA

  403

  227

  QEL

  Warwickshire HA

  —

  (261)

  QEM

  Wolverhampton HA

  800

  85

  QEN

  Worcestershire HA

  —

  236

  QEP

  East & North Hertfordshire HA

  342

  216

  QEQ

  West Hertfordshire HA

  2,298

  498

  Total

  74,281

  47,688

  Notes:

  1. Clinical Negligence was not separately identified in the accounts prior to 1997–98

  2. Figures in brackets are where over provision has been made in previous years accounts

  Source:

  Health Authority Annual Accounts 1997–98
  744

  Barnet Health Authority
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were on the waiting list in Barnet Health Authority's area on 31 March 1998. [77578]

  Mr. Denham
  Barnet Health Authority's waiting list as at 31 March 1998 was 7,571.

  Barnet Hospital
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the construction of Phase 1b of Barnet Hospital is expected to(a) commence and (b) be completed. [77585]

  Mr. Denham
  Work on site on the Phase 1b development at Barnet General Hospital began in February 1999. It is due to be completed in spring 2002.

  Anaesthetists
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultant anaesthetists posts are currently vacant in each NHS trust in the North West Region. [77360]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health indicated to the Health Committee recently, a survey of National Health Service staff shortages will be conducted shortly. The results of this survey will be discussed with interested organisations.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many whole-time equivalent anaesthetists are employed by each NHS trust in the North West Region; and what is the average number of clinical sessions scheduled per week by each trust. [77361]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest available information about the numbers of whole-time equivalent anaesthetists employed by each National Health Service trust in the North West Region is shown in the table. Information about the number of clinical sessions scheduled per week by each trust is not available.

  NHS Hospital Medical Staff in Anaesthetics in the North West Region of England by NHS trust at 30 September 1997

  Whole time equivalents

  Trusts in North West Region

  All staff

  All Hospital Medical Staff in Anaesthetics

  880

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  40

  Blackburn Hyndburn and Ribble Valley Health Care NHS Trust

  30

  Blackpool Victoria Hospital NHS Trust

  40

  Bolton Hospitals NHS Trust

  30

  Burnley Healthcare NHS Trust

  20

  Bury Healthcare NHS Trust

  20

  Central Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  60

  Chorley and South Ribble NHS Trust

  20

  Countess of Chester Hospital NHS Trust

  20

  East Cheshire NHS Trust

  10

  Furness Hospitals NHS Trust

  10

  Halton General Hospital NHS Trust

  10

  Lancaster Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  20

  Liverpool Womens Hospital NHS Trust

  10

  North Manchester Healthcare NHS Trust

  30

  Oldham NHS Trust

  30

  Preston Acute Hospitals NHS Trust

  40

  Rochdale Healthcare NHS Trust

  20

  746

  NHS Hospital Medical Staff in Anaesthetics in the North West Region of England by NHS trust at 30 September 1997

  Whole time equivalents

  Trusts in North West Region

  All staff

  Royal Liverpool and Broadgreen University Hospitals NHS Trust

  40

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  20

  Salford Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  40

  South Manchester University Hospitals NHS Trust

  70

  Southport and Formby Hospitals Services NHS Trust

  10

  St. Helens and Knowsley Hospitals NHS Trust

  30

  Stockport Acute Services NHS Trust

  30

  Tameside and Glossop Acute Services NHS Trust

  20

  The Cardiothoracic Centre—Liverpool NHS Trust

  10

  The Manchester Children's Hospitals NHS Trust

  20

  The Mid Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust

  20

  Trafford Healthcare NHS Trust

  20

  Walton Centre for Neurology and Neurosurgery NHS Trust

  0

  Warrington Hospitals NHS Trust

  20

  West Lancashire NHS Trust

  10

  Wigan and Leigh Health Service NHS Trust

  20

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  30

  Wrightington Hospital NHS Trust

  10

  Notes:

  1. Figures rounded to nearest ten

  2. '0' denotes 5 or less

  3. Totals may not equal sum of components due to rounding

  Source:

  Department of Health Annual Medical and Dental Workforce Census

  Operating Department (Staff)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what research his Department has commissioned into the possible benefits of multi-skilling for operating department practitioners and theatre nurses; and if he will make a statement. [77359]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has not commissioned any specific research on this topic. National Health Service employers are encouraged to develop multi-skilled employees where this is the best way to meet health service needs.

WALES

  Fur Farming
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the future of fur farming. [76997]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  There are no fur farms in Wales.

  The Government support the Private Member's Bill to prohibit fur farming which received its Second Reading on 5 March, and is now proceeding to Committee Stage.

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

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the prospects for organic farming in Wales. [76993]
  747
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh Organic Food Sector Action Plan was launched by Mr. Gareth Rowlands, Chairman of the Organic Working Group, Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe, Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency, and by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales, on 8 March.

  The industry-led Plan sets out an agenda for developing the organic sector in Wales, with the aim of encouraging an expansion of organic farming to 10 per cent. of the Welsh agricultural produce.

  The Organic Conversion Information Service provides free advice to prospective organic farmers and the Organic Aid Scheme provides direct support for conversion. Subject to the approval of the European Commission, the new payments rates available under the Organic Aid Scheme are as follows:

  £ per hectare

  APPS eligible land

  Ineligible land

  Unimproved grassland rough grazing

  Year 1

  225

  175

  25

  Year 2

  135

  105

  10

  Year 3

  50

  40

  5

  Year 4

  20

  15

  5

  Year 5

  20

  15

  5

  Total

  450

  350

  50

  In future, following the transfer of functions, these issues will be a matter for the National Assembly.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assistance he will give to beef farmers to switch into(a) organic beef and (b) other products; and if he will make a statement. [76994]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The Welsh Lamb and Beef Sector Action Plan was launched by Mr. John Lloyd Jones, Chairman of the Lamb and Beef Working Group, Mr. David Rowe-Beddoe, Chairman of the Welsh Development Agency and by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Wales, on 8 March. The industry-led Plan sets out an agenda for developing the Lamb and Beef sector in Wales, and the assistance that will be available to farmers.

  Subject to agreement by the European Commission, the payment rate available under the Organic Aid Scheme for beef farmers converting to organic production will be increased to £350 per hectare paid over five years. The current rate is £250 per hectare in non Less Favoured Areas and £50 in Less Favoured Areas.

  In future, following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the Assembly.

  CAP Reform
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the effect of the CAP Reform, on environmental improvement. [76996]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The new integrated rural development regulation, part of the Agenda 2000 CAP reform package agreed last week, makes it mandatory to introduce new agri-environmental schemes in all parts of all member states. In Wales, this is already in place in the form of Tir Gofal.
  748
  The regulation will also allow the UK to introduce a new scheme to replace Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowances and deliver support to hill farmers more effectively while taking account of environmental protection requirements. The new scheme can be tailored to cater for differences and priorities in different areas within member states.

  The creation of the new integrated rural development regulation creates a good basis on which future reforms will be able to implement a switch from supporting agricultural production to environmental measures. The current reforms have not moved very far in this regard and the significant shift to environmental measures is a matter which will have to be pressed further in reform of the CAP in future.

  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the recently announced Reform of the CAP and its effect on the farming community of Alyn and Deeside. [76995]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The provisional agreement reached by the Agriculture Council represents a significant change in the direction of the CAP—a direction for which the UK Government have been strongly pressing. The Welsh Office is assessing how the proposed reforms will affect farmers in Wales.

  Rural Development Grants
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many Round 7 EAGGF Objective 5b rural development grants have to date received matched funding. [76302]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering applications for Round 7 EAGGF Objective 5B rural development grants. Applicants will be notified shortly of decisions on their bids.

  In future, 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 on what date (i) the Welsh Office Internal Review will be completed and (ii) rural development grants will be allocated. [76303]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently considering the allocation of Rural Development Grants. Applicants will be notified of the decisions on their bids shortly.

  In future, 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 how much money has been allocated in rural development grants in each of the last four years. [76304]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  The rural development grant scheme started in the financial year 1996–97, since when £2.345m has been allocated to match projects funded
  749
  under Rounds 1 to 6 of the EAGGF Objective 5b programme. The allocations for each of the years to date are:

  £

  Financial year

  Allocation

  1996–97

  911,353

  1997–98

  1,209,668

  1998–99

  1224,184

  1 These projects were submitted under Round 6 and were given conditional approval in 1997–98.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has completed his consideration of the applications for Round 7 EAGGF Objective 5B rural development grants and applicants will be notified shortly of decisions on their bids.

  In future, following the transfer of functions, this issue will be a matter for the National Assembly.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Foreign Workers (Rights)
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to introduce legislation restricting the rights of foreign workers to sue their employers in British courts; and what assessment he has made of the implications of such legislation in respect of trade and human rights obligations. [76998]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Government have no plans to introduce legislation restricting the rights of foreign workers to sue in the British courts.

  Cabinet Office Expenditure
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department, pursuant to his answer of 17 December 1998,Official Report, columns 724–24, if he will list the expenditure not included in his answer incurred by (a) his agencies and non-departmental public bodies and (b) the Central Office of Information for relevant work carried out for his Department. [71030]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 15 February 1999]The information sought regarding the expenditure incurred by my agencies and non-departmental bodies is in the table.

  On behalf of my Department, £422,000 has been expended with the Central Office of Information for the production of a lay magistrates' recruitment campaign which began on 15 March 1999. This sum included national media placement in newspapers and magazines.

  Publications and publicity expenditure agencies and non-departmental bodies

  (1) The Court Service

  (a) Nil

  (b) This amount could only be provided at a disproportionate cost as staff recruitment is carried out within local budgets and therefore the overall cost is not readily available.

  (c) Nil

  (d) Nil

  (e) Nil

  750

  (2) The Northern Ireland Court Service

  (a) £10,000 (public opinion research)

  (b) £14,844 (primarily staff recruitment—newspaper advertising)

  (c) Nil

  (d) Nil

  (e) Nil

  (3) The Public Trust Office

  (a) £2,922 (public opinion survey on Charter standards)

  (b) £6,874 (staff recruitment—newspaper advertising)

  (c) Nil

  (d) £68,823—see table

  (e) Nil.

  The Public Trust Office—Publicity expenditure

  Department

  £

  Protection Division

  Printing of booklets (includes Handbook for Receivers, EPA booklet, Fees, Duties of Reciever etc)

  28,300.10

  Newsletter

  15,195.00

  43,495.10

  Receivership Division

  Printing of booklets (includes Charter Statement, Information for Nursing Homes etc)

  2,500

  2,500

  Trust Division

  Printing of Charter Statements

  2,063

  2,063

  Court Funds Office

  Printing of Charter Statements and Newsletter

  3,695

  3,695

  Corporate Publications

  Printing of Annual Report, Business Plan, Corporate Plan and How to Complain Leaflet

  12,069

  12,069

  Total

  63,823

  (4) The Public Record Office

  (a) Nil

  (b) £178,000 (of which £177,200 was expended for staff recruitment)

  (c) £220 (mailing labels)

  (d) £13,000

  'Preserving our Common Past for our Children's Future' (£5,000)

  Readers' Bulletin (£6,000)

  Education leaflet (£2,000)

  (e) Nil

  (5) Her Majesty's Land Registry

  (a) Nil

  (b) £97,657 for newspaper advertising (of which £61,000 relates to staff recruitment)

  (c) £9,988

  (d) £328,800 (including exhibitions and video production)

  (e) £38,640. A breakdown per item could only be provided at a disproportionate cost. However, £24,128 relates to the design and printing of literature (included in (d)) and £4,955 relates to advertising placed through the COI (included in (b)).

  751

  (6) The Legal Aid Board

  (a) £11,197

  public awareness survey of legal aid and of LAB franchising (£7,197)

  survey of legal aid practitioners re: services provided by LAB (£4,000)

  (b) £513,635

  staff recruitment—newspaper (£481,937)

  staff recruitment—radio (£868)

  Franchising freephone number (£30,830)

  (c) Nil

  (d) £399,187 (see below)

  (e) £2,177—for displaying legal aid information on videotaxt screens and the Internet.

  The Legal Aid Board

  Publicity expenditure

  £

  General

  1,196

  Press Cuttings

  3,878

  Duty Solicitor Newsletter

  868

  Focus Newsletter to legal aid Practitioners (seven issues)

  115,032

  Leaflets/Posters:

  'How to get free or low cost legal help'

  141,304

  'A practical guide to legal aid'

  'Criminal legal aid at the police station and in court'

  'What happens next?' leaflet

  7,998

  'Customer care—Legal Aid Board' leaflet

  2,564

  'Paying back the Legal Aid Board—the Statutory Charge'

  3,429

  'If you need this [LAB logo] look for this [franchising logo]'

  36,017

  Design of franchising logo

  876

  Posters and leaflets advertising the clinical negligence exclusive franchise launch

  33,462

  'Mediation—reaching agreements over divorce and separation' leaflet and poster

  15,051

  Conferences—national mediation launch

  14,000

  Regional Legal Services Committees—shaping the future of legal aid'

  5,969

  RLSC information pack

  12,518

  'Representations—what we do when you think legal aid should not be granted' leaflet

  2,008

  Duty Solicitors posters

  3,017

  Total

  399,187

  (7) The Law Commission

  (a) £3,685 (public opinion survey on empirical research on aspects of the law of damages)

  (b) £4,678 (staff recruitment—newspaper advertising)

  (c) Nil

  (d) Nil

  (e) Nil

  (8) The Lord Chancellor's Advisory Committee on Legal Education and Conduct (ACLEC)

  (a) Nil

  (b) Nil

  (c) Nil

  (d) £2,560

  'Guide to making an application' (£1,324)

  'The Committee: It's work and it's membership' (£1,236)

  (e) Nil

  (9) The Judicial Studies Board

  (a) Nil

  (b) Nil

  (c) Nil

  (d) Nil

  (e) Nil

  752

  (10) The Magistrates' Court Service Inspectorate

  (a) Nil

  (b) £8,994 (staff recruitment)

  (c) Nil

  (d) Nil

  (e) Nil

  (11) The Civil Justice Council

  (a) Nil

  (b) Nil

  (c) Nil

  (d) Nil

  (e) Nil.

EDUCION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Data Collection
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent assessment he has made of the amount of administrative work required to be undertaken by teachers in connection with collecting data for his Department. [75594]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department keeps under constant review the amount of administrative work required to be undertaken by teachers.

  National Grid for Learning
  Mr. Healey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the implementation of the National Grid for Learning. [75595]

  Mr. Mudie
  Plans for the National Grid for Learning are developing towards achievement of the targets announced in the National Grid for Learning Challenge "Open for Learning, Open for Business", launched in November 1998 by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  Over £700 million will be allocated for schools purchase of ICT networking and infrastructure by the year 2002. This funding will enable all schools to be connected to the grid by 2002, and will provide them with on-line access to a wide range of educational and managerial resources.

  The Department published last year the results of a survey of ICT provision in schools, which indicated that 17 per cent. of primary schools and 83 per cent. of secondary schools were connected to the Internet by March 1998. This is in comparison to the previous year's survey (published in 1997), which indicated that 5 per cent. of primary schools and 47 per cent. of secondary schools were connected to the Internet at that time. Subsequent annual surveys will indicate the growth of schools with such connections. The latest estimates are that approximately 30 per cent. of primary schools, 90 per cent. of secondary schools and 45 per cent. of special schools in England may currently have some form of Internet access. The Government are committed to ensuring that all schools are connected to the Internet by 2002.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many people are currently in employment in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [75596]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Over 27¼ million people, the highest on record.

  SSA Formula
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to review the education element of the SSA formula. [75597]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Government will not seek to change the system of calculating standard spending assessments for the three years up to 2001–02. It will, nevertheless, be subject to review. Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will take the lead. This will involve local government representation and Ministers with local government service interests.

  Education (Financing)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when he last met the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals to discuss the financing of education. [75598]

  Mr. Mudie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had a useful meeting with the CVCP yesterday. The discussion ranged widely over a number of issues, including funding for higher education.

  Numeracy Hour
  Liz Blackman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in implementing the numeracy hour in primary schools. [75599]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Daily dedicated mathematics lessons will formally begin in primary schools this September. In practice many schools have already introduced them, alongside the literacy hour. Earlier this week, schools received copies of a teaching framework designed to support the introduction of the mathematics session.

  New Deal (Education and Training)
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received on the education and training options of the new deal. [75600]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Views on the education and training options offered under the New Deal are regularly received from a wide variety of education and training bodies, including Further Education Colleges, TECs and private training providers.

  Disability Rights Commission
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made in establishing the Disability Rights Commission. [75601]
  754
  Ms Hodge
  Subject to Parliament enacting the Disability Rights Commission Bill, which was introduced into another place on 3 December 1998, we expect the Commission to be established in April 2000. Initial planning for the establishment of the Commission has begun. However, much of the work cannot commence until after Royal Assent of the Bill and the Chairman, Chief Executive and Commissioners have been appointed. We intend to make these appointments as soon as practicable after Royal Assent.

  Personal Job Accounts
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to introduce personal job accounts for the unemployed. [75602]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Rapson),Official Report, column 1254.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress with the new deal for the young unemployed. [75603]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The New Deal for young people has made an encouraging start since its national roll-out in April 1998. The latest Government Statistical Service figures to the end of December 1998, and provisional Management Information to the end of January 1999, show that in Great Britain over 231,000 young people have already joined New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds. Of these 43,330 have found unsubsidised employment, 15,170 subsidised employment and 49,590 have joined one of the other three options.

  Mr. Nigel Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will estimate the numbers of young people who have joined the New Deal. [75579]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The latest figures to the end of January show that 231,740 young people have joined the New Deal.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much has been spent to date on(a) subsidies,(b) allowances and (c) administration for the new deal for young people. [77181]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]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 Leigh Lewis to Mr. David Maclean, dated 18 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about how much has been spent on subsidies, allowances and administration for the New Deal for 18 to 24 year olds. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  To the end of February, £16.2m has been brought to account on employment subsidies for young people and £28.6m on allowances for those participating in the training and work experience options under the programme. The cost so far of implementing and

  755
  managing New Deal has been £146.1m. This includes the initial expenditure on marketing, premises and IT equipment to establish the New Deal in its first year. All of these figures exclude the cost of payments to providers of New Deal.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Administrative Burdens (Schools)
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what representations he has received regarding administrative burdens on schools; and if he will make a statement. [75604]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have met a wide range of teachers and organisations representing teachers over the past two years, and administrative burdens on schools were discussed at several of those meetings. We also answer many letters on the subject.

  In all of these meetings and correspondence, we have made it clear that we recognise the need to keep unnecessary burdens on teachers to a minimum to enable them to focus on raising standards. We have been working vigorously to do so and set out much of the detail of that work during the Opposition day debate on the subject on 2 March.

  Oversubscribed Schools
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress he has made in enabling oversubscribed schools(a) to take in more pupils and (b) to keep their class sizes down. [75605]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are allocating over £150 million of funding for 1999/2000 to reduce infant class sizes for 5, 6 and 7-year-olds. This will enable over 1,600 popular schools to increase their intakes. The number of pupils in infant classes of over 30 will also fall from around 485,000 in January 1998 to under 200,000 in September 1999.

  New Deal (Statistics)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many young people have obtained employment through the new deal to date. [75606]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The latest Government Statistical Service figure to the end of December 1998, and provisional Management Information to the end of January 1999, show that 58,500 young people have already found employment through or with the help of the New Deal initiative.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what support and advice is given by new deal advisers to disabled people seeking employment. [75608]

  Ms Hodge
  People with disabilities who are eligible for New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds and those over the age of 25 receive the same range of support as other participants in these age groups. Those who would benefit from more specialist help and advice receive support from an Employment Service Disability Employment Adviser, who can offer access to the full range of disability programmes. In addition, New Deal for Disabled People 756
  offers those claiming Incapacity Benefit a client-focused service based on individual requirements and access to an extensive range of specialist disabled programmes.

  The latest Government Statistical Service figures to the end of December 1998 show that 13 per cent. of those who joined New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds and 19 per cent. of those who joined the New Deal for the 25-plus age group are recorded by the Employment Service as having a physical or mental impairment which has a substantial and long-term effect on their ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities.

  Child Care Information Services
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what progress has been made on the development of child care information services. [75609]

  Ms Hodge
  Good progress is being made to develop Children's Information Services that meet local needs. Partnerships in every area are developing information services, which will be supported by a joint project between the Department and the Department of Social Security to set up local internet-linked databases.

  Students (Hardship)
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the extent of hardship among students. [75610]

  Mr. Mudie
  The most recent Student Income and Expenditure Survey for the academic year 1995–96 found no evidence of widespread student hardship. The next survey is now under way for the 1998–99 academic year.

  We have uprated students' total resources for 1999–2000 in line with forecast inflation, thus protecting their value in real terms. We have almost doubled the Access Funds to £44 million and have made hardship loans available for new students.

  School Governing Bodies
  Mr. Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment he has made of the impact on(a) school costs and (b) school administration of the new provisions for additional parent representatives on school governing bodies. [75611]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Most schools will have to recruit only one more parent governor, and the value of additional parent representation should more than outweigh the cost of recruitment.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement about the implementation of the Government's policy to reduce class sizes to below 30 for five, six and seven-year-olds. [75612]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  We are providing a total of £620 million to enable the limit to be met ahead of schedule. The £150 million allocation we have announced for 1999–2000, which will provide an extra 2,500 teachers and build over 1,000 extra classrooms next year, will reduce the number of pupils in infant classes from
  757
  485,000 in January 1998 to fewer than 200,000 pupils in September 1999. The limit will be achieved in full in September 2001, ahead of our pledge to the electorate.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what recent representations he has received on classroom sizes. [75613]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The Department has received just one representation as part of our autumn 1998 review of The Education (School Premises) Regulations 1996.

  New Deal (Staff)
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many extra staff have been taken on by the Employment Service to administer the new deal and at what cost; and how many of those were taken on under the new deal scheme itself. [77182]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]Responsibility for the subject of this question 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 Leigh Lewis to Mr. David Maclean, dated 18 March 1999:
  As the Employment Service is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment has asked me to reply to your question about how many extra staff have been taken on by the Employment Service to administer the New Deal and at what cost; and how many of those were taken under the New Deal scheme itself. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Currently, there are some 3,500 Personal Advisers in the Employment Service working on the New Deals for young and older unemployed people, for Lone Parents and for people with disabilities, the great majority of whom have been recruited from within the Service. In addition many other staff are involved to some degree as part of their normal jobs in the support or management of New Deal programmes. Over the past year total staffing in the Employment Service has risen from around 34,000 to 36,000 reflecting the increasing demands on the Service as a whole, having reduced from a peak of over 50,000 in 1993–94.
  As part of the overall increase in staffing over the past year, the Employment Service has so far recruited 289 young people through the New Deal, of whom a number are involved in New Deal support functions.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76174]

  Mr. Mudie
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office on 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 651.

  Pupil Funding
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much funding has been provided per pupil in each type of school in Stoke-on-Trent over the last two years; and what is the planned allocation for each of the next three years. [76279]
  758
  Ms Estelle Morris
  Funding per pupil at different types of school ultimately depends on decisions taken by Stoke-on-Trent local education authority in allocating its budget under fair funding. The following table sets out the education SSA per pupil allowances for Stoke-on-Trent over the last two years and the amount the authority will receive in 1999–2000. It is too soon to say what the amounts might be in 2000–01 and beyond. In addition, pupils in Stoke-on-Trent in 1999–2000 have benefited from £5,486,000 in the Standards Fund and £1,530,000 for capital.

  Year

  Primary

  Year-on-year increase

  Secondary

  Year-on-year increase

  1997–98

  2,043

  —

  2,692

  —

  1998–99

  2,155

  112 (5.5%)

  2,818

  125 (4.6%)

  1999–2000

  2,281

  125 (5.8%)

  2,940

  123 (4.4%)

  School Inspectors
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) if he will provide a breakdown of the ethnic origins of inspectors carrying out Ofsted inspections of schools in each of the last three years; [77207]

  (2) what training is provided by Ofsted for inspectors carrying out inspections of schools; [77208]

  (3) what procedures Ofsted uses to monitor how many of its inspectors have experience of work in areas with significant ethnic minority communities. [77209]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  These are matters for Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools and I have therefore asked Chris Woodhead to write to my hon. Friend and to place a copy of his letter in the Library.

  Employment Zones
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many employment zones have been established to date; and what assessment he has made of their effectiveness. [76434]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  To date, five prototype Employment Zones have been established in Glasgow, Liverpool and Sefton, North-West Wales, Plymouth and South Tees. Three smaller projects are also underway in Birmingham and Solihull, Wembley and Doncaster and Wakefield.

  The effectiveness of the prototypes is constantly being reviewed and evaluated. A qualitative evaluation is being undertaken jointly by Manchester and Leeds Metropolitan Universities and a quantitative survey is planned to run from May 1999 to June 1999. The outcome of the evaluation will be published at the end of the year.

  The lessons learned from the prototypes will feed into the framework for fully fledged Employment Zones, which will run on the personal job account model from April 2000.

  Single Currency
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the subject areas
  759
  within his Department's responsibilities which will be covered by the information campaign on Britain's membership of a single currency. [73666]

  Mr. Mudie
  Her Majesty's Treasury will continue its dialogue with key external bodies to determine what information the public and business would need at each stage of the changeover process. Any information campaign would cover key concerns that the public and business may have. Chapter eight of HMT's "Outline National Changeover Plan" provides further information. Copies of the Plan are available in the Library.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to issue information from his Department to help the public make an informed decision when they vote on the single currency. [73589]

  Mr. Mudie
  Any plans by the Government to issue information during a referendum campaign on whether or not the UK should join the single currency would be

  £

  FY 98–99

  FY 97–98

  FY 96–97

  Sponsored visits from Turkey to the UK

  18,927

  12,818

  unavailable

  Chevening Scholarships for Turkish students

  230,146

  123,214

  58,000

  Police training (under the ASSIST scheme, previously UKMTAS)

  143,460

  0

  0

  Command programme budgets (including training, environmental and human rights projects)

  291,880

  27,375

  25,678

  Human Rights Project Fund (established 1998)

  165,700

  —

  —

  1 Provisional

  2 Provisional figures including funding allocated in 1997–98 but dispersed in 1998–99 or not yet dispersed

  All applications for financing projects under the Human Rights Project Fund, the Command Programme Budgets and ASSIST are considered against a range of criteria, which themselves derive from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's Objectives.

  Projects once authorised are subject to supervision by the Embassy in Akara. The Embassy provides reports to relevant FCO departments on projects as they develop and assessments of projects on completion.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76177]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I refer the right hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office,Official Report, 16 March 1999, columns 651–52.

  European Commission Funding
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the position of his Department on the amendment to European Communities budget line B3–306 proposed by the Commission, to remove reference to any prohibition on these funds being used for propaganda purposes; what representations he made on the issue; and what assessment he has made of alternative uses for the funds. [76276]
  760
  made in light of the Government's response to the recommendations from the Neill Committee on the conduct of referendums. The Government will announce their conclusions on those recommendations when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary publishes a White paper and draft Bill before the summer recess.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Turkey
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the financial assistance given to Turkey by his Department in each of the last three years, stating(a) the amount of funding, (b) the projects for which the funding was allocated and (c) what supervision his Department conducted on the development of these projects. [74638]

  Ms Quin
  The information is as follows:

  Ms Quin
  The notes in the EC Budget have no legal status and are indicative only. Under Article 205, the Commission retains the obligation to implement the budget as adopted on its own authority. The notes are proposed by the Commission and amended by either arm of the budgetary authority (Council or European Parliament). For non-compulsory expenditure, as in the case of this budget line, the Parliament has the final say.

  The Government believe that information spending from the Community budgets should not be used for propaganda, but should contribute to increased transparency and understanding of the EU, its activities, its structure and its functions, by the citizen. This is a view shared by the Commission.

  James Miles and Paul Loseby
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contact there has been between his Department and the parents of Paul Loseby and James Miles since 1 January 1999. [76427]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Since 1 January, consular staff have been in frequent contact with the parents of Paul Loseby and James Miles.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the legislative steps required to enable citizens of Gibraltar to vote in elections of the European Parliament. [76638]
  761
  Ms Quin
  Extension of the European Parliamentary franchise to Gibraltar will require amendment of the 1976 EC Act on Direct Elections. This will require the agreement of all EU Member States. HMG will seek such an amendment in the current negotiations in Brussels on establishing Common Principles for EP Elections. Once an amendment Act is agreed, it will require ratification in all Member States. We will also need to amend UK domestic legislation.

  Travel (Millennium Date Change)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to inform the public about the potential problems associated with(a) travelling, (b) living and (c) doing business overseas during the millennium date-change period. [77195]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We are issuing two sets of advice about potential Millennium Bug disruptions overseas. The first will alert British nationals who plan to travel, or will be resident overseas in the period late 1999 to early 2000 to the problem. The second will address the possible international consequences of the Millennium Bug for British businesses. Copies of these advice notices have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Rambouillet
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the response of his Department to the letter of 5 March from the Serbian presidency on Rambouillet. [77155]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  Officials discussed the issues raised in the letter with the Yugoslav Ambassador on 8 March. They made it clear that the Rambouillet agreement was a fair and balanced text, following extensive consultations with both sides. The Contact Group was not now prepared to renegotiate the text.

  The officials also pointed out that the Serbian delegation at Rambouillet had agreed to discuss the scope and character of an international presence in Kosovo necessary to implement the agreement.

  Democratic Countries
  Mr. Fallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those countries that Her Majesty's Government classes as democratic. [77435]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  The large majority of states now, at least in principle, aspire to democratic government. But this involves much more than just holding free and fair elections. Transparent and accountable government, freedom of expression and association, and the rule of law are also essential to genuine democracy. Rather than producing league tables, which are liable to be misleading, we are working, through political pressure and practical assistance, to promote the establishment and strengthening of such democratic systems around the world.

  Ambassadors for British Business
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the visits undertaken by each business ambassador. [77341]
  762
  Mr. Fatchett
  The Ambassadors for British Business have participated in more than 120 events in 35 countries. The visits undertaken by each of the Ambassadors for British Business are listed.

  Sir Christopher Benson—Albright and Wilson plc
  India—February 1999

  Sir John Browne—BP Amoco
  Kuwait—June 1998

  Allan Gormly—BPB plc
  Brazil—March 1999

  Lord Marshall of Knightsbridge—British Airways plc

  Malta—March 1997

  Peru—December 1997

  Italy—March 1998

  USA—March 1998

  USA—June 1998

  Switzerland—September 1998

  USA—September 1998

  USA—November 1998

  USA—January 1999

  India—February 1999

  Hong Kong—March 1999

  Tony Pedder—British Steel plc

  India—February 1998

  Turkey—July 1998

  Taiwan—October 1998

  Turkey—November 1998

  Sir lain Vallance—British Telecommunications (BT)

  Germany—April 1998

  France—May 1998

  China—June 1998

  Spain—September 1998

  Lord Paul—Caparo Group Ltd.

  India—December 1997

  Nepal—January 1998

  USA—January 1998

  India—May 1998

  Germany—September 1998

  Finland—September 1998

  USA—October 1998

  Bangladesh—December 1998

  India—January 1999

  Turkey—March 1999

  Hong Kong—March 1999

  India—March 1999

  Adair Turner—CBI

  Austria—January 1998

  Brazil—September 1998

  Egypt—October 1998

  USA—March 1999

  Sir David Alliance—Coats Viyella

  Israel—May 1998

  USA—November 1998

  Sir Colin Southgate—EMI Group plc
  Czech Republic—October 1998
  763
  Martin Sorrell—WPP Group plc

  Japan—February 1998

  USA—April 1998

  Brazil—April 1998

  Egypt—May 1998

  USA—October 1998.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the cost to public funds of the business ambassador scheme. [77342]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Ambassadors for British Business meet their own travel and accommodation costs on their overseas trips. There are some administrative costs to the department in staff time and for the initial meeting and follow up reception in London. In addition our Ambassadors at overseas posts sometimes make use of their entertainment budgets to host an event in connection with the scheme.

  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many business ambassadors there are currently. [77340]

  Mr. Fatchett
  There are currently 36 Ambassadors for British Business. They include the Chairman or Chief Executive of some of Britain's largest and internationally successful companies and represent a wide cross-section of the British private sector.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how the role of Ambassadors for British Business will change following the creation of British Trade International; and what changes there have been in the list of these ambassadors in the past year. [77551]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The Ambassadors for British Business scheme will be administered by British Trade International. There will be no change in the role of the Ambassadors for British Business.

  There have been two deletions to the list during the past year; Mr. James Leek, McLeod Russel Holdings plc, in June 1998 and Lord Sainsbury in July 1998 when he became a member of the Government.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the explanation given to the UN by the Iraqis for the non-distribution of $275 million worth of medicinal supplies; and what reports he has received concerning incomplete apparatus and quality control tests on these supplies. [77254]

  Mr. Fatchett
  I share my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's assessment, as set out in the answer of 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 573, of the Iraqi memorandum about the non-distribution of $275m worth of medical supplies. It is an unconvincing attempt by Iraq to divert responsibility for the distribution problems in the centre and south on to others. In the northern governorates, where distribution is carried out by UN agencies, no problems in the distribution of medical goods were noted in the UN Secretary-General's report.
  764
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action the British delegation at the UN has taken to implement UN resolutions in regard to the children in Iraq. [77327]

  Mr. Fatchett
  HMG has always worked to ensure that UN Security Council resolutions on Iraq are implemented. We were at the forefront of efforts to introduce the UN "oil for food" humanitarian programme and continue to do all we can to help the Iraqi people. Recently, the UK mission has been working at the UN to press Iraq to prioritise contracts effectively, so that the food and health needs of the Iraqi people, including vulnerable groups such as infants, are put first. They have, for example, raised concerns that Iraq has not so far submitted contracts to the Sanctions Committee for high protein biscuits (for pregnant and lactating mothers) and has submitted contracts for only $1.5 million (out of $8.7 million) for high protein milk for infants.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the killing by Western aircraft of an oil-for-food programme monitor. [77358]

  Mr. Fatchett
  None.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the basis is in international law for the concept of no-fly zones. [77354]

  Mr. Fatchett
  The No Fly Zones were established in April 1991 and August 1992 in support of UN Security Council resolution 688 which called on Iraq to end its repression of the civilian population. The No Fly Zones are justified under international law in response to a situation of overwhelming humanitarian necessity.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has obtained on the categories of information exchanged between the US and UNSCOM. [77260]

  Mr. Tony Lloyd
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister gave on 8 March 1999,Official Report, column 15, and the answer I gave him on 9 March 1999, Official Report, column 181.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about possible external involvement in the murder of Ayatollah Muhammed Saddiq al-Sadr at Najaf. [77253]

  Mr. Fatchett
  We have seen press reports that the Government of Iraq have blamed external forces for the murder of Ayatollah al-Sadr. But others, including credible Iraqi Shia sources, hold the Iraqi regime responsible for the assassination. The UN Special Rapporteur previously expressed his fears that such killings formed part of a systematic attack on the independent leadership of Shia muslims in Iraq. We urge the Iraqi authorities to conduct a full investigation into al-Sadr's death and bring the perpetrators to justice.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons(a) disinfectant and (b) coffins are included in UN sanctions on Iraq. [77328]

  Mr. Fatchett
  Under the UN "oil for food" programme, Iraq is allowed to import goods for essential civilian needs, such as disinfectant and coffins.
  765
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reasons the supply of radiotherapy equipment, chemotherapy drugs and analgesics to Iraq has been blocked by British advisers. [77255]

  Mr. Fatchett
  96 per cent. of the contracts submitted by Iraq to the Security Council under the UN "oil for food" programme have been approved. The majority of holds are put in place because paperwork is either incorrect or insufficient. The UK currently has holds on six contracts for medical supplies because the full details required by the UN have not been provided (and in one case because the contract is illegible). I can assure my hon. Friend that the equipment and drugs he specifies do not feature on any of these contracts.

  Overseas Trade Services
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the overseas trade services provided to companies in the last year to which figures are available together with the revenue received by his Department(a) by service and (b) by company. [77489]

  Mr. Fatchett
  5,179 chargeable export services were performed for UK companies during financial year 1997–98 yielding a total of £1.23 million. This revenue accrues to the Department of Trade and Industry. These services fall into two main categories: Tailored Market Information, which can include basic market information, identification and assessment of potential agents/distributors, market assessments for a company's product or service, advice on a company's market approach and general information on local investment opportunities; and Commercial Publicity Services. To provide a breakdown of the services provided to individual companies during this period would involve disproportionate
  cost.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Central Asia
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps she has taken to encourage British business to enter into joint ventures and invest in Central Asia. [63546]

  Clare Short
  An important element of the White Paper's objective of reducing global poverty, is socially responsible partnership with British Business. In Central Asia, we are hoping to work with British Gas. Through a special scheme, we have helped British companies investigate investment opportunities. Our main programmes of assistance in these countries necessarily focus on supporting their transition (to market economies and pluralist democracies) in an equitable and sustainable manner. To this end, in Central Asia we are working with governments to tackle agriculture and health reform, whilst at the same time also helping build civil society.

  Zimbabwe
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the current status of the organisational development project with the Zimbabwe Republic police. [77247]
  766
  Clare Short
  The project was approved in December 1996. It aims to provide efficient and accountable police services to the people of Zimbabwe, especially the poor and disadvantaged. Recent reviews by the Department for International Development indicate that the project is making good progress and is likely to achieve its aim. The Zimbabwe Republic Police are already working more closely with local communities in the planning and delivery of improved police services.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when she next plans to visit Nigeria. [76966]

  Clare Short
  I have no firm plans to visit Nigeria but would aim to do so if a visit would help take forward a Nigerian programme to reduce poverty.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will meet Karol Sikora, Chief of the WHO Cancer Programme and Professor of International Cancer Medicine, to discuss the cancer situation in Iraq. [77256]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development has not been asked to meet Karol Sikora, but my officials are in contact with WHO about the health care needs of Iraqi people, including cancer. Discussions are at an early stage, but we hope they will lead to a joint project.

  Organisation of African Unity
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will place a copy of the agreement made in February 1999 between her Department and the Organisation of African Unity in the Library. [77490]

  Clare Short
  In February the Department for International Development entered into an agreement with the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to provide initial support to their Conflict Management Centre as part of a longer term partnership approach to building OAU capacity in the area of conflict prevention and peace-building. This initiative is part of our conflict reduction strategy: specifically our aim to support the role of regional and sub regional organisations in conflict prevention.

  We are providing USD 515,800, equivalent to approximately £320,000, over 20 months for human resource capacity building in the OAU Conflict Management Centre. Our contribution covers recruitment and salary costs for 4 advisers—i.e., one senior political officer and three regional desk officers—who will be contracted by the OAU for a period of 18 months. In addition, we are providing technical advice to assist in completion of the OAU Conflict Management Centre's Capacity Building Programme document which will be presented to OAU Member States and potential funding partners.
  767
  A copy of the exchange of letters with the Organisation of African Unity, including the Project Memorandum for the Capacity Building Programme, which constitutes our agreement with them will be placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  European Structural Funds
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many times(a) he and (b) his officials have met Welsh Office (i) Ministers and (ii) officials within the last six weeks to discuss matched funding for (1) Objective 1 and (2) Objective 2 in Wales. [76902]

  Mr. Milburn
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]Ministers and officials are in regular dialogue on all matters of policy.

  Millennium Compliance
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are being taken(a) nationally and (b) internationally to avert a liquidity crisis in the event of the millennium non-compliance of computer systems. [76058]

  Mrs. Roche
  The best way to proceed is for financial institutions to achieve a high degree of Year 2000 compliance. The primary responsibility for achieving that lies with the industry. The Financial Services Authority regards this as a major supervisor priority and has made it clear that firms which fail to implement appropriate measures face regulatory intervention. The Bank of England has been making strenuous efforts to ensure that payment and settlement systems are well prepared. The UK financial services sector is generally regarded as a leader in working towards Year 2000 preparedness.

  Internationally, there are a number of groups working on increasing awareness and promoting preparedness, including the Joint Year 2000 Council of the international regulatory organisations, on which the FSA is represented.

  ECOFIN
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the outcome of the ECOFIN Council held in Brussels on 15 March; and if he will make a statement. [77267]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Chancellor and I attended the Economic and Financial Council—ECOFIN—of the European Union in Brussels on 15 March 1999.
  768
  There was a discussion of both expenditure and resources under Agenda 2000, which led to Presidency conclusions. These noted that while Ministers favoured the maintenance of the compromise package for agriculture, there was "broad support" for measures to reduce its budgetary cost.

  The Commission and the Chairman of the Economic and Finance Committee presented draft Opinions on the Stability programmes of Spain, Germany, Belgium, France and Luxembourg. The Council adopted the Opinions on each.

  There was an orientation debate on the structural aspects of the Broad Economic Policy Guidelines, based on preparatory reports by the Commission and the Economic Policy Committee. These analyse Member States' assessments of their product, capital and labour markets which were produced in response to a request by the Cardiff European Council

  The President of the Court of Auditors, Mr. Jan Karlsson, introduced the report of the Court of Auditors for 1997. The Council adopted a recommendation for the discharge of the 1997 Budget.

  The Council adopted conclusions calling for a strengthening of the fight against fraud.

  The Commission presented its Communication to the Council on Duty Free in response to a remit from Vienna European Council which was published very recently. No decision was taken.

  The Council noted an interim report by the Presidency of discussions of the draft directive on the taxation of energy products and invited the Committee of Permanent Representatives to continue its work.

  The Commission presented a proposal for an optional, experimental and time limited reduced rate of VAT on labour intensive services, in response to a request from the Vienna European Council.

  Flexible Mortgages
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what measures he has taken to encourage the provision of flexible mortgages; and if he will make a statement. [77012]

  Ms Armstrong
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]I have been asked to reply.

  In meetings and other engagements, I have encouraged mortgage lenders to develop and market more mortgage products with flexible repayment arrangements. My Department is continuing to pursue this through discussions with lenders and insurers aimed at providing better protection for home buyers.

SCOTLAND

  Press Releases
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland 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. [71468]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The rules governing the work of the Government Information and Communication Service (GICS) 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 documents are in the Library of the House.

  The cost of press releases issued by my Department and its agencies since May 1997 is £119,182.

  I will ask Chief Executives of non-departmental bodies to write to the hon. Member shortly on this matter.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many press releases have been issued by his Department, its agencies and non-departmental bodies in each of the years 1990 to 1998. [71453]

  Model

  Number

  Age (years)

  Total purchase price £

  Total annual running cost (£) (1 February 1998 to 31 January 1999)

  Small/medium saloon

  5

  Over 9

  34,515

  3,141

  Small/medium saloon

  5

  8 to 9

  39,429

  4,588

  Small/medium saloon

  23

  7 to 8

  191,236

  25,594

  Small/medium saloon

  18

  6 to 7

  151,358

  23,976

  Small/medium saloon

  27

  5 to 6

  242,965

  38,099

  Large saloon

  4

  5 to 6

  65,500

  12,700

  Small/medium saloon

  28

  4 to 5

  260,307

  41,899

  Large saloon

  1

  4 to 5

  15,200

  2,450

  Small/medium saloon

  16

  3 to 4

  187,400

  26,110

  Small/medium

  39

  2 to 3

  345,982

  49,130

  Small/medium

  68

  1 to 2

  604,987

  76,421

  Large saloon

  5

  1 to 2

  85,340

  10,690

  Small/medium saloon

  5

  Under 1

  49,380

  1,152

  The large saloon cars are used for the Government Car Service (GCS) in Scotland. At present, 8 chauffeurs are employed to provide this service. The number of chauffeurs has varied depending on demand on the GCS. The total annual cost of employing chauffeurs during the past five years is detailed in the table.

  Year

  Cost (£)

  1994

  150,000

  1995

  156,000

  1996

  165,000

  770
  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 16 February 1999]The number of press releases issued by my Department and its agencies is set out in the list. I will ask Chief Executives of non-departmental bodies to write to the hon. Member shortly with this information.

  Number of press releases

  1990: 2,101

  1991: 2,040

  1992: 2,098

  1993: 2,101

  1994: 1,820

  1995: 2,028

  1996: 2,487

  1997: 2,314

  1998: 2,896.

  Departmental Cars
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the cars owned by his Department, its agencies and public bodies, giving in each case the(a) age, (b) purchase cost and (c) annual running cost; how many of these cars have chauffeurs; and at what annual cost in each of the last five years. [69203]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 8 February 1999]The information requested about cars owned by my Department and its Executive Agencies is listed in the table. Information about cars owned by other public bodies is not held centrally.

  Year

  Cost (£)

  1997

  155,000

  1998

  160,000

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

  Accident and Emergency Departments
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the(a) average and (b) longest waiting time for each accident and emergency department in Scotland in each year since 1996. [74513]
  771
  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]Centrally held information on waiting times in Accident and Emergency (A&E) Departments is derived from a series of week-long surveys of patients carried out in the 32 A&E Departments across Scotland.

  NHS in Scotland: A&E Waiting Times: Time from arrival to completion of treatment by survey 1 and type of patient

  June 1996 Survey

  Trolley cases

  Walking wounded

  Hospital

  Median wait (minutes)

  95th percentile 2 (minutes)

  Median wait (minutes)

  95th percentile 2 (minutes)

  Crosshouse Hospital

  45

  154

  63

  162

  The Ayr Hospital

  81

  197

  97

  212

  Borders General Hospital

  98

  235

  60

  160

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  69

  166

  69

  193

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  55

  128

  37

  84

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  69

  171

  59

  148

  Victoria Hospital

  69

  200

  71

  150

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  67

  170

  49

  115

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  85

  235

  74

  163

  Stobhill Hospital

  55

  154

  50

  130

  Victoria Infirmary Hospital

  22

  88

  22

  66

  Southern General Hospital

  71

  158

  50

  179

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow

  74

  155

  55

  145

  Glasgow Western Infirmary

  85

  185

  95

  215

  Raigmore Hospital

  67

  174

  35

  111

  Monklands District Hospital

  100

  222

  73

  175

  Law Hospital

  48

  95

  40

  107

  Hairmyres Hospital

  50

  101

  39

  110

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  112

  266

  95

  274

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  38

  115

  49

  120

  Dr. Gray's Hospital

  85

  219

  49

  129

  Belfour

  3—

  3—

  15

  36

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children

  71

  175

  55

  163

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  93

  225

  89

  227

  St. John's at Howden, Livingston

  66

  154

  62

  167

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  74

  182

  48

  130

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  72

  155

  68

  194

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  65

  140

  45

  113

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  70

  180

  70

  161

  Western Isles Hospital

  50

  210

  30

  135

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  71

  141

  35

  116

  Gilbert Bain Memorial Hospital

  3—

  3—

  27

  105

  NHS in Scotland: A&E Waiting Times: Time from arrival to completion of treatment by survey 1 and type of patient

  March 1997 Survey

  Trolley cases

  Walking wounded

  Hospital

  Median wait (minutes)

  95th percentile 2 (minutes)

  Median wait (minutes)

  95th percentile 2 (minutes)

  Crosshouse Hospital

  32

  150

  49

  132

  The Ayr Hospital

  71

  162

  64

  139

  Borders General Hospital

  75

  183

  50

  144

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  67

  170

  45

  144

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  66

  167

  46

  132

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  90

  204

  84

  199

  Victoria Hospital

  75

  195

  83

  168

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  67

  190

  43

  135

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  110

  239

  92

  223

  Stobhill Hospital

  60

  160

  46

  120

  Victoria Infirmary Hospital

  38

  107

  29

  86

  Southern General Hospital

  72

  146

  45

  119

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Glasgow

  28

  92

  37

  117

  Glasgow Western Infirmary

  85

  210

  82

  175

  772
  Data at the level of detail requested are not held centrally. Information on the median and the time which 95 per cent. of patients waited from arrival at A&E to completion of treatment, since 1996, is provided in the table. Information on the Accident and Emergency Surveys is published annually in Scottish Health Statistics, copies of which have been placed in the Library.
  773

  NHS in Scotland: A&E Waiting Times: Time from arrival to completion of treatment by survey 1 and type of patient

  March 1997 Survey

  Trolley cases

  Walking wounded

  Hospital

  Median wait (minutes)

  95th percentile 2 (minutes)

  Median wait (minutes)

  95th percentile 2 (minutes)

  Raigmore Hospital

  88

  217

  41

  120

  Monklands District Hospital

  94

  239

  77

  204

  Law Hospital

  66

  155

  46

  137

  Hairmyres Hospital

  75

  184

  48

  130

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  121

  287

  98

  212

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  40

  111

  38

  101

  Dr. Gray's Hospital

  85

  197

  45

  120

  Belfour

  4—

  4—

  21

  65

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children

  80

  159

  58

  149

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  112

  283

  118

  274

  St. John's at Howden, Livingston

  67

  195

  58

  174

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  84

  210

  45

  115

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  65

  138

  43

  136

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  75

  205

  70

  170

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  59

  153

  70

  171

  Western Isles Hospital

  80

  120

  39

  97

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  62

  197

  35

  106

  Gilbert Bain Memorial Hospital

  3—

  3—

  35

  130

  NHS in Scotland: A&E Waiting Times: Time from arrival to completion of treatment by survey 1 and type of patient

  November/December 1997 Survey

  Trolley cases

  Walking wounded

  Hospital

  Median wait (minutes)

  95th percentile 2 (minutes)

  Median wait (minutes)

  95th percentile 2 (minutes)

  Crosshouse Hospital

  41

  129

  51

  150

  The Ayr Hospital

  63

  138

  52

  139

  Borders General Hospital

  90

  219

  53

  171

  Vale of Leven District General Hospital

  84

  179

  47

  161

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  80

  189

  57

  136

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  79

  206

  60

  159

  Victoria Hospital

  83

  194

  81

  182

  Queen Margaret Hospital

  90

  193

  47

  121

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  71

  183

  46

  131

  Stobhill Hospital

  50

  155

  50

  120

  Victoria Infirmary Hospital

  33

  91

  22

  84

  Southern General Hospital

  72

  161

  62

  158

  Glasgow Western Infirmary

  86

  214

  84

  203

  Raigmore Hospital

  60

  149

  33

  107

  Monklands District Hospital

  76

  195

  66

  174

  Law Hospital

  55

  160

  44

  108

  Hairmyres Hospital

  75

  223

  60

  137

  Aberdeen Royal Infirmary

  111

  236

  84

  193

  Royal Aberdeen Children's Hospital

  3—

  3—

  39

  95

  Dr. Gray's Hospital

  80

  184

  45

  126

  Belfour

  4—

  4—

  34

  4—

  Royal Hospital for Sick Children

  86

  197

  50

  163

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  97

  265

  71

  242

  St. John's at Howden, Livingston

  69

  193

  51

  163

  Dundee Royal Infirmary

  96

  222

  57

  135

  Perth Royal Infirmary

  62

  207

  47

  150

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  75

  196

  40

  110

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  60

  160

  45

  115

  Western Isles Hospital

  65

  140

  35

  130

  Dumfries and Galloway Royal Infirmary

  60

  168

  34

  103

  Gilbert Bain Memorial Hospital

  3—

  3—

  35

  100

  1 Figures based on week-long surveys in A&E Departments

  2 Time in which 95% of all patients treatment was completed

  3 Not shown—number of cases less than or equal to 10

  4 Not applicable

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland
  774 775
  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish parliament.

  Assisted Areas
  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many written representations the Scottish Office has received which support assisted area status funding for the Falkirk Council area. [75928]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 17 March 1999]Some 26 written representations in support of the continuing designation of the Falkirk area as an Assisted Area have now been received by The Scottish Office. Comments have been made on the criteria which might be used in designating the new Assisted Areas and the geographical units which could be employed, and all such representations, of course, imply support for regional aid towards investment assistance to industry to continue to be made available. The main form of this aid is currently Regional Selective Assistance, which may only be granted in the Assisted Areas.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the written representations received by the Scottish Office regarding the allocation of assisted area status funds in Scotland following the current review. [75927]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 17 March 1999]No such representations have been received.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations the Scottish Office has made to the Department of Trade and Industry in relation to the review of assisted area status. [75925]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 17 March 1999]The Department of Trade and Industry is conducting the review of the GB Assisted Areas map jointly with The Scottish Office and other Government Departments.

  Mr. Canavan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recommendations the Scottish Office has made to the Department of Trade and Industry regarding the allocation of assisted area status funds in Scotland following the current review. [75926]

  Mr. Dewar
  [holding answer 17 March 1999]None. The overall level of investment assistance to industry in the designated Assisted Areas of Scotland, primarily through the operation of the Regional Selective Assistance scheme, is met from the Scottish Block.

  Royal Commission on Long-term Care
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing paragraph 6.53 of the report by the Royal Commission on Long-term Care(a) to the Scottish Executive and (b) to local authorities. [75493]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]Paragraph 6.53 of the Royal Commission report recommends that personal care should be free both in residential settings and at home and estimates the UK cost 776
  at £1.12 billion. The approximate Scottish share of this total, based on the proportion of people over 65 living in Scotland, would be £94.4 million.

  We are undertaking work at present to refine this figure further to take into account the differences in relative wealth, cost of residential and home based care and service provision in Scotland.

  From 1 July 1999, these matters will be for the Scottish Parliament.

  Care and Repair Grants
  Mr. Davidson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 133, on care and repair grants, if he will break down the sum spent from revenue funding in 1997–98 by local authority. [76373]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The total value of works completed in 1997–98 was around £6 million, covering some 1,400 homes. Revenue funding in 1997–98 amounted to £1.2 million. Scottish Homes and Local Authorities normally fund the revenue costs on a 50/50 basis. However, the break-down by local authority is not held centrally.

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

  Pupil-teacher Ratios
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the pupil-to-teacher ratios were in Scottish(a) primary schools and (b) secondary schools for (i) 1998–99 and (ii) the four previous years. [76243]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The available information is set out in the table.

  Pupil-teacher ratios in publicly funded primary and secondary schools in Scotland

  Primary

  Secondary

  1994–95

  19.5

  12.9

  1995–96

  19.5

  12.9

  1996–97

  19.6

  13.0

  1997–98

  19.9

  13.2

  1998–991

  19.4

  2—

  1 Provisional

  2 Not yet available

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

  Salaries (Education)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what are the current salaries of the principals of the institutions of further and higher education in Scotland. [76241]

  Mrs. Liddell
  It is for individual Boards of Management of incorporated further education (FE) colleges to determine the remuneration of college Principals. Information on their current salaries will not be available centrally until colleges 1998–99 annual accounts are submitted next year. The remuneration
  777
  (including benefits-in-kind, taxable expense allowances and bonuses) of Principals for 1997–98, as shown in the colleges 1997–98 accounts, is as follows:

  £000

  College

  Salary excluding pension contribution 1997–98

  Aberdeen College

  79

  Angus College

  51

  Anniesland College

  51

  Ayr College

  70

  Banff and Buchan College of Further Education

  57

  The Barony College

  47

  Bell College of Technology

  60

  Borders College

  53

  Cardonald College

  74

  Central College of Commerce

  60

  Clackmannan College of Further Education

  50

  Clydebank College

  57

  Coatbridge College

  52

  Cumbernauld College

  52

  Dumfries and Galloway College

  59

  Dundee College

  68

  Elmwood College

  56

  Falkirk College of Further and Higher Education

  68

  Fife College

  62

  Glasgow College of Building and Printing

  68

  Glasgow College of Food Technology

  50

  Glasgow College of Nautical Studies

  56

  Glenrothes College

  62

  Inverness College

  49

  James Watt College of Further and Higher Education

  75

  Jewel and Esk Valley College

  61

  John Wheatley College

  48

  Kilmarnock College

  64

  Langside College

  67

  Lauder College

  57

  Lews Castle College

  48

  Moray College

  165

  Motherwell College

  59

  North Glasgow College

  63

  Oatridge Agricultural College

  47

  Perth College

  66

  Reid Kerr College

  60

  South Lanarkshire College2

  53

  Stevenson College

  62

  Stow College

  71

  Edinburgh's Telford College

  63

  Thurso College

  54

  West Lothian College

  51

  1 Moray College has not yet submitted approved Annual Accounts for 1997–98 to the Department. The figure shown is the salary for 1996–97.

  2 Formerly called Cambuslang College.

  The Department does not collect information about the salaries of Principals of higher education institutions in Scotland nor of FE institutions other than incorporated FE colleges. These are autonomous bodies responsible for the pay and conditions of their staff.

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

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what statutory provisions require an education authority 778
  to provide a relevant education service for an individual child with autistic spectrum disorder; and if he will make a statement. [76404]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Education authorities have a duty under section 1 of the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 to secure the adequate and efficient provision of school education for the children in their area, including children with special educational needs. This includes children with autistic spectrum disorders.

  The Government are implementing a number of measure, announced in November 1998, to assist authorities to improve provision for children with special educational needs. This includes increased investment of £2.5 million per year in in-service development and training for staff working with children with special educational needs, including those with autism.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76172]

  Mr. Dewar
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given on 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 65, by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office.

  Agri-Environment Programme
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the Scottish Agri-Environment Programme. [76364]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The number of participants in the Scottish Agri-Environment Programme is increasing and we have responded by making extra resources available. Expenditure was £9.7 million in 1997–98 and is planned to reach £13 million this year and £22 million by 2001–02. A number of improvements to existing schemes are planned for this year and a new all-Scotland scheme is on course for introduction during the Spring of 2000 under Agenda 2000.

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

  Infective Salmon Anaemia
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to seek recategorisation of infective salmon anaemia as a List 3 disease. [76214]

  Mr. Macdonald
  None. We remain committed to the eradication of infectious salmon anaemia from our waters.

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

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to promote vaccination of salmon against infective salmon anaemia. [76211]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Vaccination against infectious salmon anaemia is not compatible with our strategy of eradication and is not permitted by EC and domestic legislation.

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

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many civil servants in his Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76801]

  Mr. Dewar
  36 staff have signed an agreement to disapply the 48-hour limit. Two staff have declined.

  The standard terms and conditions of service for staff employed by the Scottish Office are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations. Compliance costs are not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Waiting Lists
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what were the average waiting times for each health board for(a) knee and (b) hip joint replacement operations for September (i) 1992, (ii) 1993, (iii) 1994, (iv) 1995 and (v) 1996. [76152]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]The mean waiting time for knee and hip joint replacement operations by Health Board for the years ending 30 September for the period requested, is provided in the table.

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

  NHS in Scotland: Mean waiting times by Health Board for knee and hip joint replacements for the year ended 30 September 1992–96

  Year ending/health board

  Knee replacement mean wait (days)

  Hip joint replacement mean wait (days)

  1992

  Argyll and Clyde

  168

  127

  Ayrshire and Arran

  124

  121

  Borders

  96

  63

  Dumfries and Galloway

  224

  216

  Fife

  151

  115

  Forth Valley

  168

  137

  Grampian

  81

  93

  Greater Glasgow

  130

  140

  Highland

  193

  168

  Lanarkshire

  114

  110

  Lothian

  168

  137

  Orkney

  32

  24

  Shetland

  32

  31

  Tayside

  163

  112

  Western Isles

  233

  113

  1993

  Argyll and Clyde

  140

  131

  Ayrshire and Arran

  129

  109

  Borders

  60

  66

  Dumfries and Galloway

  236

  214

  Fife

  149

  128

  Forth Valley

  233

  157

  Grampian

  101

  89

  Greater Glasgow

  124

  114

  Highland

  206

  150

  Lanarkshire

  142

  140

  Lothian

  167

  140

  Orkney

  40

  36

  Shetland

  70

  57

  780

  NHS in Scotland: Mean waiting times by Health Board for knee and hip joint replacements for the year ended 30 September 1992–96

  Year ending/health board

  Knee replacement mean wait (days)

  Hip joint replacement mean wait(days)

  Tayside

  100

  93

  Western Isles

  261

  163

  1994

  Argyll and Clyde

  152

  116

  Ayrshire and Arran

  125

  100

  Borders

  82

  65

  Dumfries and Galloway

  267

  237

  Fife

  138

  129

  Forth Valley

  219

  180

  Grampian

  100

  88

  Greater Glasgow

  181

  161

  Highland

  190

  140

  Lanarkshire

  144

  141

  Lothian

  145

  138

  Orkney

  28

  25

  Shetland

  99

  100

  Tayside

  111

  105

  Western Isles

  103

  95

  1995

  Argyll and Clyde

  153

  129

  Ayrshire and Arran

  104

  93

  Borders

  84

  85

  Dumfries and Galloway

  276

  196

  Fife

  141

  129

  Forth Valley

  260

  212

  Grampian

  79

  80

  Greater Glasgow

  163

  148

  Highland

  191

  187

  Lanarkshire

  180

  149

  Lothian

  178

  159

  Orkney

  60

  50

  Shetland

  124

  96

  Tayside

  99

  106

  Western Isles

  114

  75

  1996

  Argyll and Clyde

  125

  116

  Ayrshire and Arran

  101

  87

  Borders

  100

  84

  Dumfries and Galloway

  235

  169

  Fife

  87

  82

  Forth Valley

  236

  186

  Grampian

  100

  84

  Greater Glasgow

  186

  167

  Highland

  197

  198

  Lanarkshire

  174

  123

  Lothian

  176

  150

  Orkney

  23

  44

  Shetland

  123

  79

  Tayside

  116

  95

  Western Isles

  117

  64

  Source:

  ISD, Scotland

  NHS Trusts
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish a table showing the salaries(a) with and (b) without pension contributions for the Chief Executive and Chair of each NHS trust in Scotland for each year since 1992–93. [76115]

  Mr. Galbraith
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]The information requested is published and can be obtained from the individual trust Annual Report. Chief Executives who are members of the NHS pension scheme pay the same rate of contribution as other NHS staff.
  781
  The level of remuneration paid to Chairmen of NHS Trusts is determined by legislation and has been unchanged since 1992. The payments made, which are not eligible for pension contribution, are set out in the attached table according to the financial year in which the Trust was established.

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

  NHS trust chairmen remuneration

  NHS trust

  £

  1992–93

  Aberdeen Royal Hospital

  19,285

  South Ayrshire Hospital

  17,145

  1993–94

  Ayrshire and Arran Community Health

  17,145

  Caithness and Sutherland

  15,125

  Dundee Teaching Hospitals

  19,285

  Grampian Healthcare

  19,285

  Monklands and Bellshill

  19,285

  Moray Health Service

  17,145

  North Ayrshire and Arran Community

  19,285

  Raigmore

  17,145

  Royal Alexandra Hospital

  17,145

  Southern General Hospital

  19,285

  Stirling Royal Infirmary

  17,145

  Victoria Infirmary

  19,285

  West Lothian

  19,285

  Yorkhill

  19,285

  1994–95

  Angus

  17,145

  Central Scotland Healthcare

  19,285

  Dumfries and Galloway Acute and Maternity Hospitals

  17,145

  Dundee Healthcare

  19,285

  East and Midlothian

  17,145

  Edinburgh Healthcare

  19,285

  Edinburgh Sick Children's

  15,125

  Falkirk and District Royal Infirmary

  17,145

  £

  Health board

  Private accommodation

  Road traffic acts

  Other

  Tota

  Argyll and Clyde

  16,938

  —

  5,256

  22,194

  Ayrshire and Arran

  —

  —

  820

  820

  Borders

  —

  —

  25

  25

  Dumfries and Galloway

  —

  —

  404

  404

  Fife

  —

  —

  196

  196

  Forth Valley

  —

  —

  5,210

  5,210

  Grampian

  —

  —

  478

  478

  Greater Glasgow

  —

  —

  1,606

  1,606

  Highland

  —

  —

  3,060

  3,060

  Lanarkshire

  —

  —

  1,307

  1,307

  Lothian

  20

  —

  —

  20

  Orkney

  —

  21

  972

  993

  Shetland

  —

  660

  366

  1,026

  Tayside

  —

  —

  632

  632

  Western Isles

  154

  511

  719

  1,384

  Total

  17,112

  1,192

  21,051

  39,355

  The information has been taken from the Health Boards Annual Accounts for 1997–98.

  From 1 July 1999, this will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.
  782

  NHS trust chairmen remuneration

  NHS trust

  £

  Fife Healthcare

  19,285

  Glasgow Royal Infirmary

  19,285

  Greater Glasgow Community and Mental Health Services

  19,285

  Hairmyres and Stonehouse

  17,145

  Highland Communities

  17,145

  Inverclyde Royal Hospital

  17,145

  Kirkcaldy Acute Hospitals

  17,145

  Law Hospital

  17,145

  Perth and Kinross

  17,145

  Queen Margaret Hospital, Dunfermline

  17,145

  Renfrewshire Healthcare

  19,285

  Royal Infirmary of Edinburgh

  19,285

  Stobhill

  19,285

  West Glasgow Hospitals

  19,285

  Western General Hospitals

  19,285

  1995–96

  Argyll and Bute

  17,145

  Borders Community Health Service

  17,145

  Borders General Hospital

  17,145

  Dumfries and Galloway Community Services

  17,145

  Glasgow Dental Hospital

  15,125

  Lanarkshire Healthcare

  19,285

  Lomond Healthcare

  17,145

  Scottish Ambulance Service

  19,285

  Health Boards (Debts)
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amount of(a) bad debts and (b) claims abandoned for each health board broken down by category in the last year for which figures are available. [77143]

  Mr. Galbraith
  The information is set out in the table. Health Board Accounts detail claims abandoned into three categories: (1) Private Accommodation, (2) Road Traffic Acts and (3) Other. All items entered in these three categories are regarded as bad debts.

  NHS Surplus Properties
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list for the last 10 years how much money was raised from the sale of surplus properties in the NHS; if
  783
  he will estimate the amount to be raised in the next 10 years and what use has been made of the proceeds of these sales. [77142]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Information is not held centrally on the disposal proceeds of surplus properties but the NHSiS has raised the sums in the table over the last 10 years from the sale of surplus land, buildings, vehicles and equipment.

  £000

  Year

  1988–89

  10,124

  1989–90

  17,550

  1990–91

  11,408

  1991–92

  10,344

  1992–93

  9,705

  1993–94

  14,362

  1994–95

  26,119

  1995–96

  49,083

  1996–97

  39,248

  1997–98

  31,407

  All sale proceeds have been used for the benefit of the NHSiS by augmenting the public and private sector capital available to the Service.

  Estimates of receipt proceeds for the next 10 years are not available. However the recent NHSiS capital planning exercise estimated receipts of the magnitude detailed in the table for the current year and the next five years. These receipts are from all asset disposals and again will be used to benefit the NHSiS.

  £000

  Year

  1998–99

  20,787

  1999–00

  17,210

  2000–01

  19,185

  2001–02

  31,093

  2002–03

  20,513

  2003–04

  13,670

  Airports and Air Services
  Mr. Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland (1) what progress has been made on the study of the economic impact of regional airports and regional air services announced in "A New Deal for Transport"; when these studies will be completed in Scotland; and if he will make a statement; [76987]

  (2) what plans he has (a) to approve and (b) to initiate developments relating to airports before the completion of the economic impact studies covering airports and air services announced in "A New Deal for Transport"; and if he will make a statement. [76988]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The Scottish Airports and Air Services Study was commissioned in November 1998 by The Scottish Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Study is being undertaken by Environmental Resources Management. An extensive consultation exercise is under way and a Reference Group has been established to provide a forum for particularly interested parties to contribute. Seminars are being held in Edinburgh (29 March) and Inverness (30 March) to widen debate.
  784
  The Study is intended to inform policy on meeting future demand for sustainable air travel and to consider the economics and costs of providing improve airport facilities. The consultants will report in July 1999.

  My right hon. Friend has no plans, however, to initiate airport development and has received no approaches to approve such developments at the major airports in central Scotland. Developments at airports operated by the Government owned company, Highlands & Islands Airports Limited, will take place as required to meet operational needs.

  From 1 July 1999, development of airports will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Reforestation
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what has been the acreage of reforestation undertaken in the United Kingdom during each of the last three years; and if he will list the areas of the country where this has taken place. [77002]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The area of woodland planted in the United Kingdom by, or with the aid of grants from, the Forestry Commission or the Department of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, is given in the table, broken down by country. Trees have been planted in almost all parts of the United Kingdom and a more detailed list is not available.

  All areas in hectares

  Year ended 31 March

  New planting

  Replanting

  Total

  United Kingdom

  1996

  16,350

  13,891

  30,241

  1997

  17,187

  14,995

  32,182

  1998

  16,656

  14,101

  30,757

  Scotland

  1996

  10,560

  6,828

  17,388

  1997

  11,669

  7,202

  18,871

  1998

  11,406

  6,330

  17,736

  England

  1996

  4,378

  4,154

  8,532

  1997

  4,352

  4,262

  8,614

  1998

  4,139

  4,309

  8,448

  Wales

  1996

  442

  2,269

  2,711

  1997

  411

  2,964

  3,375

  1998

  498

  2,733

  3,231

  Northern Ireland

  1996

  970

  640

  1,610

  1997

  755

  567

  1,322

  1998

  613

  729

  1,342

  Local Authority Budgets
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the Scottish Office budget for each local authority in Scotland in cash terms and at 1998–99 prices for(a) 1995–96, (b) 1996–97, (c) 1997–98 and (d) 1998–99; and what is his estimate for (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02. [76865]
  785
  Mr. McLeish
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]Each local authority in Scotland is responsible for setting its own budget. The Scottish Office provides funding to authorities through Aggregate External Finance (AEF) in support of their net current expenditure. The table shows AEF funding at cash and constant 1998–99 prices by local authority for 1995–96 to 1999–2000. The distribution of AEF at a local authority level for 2000–01 and 2001–02 is not yet decided, but overall support for local authority expenditure for each of these years is planned to increase by 3.0 per cent. and 2.7 per cent. respectively.

  Summary of AEF

  £000

  1995–96 AEF (cash)

  1995–96 AEF (constant)

  Aberdeen

  30,697

  33,245

  Angus

  11,422

  12,370

  Annandale/Eskdale

  3,686

  3,992

  Argyll/Bute

  14,011

  15,174

  Badenoch/Strathspey

  1,402

  1,518

  Banff/Buchan

  10,568

  11,445

  Bearsden/Milngavie

  4,330

  4,689

  Berwickshire

  2,314

  2,506

  Caithness

  3,575

  3,872

  Clackmannan

  7,093

  7,682

  Clydebank

  7,787

  8,433

  Clydesdale

  8,126

  8,800

  Cumbernauld

  7,877

  8,531

  Cumnock

  6,140

  6,650

  Cunninghame

  20,912

  22,648

  Dumbarton

  10,440

  11,306

  Dundee

  29,984

  32,473

  Dunfermline

  15,860

  17,176

  East Kilbride

  9,338

  10,113

  East Lothian

  11,854

  12,838

  Eastwood

  4,952

  5,363

  Edinburgh

  77,938

  84,406

  Ettrick/Lauderdale

  3,982

  4,312

  Falkirk

  18,932

  20,503

  Glasgow

  158,560

  171,720

  Gordon

  9,004

  9,751

  Hamilton

  15,000

  16,245

  Inverclyde

  15,362

  16,637

  Inverness

  7,221

  7,820

  Kilmarnock

  10,448

  11,315

  Kincardine/Deeside

  5,785

  6,265

  £000

  1996–97 AEF(cash)

  1996–97 AEF (constant)

  1997–98 AEF (cash)

  1997–98 AEF (constant)

  1998–99 AEF (cash/constant)

  1999–2000 AEF (cash)

  1999–2000 AEF (constant)

  Aberdeen, City

  195,282

  205,168

  190,338

  195,096

  185,886

  192,480

  187,784

  Aberdeenshire

  199,986

  210,110

  202,767

  207,836

  205,386

  213,112

  207,913

  Angus

  99,503

  104,540

  101,928

  104,476

  104,519

  108,762

  106,109

  Argyll and Bute

  111,481

  117,125

  109,325

  112,058

  107,728

  110,884

  108,179

  Clackmannanshire

  46,878

  49,251

  46,523

  47,686

  46,658

  48,430

  47,249

  Dumfries and Galloway

  151,508

  159,178

  151,565

  155,354

  152,465

  159,723

  155,827

  Dundee

  169,403

  177,979

  168,511

  172,724

  167,497

  174,018

  169,773

  East Ayrshire

  123,630

  129,889

  123,915

  127,013

  122,861

  126,160

  123,082

  East Dunbartonshire

  92,508

  97,191

  93,619

  95,959

  90,690

  97,122

  94,753

  East Lothian

  78,669

  82,652

  79,611

  81,601

  78,998

  83,321

  81,288

  East Renfrewshire

  70,856

  74,443

  73,650

  71,491

  71,509

  77,572

  75,680

  Edinburgh, City

  398,977

  419,175

  408,344

  418,553

  408,887

  426,157

  415,761

  Eilean Siar

  67,123

  70,521

  66,887

  68,559

  68,581

  70,424

  68,706

  Falkirk

  130,501

  137,108

  130,673

  133,940

  133,235

  136,312

  132,987

  Fife

  333,212

  350,081

  330,150

  338,404

  328,919

  344,529

  336,124

  Glasgow City

  828,533

  870,477

  810,636

  830,902

  788,624

  813,291

  793,451

  Highland

  241,808

  254,049

  238,449

  244,410

  238,287

  249,883

  243,787

  Inverclyde

  101,591

  106,734

  101,623

  104,164

  96,505

  98,391

  95,991

  Midlothian

  78,036

  81,987

  76,261

  78,168

  77,389

  80,531

  78,566

  786

  Summary of AEF

  £000

  1995–96 AEF (cash)

  1995–96 AEF (constant)

  Kirkcaldy

  18,416

  19,944

  Kyle/Carrick

  14,879

  16,114

  Lochaber

  3,081

  3,337

  Midlothian

  10,287

  11,141

  Monklands

  17,445

  18,893

  Moray

  11,094

  12,015

  Motherwell

  21,872

  23,687

  Nairn

  1,181

  1,279

  Nithsdale

  6,671

  7,225

  North East Fife

  9,273

  10,043

  Perth/Kinross

  16,770

  18,162

  Renfrew

  29,383

  31,822

  Ross/Cromarty

  8,280

  8,967

  Roxburgh

  4,454

  4,824

  Skye/Lochalsh

  2,381

  2,579

  Stewartry

  2,421

  2,622

  Stirling

  13,688

  14,824

  Strathkelvin

  10,692

  11,579

  Sutherland

  2,260

  2,448

  Tweeddale

  1,855

  2,009

  West Lothian

  20,324

  22,011

  Wigtown

  4,092

  4,432

  775,399

  839,753

  Orkney Isles

  35,758

  38,726

  Shetland Isles

  46,706

  50,582

  Western Isles

  66,143

  71,632

  148,607

  160,941

  Borders

  97,293

  105,368

  Central

  222,881

  241,379

  Dumfries and Galloway

  134,799

  145,987

  Fife

  287,186

  311,021

  Grampian

  410,359

  444,416

  Highland

  211,943

  229,533

  Lothian

  583,705

  632,149

  Strathclyde

  2,022,459

  2,190,312

  Tayside

  335,503

  363,348

  4,306,128

  4,663,512

  Scotland

  5,230,134

  5,664,206

  Note:

  The AEF figures are as announced at the time of the settlements
  787

  £000

  1996–97 AEF(cash)

  1996–97 AEF (constant)

  1997–98 AEF (cash)

  1997–98 AEF (constant)

  1998–99 AEF (cash/constant)

  1999–2000 AEF (cash)

  1999–2000 AEF (constant)

  Moray

  85,968

  90,320

  85,749

  87,893

  85,047

  89,039

  86,867

  North Ayrshire

  137,970

  144,955

  141,448

  144,984

  137,018

  143,556

  140,054

  North Lanarkshire

  332,110

  348,923

  330,463

  338,725

  319,860

  333,935

  325,789

  Orkney

  37,975

  39,897

  38,201

  39,156

  39,508

  40,424

  39,438

  Perth and Kinross

  115,251

  121,086

  116,151

  119,055

  121,350

  126,934

  123,837

  Renfrewshire

  175,134

  184,000

  175,197

  179,577

  168,181

  177,333

  173,007

  Scottish Borders

  110,368

  115,955

  109,488

  112,225

  109,654

  115,013

  112,207

  Shetland

  48,224

  50,665

  55,873

  57,270

  55,984

  57,130

  55,736

  South Ayrshire

  107,128

  112,551

  109,304

  112,037

  105,599

  112,248

  109,510

  South Lanarkshire

  300,889

  316,121

  301,209

  308,739

  286,192

  302,874

  295,485

  Stirling

  84,103

  88,361

  85,579

  87,718

  83,787

  88,856

  86,688

  West Dunbartonshire

  114,739

  120,548

  110,845

  113,616

  105,610

  110,152

  107,465

  West Lothian

  147,235

  154,689

  147,257

  150,938

  149,299

  156,250

  152,438

  Scotland

  5,316,579

  5,585,729

  5,311,539

  5,444,327

  5,241,713

  5,464,846

  5,331,532

  Note:

  The AEF figures are as announced at the time of the settlements

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

  New Deal (Gateway)
  Mr. Gorrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the percentage level of attendance by trainees in Scotland at the Gateway stage of the New Deal. [77419]

  Mr. Dewar
  Of the 22,652 young people who started the New Deal in Scotland for the period to the end of December 1998, a total of 21,125 (93.3%) attended their first interview and entered the Gateway stage of the New Deal.

  Children's Hearings
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress has been made on implementing measures to improve the throughput of cases entering the children's hearing system; and if he will make a statement. [78045]

  Mr. Galbraith
  Following receipt of the "Just In Time" report in December 1997, I asked Mrs. Sally Kuenssberg, Chairman of the Scottish Children's Reporter Administration to re-form her working group to consider with the agencies concerned how best to implement the report's recommendations.

  At my request, Mrs. Kuenssberg's group has now produced a blueprint to apply to all relevant agencies. It consists of a code of practice and comprehensive standards and targets for the handling of all cases referred to the hearings system, whether on grounds of offending or care and protection. I have endorsed the Blueprint which is published today. Copies have been placed in the Libraries.

  The care of our children, especially those at risk, is of greatest importance. Effective and early action in co-ordinated working for children and families is widely recognised as beneficial. I am determined to see improvements in services for children and families. This blueprint offers a systematic and innovative approach to tackling both quality and timing issues.
  788
  I have been very encouraged by the wide measure of support for the principles and practical measures contained within the blueprint and now look to the agencies concerned to take forward its introduction. The targets will be a challenge for some and progress towards achieving them will secure improvements over current arrangements. The key to successful introduction and further progress on the Blueprint depends on the active co-operation between the agencies to improve the delivery of their service. The blueprint paves the way for this and I look to Chief Executives and senior managers to take action to monitor its implementation and development within their agencies.

  I have asked Sally Kuenssberg's group to continue to meet periodically to assess progress and, in the light of experience, where standards and targets might be reviewed and improved upon.

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

  Incontinence Beds
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds dealing with incontinence are available in Scotland in(a) all service hospitals, (b) general hospitals, (c) specialist hospitals, (d) teaching hospitals and (e) hospitals in other categories. [77009]

  Mr. Galbraith
  It is not possible to say how many beds are available for dealing with incontinence in Scotland, as most treatment is now carried out on an out-patient basis by specialist nurses and physiotherapists. Patients rarely require in-patient treatment for incontinence per se, but may require to be admitted for treatment of the underlying cause of the incontinence. The causes of incontinence are wide ranging, and treatment therefore takes place in many different settings. Beds are not specifically set aside for treatment of incontinence, in the same way as they are not specifically set aside for many other conditions.

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

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Bereavement Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the present distribution of recipients of widow's benefits by income decile, distinguishing between those receiving widow's pension and those receiving Widowed Mothers Allowance. [76134]

  Angela Eagle
  I refer my hon. Friend to the written answer I gave to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) on 1 March 1999,Official Report, columns 597–98. Information on Widowed Mothers Allowance is not available.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate(a) the proportion of recipients of Widowed Mothers Allowance who are in receipt of occupational pension payments and (b) their distribution areas on the overall income range and across weekly incomes in the form set out in paragraph 13 and paragraph 14 of his consultation paper on bereavement support. [76104]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available as information on current Widowed Mothers Allowance recipients in receipt of Occupational Pensions is not available because the sample sizes involved are too small to allow a robust analysis.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost of extending the bereavement payment to those bereaved people of pension age who are also in receipt of Income Support. [76449]

  Appointee

  Position and Non-Departmental Public Body

  Remuneration

  Air Commordore J. G. Hargreaves CBE

  Member, Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions

  None

  Brigadier H. L. B. Salmon OBE

  Member, Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions

  None

  Jean Cooper

  Member, Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  £126 per meeting

  Dr. Margaret du Feu

  Member, Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  £237 per meeting

  Marilyn Howard

  Member, Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  £126 per meeting

  Dr. Karin Moses

  Member, Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  £237 per meeting

  Lisa Shend'ge

  Member, Disability Living Allowance Advisory Board

  £126 per meeting

  Mr. Brendan Fenelon

  Member, Industrial Injuries Advisory Council

  £112 per meeting

  Professor Eithne McLaughlin

  Member, Social Security Advisory Committee

  £128 per day

  Dr. Adrian Stokes

  Member, Social Security Advisory Committee

  £128 per day

  Miss Boyle

  Vice-Chair, War Pensions Committees

  None

  Mr. W. Brown

  Member, War Pensions Committees

  None

  Mr. Cartwright

  Member, War Pensions Committees

  None

  Mr. Jones

  Member, War Pensions Committees

  None

  Major Marshall

  Member, War Pensions Committees

  None

  Mr. Proctor

  Member, War Pensions Committees

  None

  Mr. C. Ruff

  Member, War Pensions Committees

  None

  Dr. J. K. Anand

  Medical Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £201 per day

  Dr. A. J. Hicks

  Medical Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £201 per day

  Dr. C. E. John

  Medical Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £201 per day

  Dr. P. Griffiths

  Medical Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £201 per day

  Dr. E. B. Knight-Jones

  Medical Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £201 per day

  Dr. F. Willis

  Medical Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £201 per day

  Dr. R. D. Jones

  Medical Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £201 per day

  Mrs. M. Bhatti

  Carer Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £124 day

  Mr. B. Butler

  Carer Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £124 day

  Mr. M. F. Cook

  Carer Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £124 day

  Mr. A. Gupta

  Carer Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £124 day

  Mrs. S. Horn

  Carer Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £124 day

  Mrs. S. A. Howard

  Carer Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £124 day

  Mr. C. C. Lea

  Carer Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £124 day

  Mr. J. C. Locke

  Carer Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £124 day

  790
  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]It is estimated that extending eligibility for the Bereavement Payment would increase expenditure by up to £60 million for pensioners receiving Income Support (IS) in households in 2001–02.

  Note:

  This excludes IS pensioners who are in, or whose partners are in, residential care and nursing homes.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of respondents to the Green Paper, "Support in Bereavement", expressed opposition to the replacement of widow's pension with a time-limited bereavement allowance; and what proportion expressed support. [77300]

  Angela Eagle
  Of the 80 responses to the Support in Bereavement Green Paper received, 28 respondents expressed opposition to the principle of replacing Widows' Pension with a time-limited Bereavement Allowance. 5 respondents expressed support of this specific aspect of the proposals.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security 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. [76462]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is in the table.
  791

  Appointee

  Position and Non-Departmental Public Body

  Remuneration

  Mr. D. J. Vinookumar

  Carer Member, Disability Appeal Tribunals1

  £124 day

  Dr S. G. Cotton

  Medical Member, Medical Appeal Tribunals1

  £246 per day

  Mr. P. W. Edwards

  Medical Member, Medical Appeal Tribunals1

  £246 per day

  Dr. D. Goldin

  Medical Member, Medical Appeal Tribunals1

  £246 per day

  Dr. J. Hancock

  Medical Member, Medical Appeal Tribunals1

  £246 per day

  Dr. E. A. Morrison

  Medical Member, Medical Appeal Tribunals1

  £246 per day

  Dr. J. E. Rees

  Medical Member, Medical Appeal Tribunals1

  £246 per day

  Dr. P. M. Desai

  Medical Assessor, Social Security Appeal Tribunals1

  £201 per day

  Dr. J. N. Smith

  Medical Assessor, Social Security Appeal Tribunals1

  £201 per day

  Dr. W. T. Thom

  Medical Assessor, Social Security Appeal Tribunals1

  £201 per day

  Miss V. Clare

  Part-Time Chairman, Social Security Appeal Tribunals2

  £270 per day

  Mr. J. A. Lakin

  Part-Time Chairman, Social Security Appeal Tribunals2

  £270 per day

  Ms M. Roberts

  Part-Time Chairman, Social Security Appeal Tribunals2

  £270 per day

  1 The President of the Independent Tribunal Service is responsible for the appointment of the Members to the five Appeal Tribunals that are within this Department's jurisdiction

  2 The Lord Chancellor is responsible for the judicial appointments to the five Appeal Tribunals that are within this Department's jurisdiction

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he 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. [76822]

  Mr. Timms
  Between 2 May 1997 and 28 February 1999, the special advisers from this Department have made one visit overseas in an official capacity. All travel complied with the requirements of the Ministerial Code and the Civil Service Management Code.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will breakdown the total of one in three persons living in households claiming at least one major means-tested benefit by the type of benefit claimed. [76208]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 12 March 1999]This Department's latest estimates do not suggest a total of one in three persons living in households claiming at least one major means-tested benefit.

  Number of people claiming means-tested benefits as percentage of total population

  Benefit(s)

  Number of people as percentage of total population

  Housing Benefit only

  1

  Council Tax Benefit only

  3

  Income Support only

  3

  Family Credit only

  0

  Housing Benefit and Family Credit only

  —

  Council Tax Benefit and Family Credit only

  —

  Income Support and Family Credit only

  —

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit only

  4

  Housing Benefit and Income Support only

  1

  Council Tax Benefit and Income Support only

  3

  Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Family Credit only

  1

  Housing Benefit, Income Support and Family Credit only

  —

  Council Tax Benefit, Income Support and Family Credit only

  —

  Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit and Income Support only

  11

  792

  Number of people claiming means-tested benefits as percentage of total population

  Benefit(s)

  Number of people as percentage of total population

  Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Income Support and Family Credit

  —

  Any of the above means-tested benefits

  26

  Notes:

  1. A "major means-tested benefit" was defined as being one of Housing Benefit, Council Tax Benefit, Income Support (including Income Support for the unemployed, before October 1996), Family Credit or Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based, from October 1996 onwards). However, on the 1996–97 Family Resources Survey dataset, it was not possible to distinguish Unemployment Benefit from Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based), which was introduced in October 1996. Thus, Jobseeker's Allowance (Income Based) has not been included in analyses in the table. Analysis of the Family Resources Survey from April to September 1996 (inclusive) show that the proportion of people in households in receipt of at least one of the four means tested benefits given in the table was 27 per cent.

  2. Estimates are subject to sampling error and to variability in non-response. Receipt of Social Security benefits are also based on respondents' own assessment and may be subject to misreporting.

  3. Percentages are rounded to the nearest integer. The symbol "—" indicates less than 0.5 per cent.

  Source:

  1996–97 Family Resources Survey (GB).

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Tyrie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many civil servants in his Department have been invited to waive the Working Time Directive requirement to work less than 48 hours a week on 17 consecutive weeks; how many civil servants in his Department have refused to waive the requirement; and what is the total cost of compliance with the Directive. [76800]

  Mr. Timms
  105 staff in this Department have signed an agreement to disapply the 48 hour limit.

  The standard terms and conditions of service for staff employed by the Department are well within the limits set by the Working Time Regulations. The Regulations do not require employers to keep records of the number of workers who refuse to sign an opt-out agreement and no central records are kept by this Department. Costs of complying with the Directive are not available.

  Water Charges
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make a statement of the future of the direct payment scheme for water charges; and what plans he has to increase the priority of water charges in the order of payments included in the direct payment scheme. [77078]

  Angela Eagle
  The provision for making direct payments from Income Support and income based Jobseeker's Allowance for water charges will continue to operate when disconnection of household water supplies is prohibited. We are considering how the scheme will operate in the light of this policy development. We do not have any plans to increase water charges in the priority order within the direct payment scheme.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many times Ministers in his Department have met their counterparts in the US Government since 1 June 1998; and if he will list the dates and locations of each meeting, the Ministers involved on each occasion, and the name of the US counterpart at each meeting. [77118]

  Mr. Timms
  None.

  Standard Spending Assessments
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if the standard spending assessment for councils incorporates moneys to compensate councils for disregarding war pensions for housing benefit and council tax benefit. [76982]

  Angela Eagle
  The mandatory War Pension disregards are funded in the same way as other expenditure for Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit. The bulk of this expenditure is met by central Government subsidy. Local authorities have discretionary powers to disregard up to the full amount of a War Disablement Pension and War Widow's Pension not already covered by the statutory disregard. However, any benefit payable as a result of such discretion is funded from local authorities' own resources. It is for each local authority to decide, how much, if anything, it can afford.

  Newsletters
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what are the current security classifications of the newsletters produced for the staff of(a) the Benefits Agency and (b) the Child Support Agency; how often each newsletter is produced; and when each newsletter was first produced. [77119]

  Angela Eagle
  The Benefits Agency (BA) has two national newsletters produced for staff, "BA Weekly" and "BA News". The "BA Weekly" has been produced every week since the Agency was established in April 1991. "BA News" is produced monthly. It was first produced in 1991 and is intended to reach all staff in the BA.

  The Child Support Agency (CSA) has two national newsletters produced for staff. "The Weekly" has been produced every week since the Agency was established in April 1993. "The Outlook" is produced monthly and was first produced in autumn 1996.
  794
  There are no security classifications on either the BA or CSA publications.

  Tribunal Hearing (Aldershot)
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the cost was to the public purse of the adjourned Independent Tribunal Service hearing into case No. S/45/167/1998/00627 at Aldershot on 10 March; [77099]

  (2) what reasons his Department was not represented at the Independent Tribunal Service hearing into case No. S/45/167/1998/00627 at Aldershot on 10 March. [77100]

  Angela Eagle
  The President of the Independent Tribunal Service has advised that the cost of the adjourned hearing into case S/45/167/1998/00627 at Aldershot on 10 March 1998 was £33.48.

  The tribunal had a written submission from the adjudication officer. Although it is normal practice for the Department to be represented at hearings, a presenting officer was unable to attend this hearing. The tribunal is able to hear an appeal without a presenting officer. Where a hearing is adjourned in these circumstances, a presenting officer will attend the re-hearing.

  Adjourned Tribunal Hearings
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) at how many cases in the past 12 months his Department has failed to be represented at a scheduled hearing causing the tribunal to stand adjourned; and what percentage of the total number of hearings were so adjourned; [77098]

  (2) what powers the Independent Tribunal Service has to make an award in favour of the applicant when the Department fails to be represented or present at hearings; [77102]

  (3) if he will review the guidance given to the tribunal chairmen as to what award may be made when the Department of Social Security fails to appear and advance a reason to the tribunal for absence; and if he will make a statement. [77101]

  Angela Eagle
  Information about Departmental representation at hearings in the past 12 months cannot be provided and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  The Department is not obliged to provide a representative at tribunal hearings. However, under the new decision making and appeals arrangements, the Benefits Agency aims to provide a presenting officer at all hearings where a representative would add value to the proceedings.

  The Social Security (Adjudication) Regulations 1995 allow a tribunal, in the absence of a party to the proceedings, to proceed with a hearing or to give such directions for the determination of the case as it thinks proper. Similar provision is made in the regulations for new decision making and appeal arrangements which will be debated in the House on 22 March. However,

  795
  regulations also provide for a tribunal to adjourn an oral hearing either on application of any party to the proceedings or of its own accord. The decision of the tribunal whether or not to adjourn a hearing will always be made on the circumstances of the individual case. The handling of such decisions is, of course, a judicial matter.

  Guidance for tribunals is a matter for the President of the Independent Tribunal Service, Judge Michael Harris. I have asked Judge Harris to write to my hon. Friend.

  Housing benefit recipients, cases with non-dependant deductions, by tenure and rate of deduction, Great Britain—May 1998 (provisional)

  Thousands

  Deduction

  All cases

  £7.00

  £16.00

  £22.00

  £36.00

  £41.00

  £45.00

  Total

  187

  121

  19

  17

  10

  14

  Local authority

  138

  92

  14

  13

  8

  4

  9

  Housing association

  28

  18

  2

  2

  1

  2

  3

  Private tenants

  21

  12

  3

  2

  1

  ..

  3

  Housing benefit recipients, percentage of cases with non-dependant deductions, by tenure and rate of deduction. Great Britain—May 1998 (provisional)

  Percentage

  Deduction

  All cases

  £7.00

  £16.00

  £22.00

  £36.00

  £41.00

  £45.00

  Total

  4.2

  2.7

  0.4

  0.4

  0.2

  0.1

  0.3

  Local authority

  3.1

  2.0

  0.3

  0.3

  0.2

  0.1

  0.2

  Housing association

  0.6

  0.4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0.1

  Private tenants

  0.5

  0.3

  0.1

  —

  —

  —

  0.1

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand, percentages to one decimal place.

  2. Recipients may be a single person or a couple.

  3. "—" denotes nil or less than 0.1 per cent.

  4. ".." denotes less than 500 cases.

  5. Cases with more than one non-dependant deduction appear in the table once with only the first occurrence of a deduction being counted. The order of preference for this analysis is with the lowest deduction first.

  6. Cases where the claimant or partner receives Attendance Allowance have been excluded.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample enquiries.

  Single Gateway
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security on what subjects, other than employment opportunities, advice will be provided by the Single Gateway personal advisers. [77426]

  Angela Eagle
  The Personal Advisers' prime purpose will be to help clients explore ways in which they can overcome barriers that prevent participation in the labour market. However, the role will encompass much more than this. They will advise claimants on benefit entitlement, including any current welfare needs, and provide the first point of contact for any queries or difficulties. They will also help individuals gain access to a range of services, such as childcare provision, specialist counselling, housing support and training, and will be able to provide clients with information about their potential eligibility for in-work benefits so that clients can understand what their income levels might be if they moved into employment.

  Housing Benefit
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many housing benefit claims, in the last year for which figures are available, were subject to each rate of non-dependant deduction; at each rate how many claimants were living in(a) local authority properties, (b) housing association properties and (c) private properties; and what each figure represents as a percentage of total housing benefit claims. [77325]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is set out in the tables.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what training will be given to the personal advisers who will conduct the new Single Gateway interviews; and if this training will be specific to particular claimant groups. [77429]

  Angela Eagle
  We are producing a programme of learning to ensure that all Personal Advisers will be able to provide advice, guidance and counselling to help clients identify and overcome their barriers to employment, and also to provide clients with access to a variety of help and information on work, benefits and services.

  The programme will ensure that Personal Advisers have the necessary balance of skills in order to deal with a wide range of clients in differing circumstances, and will not be specific to particular client groups. This will be achieved through the active involvement in the programme of organisations with an understanding of the difficulties faced by different client groups, for example, carers and lone parents.
  797
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security at what grade the personal advisers who will conduct the new Single Gateway interviews will be recruited. [77428]

  Angela Eagle
  Three partner organisations are working together to deliver the Single Work-Focused Gateway service. Each have their own banding or grading structure but the Personal Adviser post will be broadly equivalent to Executive Officer grade.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what targets the Government have set in order to evaluate the success nationwide of the Single Gateway interview. [77427]

  Angela Eagle
  Single Work-Focused Gateway will be piloted in a range of different labour markets. The evaluation of these pilots will allow us to assess the potential impact of Single Work-Focused Gateway should it be extended nationwide.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what reviews will be carried out, and which evaluation measures will be used, in assessing the success of the pilots of the Single Gateway. [77425]

  Angela Eagle
  The Single Work-Focused Gateway will be fully evaluated. The evaluation will compare the outcomes of participants in the pilot areas with those for similar people from other, comparable areas. The evaluation will use a range of standard evaluation techniques—quantitative and qualitative analysis, operational research, and cost-benefit analysis.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what changes to working practices in the Benefits Agency and the Employment Service will be required in order to implement the Single Gateway. [77430]

  Angela Eagle
  All partners involved in the Single Gateway (Employment Service, Benefits Agency and Local Authorities) will deal with both a wider range of clients and with a wider range of issues affecting those clients. This will necessitate much closer working relationships, including improved communications; management arrangements and Information Technology links.

  Existing business processes will be affected and work is currently underway to identify these, in particular the need for business information flows between the partners and effective integration between the new Personal Adviser service and existing processes. Changes to staff locations and office layout are also likely to be required—depending on local delivery arrangements—and work is also underway to identify these changes.

  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has for additional information technology resources following the introduction of the new Single Gateway. [77431]

  Angela Eagle
  The proposed design for the pilot exercises is based on extensions of, and where possible some development of, existing Employment Service, Benefits Agency and other systems. It is based on providing support to the generic Single Gateway Process Model and comprises extending access to current systems into the basic model pilot sites. These are the Employment 798
  Services' Labour Market and Employment Service Communications Systems, and the DSS' Operational Strategy and Integrated Benefit Information Systems.

  Taken together, these changes will form the "core IT" upon which further enhancements and support for the Call Centre and Private/Voluntary Sector variants will be developed. As the pilots develop, and when decisions are taken whether to proceed to national implementation, more longer-term solutions will be developed and implemented.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the estimated cost of housing benefit fraud in each of the last 10 years. [76437]

  Mr. Timms
  Information about Housing Benefit fraud is not available for each of the last ten years. The first Housing Benefit Accuracy Review in 1995 estimated annual losses from fraud and strongly suspected fraud to be £905 million. The equivalent estimate from the second Review in 1997–98 is £600 million. However, due to the different methodology used in each review, it is not possible to state with an acceptable level of statistical certainty that there has been a decrease in the level of fraud and suspected fraud.

  Note:

  Conclusions about the level of incorrect Housing Benefit payments were derived from a sample of claims. For the Housing Benefit reviews, 95 per cent. confidence limits were calculated for each of the estimates. (£500 million to £1,300 million for the 1995 Review estimate and £410 million to £820 million for the 1997–98 Review estimate). These limits indicate the range within which it can be 95 per cent. certain that the true value for all Housing Benefit claims lie.

  Sources:

  Housing Benefit Review 1995 (DSS)

  Housing Benefit Accuracy Review 1997–98 (GSS).

  Private Pensions (National Insurance Rebate)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what the total annual national insurance rebate to private pensions paid from the national insurance fund has been for the last 10 years. [75847]

  Mr. Timms
  [pursuant to his reply, 12 March 1999, c. 397]The information is in the table.

  The cost of the national insurance contribution rebates

  £ billion

  Tax Year

  Rebate

  1988–89

  5.07

  1989–90

  7.68

  1990–91

  7.69

  1991–92

  8.43

  1992–93

  8.71

  1993–94

  7.78

  1994–95

  6.98

  1995–96

  7.09

  1996–97

  7.36

  1997–98

  7.58

  Note:

  The figures show the total rebates in respect of both occupational and personal pension schemes in GB and include:

  (i) a 2 per cent. incentive paid to certain schemes on earnings accrued in tax years 1988–89 to 1992–93; and
  799
  (ii) a 1 per cent. age addition paid to all personal pension scheme holders aged 30 and over on earnings accrued in tax years 1993–94 to 1996–97.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department and the Contributions Agency.

  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
  [pursuant to his reply, 15 March 1999, c. 481]The following analyses of the 1995–96 Family Resources Survey were undertaken for the Pension Provision Group:

  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.

DEFENCE

  Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which targets the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency did not meet in 1997–98; and what monitoring he has undertaken for those targets in 1998–99. [71900]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Foxton to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:
  I refer to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about those key targets the Army Base Storage and Distribution Agency (ABSDA) did not meet in 1997–98, and what monitoring has been undertaken for those targets in 1998–99. As Chief Executive of ABSDA I am replying as it falls within my area of responsibility.
  As reported in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, ABSDA did not achieve, in part, 3 out of its 4 Key Targets (KT) set for 1997–98. These were:
  Key Target 1—To deliver the required level of storage and to process receipts and returns as defined in agreements with the Agency's customers. This KT is made up of 20 parts and some of these were missed. Two Stores Unit Returns were missed; these are items returned to the base depots by Units. The procedure for returning items to stock is being re-evaluated by the Agency, its Customers and Consumers and are being addressed by the ABSDA/Defence Logistics Agency (USA) Benchmarking partnership. Indications for the current year are that performance for Stores Unit Returns has improved significantly. Two Vehicle Receipts targets were also missed due to the abnormally high number of vehicles received from
  800
  trade and an excessive number of faults found by the Vehicle Inspectors at the ABSDA Base Vehicle Depot Ashchurch on vehicles supplied by external suppliers.
  Key Target 2—To meet the Standard Priority System 96 Supply Chain Processing Times (SCPT) for material authorised for issue. This KT breaks down into 21 parts, of which the Agency missed 6. The Agency missed two targets primarily because of the low volumes of this type that exaggerated the impact of such few failures. The 2 lowest Stores non-operational low priority targets were not met but the non-compliance had the agreement of the supported commands and resulted from reduced resources being concentrated on meeting high priority operational demands. Two Vehicles Issue targets were missed mainly due to difficulties encountered with vehicles that had been mid life extended and refurbished. Vehicles classed as fit for issue on selection were found to have faults that required rectification. It has been a difficult balancing act between the achievement of improved performance via a process review and a significant reduction in resources. In the current year all Stores operational and high priority performances are within target.
  Key Target 4—To implement the recommendations of the ABSDA Information Systems Strategy. This KT has 3 elements and the Agency missed one. The target has now been deferred to Mar 99.
  Performance against the subsequent Key Targets for 1998–99 is monitored by the Chief Executive and the Management Board of the Agency on a monthly basis. This performance is reported quarterly to the Agency's Owner and annually to Ministers both in the Next Steps Review and the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts. Key Target Achievement is also considered by the National Audit Office during the annual submission of the Accounts for external audit. ABSDA will be absorbed into the new Defence Storage and Distribution Agency (DSDA) on I Apr 99; lessons learnt from ABSDA's Performance Review, conducted by Army Management Services, have been incorporated into the Key Targets Rationale Paper for the DSDA which is currently with the Agency's Owner prior to submission to Minister (Armed Forces).

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) which targets the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency did not meet in 1997–98; and what monitoring he has undertaken for those targets in 1998–99; [72805]

  (2) on what date the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency published its report for the year 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [72808]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 24 February 1999]This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from C. J. Boyle to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:
  Further to your Questions to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA), these matters fall within the Chief Executive's responsibility. However, as he is currently away from office, I am replying on his behalf.
  Before I address your specific questions, you may find it useful to be aware that AFPAA was formed on 1 April 1997, following recommendations made by Sir Michael Bett in his report of March 1995 of the Independent Review of the Armed Forces' Manpower, Career and Remuneration Structures. A copy of the "Ben Report" may be found in the Library of the House.
  The report of the Independent Review recommended that a Defence Agency should be set up to manage Service personnel administration (but not personnel management) and tasked with

  801
  progressively introducing unified systems and eventually an integrated computer system. The report also concluded that this area offered significant scope for Private Finance Initiative (PFI).
  Amalgamating single Service pay, pensions and personnel administration functions into a tri-Service organisation in the first year of the Agency's operation, 1997/98, was an ambitious undertaking and I am pleased to report that this was undertaken successfully. Similarly, the parallel negotiation and implementation of a service based PFI agreement with EDS has also been completed successfully. The Agency's performance against its Key Targets must, therefore, be seen in this context.
  Of those three Key targets that were not met in full, I hope that the following information provides a more detailed position:
  Key Target 2—Accuracy of Personnel records and Liabilities Data.
  Determine measures to set the baseline of completeness and accuracy of the record of service by Mar 1998—Partially Achieved.
  This Key Target relates to the accuracy of personal and job related data held on the personnel administration IT systems maintained and developed by the Agency. I regret that this Key Target could not be completed within the timescale due to the pressures of other higher priority tasks. The Key Target was, however, carried forward into 1998. A work programme is being initiated with the 3 Services who have principal responsibility for the input, ownership and validation of this data.
  Key Target 5—Customer Satisfaction.
  Develop systematic and objective methods for measuring customer satisfaction in consultation with the Owner and customers by March 1998—Partially Achieved.
  Whilst plans for measuring customer satisfaction were prepared during 1997/98, it was necessary to agree these with the Agency's public/private partner EDS. As the partnership did not become effective until 1 Jan 98, and with the pressure of other priority tasks, it was not possible to undertake this work before March 1998. The inaugural customer satisfaction survey was, however, completed in December 1998 and follow-up performance improvement plans are currently under development.
  Key Target 7—Efficiency
  Develop cost ratios and implement appropriate measures for benchmarking efficiency for AFPAA's services in core personnel administration by March 1998—Partially Achieved.
  This Key Target relates to the establishment of detailed costs for services delivered by the Agency. Whilst cost ratios were developed in 1997 during the process of establishing AFPAA's PFI contract, other higher priority tasks meant that efficiency benchmarking was not achieved before March 1998. A plan for benchmarking AFPAA services has been produced during 1998/99. However, the Key Target was not carried forward to 1998/99, being replaced by an efficiency measure to reduce unit costs by 3%.
  Progress against Key targets is monitored on behalf of the Defence Secretary by the Agency's Owner, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (Programmes and Personnel), through the medium of the Owner's Advisory Board, which meets at least three times a year.
  AFPAA's performance during its first year of operation was reported in it's 1997/98 Annual Report. This report was published on 21 July 98 and copies were placed in the House Libraries. The report was not laid before Parliament as the Agency had not received a Treasury Accounts Direction at that time.
  Finally, the total cost of producing of the Agency's Annual Report was £5,919 for 750 copies, equating to £7.89 per copy.

  Aldermaston
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the safety performance of atomic weapons research establishment Aldermaston in the last calendar year. [73022]
  802
  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 25 February 1999]Safety is of prime importance to all involved in the operation of the Atomic Weapons Establishment, AWE, Aldermaston. The AWE operating contractor, Hunting BRAE, publishes an annual report entitled "Environment, Safety and Health", which includes information on safety performance and the activities that are undertaken at Aldermaston to ensure that safety requirements are met. The 1998 Report is due to be published, as normal, early in the summer. This public report is underpinned by regular internal audits conducted by the contractor.

  The Ministry of Defence on site Compliance Officer conducts regular confidential assessments of AWE' s activities and was satisfied that they met the requirements of the Term Contract. Additionally independent assurance of the safety of AWE is provided by the Health and Safety Executive's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate NII. Aldermaston was awarded a licence to operate by the NII for the first time in July 1997. Maintenance of the licence is subject to the licensee's satisfying the licence conditions in the face of the NII' s rigorous inspection regime.

  Merchant Ships (Military Support)
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the names, flags and dates of merchant ships chartered for defence exercises and military support operations in each year since 1996. [74964]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Soldiers' Accommodation
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many new units of(a) single soldiers' accommodation, (b) married quarters and (c) other new buildings will be required at (i) Tidworth and (ii) Larkhill to meet the needs of the new third mechanised brigades. [75272]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  In my announcement on 2 March of the Army's basing proposals within the United Kingdom, I indicated that it was provisionally planned to deploy an AS-90 artillery regiment of around 700 personnel to Larkhill, a tank regiment of around 600 to Tidworth, an engineer regiment of around 550 men to Perham Down, and to increase the numbers of the existing REME regiment at Tidworth by some 100 men. Initial estimates are that this will lead to a requirement for 450 more single-soldier bed spaces at Larkhill, 350 single-soldier bed spaces at Tidworth and 350 new family quarters in the Tidworth, Bulford and Larkhill area. In addition, there will be a requirement to build garaging and stores for the extra vehicles and additional recreational and support facilities for the increased number of troops. These proposals are subject to planning agreement, and the detailed accommodation requirements for those units to be based at Tidworth and Larkhill will not be finalised until a strategic environmental assessment has been carried out and discussions with local planning authorities have been concluded.

  Military Road Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many military road traffic accidents were reported
  803
  between April 1997 and March 1998; what was the road traffic accident rate per hundred thousand miles driven; what was the cost to (a) his Department and (b) the Army; and what was the cost of (i) compensation claims, (ii) loss of man hours, (iii) medical treatment, (iv) damage to other property, (v) damage to other vehicles and (vi) replacement vehicles. [75006]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]Between April 1997 and March 1998, there were a total of 9,075 road traffic accidents involving military personnel and MOD civilians. Based on the only available mileage data, for Royal Marine and Army units, this represents an estimated rate of two accidents per hundred thousand miles driven. The actual cost of insurance claims against the MOD, after taking into account costs recovered from third parties, was £13.62 million. The actual cost of MOD vehicle repairs was £5.07 million. The illustrative cost of fatalities and injuries to the Department, based on recognised costs provided by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, was £34.9 million. The estimate total cost to the Department, using Health and Safety Executive research methodology, may be up to £149.52 million. The specific cost of accidents to the Army, for loss of man hours, medical treatment, damage to other property, damage to other vehicles and replacement vehicles, is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Note:

  The MOD operates a 100 per cent. accident reporting policy for insurance purposes, irrespective of whether an accident results in a fatality or injury. This differs from the DETR whose statistics are based on reportable accidents only, ie; those which result in an injury or fatality. Accidents involving MOD vehicles in the UK which result in a fatality or injury are reported to the police and by default, would be included in the DETR's national road traffic accident statistics.

  Military District Hospitals
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state the terms agreed with the Department of Health on which his Department operates military district hospital units at(a) Derriford, (b) Frimley and (c) Peterborough, indicating the financial payments between departments thereunder and any guarantees of performance by his Department. [75212]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]The Service Level Agreements (SLA) between my Department and the NHS, which underpin the Ministry of Defence Hospital Units (MDHUs), were reviewed and renegotiated during 1998–99. While the initial agreements with our three original MDHU Trusts (Derriford at Plymouth, Frimley Park, and Peterborough) have been clinically highly successful, the financial and contract arrangements for these partnerships have, however, not been so successful.

  The principles of a new SLA were developed to form a revised contract from 1999–2000. Following detailed discussions with the NHS at local, regional and national levels during 1976 and 1998, contracts based on these principles are currently being negotiated locally, and will be in place for 1999–2000 at the three original MDHUs and at the new MDHU at Northallerton. The new contract model will also form the basis for all future MOD contract relationships with the NHS for hosting staff or
  804
  providing treatment and will underpin a new era in understanding and clinical relationship between the MOD and the NHS.

  The financial arrangements for the new model will involve a Public Expenditure Survey (PES) transfer from the MOD to the Department of Health to compensate affected Health Authorities for the loss of free provision of MOD staff, and to enable the Defence Secondary Care Agency to negotiate directly with the relevant NHS Trust. The PES transfer will amount to some £3.5 million a year. There will also be direct payments by the MOD to NHS Trusts for Service staff and the treatment of Service patients.

  Under the new arrangement, the financial cost and financial risk associated with the absence of military medical or nursing personnel falls on the MOD. In terms of treatment, the host Trust is expected to meet the throughput and waiting times targets set by the MOD, which are included in the contract with provision, as with any NHS purchaser, for appropriate financial adjustment if they are not met.

  Women
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his policy on the deployment of women in the armed forces in front-line combat; and what plans he has to review that policy. [75305]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]The Armed Forces' position on the employment of women is quite clear; service-women are excluded from posts only where their presence would be to the detriment of combat effectiveness or on the ground of health and safety.

  96 per cent. of posts in the RAF and 73 per cent. of posts in the Naval Service have been open to women for some time, but recently, as the result of a further review, 1,300 specialist posts, filled by Royal Navy and Army personnel attached to the Royal Marines, were opened to women. On 1 April 1998, the Army increased the posts open to women from 47 per cent. to 70 per cent. The remaining posts closed to women will remain closed until we can properly assess the impact on combat effectiveness of the recent changes; this work will be completed in two to three years.

  Following recent studies by the Royal Navy, I announced on 24 February 1999, Official Report, columns 300–01, that women will remain excluded from service in submarines and mine clearance diving for the present time.

  Exercises
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries had armed forces involved in the armoured battlegroup exercises in Canada carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76609]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The armed forces of the United Kingdom only were involved in the exercises.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of, and how many personnel were deployed on, the NATO joint exercise in South Africa carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76592]
  805
  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There were no NATO joint exercises in South Africa between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which countries had armed forces involved in the infantry battalion exercises in Kenya carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76610]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The Armed Forces of the United Kingdom took part in the infantry battalion exercises in Kenya carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. Each of the exercises deployed with a Kenyan liaison officer, who was attached for all or part of the exercise.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel were deployed on the brigade exercise in Poland carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [76612]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Exercise ULAN EAGLE, which took place at the Drawko-Pomorskie training area in North East Poland in October 1997, was a British Army exercise undertaken by 20th Armoured Brigade and it involved 3,518 personnel.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the cost of the jungle training exercise in Thailand carried out between 1 April 1997 and 31 March 1998. [72984]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]This exercise was a sub-element of exercise Ocean Wave, which took place in the Gulf, Far East and Asia Pacific regions between 13 January and 28 August 1997, see parliamentary answer, 26 February 1999,Official Report, column 471. The additional costs separately identifiable for the jungle training exercise in Thailand were £27,000, which were included in the overall cost of exercise Ocean Wave.

  Logistics Information Systems Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Logistics Information Systems Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76892]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Logistic Information Systems Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from P. A. Flanagan to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence as to the date the Logistic Information Systems Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what the production costs for the report were.
  The annual report was published on 9 July 1998 and the total cost to produce was £19,744.00.

  Queen Victoria School
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Queen Victoria School; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the Queen Victoria School published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76898]
  806
  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Queen Victoria School. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Brian Raine to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of employees and annual report as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of Queen Victoria School.
  The number of people employed is currently 76 and was 70 at the inception of the Agency on 1 April 1992.
  The Annual Report and Accounts for 1997–98 was published on 23 July and the cost of production was £1,000.

  Meteorological Office
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Meteorological Office; and what was the figure at its inception. [76888]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Meteorological Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Ewins to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:
  Parliamentary Question: Number of people employed by the Met. Office
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of people employed by The Met. Office now and at its inception. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of The Met. Office.
  As at 28 February 1999, The Met. Office employed 2234 staff. When we became an agency on 1 April 1990 the figure was 2447. A breakdown is given below.

  1.4.90

  28.2.99

  Senior Civil Service

  10

  8

  Scientific, managerial, technical

  1888

  1622

  Support

  503

  585

  Locally employed civilians overseas

  46

  19

  Total

  2447

  2234

  You may be interested to know that when The Met. Office was formed in 1854, as part of the Board of Trade to provide meteorological and sea-current information to mariners, it employed just 4 people. Today, our activities include global weather forecasts for defence and civil aviation; specialist services to commerce and industry (including the utilities); a wide range of public meteorological services, including severe weather warnings; and a substantial climate research and prediction programme.

  RAF Training Group Defence Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the RAF Training Group Defence Agency; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the RAF Training Group Defence Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76878]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  807
  Letter from A. J. Stables to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Minister of State for the Armed Forces about the number of people employed by the Royal Air Force Training Group Defence Agency and production of the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts, as these matters fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  Data relating to staff numbers is collated on a quarterly basis, and the latest available figures are those for 31 December 1998. At this time the Agency employed 5,759 permanent staff of whom 3,572 were military personnel and 2,187 civilian staff. The Agency was formed on 1 April 1994 and during the first financial year of its operation the average number of permanent employees was 8,309 (6,035 military and 2,274 civilian).
  I signed the Agency's annual report for 1997/98 in June 1998 and it was placed in the Library of the House on 14 July 1998. The direct cost of its production was just under £17,000.

  UK Hydrographic Office
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the UK Hydrographic Office; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the UK Hydrographic Office published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76874]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Hydrographic Office. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Clarke to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Defence a Parliamentary Question relating to the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office (UKHO). As the matters you raise fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the UKHO, I have been asked to reply to you direct.
  You requested details about the number of people currently employed at the UKHO and also at its inception. As at 1 March 1999, the total number of people employed at the UKHO was 916. In terms of the number of full time equivalent staff, this translates to a figure of 874. In terms of people employed at its inception, the Hydrographic Office was formed by an Order in Council in 1795; at that time it employed only 3 people, Alexander Dalrymple, the first Hydrographer of the Navy, and 2 other cartographic staff.
  As you may know, the UKHO attained Trading Fund status on 1 April 1996, and on the basis that you might wish to compare the number of people employed then and now, I can advise you that as at 1 April 1996 the number of people employed was 883. In terms of the number of full time equivalent staff this translates to a figure of 842.
  Turning now to your enquiries concerning the UKHO's Annual Report, I can tell you that the UKHO's Annual Report and Accounts for 1997/98 was laid before Parliament on Wednesday 15 July 1998. As regards the cost of production, this totalled some £26,626. That said, I think it might be useful to you if I were to qualify that figure to indicate, with a little more precision, what it covered. The cost of production included all production compilation effort, including the sub-contracted composing costs, printing, finishing and associated materials.
  I hope this reply has been of assistance. Please do not hesitate to get in touch if you need any further amplification.

  Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation; what was the figure 808
  at its inception; on what date the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76885]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from S. R. Hill to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:

  1. I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Naval Aircraft Repair Organisation (NARO) as this matter falls within my areas of responsibility as Chief Executive of the NARO.

  2. As at 1st March 1999, the NARO employed 1396 personnel, the figure at its inception of 1st April 1992 was 1618.

  3. The NARO Annual Report for 1997–98 was laid in the library of the House on 1st July 1998 and the cost of production of the report was £2,900 for 500 copies.

  Military Survey Defence Agency
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the Military Survey Defence Agency; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the Military Survey Defence Agency published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76887]

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

  Letter from P. R. Wildman to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the number of people employed by the Military Survey Defence Agency as this matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Military Survey Defence Agency.
  The Military Survey Defence Agency currently employs 1,243 staff. At inception in 1991 the Agency employed 1,568 staff, although 250 of these staff were technically outside the Agency boundary at the time. These staff have since been amalgamated into the Agency.
  The Agency Annual Report and Accounts were laid before Parliament on 28 January 1999. The cost of producing the Annual Report was £8,286.

  RAF Signals Engineering Establishment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people are currently employed by the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment; what was the figure at its inception; on what date the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76879]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment Defence Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  809
  Letter from G. Jones to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence in which you asked: how many people are currently employed by the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment; what the figure was at its inception; on what date the RAF Signals Engineering Establishment published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report, as these matters fall within my responsibility as Chief Executive of the Royal Air Force Signals Engineering Establishment Defence Agency.
  The Agency currently has an authorised establishment of 977 personnel and the strength, as at 1 March 1999, was 929 made up of 339 RAF, 561 Civil Servants and 29 contractors employed to fill established specialist posts, for which suitably-qualified Civil Servants cannot be recruited, and for short-term requirements. At the launch of the Agency in November 1994 the authorised establishment was 1,570 personnel. The majority of the reduction has resulted from the placing of a Multi-Activity Contract with SERCO Defence Limited for the delivery of provisioning, stockholding, transportation, computer and administration services.
  The Agency's Annual Report and Accounts was published on 12 August 1998 at a cost of £5,606 which covered the design and printing.

  Ministry of Defence Police
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Ministry of Defence Police published its report for 1997–98; and what was the cost of production of the report. [76886]

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

  Letter from Walter Bore ham to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 18 March 1999:
  I am replying to your Question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the Ministry of Defence Police report for 1997–98 as this falls into my area of responsibility as Chief Constable/Chief Executive of the Ministry of Defence Policy Agency.
  My 1997–98 annual report was laid before Parliament on 20 July 1998. The cost of production was £24,191.

  RAF Performance
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library copies of the RAF's end of year performance reports in 1996–97 and 1997–98. [76736]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The RAF End of Year Performance Report is a document designed to report on the Service's performance against its Management Plan over the past year, and identifies key issues and themes with major implications for the following year. As such it contains information on operational capabilities of elements of the Armed Forces.

  For these reasons I am withholding these documents under Exemptions 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) and 2 (Internal Discussion and Advice) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  An unclassified account of the MOD's performance can be found in the Departmental Performance Report, which was published on 30 November 1998 and is available in the Library of the House.

  EU Directives and Regulations
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list EU directives and regulations which impact on health and safety issues, working conditions and equality between men and women amongst military and civilian employees for whom he is responsible. [76961]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Unless they contain a specific exemption, all EU directives and regulations which impact on health and safety issues, working conditions and equality between men and women apply to service personnel and Ministry of Defence civilian employees.

  Armed Forces (Compensation)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he will publish a consultation document on the principles underlying a possible new structure of compensation arrangements for the armed forces. [76959]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Member for Birmingham, Erdington (Mr. Corbett) on 15 March 1999,Official Report, column 502.

  Common Leave Allowance
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if from April 1999 all ranks of all three services will move to a common leave allowance of 30 working days. [76958]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  The "Policy for People" element of the Strategic Defence Review included a pledge that a Common Leave Allowance of 30 working days would be introduced for all Armed Forces personnel, regardless of rank or service, on 1 April 1999. The new policy will be introduced by the Naval Service and Royal Air Force on 1 March 1999, and by the Army on 1 April 1999. The date of introduction is governed by the Common Leave Year of each Service.

  Defence Estate (London)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the Review of his Department's Estate in London to be concluded. [77314]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Review of the MOD Estate in London is continuing. On the basis of the work undertaken to date, I have asked for a report in July.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the strategy underlying the current bombing of Iraq. [77357]

  Mr. George Robertson
  The Government's aim in enforcing the no-fly zones is to continue the essential humanitarian task of preventing Saddam Hussein from using his airforce to repress his own people. In undertaking this mission, we have made it clear that we will take robust but appropriate defensive measures in response to any attempts by Iraq to threaten our aircrew. Current military action is purely in self-defence, and taken in response to threats to the coalition. Since the end of Operation Desert Fox, over 160 Iraqi aircraft have violated the no-fly zones and coalition aircraft have been shot at or threatened over 70 times.
  811
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Paveway III laser-guided bombs and Harm anti-radar missiles have been dropped on Iraq since Desert Fox. [77329]

  Mr. George Robertson
  Since Operation Desert Fox, military action by coalition aircraft has been taken only in self-defence in response to Iraqi attempts to shoot down or otherwise threaten our aircraft. RAF Tornados have dropped two Paveway III bombs and fired no High-Speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARM) on Iraq since Operation Desert Fox.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reasons he did not seek UN approval for changing the rules of engagement on bombings of Iraq. [77259]

  Mr. George Robertson
  UK forces patrolling the no-fly zones in support of UN Resolution 688 are not under UN command. Their Rules of Engagement are therefore an entirely national matter.

  Service Personnel (Social Security Benefits)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the number of service personnel in receipt of social security benefits in each of the last five years. [77449]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  Except in a limited number of circumstances, for example, when personnel are serving overseas, entitlement to DSS benefits is normally a matter between individual service personnel and the DSS, to which claims are made direct. Therefore, my Department has no overview of the extent of benefits being claimed by service personnel.

  Widow's Pension
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the loss of widow's and widower's pensions on post-retirement remarriage; and if he will make a statement on the progress of his review of widow's and widower's pensions. [77863]

  Mr. Spellar
  My right hon. Friend from time to time receives representations from hon. Members, the ex-service organisations and from individuals, on widow's and widower's pensions, including suggestions that the widows or widowers of post-retirement marriages to former members of the Armed Forces who left the Services before 6 April 1978 should be entitle to a Forces Family Pension. Widow's and widower's pensions will be examined as part of the review of the Armed Forces Pension Scheme, which is expected to report later this year. This will include a re-examination of the entitlement of such individuals, but I cannot yet predict the outcome. It would be a departure from normal practice to make retrospective improvements to the terms of pensions already in payment.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the consequences for overstretch in the Army of the proposed deployment in Kosovo of British troops. [77302]
  812
  Mr. George Robertson
  As I have said before, a deployment to Kosovo would represent a challenging new commitment for the Army, especially as implementation of the Strategic Defence Review is still at an early stage. The consequences for overstretch would obviously depend on the size and duration of any deployment, and on what happens to other commitments in the meantime.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  CAP
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what the outcome of the discussions on reform of the CAP at the Council of Ministers was; and if he will make a statement. [74384]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 11 March 1999]The House was informed of the outcome of the negotiations on the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy in my statement to the House on 12 March 1999,Official Report, columns 626–40.

  Date-based Export Scheme
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, pursuant to the Prime Minister's oral answer to the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), 24 February 1999,Official Report, columns 385–86, when he issued the invitation to the European Commission to inspect the abattoirs which will be involved in the Date-based Export Scheme; and when he expects the inspections to take place. [74331]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 2 March 1999]I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), on 3 March 1999,Official Report, column 774.

  Pig Producers
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to ensure the repayment of subsidies which the Commission has deemed irregular which were paid to French and German pig producers; and if he will make a statement. [77130]

  Mr. Rooker
  In 1998, both the German and French Governments made announcements about the introduction of state aid schemes aimed at assisting their pig producers. Following representations from the UK and others, however, the German proposal was withdrawn. The EU Commission has expressed concern about some elements of the French proposal and has asked for further information under procedures laid down in Article 93(2) of the Treaty. The French Government have until the end of march to respond. We will, of course, continue to press the Commission to fulfil its obligations under the Treaty which include, if necessary, ordering the repayment of any state aid subsidies plaid illegally.

  Tobacco
  Mrs. Lait
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on EU agricultural policy and its impact on the financial regime for tobacco grown in the EU. [76953]
  813
  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 14 January 1999,Official Report, column 294.

  Pork Products
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will ban the sale of imported pork products which are of a type that cannot legally be produced in the United Kingdom. [76753]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]I assume that the hon. Member is referring to imported pork products which were produced from pigs which may have been reared in stall and tether production systems or fed with pig feed containing meat and bone meal (MBM). An import ban on such products would be incompatible with our EU and World Trade Organisation obligations. I will, however, continue to urge retailers and caterers to take account of animal welfare and other considerations when sourcing pork and pork products. The hon. Member may be aware that major UK retailers have given voluntary assurances to Ministers that they will only source own label fresh pork, bacon, ham, sausages and pork pies from stall and tether and MBM free production systems.

  Quarantine
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when Ministers or officials wrote to the appropriate authorities in the European Commission seeking confirmation that proposals to proceed with UK legislation on animal quarantine reform based on the outcome of the Kennedy report(a) are compatible with single market requirements and (b) will not be opposed by the Commission. [76663]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 15 March 1999]We have kept the Commission closely informed about the Kennedy Report at meetings and through correspondence. If it became necessary to write along the lines suggested by the hon. Gentleman, we would do so.

  Genetically Modified Food
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement about Government policy on the control of genetically modified food. [75373]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 17 March 1999]The Government's policy on the control of GM foods is first and foremost to protect public health and secondly to ensure that all such foods are clearly labelled so that consumers are able to make an informed choice about whether or not to consume them.

  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment his Department has undertaken of the safety of genetically modified foods on a similar basis to those undertaken for pharmaceutical products. [75418]

  Mr. Rooker
  The authorisation of market release for new drugs and genetic modified (GM) foods are subject to different, but equally strict, criteria.
  814
  The assessment for new drugs is based on safety, quality and efficacy. The assessment of novel, including GM, foods is based on establishing that they do not present a danger to the public; that the public are not misled in any way about them; and that they do not disadvantage the public in terms of their nutritional content.

  Mr. Home Robertson
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce regulations for the enforcement of EC Regulation 1139/98 concerning the labelling of genetically-modified soya and maize. [78044]

  Mr. Rooker
  I have laid before Parliament this morning the Food Labelling (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which will come into force tomorrow. These provide the means for Local Authorities to be able to enforce the EC Regulation that requires all foods containing genetically modified soya or maize ingredients to be clearly labelled. This Regulation, which took effect last September, applies to all foods produced and labelled from that date.

  The Government are determined that consumers should be able to choose whether or not to eat genetically modified foods. This includes food sold in restaurants, cafes and takeaways and not just that available from supermarkets. The UK is the first member state in Europe to take steps to ensure that consumers eating out will have the same right to choose whether or not to consume foods containing GM ingredients as those buying from shops.

  As a measure of how seriously the Government take the right of consumers to have clear, reliable information about the GM content of food they buy, we have decided not to wait the customary 21 days for these Regulations to come into force but to make them fully effective from tomorrow.

  A letter is being sent today to interested parties advising them of the content of the Regulations and enclosing a copy of the text. Further copies of the Regulations are available from John Furzer or Raj Pal, MAFF, Room 239c, Ergon House, 17 Smith Square, London SW1P 3JR. In addition, the legislation can be viewed from this afternoon at MAFF Website "http://www.maff. gov.uk/food/novel/labelreg. pdf" A Regulatory Impact Assessment for the Regulations has been prepared and placed in the Library of the House.

  Animal Feeding Stuffs
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the availability of organic high protein feed supplements for sheep over the lambing period; and if he will make a statement. [76795]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 17 March 1999]No specific assessment has been made. However inquiries have not indicated problems with the current availability of organic feeding stuffs for sheep.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will estimate the volume of farm animal feed that has been consumed since the introduction of genetically modified material to such feed. [75106]
  815
  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]In total, about 20 million tonnes of animal feed were purchased in both 1997 and 1998 by livestock farmers for use on their farms, which included some 3.6 million tonnes of imported soya and maize products. A proportion of this would have been derived from GM crops. However, in the absence of crop segregation and specific labelling requirements, it is not possible to know the precise amount. In addition, farmers will have fed material from home-produced crops which would not have contained any genetically modified materials.

  Food Standards Agency
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will invite Mrs. M. Kellie of Nelson House, Staverton, Totnes, Devon TQ9 6PA to take part in the open consultation process on the establishment of a Food Standards Agency; and if he will make a statement on the progress of the consultation process. [76794]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 17 March 1999]Mrs. Kellie attended a consultation meeting in Bristol on 15 March. She has also been sent a copy of the consultation papers dealing with the draft Food Standards Bill, on which her comments would be welcome.

  By 16 March, 176 responses to this consultation exercise had been received. The deadline for responses to the consultation is 24 March.

  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what responses he has received to date to the consultation exercise on a draft Food Standards Agency Bill. [76458]

  Mr. Rooker
  By 15 March, 158 responses had been received. The deadline for responses to the consultation is 24 March 1999.

  Irradiated Food
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what is his policy in respect of the draft Directive on Irradiated Food. [75090]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]The Government consider that the recently adopted EC Directive on Irradiated Food represents an important step in harmonising food irradiation legislation across the EU. Amongst other things, this will require all irradiated foods to be clearly labelled in line with current UK requirements. The Directive will be implemented in the UK within the prescribed time frame of 18 months from the date when the Directive is published by the EC Commission.

  Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the process following the nomination of Julie Shepherd to serve on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. [75087]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]A number of candidates were considered for the post of consumer representative on the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. The person chosen for this 816
  position by Ministers was particularly well qualified having both experience of consumer issues and a scientific qualification. If the hon. Member has particular concerns about this, perhaps he will write to me.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list by title the unpublished reports into aspects of genetic modification which are held by his Department. [75098]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 8 March 1999]It is not the normal practice of governments to release details of information relating to internal policy analysis as is made clear in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  This Department does, however, seek to make available as much information about genetic modification as possible. For example, the minutes of the meetings of the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes (ACNFP), and papers produced and considered by the Committee, are routinely published on the MAFF website. Reports of ACNFP assessments of novel food applications are also published in the Committee's annual reports.

  Meat Inspection
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what information his Department has collated on the charges levied on abattoirs in other EU member states for meat inspection as prescribed by the EU Directive. [76288]

  Mr. Rooker
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) on 9 March 1999,Official Report, column 193.

  Cattle Passports
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number of passports issued for cattle for each month since the start of the scheme which have required amendment as a result of error. [76219]

  Mr. Rooker
  Since the Cattle Tracing System was launched on 28 September 1998, the following number of cheque-book style passports have been re-issued by the British Cattle Movement Service in each month:

  Date

  28 September—October 1998:

  5,368

  November 1998:

  13,237

  December 1998:

  13,717

  January 1999:

  20,364

  February 1999:

  16,880

  This figure includes both passports re-issued as a result of error and those re-issued because of loss.

  Figures for passports re-issued under the Cattle Passports System between 1 July 1996 and 28 September 1998 are not readily available and could be gathered only at disproportionate cost.

  Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations he has received requesting a review of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966; and if he will make a statement. [76618]

  Mr. Rooker
  Both the British Equine Veterinary Association (BEVA) and the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (RCVS) have been seeking changes to the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 and Orders made under it. These representations, which deal with the scope of the work which should be reserved to veterinary surgeons or which might be entrusted to paraprofessionals, have raised a number of issues that require serious consideration.

  US Dairy Imports
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what amount by value of US dairy products are imported into the United Kingdom; and if they benefit from the US Dairy Export Incentive Programme. [76207]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]In 1998 the UK imported dairy products from the US to the value of £3,436,068. 90 per cent. of this figure consisted of imports of ice cream. In 1997–98 and 1998–99 the UK has not been a target market for the US Dairy Export Incentive Programme (which does not in any case cover ice cream), so UK imports of US dairy products have not benefited from this Programme.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of whether the Dairy Export Incentive Programme of the United States is consistent with World Trade Organisation agreements. [76206]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]Export subsidies are permitted under the WTO Agreement on Agriculture, subject to commitments to reduce both the volume of and expenditure on subsidised exports over the period of the Agreement, and to notify these subsidies to the WTO.

  The US Dairy Incentive Export Programme is a notified subsidy, and there is no evidence from the most recent figures submitted to suggest that the US is not reducing its agricultural export subsidies in line with the Agriculture Agreement. I therefore have no reason to believe that this measure is not in compliance with WTO rules. However, the compatibility with WTO rules of any trade measure can be definitively determined only under WTO dispute settlement procedures.

  Genetically Modified Crops
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those companies involved in genetically modified crops to which research grants have been awarded by his Department in the last three years. [75863]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  [holding answer 10 March 1999]The Ministry has awarded a research grant to Advanced Technologies (Cambridge) Ltd. together with Leeds University to develop nematode resistance in crops.
  818
  In addition, the Ministry co-funds research on a wide range of topics under the Government's LINK scheme. The following companies are 'co-funding' genetically modified crop research with the Ministry.

  Zeneca, Nickerson Zwaan BV

  PBI (now Monsanto)

  Advanced Technologies (Cambridge) Ltd.

  Agricultural Genetics Co.

  Novartis

  Agrevo

  Nutting and Sons Ltd.

  Elsoms Seeds Ltd.

  A. L. Tozer Ltd.

  Kentish Garden Marketing Ltd.

  Horse Chestnut Disease
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what research his Department has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into Horse Chestnut disease; [R] [75850]

  (2) what publicity his Ministry has undertaken to ensure that the symptoms of Horse Chestnut disease can be recognised; and what estimate he has made of its prevalence in the United Kingdom; [R] [75832]

  (3) what discussions he has had with ministers of European Union countries about the spread of Horse Chestnut disease; [R] [75833]

  (4) what arrangements he has made for effective measures to be taken to combat Horse Chestnut disease. [R] [75834]

  Mr. Morley
  The horse chestnut leaf miner causes horse chestnut trees to lose their leaves; these symptoms are sometimes referred to as Horse Chestnut disease. The leaf miner has not been found in the United Kingdom; it prefers the warmer summers found in other parts of Europe.

  The Forestry Commission has studied the problem and evaluated the risks it poses to trees in the United Kingdom, drawing on experience and research in continental Europe. The Commission concluded that the risk of the leaf miner becoming established in the United Kingdom is very small, and that there is therefore no need for further research in the United Kingdom at present. We shall, of course, continue to monitor the spread of the leaf miner elsewhere in Europe, in association with other European countries.

  As the leaf miner is not present in the United Kingdom, we do not think that a publicity campaign to heighten awareness is necessary. We shall, however, continue to enforce our strict plant health regulations which should ensure that the leaf miner does not enter the country on imported plants or timber.

  Neither my right hon. Friend the Minister nor I have discussed the problem with fellow Ministers in the European Union. Our officials in the Forestry Commission are, however, keeping in close contact with their colleagues in other Governments and research institutes throughout Europe.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what representations Ministers in his Department have received on genetically modified organisms and the biotechnology industry from the US Government. [72760]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 1 March 1999]Genetically modified organisms and the biotechnology industry have been raised on three occasions by representatives of the US Government since May 1997. This took place during meetings between my right hon. Friend the previous Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and the US Ambassador to London on 26 November 1997; and between my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and(a) the US Trade Representative, Ambassador Barshefsky, on 23 October 1998 and (b) Mr. Dan Glickman, the US Agriculture Secretary, on 22 January 1999.

  English Wine
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what are(a) the maximum permitted quota for English wine, (b) the current output of English vineyards and (c) the types of grapes which are allowed to be grown in England. [76159]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no quota for English wine. Because of the UK climate, vineyard output is variable: average production in England and Wales over the period 1993–97 was 16,344 hectolitres, while in 1997 (the last available year) it was 6,523 hectolitres. The vine varieties which may be used for table wine and quality wine in the UK are set out in the CAP (Wine) Regulations 1996, as amended.

  Flood and Coastal Defences
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to publish his Department's revised Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance Notes. [76372]

  Mr. Morley
  We plan to replace the Project Appraisal Guidance Notes with a series of six documents covering strategic planning and appraisal; economic appraisal; risk assessment; environmental appraisal; post project evaluation in addition to an introductory volume. The series will be published over the next eighteen months. The guidance on economic appraisal is nearing finalisation and publication is due by the summer.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list those who have been formally asked to comment on drafts of his Department's Flood and Coastal Defence Project Appraisal Guidance Notes; and if he will publish a list of consultees and their responses. [76380]

  Mr. Morley
  Prior to embarking on a review of the Project Appraisal Guidance Notes operating authorities—the Environment Agency, local authorities and Internal Drainage Bodies—the Ministry's Flood and Coastal Defence Policy and Review Group consultants and contractors were consulted on their effectiveness and provided the opportunity to contribute to a revision. We concluded that the current Notes should be replaced with a series which would continue to elaborate Treasury 820
  guidelines, but would update and present existing guidance in a single series. Preparation of these documents is being progressed under the guidance of specific steering groups with appropriate representation drawn from among operating authorities, English nature, and consultants.

  Appointments
  Mr. Vaz
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food 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. [76413]

  Mr. Morley
  The following appointments or re-appointments have been made since 1 November 1998:

  Agricultural Wages Committees

  Members (£68 per day)

  Ms Jeanette Firrell, and

  Edward Kirby (Cambs, Beds, Essex and Herts

  James Leishman (Norfolk and Suffolk)

  Mrs. Edith Owen (Shropshire)

  Apple and Pear Research Council

  Member (£60 per day)

  Mrs. Rebecca Upson

  Environment Agency Board

  Member (£266 per day)

  Andrew Dare CBE

  Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

  Trustees (unpaid)

  Spencer de Grey

  Hugh Gordon Dickinson

  Ian Oag

  Sir Jeffery Haverstock Bowman (Queen's Trustee)

  Regional Flood Defence Committees.

  Members (unpaid)

  Professor Roy Charles Ward (Yorkshire)

  Mrs. Jean Christine Stidwell (Thames)

  Advisory Committee on Pesticides

  Member (£136 per meeting)

  Colin Soutar

  Agricultural Dwelling House Advisory Committees

  Members (£86 per day)

  Barry capon, and

  Peter Scates (Norfolk and Suffolk)

  Edward Kirby, and

  Alan Felstead (Cambs, Beds, Essex and Herts)

  Farm Animal Welfare Council

  Chairman (£176 per meeting)

  Mrs. Judy MacArthur Clark

  Members (£111 per meeting)

  John Peter McInerney

  Gareth Lloyd

  Food Advisory Committee

  Members (£138 per meeting)

  Charles McDonald

  Christopher Llewelyn

  Covent Garden Market Authority

  Member (£7,475 per annum)

  Alan J. Cole.

  Electronic Red Boxes
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will name the Ministers in his Department who are regular users of electronic Red Boxes. [76180]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply given to him by my right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, the Cabinet Office on 16 March 1999,Official Report, columns 651–52.

  No "laptop red boxes" are currently in use in my Department.

  Wildlife Protection
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food for what measures he has put in place to improve protection for wildlife. [77187]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]The Government are committed to a continuing expansion of areas under agreement under the major agri-environment schemes and are making an extra £40 million available over the next three years for these schemes in England.
  822
  Other measures include introducing stronger protection for internationally important wildlife sites from flooding and coastal erosion, persuading the European Commission to simplify the arrangements for voluntary set-aside to enable it to be of greater benefit for wildlife, encouraging the development of the flax protocol, and updating Codes of Practice for Pesticides and the Protection of Water, Soil and Air.

  Multinational Food Companies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his Department's policy towards, and what assessment he has made of, the implications for food security of the increased role of multinational companies in the food chain. [76499]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 March 1999]My Department has every confidence in the security of food supplies due to the diverse make-up of the sector which ranges from a myriad of small domestic companies through to a small number of large multinational companies. Each has its own important role to play in the market place.

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by Lord Bishop of Norwich.): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
The Marquess of Cholmondeley—Took the Oath.

Scotland: Unemployment Statistics
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish asked Her Majesty's Government:
What was the total number of unemployed people in Scotland in February; and how this compares with the numbers in January 1999 and February 1998.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston): My Lords, the total number of people unemployed, on the Government's preferred measure of ILO unemployment, is not available on a monthly basis. However, the total number of people claiming unemployment related benefits in Scotland in February 1999 was 136, 100. That is 300 higher than in January 1999, but 4, 100 lower than in February 1998.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, first, perhaps I may welcome the noble Lord to his first outing at Starred Questions. I commiserate with him on having to reply to a Question on Scottish unemployment, which has risen pretty consistently since he was invited to take the poisoned chalice of the industry job at the Scottish Office. On the preferred ILO count, does the noble Lord agree that over the year for which the latest figures are available the number of unemployed in Scotland has increased by 12, 000 and now stands at 7.5 per cent? There are job losses in Scotland day after day, to such an extent that the Labour supporting Daily Record recently ran the headline:
"Scotland the Grave—Union warning to Labour as job losses reach crisis point".
When will the Government take responsibility for the policies that are bringing this about?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the signals from the latest unemployment figures for Scotland are mixed. Certainly, the ILO count was up. However, the ILO count in Scotland is unadjusted. The sample allows a range in the present circumstances between 169, 000 and 202, 000. Therefore, while the figure has risen to 7.5 per cent. on the ILO count, I am delighted to say that that is 4.1 per cent. below the unemployment rate for London.
In the year following the 1998 count employers in Scotland have reported the creation of 32, 000 extra jobs. That is not based on a random sample. There is an increase of more than 2, 200 job vacancies on the total for the same time last year.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that unemployment in Scotland will worsen
822
considerably if the trade dispute with the United States involving cashmere woollen goods is not settled quickly, and that it will affect northern Scotland, where there is also a textile industry, as well as the Borders?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I agree with the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord. He will be pleased to hear that the Secretary of State for Scotland is presently in the United States and that he met the President yesterday. I am sure that at every opportunity he is pressing the case of the textile industry, and in particular that of the producers of cashmere.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are 26 parliamentary constituencies in London with unemployment levels higher than in any parliamentary constituency in Scotland? Does my noble friend therefore agree that the time has now come to think again about the Barnett formula for distributing public expenditure?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the formula that is presently used is based on need. It can be reassessed in discussion with the Scottish executive in the future. It is important to bear in mind that, while Scotland faces a tough year, especially in relation to employment in the oil and gas industries which represent over 100, 000 employees in Scotland, we fight back from the strongest base. The claimant count of 5.5 per cent. has remained steady for six months. That is the lowest rate for 22 years. I can say with some pleasure that the unemployment rate among young people is the lowest for a generation.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, my noble friend referred to something which I did not know was a formula 20 years ago when I invented it. Will he recognise that if, as he said, the formula is based on needs, there is a case for changing the formula—keeping the name of course, but calling it a Mark II?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, if that judgment were left to the people of Scotland, I am sure that in appreciation of what my noble friend has done for them over the years they would preserve the name for posterity. I am certain that the formula will be under review in the years to come. That will be a matter for the Government and the new executive in Scotland.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, the generally accepted figure in the media for the increase in unemployment is around 7 per cent. That is before the impact on the textile industry that was mentioned by my noble friend. Have the Government undertaken an evaluation of the increase in unemployment as a result of the swingeing increase in fuel duty as it affects road haulage and industry generally?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, by increasing fuel duty we have continued the policies of the previous government. We take very seriously our concerns about the environment, which I am sure are

823
shared by the whole House. We believe that the policies that we are pursuing will create jobs in Scotland. Considerable public spending will go into health and education and other social areas. We estimate that 30, 000 new jobs will be created in areas such as childcare, classroom assistance, and in the construction industry if our radical plans for the transfer of housing stock are implemented. We believe that tens of thousands of new jobs will be created simply as a result of government investment in public services.
Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a great deal of public confidence in the policies that are being pursued by Her Majesty's Government in Scotland? That is instanced by an opinion poll published in today's Scotsman indicating that the Labour Party has increased its lead in Scotland over its opponents by 14 per cent. and that the Conservative Party does not appear to have benefited at all. Does my noble friend agree that the policies offered by the Scottish National Party whereby working people in Scotland would pay more tax for doing the same work as those in England and Wales are nonsense?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I readily agree with my noble friend. We should be aware that 224, 000 sole proprietors and partnerships in Scotland would be affected were the Scottish nationalist measures on tax ever put into effect. It would be very damaging for employment in Scotland. It would be damaging for inward investment to Scotland, where we have an unmatched record in the United Kingdom. It would allow the Welsh Development Agency and the nascent regional development agencies of England to try to persuade inward investors that Scotland was a uniquely high-tax enclave, and that is certainly something that the Government would not welcome.

Scottish Parliament: Ceremonial Arrangements
3.11 p. m.
Lord Napier and Ettrick: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I declare an interest as a descendant of one of the most ancient noble families in Scotland.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty"s Government what arrangements have been made for the ceremonial, and for the attendance of the Peerage of Scotland, at the opening of the new Scottish Parliament by the Sovereign on Thursday, 1st July 1999.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, arrangements for 1st July are being developed by the Opening Ceremony Working Group, which includes representatives from a range of interested organisations. Details of the plans for the day will be announced shortly.
Lord Napier and Ettrick: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that chink of light. Does he agree with me
824
that when this event occurs it will be the most momentous thing to have happened in Scotland since the last sovereign Scottish Parliament adjourned on 1st May 1707? Is it not of paramount importance that nobody should rubbish our history and traditions if we are to maintain this Kingdom united?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the opening ceremony for the Scottish Parliament will be a ceremony appropriate for a modern parliament, while fully recognising Scottish traditions. It will be a dignified ceremony appropriate to the occasion. Careful planning and consultation are in hand for the ceremony, including continuing discussions between the Scottish Office and Buckingham Palace. However, no final decisions have been taken. The events of the day will be full of colour and pageantry and will be an opportunity to celebrate the establishment of the new Parliament. I hope no noble Lords in the House today are related to any of those Lords denounced by Robert Burns as a parcel of rogues for voting in favour of the Union!
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, is the Minister aware that at least seven Members of your Lordships' House will be either hoping or expecting to be in attendance on the Sovereign at that occasion because they are standing for election to the Parliament? Is he aware that in some cases the expectation is greater than the hope and in others the hope is greater than the expectation? Does he accept that, whatever advance work is being done, no one can determine what the arrangements will be until the Parliament has met on 12th May and made its own decisions as to what will happen at the official opening on 1st July?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord is correct. As I said, discussions are in progress through the Opening Ceremony Working Group. Representatives on that body include representatives of the Palace, the military, the police, Edinburgh council, the consultative steering group, which has been influential in preparing for the new Parliament, and other interested bodies. I look forward to seeing a number of noble Lords in the Scottish Parliament. I am sorry that I am not standing myself, but I wish them well.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that, as the holder of the most ancient peerage in the United Kingdom—which coincidentally happens to be a Scottish peerage—despite the length of my lineage, my mind is not cast in stone, going back to 1114?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. I look forward to seeing as many noble Lords at the ceremony as can be accommodated, but we should be aware that the public space in the assembly hall in Edinburgh is restricted to fewer than

825
500 seats. We believe that, with full consultation, we shall be able to achieve the appropriate balance at the opening ceremony.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am not an hereditary Peer, of course. Can the noble Lord tell the House whether the Peerage of Scotland is one of the interested bodies which the working group is consulting?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, we are currently considering who should be invited to the opening ceremony. Clearly many groups and individuals will have a claim.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, I asked whether the Peerage of Scotland was one of the interested bodies that the working group was now consulting.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, in answer to the noble Baroness, I was going on to say that many groups and individuals with a claim will be invited. The Scottish Peers will be considered, along with the other groups. Although not everyone will be able to attend the ceremony, we expect to see many people in Edinburgh and across Scotland.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord on his baptismal outing in the past 15 minutes. Perhaps I may ask him when I may expect my invitation as a Peer who is not standing for election to the Scottish Parliament.
Does the noble Lord agree that it is important that we combine a modern parliament with some degree of pageantry and colour to show that this is a serious and historic event? Will he assure me that, whatever decisions are taken by the working group and transmitted to Her Majesty, it will be made clear, especially to the press, that Her Majesty will be attending at the request of the Parliament?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that all these matters are being given full consideration. We believe that the noble Lord's concerns for the historic organisation of the day will be fully met. The challenge is to balance the traditional elements with a forward-looking modern event that befits a new parliament and a new millennium. I stress that detailed plans are being finalised to try to achieve that; there is still opportunity to influence the outcome.
The Earl of Kintore: My Lords, I declare an interest as a Scottish Peer. Are the Government aware that the current Sword of State was deliberately broken for concealment purposes and, although now repaired, is still rather fragile? To celebrate the return of a parliament to Scotland, will the Government take the opportunity to commission a new sword from craftsmen living in Scotland?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord's suggestion will be taken into
826
consideration by the Opening Ceremony Working Group. The sword looks fragile but rather splendid in its historical setting, which I think we owe to Sir Walter Scott for rediscovering it after the centuries during which it was lost.

Tobacco Smuggling
3.19 p. m.
Lord Jacobs Lord Jacobs asked Her Majesty"s Government:
In view of the success of Customs and Excise in detecting the illegal importation of hard drugs, what new measures are being taken to prevent the loss of £1 billion per year from tobacco smuggling.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Comprehensive Spending Review of July 1998 allocated Customs £35 million to tackle evasion of alcohol and tobacco duties, and this has enabled them to employ over 100 extra front line staff who will be operationally effective from 1st April. The Paymaster General announced after the Budget an independent evaluation of the strategy and measures deployed to tackle excise duty fraud and evasion and in particular the growing threat of tobacco smuggling.
Lord Jacobs: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he agree that HM Customs and Excise have been exceedingly successful in detecting hard drugs coming into this country where a packet the size of a packet of cigarettes may have a street value of several thousand pounds? Can he therefore explain why Customs and Excise have had difficulty in detecting what must be a convoy of 40-tonne trucks coming into this country loaded with tobacco?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe it is true that Customs and Excise have been notably unsuccessful. The seizures in 1997–98 were valued at £76 million compared with only £29 million in the preceding year. One of the problems has always been that, for example, the illegal freight import of tobacco is not so easily susceptible to detection by sniffer dogs, although some have been trained for that purpose, and we do not yet have in place extra equipment at all ports to enable us to identify freight loads.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, should not Customs and Excise be congratulated on their actions in the detection of illegal drugs? But is it not the case that other European Union governments take a more schizophrenic attitude to the taxation of tobacco than do we who give priority to health? That being so, can the noble Lord inform the House whether the list of unfavourable tax practices that is being examined by the Paymaster General includes the taxation of tobacco?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not understand what the noble Lord means by "schizophrenic". Perhaps at a later time he will explain to me his use of that word. The list to which the noble

827
Lord refers contains possible examples of harmful tax competition. I do not believe that excise duties fall into that category.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, will the noble Lord look into his history book? Mr. Pitt, the younger, reduced the tax on tea from 110 per cent. to 25 per cent., thereby ruining the smuggling trade and increasing the take by the Exchequer.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord is not inviting us to,
"Watch the wall, my darling, while the Gentlemen go by".
A significant element in the growth of smuggling is the big difference in duty between our tobacco taxes and those of other countries. But that is by no means the whole story. There are issues related to transportation costs and tobacco margins. It is also true that Italy and Spain have much lower tobacco duties, but they still have a very serious smuggling problem.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, is it not the case that persistent application of the escalator by successive Chancellors has meant that the annual revenue loss has risen from £560 million in 1996 to £1.5 billion in 1999? Does this not represent a triumph of ideology and political correctness over common sense?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl attacks the escalator policy. Presumably, he also applies that to fuel duties and calls that "ideology". First, it was begun by his own government and, secondly, the reason for the escalator policy on fuel duties is based on global warming and environmental protection. The escalator for tobacco is a public health issue. I do not believe that those are negligible considerations.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the law of diminishing returns appears to be operating in relation to the over-taxation (if I may put it that way) of tobacco? Does my noble friend also agree that that has an adverse effect on government health policy since the Government and the authorities are increasingly unable to determine whether tobacco smoking is increasing or decreasing?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I simply do not agree with my noble friend that we have reached the point of diminishing returns. In purely financial terms the income from tobacco excise duty is very substantial. While I do not in any way condone smuggling or underestimate the cost to the Exchequer of that activity, nevertheless it is important for both public health and financial reasons that we should continue this policy.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, is it not true that the Government believe that if wages are taxed and social costs are imposed on wages on the Continent jobs will come to Great Britain? However, the Government then state that if they tax petrol and tobacco it will have only a beneficial cost. I am a simple fellow. Is it not
828
self-evident that if a whacking great tax is imposed on tobacco a person will bring a Ford transit van across the channel loaded to the axles with smoke-your-own and say that all of it is for his personal consumption even though that person does not smoke? One does not have to be other than a simple fellow like myself to understand it. Why cannot the Government understand that—or are they not simple? Perhaps they should be.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl is, as he knows, a very subtle fellow. I am astonished to find him arguing from the Conservative Benches in favour of tax harmonisation, as he appears to be.

EU Budget: Erroneous Expenditure
3.26 p. m.
The Earl of Clanwilliam The Earl of Clanwilliam asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current assessment of the level of fraud and corruption in the European Commission.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, the European Court of Auditors annual report presented to Parliament on 17th November 1998, which covered the financial year 1997, estimated that the amount of erroneous expenditure in the EU budget was around £2.8 billion. A small percentage of this sum was suspected fraud, the remainder down to irregularities concerning the payments made against the Community budget. The Committee of the Wise report catalogued a culture of complacency, lack of accountability and in some cases nepotism, which is unacceptable. The consequent resignation of the entire Commission presents an opportunity to make changes to the structure of the Commission and to ensure that the standards of management and public administration in the European institutions are as high as we expect them to be in the national governments of Europe.
The Earl of Clanwilliam: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her excellent intimation that there is a need for a structural review of the operation of the Commission. How many of the 20 commissioners who presided over departments were adversely reported upon by the committee? Can the Minister assure the House that none of those commissioners will be supported for re-appointment by Her Majesty's Government? In addition, do the Government agree that the common agricultural policy is itself a major cause of fraud and corruption and that only a lasting solution and proper reform will lead to a considerable reduction in the budget of the CAP?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Earl raises a number of enormously important points. The report was critical of a number of Commissioners for different reasons. Commissioners Santer, Cresson and Marin were criticised for lax

829
management of expenditure programmes or departments under their control. It was also critical of Commissioners Cresson, Pinheiro and Wulf-Mathies for favouritism or irregularity in the making of appointments. It will be up to individual countries to decide what to do about re-nomination. The noble Earl is aware that my right honourable friend has made clear what the Government intend to do about the nomination of our own commissioners upon whom there is no taint. The noble Earl also referred to issues related to the common agricultural policy. These matters, together with other important issues related to the structural funds and financial matters of great interest to all of us, will be discussed at the meeting in Berlin on 24th and 25th March.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I declare a somewhat ancient interest as one of Britain's first commissioners 25 years ago. Is the Minister aware that I find particularly painful the findings against the present members of the Commission of nepotism and administrative failure to manage their affairs? Is the noble Baroness aware that none of the commissioners was personally found guilty of either fraud or corruption? Is she also aware that I welcome the fact that she spread the net more widely about looking at the institutions of the Community? In declaring a more recent interest as a member of the Nolan committee, perhaps I may ask whether the Minister believes that there may be a strong case for a truly independent Nolan committee of the European Union to consider not only the European Commission but also the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the findings are very painful indeed. My right honourable friend described the report as damning. The noble Lord is quite right that none of the commissioners was found to be personally culpable of fraud or of having gained himself financially from those irregularities.
However, what the noble Lord says is absolutely right. It is no good simply identifying some individuals. We need to consider not only the systemic difficulties but also the ways in which those might be put right. I draw the noble Lord's attention to the fact that the committee of les Sages is due to report again in a few weeks' time to make some recommendations about reform. In the Statement repeated in your Lordships' House by my noble friend the Leader of the House earlier this week, my right honourable friend put forward a number of suggestions about the reforms on a wider basis which should be contemplated for the European institutions.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, will the Minister be good enough to indicate to the House Her Majesty's Government's policy in regard to the payment of compensation for loss of office where Ministers or members of the Commission are involved who will not be reappointed but who are ultimately responsible therefore for the disgraceful level that has been announced?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, commissioners' terms and conditions are set down in
830
the statutes which govern their employment. The statutes contain generous provision for the end of service remunerations. I have details of those provisions. I do not think it is worth repeating them now. I can send them to the noble Lord if he finds that helpful. However, as the Prime Minister made clear in another place on 17th March, we believe that any commissioner who is found guilty of fraud or misconduct should not receive those remunerations. Indeed, the statute states that in the event of resignation as a result of gross misconduct— what it terms as a faute grave—the commissioner would not qualify.

Tax Credits Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Health Bill [H.L.]
3.32 p. m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hay man): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report. —(Baroness Hayman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 47:
After Clause 18, insert the following new clause—
INDEPENDENT HOSPITALS
(". —

(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations—

(a) extend the duty in section 13, or

(b) extend the functions of the Commission for Health Improvement, or any of them, to any independent hospital.

(2) In this section "independent hospital" means premises—

(a) within the meaning of "hospital" given by section 128(1) of the 1977 Act;

(b) which are not a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act nor any other premises maintained or controlled by a government department or local authority or any other authority or body instituted by special Act of Parliament or incorporated by Royal Charter; and

(c) which are used or intended to be used for the provision of health care within the meaning of this section, but excludes—

(i) any premises used, or intended to be used solely or predominantly, for the reception of and the provision of nursing for persons suffering from any sickness, injury or infirmity;

(ii) any sanatorium provided at a school or educational establishment and used, or intended to be used, solely by persons in attendance at, or members of the staff of, that school or establishment or members of their families;

(iii) any first aid or treatment room provided at factory premises, at premises to which the Offices. Shops and Railways Premises Act 1963 applies or at a sports ground, showground or place of public entertainment:

(iv) any premises used, or intended to be used, wholly or mainly—

831

(a) by a medical practitioner for the purpose of consultations with his patients;

(b) by a dental practitioner or chiropodist for the purpose of treating his patients; or

(c) for the provision of occupational health facilities,

unless they are used or intended to be used for the provision of treatment by specially controlled techniques as defined in section 21 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 and any regulations made thereunder;

(v) any premises used, or intended to be used, wholly or mainly as a private dwelling; or

(vi) any other premises excepted from the definition of a "nursing home" for the purposes of section 21 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 by regulations made thereunder by the Secretary of State. ").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment is a reformulation of a number of separate amendments tabled in Committee, but in a less prescriptive form. Its purpose is to permit but not oblige the Secretary of State to extend both the duty of quality and the remit of the commission for health improvement to the independent sector.
In Committee the Minister made some helpful comments on the issue. She recognised that the regulation of the independent sector was an issue of importance which needed to be addressed. She confirmed that the Government were committed to consulting on it and suggested that the right time to look fully at the subject would be after the Select Committee in another place had reported. If I do not misrepresent her, she wanted to avoid a straightforward transposition of the structures and systems in the Bill on to the private sector without first listening to the views expressed from all quarters.
That for me is a position with which it would be hard to disagree. However, the concern which some of us had in Committee was that the Health Bill represents an ideal opportuniy—and probably the only legislative opportunity for some time—to make provision for regulating the private sector. If we do not take this opportunity, we could be kicking the issue into some very long grass.
My noble friend Lord Skelmersdale suggested the obvious way to get round the dilemma: to insert enabling powers into the Bill allowing the Government to apply as many of their clinical governance provisions as seemed to them appropriate to the independent sector at some point in the future. One of the remarks I hear on occasions is that the independent sector does not want to be regulated. If that were once true, it is true no longer. As I mentioned on the last occasion, the independent sector has already responded extremely positively to the Government's quality agenda on a voluntary basis. A lot of work has been done under the auspices of the private practice forum of the Academy of Royal Medical Colleges. There is, I believe, a real recognition in the sector that quality in the delivery of healthcare should apply across the board as a matter of principle in independent hospitals and the NHS; and that the regulatory framework supporting that should not be subject to any artificial barriers or boundaries.
There is, after all, a considerable day-to-day overlap between the two sectors. A high proportion of the doctors and consultants who work in the private sector also work for the NHS. Many NHS patients are treated in private hospitals. NHS hospitals treat private patients. In fact the extent to which the private sector now shoulders the burden of elective surgery across the country as a whole is not often appreciated. The estimate I have been given is about 15 per cent. of all waiting list type treatments. For some procedures such as hip and knee replacements and heart bypasses, the figure is probably nearer one in four. It is as important for patients to know how well doctors are performing in their private practice as anywhere else, and to know that the highest possible standards are being followed in private hospitals.
I know from personal experience of two excellent private hospitals, one brand new and one well established, which are struggling to achieve recognition, that private insurance groups require hospitals on their preferred lists to demonstrate certain standards. I believe that the amendment would help those hospitals to demonstrate such standards.
The other criticism is: "The NHS should not be regulating the private healthcare sector". That is a complete misreading of the proposal I am advancing. The Government are establishing two brand new bodies: the national institute for clinical excellence; and the commission for health improvement, at either end of a continuum of clinical guidance. At one end we shall have NICE producing guidance for doctors on the treatments that work and those that do not. In the middle we shall have local clinical governance arrangements in hospitals, GP practices, and so on. We shall have the professions and the colleges overseeing those arrangements. At the other end of the continuum we shall have the commission for health improvement in the role of inspector and auditor. It cannot make sense to exclude from that national framework a significant part of this country's healthcare providers.
Indeed, we need to remind ourselves that the Secretary of State has the duty to promote the health of the nation. That does not mean the health of only those who happen to be treated under the state system, but the health of everyone. It means that he has a responsibility for the totality of healthcare delivered in this country by whomever it is delivered. Anything less than that and the patient will be short-changed.
It is not my intention to force the Government to act now or to prescribe a set of clinical governance arrangements which do not fit. The amendment deliberately allows for flexibility. I believe that it is a sensible proposal; it is a proposal that is in the interests of patients and I commend it strongly to the House. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise to lend strong support to the amendment and I remind the House that it is the offspring of amendments tabled by both Opposition Front Benches in Committee and the ensuing debate.

833
In Committee, the Minister said that the Government intend to consult soon on the regulation of the independent or private acute healthcare sector. Regrettably, however, she gave no assurance that a duty of quality, identical to that proposed for the NHS, will be required for that sector. Nor did she address the point that considerable benefits would accrue from that sector being regulated by the same body, and largely in the same way, as the NHS. Some of the benefits of this approach have already been outlined by the noble Earl, Lord Howe.
They include consistent standards when NHS and private care are provided alongside each other in independent hospitals such as in medium-secure psychiatric units; and consistent standards of clinical governance nationwide so that consultants have no doubt as to the standards expected in all their practice. It makes no sense at all to exclude some 800, 000 treatments a year carried out in private hospitals and work done by more than 17, 000 doctors, most of whom also work in the NHS. Very few consultants practise only in the private sector.
The overwhelming majority of independent sector hospitals, in membership of the Independent Healthcare Association, actively support the need for such change, as do key leaders in the medical profession. Individual independent sector companies such as BUPA and PPP have gone clearly on the record in support.
The major players in the independent sector have already committed to a framework for the conduct of private medicine under the auspices of the Private Practice Forum of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges. This framework matches the quality in clinical governance duties proposed to the NHS, but it now applies only on a voluntary basis. The Government should seize the opportunity that the amendment presents; to reserve the power to apply these duties to non-NHS providers of healthcare by regulation.
The amendment, as the noble Earl explained, has been revised in the light of the Minister's previous comments. It would allow the Secretary of State to delay using the powers until the Government have reflected on their own consultation and the deliberations of the Health Committee in the other place. The amendment is not prescriptive in any way. It does not, for instance, prevent separate registration requirements being instituted. It merely provides a framework for the extension of the duty of quality and the functions of the commission for health improvement.
The amendment clearly commands widespread support. Regrettably, the Secretary of State seems, if a recent article in the Independent is accurate, to have set his face against it. Forgetting, no doubt, that separate amendments in Committee stood in the name of both Opposition Front Benches, a "ministerial spokesman" is quoted as saying:
"The Tories are again pushing the agenda of the private health sector. We do think it needs regulating, but we don't think it's for the NHS to regulate private health care. The NHS would end up picking up the tab. We don't think it is right".
834
After all our discussions about charging by CHIMP, that final comment in particular seems very wide of the mark. But in general, the comment appears to have no concept of the benefits of common regulation for healthcare in this country.
The noble Baroness herself said in Committee that there is no intention of applying the commission to the private sector as regards providing care for private patients. So much for future consultation. Indeed, from reports in today's Times, it appears that the Secretary of State is planning to set up a separate inspectorate to regulate the independent sector. It appears that the Government have firmly made up their mind on purely ideological grounds.
In a recent column, the health correspondent of the Financial Times and the author of the definitive history of the welfare state, The Five Giants, Nicholas Timmins, writes:
"If the NHS wants a true picture of how well its doctors perform it needs the full picture, not just the NHS one".
He concludes:
"Mr. Dobson has the chance to become the first Secretary of State for Health, not just the NHS. He should take it".
This Secretary of State prides himself on his common sense image. This amendments makes common sense.
On these Benches, we have no particular axe to grind for private health. However, we believe that every patient should have the right to minimum standards of quality care and safety, irrespective of the: sector in which they are treated. I urge the noble Baroness to consider the amendment most carefully at a time when we have the legislative opportunity before us and to demonstrate the open-mindedness she has shown in many other parts of the Bill.
3.45 p. m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it must be very rare for a Back Bencher in Committee to draw a bow to venture and land not one but two palpable hits on the senior spokesmen representing the two Opposition Front Benches. I am grateful to both of them for what they have said. They made a much better fist of it than I would have been able to do today.
It is absolutely vital that regulation and inspection of private hospitals and private practice is achieved by hook or by crook. From what the noble Baroness said in Committee, I know that she believes that too, but she wants to wait. I readily understand why she wants to wait, but I hope that that is not an argument for promoting the doctrine of unripe time. There is never a right time for these things, but she should grab the opportunity. After all, primary legislation is an uncertain vehicle as regards timing. That is why in Clause 47 and Schedule 3, which we shall debate later today, the Government are taking the opportunity to speed up the process of registration and so forth by—guess what—secondary legislation. That is exactly what my noble friend is asking for today.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that the resistance to including independent hospitals in the Bill is most revealing and rather distressing. We are told

835
a great deal about how the third way involves partnership between the private and public sectors and the resistance is clearly a means of doing something different for people who pay as opposed to those who do not. It will be very disappointing to the public who are at present watching new Labour very carefully.
However, the Minister is the first to know that the people who are keenest of all to keep an eye on the standards of care for patients are the nurses. My experience is that when any maltreatment, or possible maltreatment, is occurring in a hospital, or involving a doctor, where nurses are involved it is often the nurses who blow the whistle. They may do so in a number of ways, but they do. They are the people who are writing most clearly to noble Lords to inform them that the issue is important now and that we should not wait. They are saying that extremely clearly.
Amendment No. 77, which relates to Scotland, matches this amendment. The feeling about the issue is every bit as strong in Scotland as it is south of the Border. Because there is no CHIMP in Scotland, it is important to discuss the matter separately and we look forward to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald, has to say about it.
I support the amendment most strongly not only because the nurses are so keen on it, and they know, but also because it is very odd to treat people who pay, or people who are in pay beds but paid for by the public, differently from the rest.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is it not a fact that it is common practice for some health authorities to use the independent sector to clear some of their waiting lists? Therefore, should not those patients have the same protection as any other patient treated in National Health Service hospitals?
Viscount Bridgeman: My Lords, I too rise to support the amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has just made the point about the interdependence at all levels between the private and NHS sectors in the service. I speak as chairman designate of an independent charitable hospital. The independent sector is more regulated at present than the NHS. Nevertheless the sector very much welcomes the possibility of further accreditation. Most hospitals are already accredited under the King's Fund. This is an extension of that. It is a more public and transparent standard of which all patients can be assured so that, wherever they are treated, they will be treated to the same standards in all hospitals—private and national health.
Lord Patel: My Lords, not having been in your Lordships' House in Committee, I beg your Lordships' indulgence for speaking now. I have read the Hansard report of that debate and noted in particular the statement made by the Minister to which the noble Earl referred earlier.
There are many issues to be addressed in relation to the regulation of the independent sector. Not least of those is the registration and inspection to ensure that standards of service and practice are met and enforced.
836
There are other issues too and I shall refer in particular to those which mainly concern the medical profession. I believe that the public would expect that all doctors who provide care in the independent sector would have undergone the same level of training and assessment as those specialists who work in the NHS.
As has already been said, the vast majority of doctors who practise in the independent sector also hold consultant positions in the NHS. However, significant numbers do not. They should also be subject to the same regulatory processes, not only those of the General Medical Council but also of the other regulatory bodies, some of which have been mentioned; for example, the Royal Colleges. When I was chairman of the Academy of Medical Royal Colleges I was responsible for instituting the forum to which reference has been made. While it has had ongoing discussions, it has not resolved the issue.
In respect of the training of those who provide service in the independent sector, in my capacity as chairman of the specialist training authority I shall give evidence to the Select Committee.
There are other issues; for example, appropriate procedures relating to complaints and clinical governance. So yes, I agree with many of the things that have been said. We need regulation in the independent sector. I know that the independent sector would welcome a properly structured regulatory process established after consultation. I ask the Minister whether she will assure the House that an opportunity for the commission to have a potential role in the independent sector will not be missed if the amendment is not accepted at this stage.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, most of what has been said has covered the points that I wished to contribute to this short debate. Regulation of the independent sector is long overdue. Approximately 15 per cent. of the population of this country will now be covered by insurance for private medical care. I wholly agree that the majority of the doctors who work in the private sector and who give their services in private hospitals also hold consultant posts in the NHS; but there are some who do not.
When I was president of the General Medical Council, which is now more than 10 years ago, we had a number of serious concerns about small private institutions which were employing doctors who had not undergone a full programme of training in the NHS and who were not properly qualified to carry out in all respects the procedures which they were performing.
Some of those doctors came before the General Medical Council on disciplinary grounds. But it seemed to me that if there had been a proper statutory system of regulation to cover the whole of the independent sector, particularly those hospitals providing acute and specialist services, many of which give a quite outstanding quality of service to the community, problems of that nature would have been avoided.
Bearing in mind the report in The Times in which it was said that the Secretary of State proposes to regulate the private sector, would it not be best to have an

837
enabling clause in this Bill? When the Select Committee has reported and the Secretary of State has decided upon the kind of regulation that he wishes to recommend, would it not then be appropriate, under such an enabling clause, for those procedures to be introduced by regulation?
Lord Winston: My Lords, I hesitate to detain the House, given that I heard a rumour that there may be a Division, and I know that no one wants to miss his tea. However, I have one or two questions for the Minister on this issue.
I work in an area of medicine where there is a huge amount of private practice. In fact, it is the area in which there is probably more private practice than any other sector because, sadly, it is not funded by the National Health Service to the extent that it might be. Consequently, we see a significant number of patients who have been treated in an unregulated way.
Of course, with regard to in vitro fertilisation, there is a Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority which does a good regulatory job. I say that with some reservations. But it cannot regulate the whole of reproductive medicine because it is not empowered to do so. Therefore, for example, if a patient goes to a free-standing in vitro fertilisation clinic in the private sector, she and her husband are likely to get in vitro fertilisation even if it is not the most suitable treatment for the couple. There may be alternative, more effective treatments. That pattern is extremely common in the private sector.
Of course, the standard of private medicine in this country is high. Indeed, it is. But unfortunately there are places where standards are poor. Therefore, I wish to support what the noble Lords, Lord Walton and Patel, said. It is extremely uneven. There are occasions when people who would not be employable in the NHS are practising privately and carrying out surgical procedures about which we should have considerable concern. I see on a regular basis a number of patients who I feel have been badly damaged by some of those procedures.
I do not know whether this Bill is the vehicle to use to introduce such legislation. However, is there not a place for better regulation of the private sector in general? What does she intend to do about that? In many areas in private medicine there is extremely poor audit of what goes on.
The second question is as to what is the exact status of private medicine in NHS hospitals. A large number of hospitals, including my own NHS trust, need and do excellent private practice. I am not quite certain whether or not those patients will be covered by the Bill. If we contract out to a private hospital, those patients would still be NHS patients. Therefore, although the Minister will answer the question. I believe that the answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, is that they will be covered. Lastly, it is not only fertility services which are concerned. For example, plastic surgery falls into that area which is not funded by the NHS. Therefore, there is a certain advantage in achieving evenness in the private sector.
838
Another reason for regulation is the fact, as has been pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, that a large number of patients are privately insured, mainly by BUPA and PPP. Often it seems they arbitrarily decide whether or not they will fund patients at a particular hospital, often to the detriment of patients who come to an individual doctor.
I believe that those are very poor decisions by the insurance companies. If there were an audit of what those hospitals were doing, there would be a yardstick by which one could say that a particular private sector hospital was doing a good job. Perhaps that might be looked at in legislation, although I accept that the Government may not see this Bill as the right one in which to do that.
4 p. m.
Baroness McFarlane of Llandaff: My Lords, I rise to support the amendment, as many others have done. As far as concerns nurses, we are anxious that every patient should have the right to minimum standards of quality, care and safety, irrespective of the sector in which they are treated.
There is still a considerable amount of confusion regarding the Government's proposals on quality for the independent sector. Many important questions remain to be asked. We are still unclear, for instance, whether the duty of quality will apply to independent healthcare providers. Perhaps the Minister could give us an assurance on that. Her reply in Committee seemed to indicate that, but we were uncertain about the details of what she said. It is not clear whether the duty of quality will apply to the independent sector institutions.
We are also interested to have further clarification about how the commission will work to ensure that National Health Service-funded patients who receive their care in the independent sector will be guaranteed the same standards of care. We are conscious that the Government intend to consult on the future regulation of the independent healthcare sector. Without pre-empting the consultation, it would be good to have reassurances that the consultation will look at options for improving the regulation of independent healthcare and that deregulation is not on the agenda. Perhaps the Minister could give us information about the timescale for launching and completing that consultation.
As Amendment No. 47 stands, it seems that nursing homes would not be included. That gives me cause for concern. Perhaps we could have clarification about that as so many National Health Service patients are nursed in nursing homes.
Lord Harmsworth: My Lords, will the Minister, in her reply, help the House on the legal position of the Secretary of State in this matter? My memory is that the National Health Service Act 1946 makes no distinction between public and private sector health, but that the Secretary of State is responsible for the health, both physical and mental, of the people of England and Wales. Could the Minister tell the House how that fits

839
in to the amendment put forward by my noble friend Lord Howe, who raised this important legal point when he spoke?
Baroness Berners: My Lords, I also rise to support the Bill and the amendment tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I also agree with all the points put by other speakers. The general public needs to have confidence in the overall quality of both medical and nursing care throughout all sectors of health. I hope that the Government will feel able to put this amendment on the face of the Bill.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have had an interesting follow up to the important debate that we had on these issues in Committee. Issues such as the regulation of the independent sector, whether the commission for health improvement has a role to play in the regulation and safeguarding of standards within that sector, and how we can ensure quality of services in the independent sector, which I fully accept are matters of responsibility, are all important.
I have no grave disagreement with the tenor of any of the contributions made in the debate today. The Government have made clear their recognition of the real concerns about the inadequacies of the existing regulatory structure. We should not pretend that there is no regulatory structure at all for the independent sector. It is regulated under the Registered Homes Act. It is a responsibility of health authorities and a responsibility of such authorities in regard to nursing homes—to take up the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady McFarlane—as well as to acute sector providers.
Much of this debate has been sparked off because we have a set of proposals before us for the regulation of the nursing homes sector. I suggest that the reason the noble Earl, Lord Howe's amendment does not extend to the nursing home sector is that he accepts, by implication, the need for a coherent and comprehensive look at registration, monitoring, inspection and sanctions in that sector, and I would argue that we need to do the same for the independent sector.
We need to ensure, and the Government have a duty to ensure, that independent healthcare services are appropriately regulated. We need to protect all members of the public. I take the point made in the debate that that includes private patients as well as patients in NHS hospitals. Perhaps I can clarify the position. It is important that patients who choose to use the independent sector are reassured that they receive services that are safe.
It is because of the concerns expressed about the various issues—the issues that the noble Lord, Lord Walton, raised, the issues about complaints procedures and the issues about whether the Registered Homes Act is too creaky a vehicle to do the job properly—that a Select Committee in another place is looking into those matters. Department of Health Ministers will give evidence to the committee after Easter. Officials have already done so.
840
As I have told the House, currently we are working on a consultation document to be issued shortly about regulation of the private sector in health. I want to assure the House that we do not take a minimalist view of regulation in this area. There are concerns that there has been too much framework and not enough flesh and bones in terms of the Registered Homes Act, and that we need to look carefully at standards of clinical care in that sector.
I also recognise the anxiety that the drive for quality in the NHS should have an effect in the private sector. I believe it will do so. The national institute for clinical excellence is not included within the Bill, but everything that it does will be publicly available. I recognise the desire—the noble Earl, Lord Howe, made this point— of the healthcare sector to improve standards and it will be able to access and take up the recommendations. The clinical governance guidance on quality in the NHS, published this week, is equally available. I am certain that those clinicians who work across the two sectors will bring their experience of clinical governance in the NHS into the private sector.
The strengthening of professional self-regulation under this Bill will apply to all professionals and will improve the protection of patients in the private sector as well as the NHS.
To those noble Lords who have said that we should act now and that in some way the Government are behaving less than responsibly in not doing so, perhaps I may say that it is my belief that the issues surrounding the improvement of regulation in the private healthcare sector justify a coherent approach and that the Government intend that such an approach will be the outcome of the consultation process on which we are about to embark.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, somewhat chastised me for not giving assurances about the exact route that we intend to take or about exactly what model we shall adopt for the private sector. I suggest that I would equally be chastised if I pre-empted now the results of the consultation and of the Select Committee inquiry in another place about the right way forward. Equally, again, noble Lords should not assume that what is being done in the context of a managed health service for the NHS can be picked up wholesale, transposed into the private sector and give adequate protection across the whole range of issues.
It is clear that although we have responsibilities for patients receiving care in the private sector, their situation is different from that of NHS patients receiving care. The Government have a particular responsibility to NHS patients—I am talking about responsibilities under the 1977 Act—as a result of being a provider of national health services. The Government's responsibility to private patients and private establishments is as a regulator of the independent care sector. We must ensure that we have the appropriate mechanisms and systems for ensuring that standards in both are coherent, comprehensive and enforceable.
It is clear that a regulatory system for the independent healthcare sector would need to exercise three broad functions: a licensing or registration function, a

841
monitoring or inspection function, and an enforcement function. Those elements cannot be dealt with in isolation. An inspection might reveal unacceptable standards which call for sanctions. Those might relate to the continuation of registration. That is not an area in which the commission—if that was the body that found things wrong—would be able to take action. That is a serious concern. It is different in the National Health Service because the Secretary of State can take action either by direction or by removing the chairman of the institution concerned. The Secretary of State has direct responsibility.
If we are to put responsibilities on to the private sector, we have a responsibility for ensuring that there is an enforcement mechanism. It is salutary to take the example of the nursing home sector. The Government have proposed to establish regional commissions for care services, as set out in the White Paper, Modernising Social Services. That is an example of the range of functions needed in any statutory regulation system. The commissions will deal with a range of care services, including nursing homes.
Perhaps I may use nursing homes as an example of how the commissions will carry out their task. The commissions will have to register nursing homes, setting out specific conditions, criteria and standards that must be met before registration is given. That is, in effect, a licence to trade, and it will be unlawful for a nursing home to operate without having a registration with the commission for care standards. The commissions will also have to monitor and inspect nursing homes, both on a routine basis and in response to any concerns or allegations. The aim of those inspections will be to demonstrate that registration conditions and standards are continuing to be met. The commissions will also have to take enforcement action against a nursing home that is failing to meet the required standards. That would include serving improvement notices, prosecuting through the courts for specific offences and, if necessary, deregistering the nursing home, causing its closure.
The commissions for care standards will therefore have the power to control entry to the market and to take out of operation any providers that are not up to standard. Those statutory powers and procedures are essential to proper registration. Inspection—the role of the commission—is not the only or even the crucial part of the system when we are dealing with a commercial operation rather than with the NHS government-managed system.
However, the commission for health improvement, which we are setting up under this Bill, is not a regulator. We have not designed the commission and the duty of quality to fit that model. The commission monitors standards, but it does not have enforcement powers. That will be a matter for the NHS and, if necessary, the Secretary of State through directions under Clause 7. However, the Secretary of State's general ability to issue directions does not extend to the private sector, so under this amendment there is no way of enforcing the commission's recommendations.
842
I take the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord. Skelmersdale, and I understand that in this amendment noble Lords have tried to take on board the fact that this might not be the way forward. However, I believe that if we "pick and mix" the provisions for regulation and legislate now, we shall probably get it wrong and would have to relegislate in the future.
Perhaps I may give the noble Lord a couple of examples and I shall then give way to him. We are giving the commission powers to inspect but without any sanctions or powers of enforcement. We would have to consider an appeals mechanism if, for example, sanctions were involved. We have to recognise that that is designed to fit in with the NHS systems and that we need to design a system that fits what is in one way a market transaction. I quite understand that the service being bought is of crucial importance and that we must safeguard standards within it. That applies in this area more than to many other services. However, we are not talking about the same situation as in the NHS—
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I readily accept what she says, but she is not being asked to legislate now; she is being asked to put on the statute book what one might call a "delayed fuse timebomb", so that should the government of the day, at a particular time in the future, wish to activate it, they can. If they do not wish to activate it, it remains on the statute book and is not activated. It is as easy as that.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, what I am saying is that, as legislators, we should not legislate at the wrong time and with something that might explode in our face. We should try to get it right.
Perhaps I may point out why I think that we might want to take a number of potential approaches to the regulation of the private sector. One suggested option is that the commission for care standards, which I have just described and which will deal with nursing homes, could be extended to cover registration, inspection and enforcement in the independent care sector. Another option might be to set up a parallel, completely separate body that focuses only on the more acute end of independent healthcare. Another option might be a registration body which contracts with another body to provide a monitoring or inspection function. I should acknowledge that, if that model were adopted, any regulator of independent healthcare might want to take advantage of the particular expertise of the commission of health improvement. There might be a certain synergy between the responsibilities of the regulator and the work of the commission in the NHS.
National Health Service patients in the private sector will be covered by the work of the commission. We will be saying to health authorities that in any contracts that they have with the private sector they must deal, first, with the quality standards and, secondly, not award contracts except with provision for inspection by the commission for health improvement. That is an interesting example of having to use the contract mechanism. Because one is dealing with the private and independent sector, cover cannot be automatic just

843
because NHS patients are being treated. In the same way, pay beds and private beds in NHS institutions will be covered by the commission and by clinical governance because, in all their activities, those institutions will be subject to the framework.
I am not ruling out the possibility that the commission might be given some responsibilities in the future. I am trying to explain to the House that there are a wide range of options that we might take forward. I understand that many people feel that the commission might pre-eminently have a role to play and I undertake to the House that we will consult specifically on this point in the consultation document that will be published. We hope that it will be published soon; we hope to be able to complete the consultation over the summer. There is therefore no question of kicking this into the long grass.
However, if we chose to go down that route, we would have to look at the relevant clauses of this Bill that we wanted to apply in some way to the independent sector. We would need to make available the appropriate legislative time at that point. But I understand the concerns expressed that regulation of the independent sector should not be allowed to fall down a crack between the current Bill and any future legislation to implement the proposals in the Government's White Paper Modernising Social Services. I offered some thoughts on this issue at Committee and I hope that what I can say today provides further reassurances that the Government believe this issue to be too important to let that happen.
Any legislative follow-up on the social services White Paper on the regulation of independent social healthcare would of course involve a fundamental revision of the Registered Homes Act 1984. That piece of legislation also governs the regulation of the independent acute sector. Noble Lords will understand that no Minister can give an absolute guarantee of the timing of legislation beyond that which is in the Queen's Speech. But it is our clear intention that any legislation we bring forward to implement our plans set out in the White Paper should be wide enough also to address the sorts of issues that we are discussing today. In that legislation we could make any appropriate consequential amendments to the Bill before us today.
I am absolutely clear in my view that we will not, somehow, miss the boat if we do not include provisions in the current Health Bill. However, it would be precipitate to adopt the amendment as it stands at the moment for two reasons. First, it is anticipating the result of a debate which is not one promised for some time in the future, but one that is ongoing and will come to clear conclusions. Secondly, if we go down this route, we put in place fragments of a system. The whole tenor of the debate this afternoon has been that we need a system that is coherent, comprehensible and enforceable and that it is worth waiting to get it right.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Before I respond at any length, perhaps I can seek one point of clarification. Do I understand her to say that the Government are committed in principle to a common set of quality standards for
844
both the NHS and the independent sector? That sort of commitment would be important for both sectors to hear, if that is the general thrust of what she is saying. I do not mean to tie her down to any details, but commitment to a common set of quality standards for both is an important principle.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl cannot expect me to commit the Government as to quality standards that private providers will offer people who are buying services from them. I cannot say whether the private sector will offer single rooms or wards of 20 beds. It is not my responsibility to do so.
On the broad issue of regulation of standards of quality within the private sector—perhaps going beyond the bricks and mortar issues to some of the skeletal issues that have been dealt with in the past—I cannot deliver the commitment required because I have no mechanism of enforcement and no mechanism for stopping people offering services for sale other than those which are safe and to standards which are safe. The noble Earl cannot expect me to take on responsibility for standards of quality across the board and in the wider sense within the private sector. It is a hard enough responsibility to take it on for the NHS.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the last part of the noble Baroness"s answer was singularly disappointing; it almost spoilt what she said before. I was not asking about the ability to enforce standards. As the House will recognise, this is an amendment which gives an enabling power only. My question related to standards as a whole, not whether patients should have a single room or bacon for breakfast. We are talking about the standards of medical and clinical care in general terms.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, that is precisely my point. The noble Lord is talking very broadly of quality standards. I am saying that there is a whole range of quality standards and it would be absolutely wrong for me, at the Dispatch Box, to say now that the Government are taking on responsibility for that. We certainly take on responsibility, through professional bodies strengthening self-regulation, for the quality standards of the people who are working in those organisations. But the noble Earl cannot expect me to take complete responsibility for all of the standards delivered within the private sector. That is a different responsibility. As I was trying to point out earlier, the responsibility as regulator is different from the responsibility as provider.
Earl Howe: My Lords, again I find that answer disappointing. I was with the noble Baroness almost all the way in her main reply. I could see that what she was saying made a great deal of sense. But I am afraid the Government are in a bit of a bind. First, the noble Baroness has not really taken on board the point made not only by me, but by other noble Lords, that the Secretary of State has a duty to promote the health of the nation. That is a clear duty on him. To me that

845
implies that, if she promotes quality standards in the NHS, then, ipso facto, those quality standards should be good enough all round. That sort of commitment is one that I hoped to hear from her.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I give the commitment to promote the health of the nation across the board. Health promotion will be given to everybody in exactly the same way. I give the same commitment to any NHS patient to whom we are providing services, whether in the private or public sectors. However, I cannot take on responsibility for the services that private contractors provide to someone who contracts with them in the same way as I can for the services provided by the NHS.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I ask the Minister a question about the point that has been put very clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Howe? I am sorry, it has just been pointed out to me that I cannot do so.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I realise that I have asked the Minister to rise to her feet to respond quite a few times. I am grateful to her for what she has said. I apologise to the House in that I was out of order in that respect.
Nevertheless, I believe that the Government are in a bit of a bind over this for another reason. They are saying that the functions of the commission will extend to independent hospitals but only as far as the patients who are being treated there under the NHS. That seems to me to be an extraordinary position to take. It implies that what a private hospital does is of little concern, except when there happen to be NHS patients in it. That exemplifies the artificiality to me of the public/private divide about which I spoke earlier.
The Minister talked about taking the opportunity in future legislation to do this. I welcome what she said about taking an early opportunity to legislate, and I accept that the Government have a commitment to do so. But I wonder whether a future Bill covering social care is at all the right place in which to try to regulate the independent hospital sector. These hospitals have little or nothing to do with social care; indeed, they are sophisticated providers of healthcare delivering a huge range of acute and elective treatments. They are not long-stay institutions for the chronically sick and elderly. There does not seem to me to be a very good fit there.
We all look forward to reading the consultation document when it is issued and look forward to the results of that consultation. I do not want the Minister to pre-empt that exercise or, indeed, the findings of the Select Committee in another place. I agree with her in that it may not be appropriate to transpose the framework set out in the Bill in its entirety on to the private sector. That is why the amendment allows for a kind of mix and match approach if that is what the Secretary of State chooses to do.
The way to achieve coherent standards is, in my estimation, to make the duty of quality apply across the board. That is all that this amendment suggests. I recognise that the commission's remit would not
846
provide a complete range of enforcement functions but, in a sense, no one ever said that it would. It is part of a continuum of clinical governance which needs to be put in place. It is being put in place as regards the NHS, and I dare say that there will be other elements that need to be found that are appropriate to the private sector.
I am in difficulty over this issue. I recognise the strength of the points made by the Minister. When the noble Baroness was half way through her response I felt that I owed it to her to reflect further on what she had said because there were some extremely powerful points in it. However, I am somewhat dismayed and a little deterred by the latter part of her answer. Therefore, although I recognise that the Minister has gone to a great deal of trouble to respond to the concerns that have been raised this afternoon, I believe that this is an issue which would benefit from taking the view of the House.
4.33 p. m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 47) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 161; Not-Contents, 113.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Addington, L.

Elton, L.

Ailsa, M.

Ezra, L.

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Falkland, V.

Anelay of St. Johns, B.

Ferrers, E.

Annaly, L.

Foley, L.

Archer of Weston-Super-Mare, L.

Fookes, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Forbes, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Gisborough, L.

Attlee, E.

Glanusk, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Glasgow, E.

Berners, B.

Glentoran, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Goodhart, L.

Blaker, L.

Haig, E.

Blatch, B.

Halsbury, E.

Blyth, L.

Hamwee, B.

Boardman, L.

Hanningfield, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Harding of Petherton, L

Bridgeman, V. [Teller.]

Harlech, L.

Broadbridge, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Henley, L. [Teller.]

Buckinghamshire, E.

Higgins, L.

Cadman, L.

Holderness, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

HolmPatrick, L.

Carlisle, E.

Hooper, B.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Howe, E.

Charteris of Amisfield, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Chesham, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Chilver, L.

Ilchester, E.

Chorley, L.

Inglewood, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Jacobs, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kitchener, E.

Cranbome, V.

Knollys, V.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Dacre of Glanton, L.

Lane of Horsell, L.

Davidson, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Dholakia, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E

Dixon-Smith, L.

Long, V.

Downshire, M.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Eames, L.

Ludford, B.

Ellenborough, L.

Luke, L.

Elles, B.

McConnell, L.

847

Macleod of Borve, B.

Renwick, L.

McNair, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Maddock, B.

Rowallan, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Russell, E.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Ryder of Warsaw, B.

Marlesford, L.

St Davids, V.

Masham of Ilton, B.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Mersey, V.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Methuen, L.

Sandberg, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Milverton, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Mountevans, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Moyne, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Munster, E.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Stockton, E.

Naseby, L.

Strathcarron, L,

Newall, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Newby, L.

Sudeley, L.

Northesk, E.

Swinfen, L.

Norton, L.

Taverne, L.

Onslow, E.

Teviot, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Oxfuird, V.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Palmer, L.

Thurso, V.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Tope, L.

Pender, L.

Trefgame, L.

Pike, B.

Trenchard, V.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Trumpington, B.

Poole, L.

Vivian, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Rawlings, B.

Westbury, L.

Razzall, L.

Wharton, B.

Reay, L.

Wilcox, B.

Redesdale, L.

Winchilsea and Nottingham, E.

Renton, L.

Wise, L.

Renton of Mount Harry, L.

Wynford, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Fitt, L.

Ahmed, L.

Gainsborough, E.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

GladwinofClee, L.

Alli, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Amos, B.

Goudie, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Bach, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hacking, L.

Berkeley, L.

Hanworth, V.

Blackstone, B.

Hardie, L.

Borrie, L.

Hardy of Wath. L.

Bragg, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Haskel, L.

Brookman, L.

Hayman, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Burlison, L,

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Carew, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Carter, L. [Teller.]

Hoyle, L.

Christopher, L.

Hughes, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Crawley, B.

Irvine of Lairg, L. [Lord Chancellor.]

David, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Desai, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. [Lord Privy Seal.]

Diamond, L.

Jeger, B.

Donoughue, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dubs, L.

Judd, L.

Eatwell, L.

Kennet, L.

Emerton, B.

Kintore, E.

Evans of Watford, L.

Laming, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Lawrence, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

848

Levy, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Lockwood, B.

Rea, L.

Longford, E.

Richard, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

McFarlane of Llandaff, B.

Shannon, E.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller.]

Shore of Stepney, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Simon, V.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Simon of Highbury, L.

Molloy, L.

Stallard, L.

Monkswell, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Montague of Oxford, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Tenby, V.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Thornton, B.

Nicol, B.

Tomlinson, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Patel, L.

Uddin, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Walton of Detchant L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Warner, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Weatherill, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Wedderbum of Charlton, L.

Puttnam, L.

Whitty, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Winston, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.44 p. m.
Clause 19 [Co-operation between NHS bodies]
[Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
Baroness Pitkeathley Baroness Pitkeathley moved Amendment No. 50:
After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
HEALTH AUTHORITIES TO ASSIST WITH COMMUNITY CARE ASSESSMENTS
(". —

(1) Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 (assessment of needs for community care services) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (3), for the words "invite them to assist, to such extent as is reasonable in the circumstances, "there shall be inserted the words "request them to assist".

(3) After subsection (3) there is inserted—

"(3A) A Health Authority whose help is so requested shall comply with the request if it is compatible with its own statutory duties and obligations and does not unduly prejudice the discharge of any of its functions. "").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is a modified version of one that I put forward in Committee. It seeks to place a duty on a health authority to assist a local authority in carrying out a community care assessment if—that is an important if—the local authority requires such assistance, and if complying with such a request is compatible with the health authority's duties and does not unduly prejudice the health authority's functions. There is a similar provision for co-operation between agencies in the Children Act 1989.
Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990 requires local authorities to invite health authorities to assist in the assessment of an individual's needs where it appears to a local authority that an individual has health needs. This amendment would require a health authority which has been asked to do this by a local authority, to assist in the assessment if providing such assistance would be in accordance with the health authority's functions. Thus the

849
amendment does not place a duty —I must emphasise this —on health authorities to be involved in every community care assessment. However, there will be cases where the assessment of a person's health needs will be an essential part of a local authority's community care assessment. For example, a person with learning disabilities and mental health problems may have complex needs and the assessment of such needs will require input from health professionals working with their colleagues in social services. I believe this measure would give government another mechanism by which they can ensure closer working between these two bodies. I know the Government are committed to that.
The amendment is necessary in my view because while Section 47 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act places a duty on local authorities to invite health authorities to assist in a community care assessment where they believe that a person has health needs, there is no corresponding duty on health authorities to assist, as they have been requested. Thus, if health authorities fail to assist in such assessments, there is no mechanism requiring them to do so. The section states that the local authority —that is usually social services —will, when making the assessment, take into account any services that are likely to be made available by the health authority. If the health authority refuses to co-operate —I accept that those occasions would be few —the local authority's ability to carry out an effective assessment will be undermined and as a result the user, and possibly the carer, will suffer.
Failure to provide a comprehensive, multi-disciplinary assessment can lead to a deterioration in the health of the individual. This amendment would therefore support the Government's aims in providing a more public health oriented agenda. This amendment has the support of the Local Government Association, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Law Society, the Carers National Association, the Alzheimer's Disease Society and many others. Its aim is to underpin existing policy and guidance on community care. The expectation that health authorities will be involved in community care assessments where necessary has been made clear in a number of government documents relating to community care. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I rise briefly to support the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, in this new version of her former amendment. As she has just explained to us, she has removed one of the major objections to the original amendment which the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, brought forward on the second day of the Committee stage. The sooner the health service in general is brought into the process of assessing a client's need —someone who is receiving social services help is called a client —the better.
If we are to go down the road foreseen by the report of the Royal Commission on long-term care the health service has to begin to understand that what it does at the earlier stages of the deterioration in, say, the health of an elderly person will have a great deal of bearing on the costs of that care if the elderly person becomes more disabled than might otherwise be the case. The earlier
850
the health service is brought into the care of elderly people the better it will be not only for the elderly person but for the health service. For that reason, I shall be extremely interested in what the Minister has to say in response to the amendment.
Lord Laming: My Lords, I also support the thrust of the amendment. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that in recent years many demands have been placed on local authorities to respond to the requests from health authorities to meet the needs of a wide range of patients, clients or users of services, however they are described. These requests have been not only to respond to need but to respond very speedily. That must be a two-way process. Local authorities and health authorities are separate corporate bodies and the amendment seems to go with the grain of the Government's commitment to a duty of partnership, which is to be welcomed. Good health care can be undermined by poor social care, but good social care can also be undermined by poor health care. In this context, "poor" generally means delay and failure to respond. I hope that the Minister will consider carefully the thrust of the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I heard on Radio 4 this morning that 3, 000 elderly people's beds have been closed. Rehabilitation beds are also being closed. Professor Millard said in his report that there was a Berlin wall between health and social service. There needs to be a smooth transition between hospital and home for seriously ill patients. It should always be the aim to get patients back to their own homes, but if they are elderly, frail or seriously disabled good quality care with adequate support in the community is vital. After anaesthetics, elderly people can become disorientated. They often take longer to get better than younger people and there is such pressure on hospitals that they are put out into the community rather too quickly. Health and social services should work together for the common good of patients; they should build common teams. But it is difficult. They have different budgets, different ways of working and even a different language.
There was an occasion when there was an argument between health and social services about who should wash a patient. It was decided that the upper end of the patient was the responsibility of social services and the bottom half of the patient was the responsibility of the health service. That is totally ridiculous. If there were co-operation with assessments there might be co-operation over care. I support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, we return to a very important issue which was raised by my noble friend at Committee stage. I have listened with great interest to the contributions of noble Lords who have spoken in the debate. I very much agree that the spirit of partnership that is required between the NHS and local government is essential to developing services in the way we wish and for avoiding some of the points and issues that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, has brought to our attention. I do not think that there is anything between us when it comes to the need to tackle those issues. The question is how best to do it.

851
Since your Lordships discussed this matter in Committee we have given the issue further consideration. We have taken on board the concerns that were expressed that, where an individual is identified as requiring a health assessment during his community care assessment that assessment, in a minority of cases, is not taking place. That is a genuine concern which we believe has to be addressed.
We have already taken some action to deal with the problem. Last year the Social Services Inspectorate carried out a special study of multi-disciplinary assessments and we have now commissioned work to follow this up to develop a self-audit tool for authorities. We believe this will help authorities to address local problems in partnership at the local level.
I mentioned at the Committee stage that our Better Services for Vulnerable People initiative set out the requirement for health and local authorities to develop a framework for multi-disciplinary assessment. The first joint investment plans developed under this initiative will address the needs of older people. From April 2000 joint investment plans will cover the full range of client groups. We will issue guidance on the development of joint investment plans to help authorities work up their plans for services from April 2000. I am pleased to confirm that we will, in this guidance, require health and local authorities to set out how they will work together to ensure that all the assessment needs of individuals are met.
My noble friend will appreciate that we welcome the spirit of the amendment but we believe that it would not solve the problem which it seeks to address. These are local problems which require local solutions. We must ensure that local partners deal with the underlying causes of the problems. We will make sure that this happens through our work on the better services for vulnerable people initiative. We are committing ourselves to ensuring, through guidance, that health and local authorities work together to address these issues as they develop their joint investment plans for April 2000.
Finally, I wish to refer back to the point I raised in Committee that the Secretary of State has a power under Section 17 of the 1977 Act—inserted by Clause 7 of the Bill—to direct health authorities, NHS trusts and primary care trusts to provide services. Where NHS bodies have failed to act in partnership as required by the provisions in this clause of the Bill; where they have failed to follow guidance on developing joint investment plans; and where NHS bodies appear to be acting unreasonably in failing to provide an assessment when required to do so by a local authority, we will have no hesitation in using this power.
I hope that your Lordships will understand that therefore the right way to deal with this problem is to address its causes at ground level. I believe that I have set out today our commitment to a clear programme of work to deal with this problem. On that basis, I hope that my noble friend will consider withdrawing her amendment.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend both for his reply and for the extra
852
consideration he has given to this important amendment. I am grateful also for the support of other noble Lords from around the House. I thank him for his commitment to putting a requirement for this co-operation in the guidance which will be issued. I am confident that that, together with the willingness to work together with local authorities, will address this issue. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 21 [Plans for improving health etc.]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 51:
Page 16, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) Health Authorities shall, before drawing up any plan under this section, consult key partners in the delivery of NHS healthcare and the promotion of health. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is very similar to Amendment No. 138 which was moved at the Committee stage. At that time the amendment was criticised by a number of noble Lords for what one might call its "shopping list" aspect. We withdrew it and said that we would think again. On the other hand, a number of noble Lords felt that it was a useful requirement to place on the face of the Bill; that is to say, that it would be desirable to require health authorities to consult "key partners" prior to drafting health improvement plans.
There have been objections to the expression "key partners" in the context of other amendments during the course of this Report stage. It is used in an attempt to describe in the most general of terms those bodies of all kinds which in any local circumstances should be regarded as the most important people to consult. It is very difficult to find a phrase that does that and so we have stayed with "key partners". As those key partners may not be exactly the same consultee organisations in every geographical area (or, for that matter, for every part of the health improvement plan), we believe that such a requirement should be on the face of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in responding to my noble friend Lady Sharp, said, as many of us know from our own personal experience, that the health service has not been notable for the skill and depth of its consultation processes in the past. It is for that reason that we would like a general requirement of this kind on the face of the Bill, which is such an important Bill for the health service.
5 p. m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, again the noble Baroness has raised a very interesting point. I shall start by acknowledging what she said in repeating my words about the track record of the NHS in consultation in the past. One can look back— probably to 1974—to when governments of various shades issued instructions, circulars and guidance to the health service, which made it pretty clear that it needed to consult with all and sundry about any significant changes in services. Indeed, I go further and say that the health service can show that it consults with many organisations whenever it is faced with a difficult issue. The problem is that it has adopted a "tick box"

853
mentality. The general approach has often been first to decide what it wants to do, then consult and then make marginal changes.
We return to the point about health improvement programmes. I believe that they do not have any hope of succeeding in the way we want them to succeed unless they engage in real consultation and partnership with organisations and the local community. Noble Lords will realise that I very much take the message of the noble Baroness. We want to see not merely consultation but active engagement and participation by local stakeholders in the health improvement programme process and we want to see them as real partners with the health service.
Having said that, I am not convinced of the case forputting this provision on the face of the Bill. I acknowledge that the amendment before us avoids the dangers of shopping lists which we referred to in Committee, but it still leaves us with the problem of how key partners should be defined and by whom. There may be uncertainty about whether the definition of the clause is broad enough to cover all those we envisage being part of the process. Is it broad enough, for instance, to cover the recipients of health care, partners in the delivery of social care, partners in research and development, partners in education, training and in workforce planning?
We certainly know what we mean by way of partner involvement in the health improvement programme process. That is common ground between us. Let me stress again that we are committed to ensuring that this develops in practice. We are requiring that each health improvement programme includes a statement of who has been involved, how they have been involved and plans to develop the arrangements for the future. We shall expect NHS regional offices to pool that information on the first round. That will enable us to identify problems in development needs and ensure that they are addressed in future rounds.
We also have it in mind to pursue the theme of involvement in the research we mean to commission on implementation of the health improvement programme process to help identify and disseminate good practice. We have already challenged the health action zones to make good progress on widening and deepening local partnerships. We will be looking to draw early lessons about their experience. I believe that action of that sort will be more productive in securing full involvement of all the key players, including the appropriate consultation, than attempting to write a general requirement on the face of the Bill.
I would say to the noble Baroness, as we discussed in Committee, that Clause 21 includes a power of direction which we can use if we need to target particular issues of involvement. I believe that that combination of clear policy and intention, active monitoring, development and dissemination of good practice, backed by a power of direction which is available to us to target any
854
particular difficulty, offers a comprehensive package. On that basis, I ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for a very full and well directed answer. Anyone reading Hansard tomorrow (which after all is a record of intent) will be in no doubt as to what the Government have in mind for the consultation process. I was particularly interested in the ideas and dissemination of best practice. Experience in many other fields shows that that is one, of the best ways of getting a change of habit or culture. With that I am very happy to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 17, line 21, leave out ('13") and insert ("13(4)").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 24 [Arrangements between NHS bodies and local authorities.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 53:
Page 19, line 1, after ("the") insert ("social services departments of).
The noble Earl said: My Lords, one. of the creative features of this Bill, for which I give the Government full marks, is Clause 24, the provisions of which will allow the NHS and local authorities to work much more closely together than hitherto in areas where there is a commonality of interest. Joint working is, of course, nothing new either to the NHS or to local authorities, but the current legal barriers are such as to preclude the kinds of practical day-to-day arrangements that are conducive to maximum efficiency in the use of resources.
Clause 24 contains some important new powers which will allow the NHS to delegate functions to local authority departments and vice versa. They will allow for the provision of health and local authority services by a single managed provider, and they will allow for the pooling of money. Perhaps the obvious area where these arrangements will make a difference is that of delayed discharges from hospital, the causes of which, as noble Lords will be aware, are far from straightforward but can very often be traced to a lack of co-ordination between hospitals and social services. Greater flexibility in this sense is bound to pay dividends.
The amendment I have tabled is therefore for clarification. As Clause 24 is worded it would appear possible for the Secretary of State to allow for pooled budgetary arrangements between a health authority and a local authority if he feels that such a pooling of funds would assist in the delivery of health-related services. My first question to the Minister is exactly what that means. The functions of a local authority that are health related include practically all of its functions. Spending money on treating damp in the walls of a school classroom could be seen as health related. The same

855
might apply to free school milk, council house repairs, waste management, cleaner public transport, road maintenance—and the list goes on.
If NHS money is allowed to support the wider public health agenda, I should have real concerns about seeing a reduction in the money devoted to patient care. Can the Minister reassure me that the phrase, "health-related functions", in subsection (8) are those areas of local authority activity such as social services which are intimately bound up with patient services as delivered by the NHS?
My second concern relates to accountability. We are told that once money goes into a pool it ceases to possess a health or local authority identity. If that is so, how will it be possible to maintain proper accountability for the way in which health or local authority funds are used, and who will be the person accountable? My hope is that, despite health money losing its identity in the pool, the chief executive of the health authority will still be answerable for its use. It would not be satisfactory if the loss of the money's health identity were allowed to dilute or confuse the normal accountability mechanisms that ensure financial propriety. I beg to move.
Lord Rea: My Lords, when first reading the amendment I thought how restrictive it was. Having praised the purposes of Clause 24, the noble Earl has now included wording that restricts the provision to social services. I understand now that his purpose was simply to allow my noble friend the Minister to expand on how the clause will work, and I welcome that.
I take the noble Earl's point that every department run by a local authority could have a health-related aspect. However, there are particular areas in certain departments which could well be thought of as helping in the delivery of personal health services. I am thinking particularly of housing and education as front runners. But, as the noble Earl says, there are many other functions. I shall be extremely interested to hear how my noble friend will describe how the extent of the spread of NHS funds through local authorities will be managed.
Lord Laming: My Lords, many of the new unitary authorities have introduced structures which, although their social services functions are clear, are not all conducted in departments that are called social services departments. Many of the new unitary authorities have introduced structures where children's services are linked with education, and where adult services are linked with other functions such as housing, environmental health and the like.
5.15 p. m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, that was a helpful intervention.
I welcome the opportunity to debate this issue and to clarify some of the points that the noble Earl has raised. I also accept the positive comments he made about the need to oil the wheels of collaboration between health and local government. When one thinks of NHS/local
856
government relationships, one thinks first of social services. I have no doubt that that will continue to be of prime importance. However, there are areas in the services offered to the public by local authorities where they can have a real impact on health-related issues. The arrangements that the Government are putting in place will allow us to take advantage of that, albeit with the safeguards in place which I believe the noble Earl would support.
We have an ambitious agenda for the future of the health service. Underpinning that agenda is the need to tackle the root causes of ill health and to improve services from the point of view of users and carers by breaking down the barriers that exist between organisations. That must go wider than purely health and social services barriers. In order to achieve that, we wish to have the greatest degree of flexibility in the use of resources. We want local partners to be able to develop "joined-up" solutions to "joined-up" problems.
The Government are committed to breaking down barriers. I point to the work of the Social Exclusion Unit, the Better Government initiative and the proposals in Partnership in Action as evidence of our commitment. This amendment would tie our hands. We want to allow partnerships to develop between NHS bodies and local authorities as a whole. Failure to do so would mean the isolation of social services within local government. It would mean that the needs of some of our most vulnerable citizens would not be met in the most effective way. We want to allow education and housing to work in partnership with the NHS to meet the needs of vulnerable people.
If this amendment were to be accepted, local partners would not be able to put in place improved support for children with special educational needs as regards the provision of speech and language therapy in schools, or better co-ordination and sharing of responsibility for the provision of specialist aids and equipment which do not fit neatly into the responsibility of one agency, and pool budgets, for example, to cover home alterations such as for wheelchair accessibility or which would facilitate the discharge of people from hospital. Those are all areas where local partners have suggested that they would like to use the new flexibilities.
In the discussion document Partnership in Action, we have consulted on these flexibilities and asked specifically for views as to how they might be used between the NHS and corporate local government beyond social services. Of 171 organisations which responded to that consultation process, not one questioned the need to extend the flexibilities. Indeed, the majority were adamant that wider local government must have the opportunity to be involved. Health action zones, for example, have been keen to use the extended flexibilities and we believe that they will probably act as a test bed for some of the more innovative ideas.
In addition, the Department for Education and Employment conducted its own consultation exercise on the document, seeking views from local education authorities and others in the education field about whether and, if so, how education might be involved. Again, it found no one signalling that the wider use of

857
the flexibilities was undesirable or unnecessary. Overall, the strongest lobbies were to include education and housing. But there were also other suggestions involving areas such as transport, leisure and environmental health.
At this stage, it is not possible to second-guess how the flexibilities might be used in all cases. It is for authorities locally to come up with ideas within the framework that is set. However, we must be sure that we do not deny them the opportunity.
These and other ideas need to be worked out in detail. They would need to comply with the regulations laid down by the Secretary of State. The point of that is that the regulations would enable us to ensure that the necessary consideration has been given to how the flexibilities will operate and to the outcomes that they are intended to achieve.
We recognise that, in the early days, health and social services will lead the way in using the new flexibilities. Clearly, social services is the area where the majority of partnership working with the NHS has been developing and where the pressure for the flexibilities has originated. We want to learn the lessons from this experience. That will be invaluable in generating ideas and building up the wider partnership.
If we were to limit the scope of the provisions that are now before us by accepting the amendment, we should still be able to dismantle the barriers that exist between the NHS and social services, but in a sense it would leave remaining barriers between the other areas of local government. That would be unfortunate.
The noble Earl asked about accountability arrangements. I refer him to the discussion document, Partnership in Action. Paragraph 4.27 of the document makes it clear that the service and financial management accountability in audit—for instance, in the pooled budget—means that ultimate accountability for that budget links back to the existing accountability arrangements for each partner authority. That is extended to the chief executive of the NHS executive, the Secretary of State for Health and Parliament, on the one hand, and, on the other, to the local authority members and ultimately to the local electorate.
Before I sit down, perhaps I may correct a figure that I gave. We had 700 written responses to Partnership in Action; 171 of those responded on that point.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that very helpful answer. It was, of course, intended to be a probing amendment; I did not intend to press it in any way. Nevertheless I have the feeling that the more distant NHS money becomes from the NHS, by definition the more distant it becomes from what is normally understood by "healthcare". Having said that, I recognise the need for flexibility and the need to break down artificial barriers. I also appreciate what the noble Lord said about the safeguards that will be built into the system. It has been an extremely helpful short debate and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 26 [Powers relating to voluntary schemes]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 54:
Page 20, line 44, after ("section") insert ("and sections 27 and 28").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now turn to that part of the Bill, Clauses 26 to 31 and Clause 48, concerned with the purchase of NHS medicines. There are a large number of amendments to deal with and I apologise for the length of what I am about to say. I hope to clarify the government amendments and to speak also to the amendments tabled by noble Lords.
The overall purpose of the government amendments is to give greater clarity to our intentions for Pharmaceuticals and the purchase of NHS medicines and to meet the concerns which were expressed in Committee and in the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee.
Amendments Nos. 54, 55, 56, 58 and 59 make clear on the face of the Bill which of Clauses 26 to 31 apply to which manufacturer and supplier and under what circumstances. There was some debate about this in Committee.
Clause 26 gives the Secretary of State powers exercisable only in relation to those companies which are party to the voluntary scheme. These amendments to that clause add to the definition of the conditions to be met by suppliers and manufacturers who choose to be members of the voluntary scheme. They also make explicit the ways in which such membership will be handled in cases where a scheme member appears not to be complying with the scheme. If the Secretary of State decides that a supplier or manufacturer is not abiding by the terms of the voluntary agreement, he will write to that supplier or manufacturer giving reasons for his decision. The supplier or manufacturer will have the opportunity to respond and the Secretary of State will consider the response and reply with his decision. The importance of these changes becomes clearer when we look at the two amendments to Clauses 27 and 28.
Clause 27 replaces the power of Section 57 of the 1977 Act to limit the prices of medicines bought by the NHS. This clause is widely drawn because it is difficult, maybe impossible, to envisage all the circumstances when such an action might need to be taken. But, in all cases, the Secretary of State is obliged to consult with the industry body before embarking on any such action. A concern expressed in Committee was that Clause 27 might be applied to suppliers and manufacturers who were members of the voluntary scheme. That was never the intention of the Government. We wish to proceed, as I have said many times before, by co-operation and agreement with the pharmaceutical industry in this and to find a solution which recognises both the interests of the NHS and those of the industry and deals fairly with both. This amendment fulfils our commitment to a voluntary scheme and makes it explicit that those companies who are members of that voluntary scheme shall not be subject to the powers conferred by Clause 27.
Clause 28 allows the Secretary of State to make a statutory scheme. The application of a statutory scheme is the alternative to a voluntary scheme. It would apply generally if a voluntary agreement with the industry is not reached or specifically to companies which, for

859
whatever reason, chose not to be members of that voluntary agreement. In Committee it was said that Clause 28 could be read to imply that the Secretary of State could apply a statutory scheme to those companies which were abiding by the terms of the voluntary agreement. This was not our intention and the proposed amendment to Clause 28 underlines that by giving explicit exemption to those companies which are members of the voluntary scheme.
The two amendments, Nos. 56A and 67A, tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, have effects which are quite undesirable. The first amendment would add to the circumstances which could give a right of appeal. The appeal provisions recognise the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee in connection with the statutory scheme and the statutory provisions connected to the voluntary scheme to make provision for an appeal against a decision by the Secretary of State regarding the control of prices or profits, or the disclosure of information, to an independent tribunal.
The decision under appeal would be that the voluntary scheme was not effective in the company's case because of its conduct. But this is a voluntary scheme. It is based on co-operation and agreement between the Secretary of State and a supplier or manufacturer. Whether there is agreement between those two parties is surely a matter easily determined by the actions of the involved parties. If they cannot agree that they are in agreement, then I suggest that the agreement has failed and both parties have an equal right to leave it. This is not a matter for appeal on one side and not the other. We have made provision which provides for the position where a company is seen not to be complying with the voluntary scheme. The Secretary of State must inform the company formally of that view and take into account the company's response. Further, in his final response the Secretary of State must give his reasons; and, as always, he must act reasonably. I would expect—and I say this in no way to prejudge the outcome of the current negotiations with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry—that the voluntary arrangements will contain an agreed mechanism to allow for the resolution of dispute between companies and the Secretary of State. All this adds up, I would say, to more than sufficient protection. Perhaps noble Lords might consider the position were the Secretary of State to be given a parallel right of appeal against a company's decision that it was no longer a member of the voluntary scheme. Were he successful on appeal, the company would be forced to comply with a voluntary agreement. I suggest that that is a nonsense and that we should not go down that route as far as the companies are concerned.
The second amendment would place the Secretary of State in a potentially very interesting position. Under the proposal, the Secretary of State is only entitled to decide that the voluntary scheme ceases to apply to a company if that company increases the prices of health service medicines without approval or fails to record, keep and supply information needed for the voluntary scheme. I remind noble Lords that the voluntary scheme is
860
intended to deliver medicines to the NHS at reasonable prices by having regard to the profits made from their sale by a supplier or manufacturer. This amendment would allow a company to make excessive profits, refuse to make an appropriate payment to the Secretary of State and still remain a member of the voluntary scheme. That cannot be right.
The cumulative effect of these five government amendments is to bring some extra clarity to the Bill. They confirm our commitment to a voluntary scheme and protect the position of those companies which are members of that scheme: they will not be subject to any of the powers conferred by Clauses 27 and 28. In Committee, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said that the enactment of new compulsory powers of price and profit control which could operate indiscriminately against saints and rogues alike was inappropriate. I believe that we have divided the saints from the sinners by these amendments and I hope that the noble Lord will accept that.
As I have just said, in dealing with the industry it is our hope that we may continue through co-operation and voluntary agreement. To this end negotiations are currently taking place with the Association of British Pharmaceutical Industry. But the Bill allows for two further eventualities: first, where a voluntary agreement is not reached—although I think that unlikely—and, secondly, where a voluntary agreement is reached but one or more companies do not abide by its terms. Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 deal with this area.
Clauses 27 to 31 enable the Secretary of State to deal with these two cases in a way which is equitable, both to the industry and to the NHS. Our intention that companies who abide by the terms of the voluntary scheme will be unaffected either by the alternative statutory scheme or by price controls has also been made explicit on the face of the Bill through earlier amendments. Clause 27 allows the Secretary of State to limit any price which may be charged by any manufacturer or supplier for the supply of any health service medicine after consultation with the industry body. That power would apply only in the absence of a voluntary scheme or in the case of suppliers and manufacturers not complying with a voluntary scheme. Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 to Clause 29 mean that the Secretary of State must consult the industry body before making any provision to enable and facilitate the introduction of such a price limitation. This requirement to consult also applies to the amended Clause 29(2) which extends the requirement to record, keep and provide information to the Secretary of State. I hope that these amendments will be welcomed by the House.
The extensive Amendment No. 67 deals with several concerns expressed so far throughout the passage of the Bill and by the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. In its consideration of Clauses 26 to 29 the committee concluded,
"that, as presently drafted, the power of the Minister to give directions is not circumscribed by sufficient safeguards that this power will only be used in an appropriate manner. In taking powers to ensure that prices are fair and reasonable to the NHS and to companies, the Government has an obligation to ensure that those powers are of themselves fair and reasonable. We invite the House to consider amending the Bill to make provision for an appeal

861
against a decision by the Secretary of State regarding the control of prices or profits, or the disclosure of information, to an independent tribunal (either on the face of the Bill or by way of a requirement to provide an appeal in the regulations), in a process which is speedy and as open as commercial confidentiality allows".
In our debate at Committee stage the noble Earl, Lord Howe, pointed to the extra advantage of providing a mechanism for the swift resolution of disputes between companies and the Department of Health which an appeal system would afford. That point is well taken. The existing PPRS lacks such a mechanism and that has been one of its weaknesses.
The noble Earl also spoke of his concerns in connection with the Secretary of State's power to require companies to provide any information which the Secretary of State required for the purpose of enabling the scheme to operate. The problem was that on the face of the Bill the Secretary of State seemingly had the power to require any information. I offered my assurances to the noble Earl that the voluntary scheme itself would determine what was required for its effective operation and we intended that the information required would be in the voluntary agreement that we sought to reach with the industry. I recognised that Clause 26(3) was wide in terms of the information that could be sought and, with the permission of the Committee, took the matter away for further consideration. Amendment No. 67 has been drawn to meet the recommendations of the Select Committee and the concerns expressed at Committee stage. It will enable the Secretary of State to provide for a right of appeal by an affected supplier or manufacturer against decisions of the Secretary of State specific to a particular supplier or manufacturer to require information, to limit any price or profit, to refuse his consent to a price increase, or to pay any amount by way of excess profits, prices or penalties. An appeal will represent a very considerable additional safeguard to members of the pharmaceutical industry covered either by the voluntary arrangements or the statutory scheme.
The addition of subsection (4D) in this amendment requires some explanation. It provides:
"A requirement or prohibition, or a limit, under Sections 26 to 29 may only be enforced under this section and may not be relied on in any proceedings other than proceedings under this section".
A concern of the pharmaceutical industry has been that the effects of either a voluntary agreement or a statutory scheme may inadvertently go wider than intended and enable third parties to seek recovery of excess prices. This matter was aired at Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. It is agreed that the intention of either a voluntary agreement or a statutory scheme is clear: to ensure that the prices paid by the NHS for its medicines are fair and reasonable. There is no reason to extend this requirement beyond the proper business of the NHS. It is certainly not the business of the NHS to influence the prices paid by third parties for their medicines, although in view of earlier debates perhaps the noble Earl believes that we should also meddle in that. An amendment refining the definition of a health service medicine was suggested and I said then that I was unsure whether it was appropriate or that it should be on the face of the Bill. We have now decided that an
862
explicit statement to the effect that the operation of Clauses 26 to 29 shall have no effect beyond the operation of Clause 30 is the best way to proceed. I am confident that this will remove the problem to which I referred.
Amendment No. 100 to Clause 48 takes account of another recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee. Clause 30(6) provides for an increase in financial penalties arising from contraventions under Clauses 26 to 29. At Committee stage the noble Earl thought it wholly wrong for Parliament to give a blanket power to the Secretary of State to enable him to set any amount as a penalty. That sentiment was strongly endorsed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I agree. Therefore, this amendment ensures that the Secretary of State cannot proceed in these matters other than with the approval of Parliament. We hope that these measures will be used infrequently over the lifetime of the Bill. Nevertheless, it remains sensible to circumscribe the use of Clause 30(6) in this explicit way.
At Committee stage the noble Earl also suggested an amendment so that there should be consultation with the industry body about the regulations to impose penalties payable because of non-compliance by a company. I said at the time that it was entirely proper that the industry body should be consulted over matters of detail relating to the sales of medicines to the NHS but that the amendment as proposed might not be the best way of extending the consultation process. Amendment No. 68 accommodates the purpose of the noble Earl's amendment and makes the matter explicitly clear: the Secretary of State must consult the industry body before making regulations under Clause 30.
Clause 31 deals with the way in which the Secretary of State is to exercise the powers conferred in earlier clauses. Subsection (1) allows the Secretary of State to make regulations and issue directions. Amendments Nos. 69, 70 and 71 by introducing and defining "specific" make it clearer that directions are specific to an individual supplier or manufacturer in contrast to regulations which are general. Amendments Nos. 75 and 76 separate the existing composite definition of what is meant by the term "health service medicine". The definition incorporates the words "medicinal product" with the meaning of those words by reference to Section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968 being given in brackets. Instead, they would be defined in a free-standing definition. The amendments incorporate no change of meaning.
I turn next to Amendments Nos. 72 and 73. At Committee stage the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp of Guildford, moved an amendment to ensure that any statutory scheme of price regulation that was introduced took account of the importance of research and development in that industry. The importance of the pharmaceutical industry and nurturing its research and development capacity was a recurring theme of our debates. Certainly, it is not an area in which I wish to disagree with the central importance of that point. Amendments Nos. 72 and 73 are tabled to make clear on the face of the Bill that the costs of research and development are an important component of reaching a

863
decision on the reasonableness of prices. I believe that the amendments as worded meet what was asked in the noble Baroness's amendment and reassure both this House and the pharmaceutical industry that the Government understand and value the importance to the NHS as a whole of research and development.
I turn to Amendment No. 73A. I understand what the noble Earl has in mind with his amendment: to make clear that the Secretary of State in exercising powers under Clauses 27(a), 28(1) and 28(6)(a) must have regard to the right of suppliers and manufacturers to make a reasonable profit from business with the NHS. But I suggest that Clause 31(4) shows that the Secretary of State must already act by
"reference to the prices or profits which would be reasonable in all the circumstances".
I hope that the noble Earl agrees that the point is therefore covered and that it is unwise to add words to legislation that do not bring to it any new meaning or add to clarity. With my apologies for the length of my remarks, I commend these government amendments to the House.
Earl Howe: My Lords, we warmly welcome the amendments. I thank the Minister for having responded so constructively to the concerns that I and other noble Lords voiced in Committee on these clauses. The noble Baroness has gone to great trouble which I am sure the whole House will appreciate.
The Minister has fulfilled in almost all respects—I should like to have said in all respects—the undertaking given in Committee to meet those concerns. It will probably seem ungracious and churlish of me to have tabled Amendments Nos. 56A, 67A and 73A which seek to add to the wording of the adjacent government amendments. I make clear that these additions are intended to do no more than make the government amendments work in the way that I thought was intended. It is no part of my purpose to be confrontational.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her comments on the amendments. It may assist the House if I introduce them briefly. Amendment No. 56A is designed to make clear that the ability of the Secretary of State to take companies out of the voluntary scheme is limited to circumstances where they have breached the terms of the scheme. At present subsection (2B) of the amendment seems to give the Secretary of State virtual carte blanche to take a subjective view of the matter on which he may then base a decision. That does not seem right. Nevertheless, I am grateful for the noble Baroness's comments, upon which I shall reflect.
Amendment No. 67A concerns the right of appeal. I believe that the right of appeal should include an appeal against a decision of the Secretary of State to remove a company from the scope of the voluntary scheme. At present if one looks at the amendment together with one of my previous amendments, one sees that the Secretary of State has complete discretion to remove companies from the voluntary scheme without apparently having to determine that they had breached the scheme and without a right of appeal for the
864
companies concerned. That is why I believe that my proposed addition to the government amendment is important. Again, I shall read carefully what the noble Baroness said on the matter.
Amendment No. 73A attempts to make clear that the statutory objectives set out for Clauses 26 to 31 should strike a fair balance between the requirement of the Secretary of State to secure safe and effective medicines on reasonable terms and the rights of manufacturers and suppliers to receive reasonable profits on the supply of medicines to the NHS, and their research and development costs. I did not think that the Government's new text did quite enough to recognise the interests of companies to make a fair return. One reason was that other statutes—for example, Section 3 of the Electricity Act—include language which recognises explicitly the objective of enabling companies to obtain a reasonable rate of return. I need to emphasise to the Minister that the wording of her amendment is extremely helpful. However, perhaps I may suggest that she considers the point again. I take note of what she said in relation to Clause 31(4).
Finally, I revert to the right of appeal. Will the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention to introduce regulations at an early date after the enactment of the Bill? In other words, can she confirm that the permissive format of her amendment is no more than an adherence to the conventions of drafting?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, before the noble Earl sits down, I can confirm that it is permissive, but we have every intention of setting up such an appeal scheme.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister.
5.45 pm
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her full explanation of the amendments. On these Benches, we are pleased at the degree to which she has recognised the importance of research and development to the industry. Nevertheless, at present the amendments reflect substantially the amendments tabled at Committee stage by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We understand why the amendments were tabled. In many respects they reflect the wishes of the pharmaceutical industry. Incorporating the amendments into their own, the Government have in many senses gone along with the wishes of the pharmaceutical industry about the regulation scheme. We agree that they provide greater clarity and meet many of the criticisms of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, for example about appeal mechanisms.
Nevertheless, from these Benches we maintain the view we expressed at Committee stage. We believe that a voluntary agreement should be what it states: a voluntary agreement. It should not be propped up by the Government. The industry should not have to look to the Government to enforce its own voluntary agreement when firms do not obey it. That the Government are now getting into bed with the industry to enforce its own agreement smacks too much of a cosy relationship—"I"ll scratch your back if you'll scratch mine".

865
On these Benches, we would prefer to see a more distant relationship—a voluntary scheme run by the industry, not having to be enforced by the Government. Alternatively, if the voluntary scheme does not work, we are prepared to condone a statutory scheme which is incorporated in Clauses 27 and 28. As it is, the statutory scheme will remain a fallback provision which is unlikely to be used provided that the voluntary scheme, with government backing, is effective. In effect, we are now being offered this voluntary scheme—a voluntary provision that provides for the Government to help enforce it.
Given that we have that cosy relationship, it becomes more vital that the Bill incorporates the transparency provisions of the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Desai, which we shall debate shortly. We recognise the benefits that the PPRS has brought to the British pharmaceutical industry over the past 30 years. We are sorry that it does not remain what it has been: a voluntary agreement voluntarily enforced; and that the Government have succumbed to being a partner in enforcing it. We remain unhappy at the degree to which it muddies the water between state and industry and encourages a degree of corporatism which we on these Benches cannot condone. I therefore register our unhappiness with some of the amendments as they stand but accept that the Government have made a considerable number of moves in the direction that we ask. I thank them.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I hope that I shall not tread on the toes of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I declare an interest in that I had a delicious free dinner last night from one pharmaceutical company. It is the only financial, tangible interest that I have received from the pharmaceutical industry over 22 years. Noble Lords will be aware of perorations from me in praise of the good work that can be done by the industry.
Concerns were expressed to me at Second Reading and an earlier stage of the Bill. The noble Baroness seems to have covered virtually every point. However, perhaps today or later she can clarify this point. The Minister referred to prices and profits, although in separate compartments. Am I right to think that those are part of a weird amalgam, a formula that has developed over the years? I believe that it used to be called the voluntary price scheme. It then became the pharmaceutical price scheme. It is an arcane formula that evolved on an industry-wide basis and from time to time on individual large companies with a specific product that is greatly in demand. Will the factors of both price and profit be part of the discussion between the Government and the industry? I hope that the Minister's amendments will not muddy the waters, be more prescriptive, or add something unforeseen.
The noble Baroness pointed out that reasonableness is behind the amendments. That is a factor which has appeared in all the discussions between the industry as a whole, individual companies and the department. The amendments appear to meet all the issues which were brought to my attention by various sections of the
866
industry. After the large dinner last night, I would not wish to appear greedy, glutinous or curmudgeonly towards the scheme.
I am grateful for what the Minister has done and I hope that the amendments will enable the scheme to continue beyond its 30 years. It should be discussed beyond your Lordships' House, and I say that advisedly, because we are not experts in the complicated formula. Discussions should take place in a discreet and reasonable way and I and the industry are grateful for what the noble Baroness has done.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendments which have been tabled by the noble Baroness. When the Bill was first published, the ABPI, and even pharmaceutical companies which were not members, expressed several important concerns. The first was that the voluntary scheme which had served the country and the NHS well should continue and should be on a voluntary basis and that those companies adhering fully to that voluntary scheme would not be subject to statutory control. That point has been properly met.
The second concern was that companies outside the voluntary scheme, for whatever reason, some of which had without any consultation increased the prices of medicines being supplied to the NHS which were, in the view of the Government and others, and to some extent in the view of the ABPI, beyond a reasonable amount, should be subject to a statutory scheme. That intention was clearly accepted by the ABPI.
The third and most important point, bearing in mind the enormous contribution made by the pharmaceutical industry to our balance of payments and recognising the fact that some of the most effective medicines available in the NHS have resulted from research and development carried out in the UK, was that research and development costs should be taken into account in relation to agreements under the voluntary scheme.
Those were the three principal concerns of the industry. In my view, the noble Baroness's amendments have met virtually all those anxieties and I congratulate her upon them.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and others who have welcomed what I intended to be helpful amendments in striking the right balance. I reassure the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that what we are doing will enable a new voluntary arrangement to be created. The current arrangement is coming to an end and we are in negotiations to create a new one which will allow for flexibility between profits and prices and will enable us to strike a balance between fairness to the NHS and to the companies in terms of profit. The advantages of such flexibility to a voluntary scheme are great and we shall try to safeguard them. I have always made it clear that the Government's intention is to do their best to negotiate a successful voluntary scheme and to abide by it.
Perhaps I may reply briefly to the points made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I hope that he is reassured that we have put on the face of the Bill the responsibility to

867
take into account reasonable profits in respect of schemes. I hope that he will reflect on whether it is sensible to set up an appeals mechanism against a conclusion reached through a proper process, which I described, and that a voluntary agreement which needs "two to tango" has not come to an end.
I fundamentally disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, in her analysis of what we are doing by the statutory provisions which could be called into effect with the voluntary agreement. I understood her desire that we should not have a hybrid scheme, which she expressed in Committee. The amendments we have brought forward more clearly separate out the voluntary agreement from the statutory agreement, but I cannot believe that she would not share my concern that the voluntary agreement, as it existed, was not as effective in delivering as any of us would have wished. I believe that companies which were party to it—and I refer to the minority—could choose not to supply the information and could increase prices without notifying the department. There is no mechanism whatever to fall back on. I do not believe that that was a satisfactory arrangement. The industry has understood it to be unsatisfactory, which is why it has accepted the need for some statutory back up. We are not therefore diluting the voluntary nature; we are making it stronger so that those who complied with it because they believed that it was the right thing to do would not see other people getting away scot-free with non-compliance. I disagree with the noble Baroness's analysis, but the House has been most generous in its response to our proposals and I am grateful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 55:
Page 21, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert ("and sections 27 and 28, a voluntary scheme is to be treated as applying to a manufacturer or supplier to whom it relates if—

(a) he has consented to the scheme being so treated (and has
not withdrawn that consent), and

(b) no notice is in force in his case under subsection (2C).

(2A) For the purposes of this section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 56A not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 21, line 15, at end insert—
("(2B) If, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, any acts or omissions of any manufacturer or supplier to whom a voluntary scheme applies (a "scheme member") have shown that, in the scheme member's case, the scheme is ineffective for either of the purposes mentioned in subsection (1), the Secretary of State may give written notice of that fact to the scheme member stating his reasons.
(2C) If, after the Secretary of State has given the scheme member an opportunity to make representations about the acts or omissions in question, he continues to be of that opinion, he may by a further written notice given to the scheme member (and stating his reasons) determine that the scheme should cease to apply in the scheme member's case.
868
(2D) Consent under subsection (2)(a) must be given, or withdrawn, in the manner required by the Secretary of State. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 21, line 23, at end insert (", for the purpose of giving effect to a voluntary scheme").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, the point at issue is that Clause 26(4) does not, as currently drafted, make it clear that the powers it contains are to be exercised within the parameters of the voluntary scheme. That may well be implied from the structure of the clause taken as a whole, but the point is an important one on which there should be no ambiguity. When companies sign up to the voluntary scheme, the control powers in Clause 26(4) should be related to the provisions of the voluntary scheme itself. I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I hope that I can reassure the noble Earl. All the powers conferred by Clause 26 are exercisable only where there is a voluntary scheme in existence between the Secretary of State and the industry body. The voluntary scheme is described in Clause 26 as having the purpose of limiting the prices charged for medicines supplied to the NHS or of limiting the profits made from such sales.
Subsection (4) allows the Secretary of State to prohibit any increase in prices without his approval and also to recover any sums charged in contravention of that prohibition. But the prohibition can only relate to medicines covered by the scheme. It is clearly not the case that the prohibition would operate outside the scope of the provisions of the voluntary scheme. It is Clause 27 which deals with the control of prices in the absence of the voluntary scheme, or in the case of suppliers and manufacturers not abiding by the terms of the voluntary scheme.
While I accept that this amendment is intended to add clarity to the purpose of Clause 26, I hope that the noble Earl will feel that it is already clear as to what Clause 26 provides and the way in which it will operate.
6 p. m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, that is a very helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Power to control prices]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 58:
Page 21, line 40, at end insert—
("( ) The powers conferred by this section are not exercisable at any time in relation to a manufacturer or supplier to whom at that time a voluntary scheme applies. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 28 [Statutory schemes]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 59:
Page 22, line 31, at end insert—
("( ) A statutory scheme may not apply to a manufacturer or supplier to whom a voluntary scheme applies. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 60:
Leave out Clause 28.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, notwithstanding the very helpful amendments being moved by the Government today which place the Bill's provisions onto a much sounder footing, I hope that the House will allow me to make one or two observations on the reserve powers contained in Clause 28.
What we still have in the Bill, admittedly as a reserve power but nevertheless available for use by the Secretary of State with little further formality, is a power to create an entirely new operating climate for the pharmaceutical industry in the UK. The considerable worry shared by those of us on these Benches is that to interfere with the voluntary arrangements of the PPRS, which have, by and large, worked supremely well for over 40 years to the shared benefit of government, industry and the NHS, is a course upon which we should embark at our peril.
The introduction of a statutory scheme, were that to occur, with all the cards stacked in the Secretary of State's favour, would represent a huge risk to the continued stability of the pharmaceutical industry. The ethos which has underpinned the PPRS from its inception has been that, by mutual agreement, there really can be a fair deal for the NHS and patients combined with a flourishing R&D base in the UK. The clear message here would be that that ethos has been consigned to history. For a statutory scheme allowing prices to be controlled by Whitehall would, at a stroke, skew the present delicate balance of advantages away from the industry.
But who then would be the beneficiaries? I suggest that it would not be the NHS. Compulsory price fixing would act as an instant disincentive to pharmaceutical companies to continue operating in the UK. Why should they invest in research if they cannot earn a fair return on capital here? If the research base migrates overseas, it will no longer be the British patient who first sees the benefits of new treatments emerging onto the market.
I fully acknowledge that the government amendments have gone a long way to allay the fears of the industry. The Minister will say that there is no present intention to create a statutory scheme. All right, but I maintain that even the existence of a reserve power such as we find in Clause 28 will create sufficient uncertainty among pharmaceutical companies, particularly foreign-owned pharmaceutical companies, to undermine long-term business confidence. The threat of a compulsory scheme, however veiled, combined with that other hurdle created by NICE of the requirement on a manufacturer to demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of a drug, will create the perception of an unfriendly business environment in this country. One does not need much more than that perception to cause businesses to start packing up their tents and looking elsewhere.
The pharmaceutical industry is global. The UK industry represents 3 per cent. of the world market. The competitiveness of the UK as a home for pharmaceutical activity is already declining. The only things which make the UK attractive to foreign investors are the
870
strength of our science base and the ability to operate in a more benign and stable business environment than some others overseas.
Peter Mandelson, in an evocative phrase, spoke of wanting to create a knowledge-driven economy. The pharmaceutical industry is surely the largest knowledge-driven sector that we have. It is the second largest earner of foreign currency after the oil industry and yet here suddenly we seem to have a Government acting schizophrenically: they sing the praises of the knowledge-driven economy and simultaneously take powers to clamp down on it.
The Minister will have gathered that I am uneasy about those provisions remaining in the Bill. I await her reply with interest. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches, we cannot support the noble Earl, Lord Howe. We accept the response which the Minister gave us in relation to our reservations about the amendments that she tabled earlier. We recognise that if the voluntary scheme is to work satisfactorily, it needs the back-up of the statutory scheme which is incorporated in Clause 28. Therefore, on these Benches we support the Government in maintaining Clause 28.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for giving me the opportunity to say once again that we value one of Britain's most successful industries—the pharmaceutical industry—and wish to create a climate in which it flourishes. We recognise in particular the research and development strength and what we can offer the industry and what the industry can offer this country.
I believe that the industry itself recognises that having a sophisticated and discriminating home market is an advantage and not a disadvantage. I can underline too, as I said earlier this evening, that we have every intention of wholeheartedly renegotiating a voluntary price regulation scheme with the industry.
The noble Earl accused us of being schizophrenic in our attitude by having reserve statutory powers. I suggest to him that it is not schizophrenia but responsibility which is underlying our attitude here. We believe that it would be unwise totally to rely on a voluntary scheme.
Some pharmaceutical industries may not be willing to sign up to it or to comply fully with another voluntary agreement that is reached between the Government and the pharmaceutical industry. I am afraid that experience under the present scheme, as I mentioned earlier, provides evidence of that. I told your Lordships in Committee that one significant company has not submitted information required under the present scheme since 1990. In 1998 alone 24 companies increased prices without the agreement of the Secretary of State, outside the terms of the PPRS and at an annual cost to the NHS of £30 million.
Although the Government wish and believe that they will conclude another agreement with the industry, it is prudent for us to provide for a situation in which it is not possible, after the best endeavours of both sides, to

871
reach an outcome which the Government and the industry are prepared to accept. The provisions in this clause are the minimum necessary to enable the Secretary of State to establish a statutory scheme.
There are a number of important safeguards written in if it proves necessary for the Secretary of State to use those powers. The noble Earl seemed to suggest that a statutory scheme would somehow undermine the industry and there would be no ability to make any form of profit whatever. We have made it clear that there will be the same considerations of reasonable profit and fairness to the NHS in a statutory scheme as we shall be aiming for in a voluntary scheme.
However, branded medicines are specialised products, the development of which incur considerable research and development expenditure. Those products have limited interchangeability in many circumstances and new medicines are subject to patent protection. That gives companies a period of market exclusivity. For that reason, the Government have concluded that it is necessary to continue to take steps in that area to ensure that prices are fair and reasonable, both to companies and to the NHS. We want to reach another agreement with the industry but, as I said earlier, it would be unfair on those companies which agree to abide by that new agreement while other companies are able to opt out of the scheme and be subject to no scheme at all.
As a last resort the Government must protect the interests of the NHS by having available reserved powers to implement a statutory scheme if it proved impossible to reach agreement with some or all of the pharmaceutical industry. For those reasons I urge the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister has made some reassuring comments. As I said earlier, the Government have done a lot to allay the initial fears expressed by the industry. For that we are extremely grateful.
My main point was that often markets and investment decisions turn on perceptions, sometimes quite irrational perceptions, but nevertheless that happens. If, in the future, a multi-national pharmaceutical company considers whether or not to invest in the UK, credibility is not stretched too much to imagine such a company looking at the reserved powers for a statutory scheme and asking whether the UK represented the most favourable place for that investment.
I hope that the Government are right in their judgment. If they are not right, the consequences will be very serious for us all. I still have nagging doubts about the criticisms that the Minister has voiced against the existing PPRS. If, as she maintains, the present PPRS is not working properly and we have an unacceptable minority of companies which are the cause of that, why not simply introduce a system of arbitration, combined with penalties for infringement? Why is it necessary to have reserved powers for a fully-fledged statutory scheme? I am still not convinced, but this is not a matter that I shall press. I believe that it is right to have voiced these concerns, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Desai Lord Desai moved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
PUBLICATION OF DETAILS OF VOLUNTARY OR STATUTORY SCHEME
(". The Secretary of State shall publish a statement of any voluntary or statutory scheme he has agreed with the industry, which statement shall include—

(a) the criteria he will use for the purposes of making determinations under sections 26(1)(a) and (b), and 28(1)(a) and (b) above;

(b) the categories of information he determines to be commercially confidential and his reasons for their justification;

(c) details of the outcomes of his consultation with the industry and other bodies representing consumer and public interests in establishing the scheme;

(d) the mechanisms he will put in place for independent audit of the negotiation and operation of the schemes and the mechanisms for publishing the results of such an audit; and

(e) when he will next review the scheme. ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by declaring a non-pecuniary interest. Unlike the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I am not in the habit of getting dinner, but I have spoken to the National Consumer Council, which has expressed reservations about the scheme. Noble Lords will remember that I pursued this point in Committee. It was well past midnight on that halcyon evening and we marched into the lobbies at 1.30 a. m. in the morning. I was brief at that time and thought that I would not try the patience of noble Lords too much.
However, I have returned to this issue because it is an important one. There are questions about the voluntary arrangement for PPRS or even the statutory ones. There is a missing actor and that is the consumer. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, for having welcomed my amendment before I had moved it; I hope that I shall have her support.
The first problem is that the Secretary of State is obliged not only to secure reasonable prices for the medicine board of the National Health Service but to promote the pharmaceutical industry. In Committee I argued that that is schizophrenic. If there is schizophrenia, that is it. I do not understand why the DTI does not undertake the task of promoting the pharmaceutical industry. What does it have to do with the Secretary of State?
The scheme that we have is a kind of bilateral monopoly. It is a very cosy arrangement. One large buyer can influence a few large sellers. The fact that there is a large stable buyer no doubt has immensely benefited the pharmaceutical industry. That fact is seldom mentioned when people talk about how efficient the pharmaceutical industry is. I do not deny that it is efficient. The advantage that a large stable demand from the National Health Service has on the pharmaceutical industry is not to be underestimated.
My amendment asks for a certain amount of transparency in these arrangements. First, if the Secretary of State is to determine prices or profits, paragraph (a) of Amendment No. 61 says that the criteria he will use for these purposes ought to be made explicit.
Secondly, given the schizophrenic role of the Secretary of State, we must be quite clear what information will be suppressed because it is commercially confidential and the justifications for that. Whose interests are we protecting?
Thirdly, it is a matter of concern that in all the consultations industry bodies are mentioned but consumers are seldom mentioned. Basically, consumer bodies and public interest bodies ought to be consulted on this matter. While I entirely trust the Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health to look after national interests, it will still be good to have consumer interests specifically represented when the scheme is discussed.
Lastly, it mentions an independent audit of the way in which the scheme is set up. It is a fairly modest amendment, but it proposes to introduce a culture of transparency and accountability in the voluntary or statutory scheme and it introduces, in a major way, the interests of consumers. I beg to move.
6.15 p. m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I may speak to Amendment No. 74 which is grouped with Amendment No. 61. I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Desai, and myself as Back-Benchers grouped together, producing a cross-party Back-Bench amendment. I hope the Minister will be suitably impressed. After our discussion in Committee, she was kind enough to write to me a long and helpful letter on the amendments that I tabled at that stage, avowing a commitment to freedom of information. I am delighted to note that the noble Baroness shares that commitment, striking again, as we did in Committee, the rock of commercial incompetence.
My reply to that is Amendment No. 74, which says that details should be published, except that which is "commercially in confidence". I hope the noble Baroness will think that that provides a reasonable answer to all the problems that she has raised. In case she does not, it would be helpful if the Minister or her officials in a letter could give examples of what sort of confidential information would generally come to light in such cases. If a company is fined or given directions as to price or market behaviour, I do not believe the fact that directions have been given to that company would be considered as "commercially in confidence". How can the fact that the Government have given directions to a company be "commercially in confidence"? Perhaps one can go beyond that and say that it could be in respect of a particular preparation. Again, how can that fact be commercially in confidence? One can work a long way down the circumstances that we have envisaged being covered by this scheme, before discovering anything that is "commercially in confidence" of which a competitor could take advantage.
It is commonplace for those who have sinned and have been found out and punished to have their names published, unless they are minors or people who should be protected. I do not believe that pharmaceutical companies come into that category. In the interests of
874
freedom of information, in the interests of openness and good government, I believe that the Government should publish as much information as they can. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that my amendment will give them that option.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I rise to support both amendments. As the noble Lord, Lord Desai, said, the pharmaceutical industry has done, does and will continue to do, extremely well out of the pharmaceutical price regulation scheme. The benefit has been a research-based industry which is the UK's most successful industry. We recognise that. It is nice to have a few very successful industries.
However, that industry's profits are extremely large. Like the noble Lord, Lord Desai, we argued in Committee that the scheme was a piece of industrial policy and that, as such, it should be within the orbit of the Department of Trade and Industry rather than of the Department of Health. As I said, it is a cosy arrangement, settled behind closed doors. Perhaps I may advise the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that individual negotiations take place with individual companies behind closed doors when they reveal much about their costs which they regard as being very commercially confidential. They do not want that to be revealed to their competitors—and one recognises why. Nevertheless, that deal is done in the interests of consumers and it is important that consumers should know as much as they can about such deals. Transparency is an important issue. We on these Benches entirely endorse the two amendments.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I may have misunderstood the discussion, but I am amazed at what the noble Baroness just said. If a big manufacturer is negotiating this deal with the NHS—because the Government are prepared to accept the "schizophrenia" which the noble Lord, Lord Desai, mentioned in order to achieve the best possible prices for the NHS—presumably the facts discussed when making the deal include the manufacturing costs of producing a particular product; and the world will know the selling price and "confidential information" passes to the world of commerce. The noble Lord knows that very well.
The schizophrenia point is valid. It is strange that we have to do this, but it is accepted as necessary. Some products will be sold across the counter for their real price. However, I do not think that one can possibly say that just because pharmaceutical companies make a lot of money they should have to reveal everything in such discussions. Of course, because they make a lot of money it is possible to contemplate such an arrangement. I see that, but perhaps I am misunderstanding the point. I simply do not think that you can say that because people make a lot of money they must give away their entire trade. We very much value those industries.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may remind my noble friend the Minister that this matter of commercial information involves a two-way road and that under corporate governance regulations, limited liability

875
regulations and the Companies Acts, companies have to give out a certain amount of information. It is not only a matter of the Government giving out such information; it is also up to the companies to do so. The Minister should bear that point in mind when responding to the amendment.
Regarding the point made by my noble friend Lord Desai about Financial assistance to the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps I may remind him that in the Budget the Chancellor announced £1.3 billion of assistance to technology-based companies, many of which are in the pharmaceutical industry, and that seven centres of excellence are to be established. That will be very much in the interests of the pharmaceutical companies. The Government are doing quite a lot to encourage this.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, perhaps I may—
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, in that case, perhaps I may give some clarification on behalf of my noble friend Lady Sharp. We on these Benches fully support the amendment. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel, has just given even further reasons for doing so.
Of course, one is not asking for the ultimate in terms of commercial information, such as the cost base, but City analysts have a fair idea of gross and net margins. Such information is not absolutely secret from competitors. I do not believe that the amendment suggests that a company should reveal anything unreasonably. The provisions seem eminently reasonable. It was no part of my noble friend's case to say that because companies make profits they should therefore have to reveal everything. That was certainly not her case.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we have had a useful short debate on this issue. I share the concerns expressed by the "unholy alliance" of the two Back Benches, if I can put it that way, that we should do all that we can to ensure that information is available, that there is transparency in the terms of the agreements between government and the industry, and that there should be adequate consultation on matters of public interest.
My noble friend set out the reasons for his amendment very clearly. I hope that I can reassure him that I believe that what he is seeking to achieve will, indeed, be achieved.
The details of the new voluntary scheme itself will be written into the document agreed by the Secretary of State and the industry body. Given the key need for greater transparency, the new agreement will have to be very much more specific than previous ones. It must be clear from its face how it is going to operate in a fair and transparent manner and apply equitably to the suppliers and manufacturers. We will continue the practice adopted with previous voluntary arrangements and publish the agreement. We intend to report regularly on the working of the agreement and to include in those
876
reports the level of detail required. I shall come to any caveats about the level of detail that it might be appropriate not to share.
The idea is to publish as much information as we can, rather than as little as we are forced to. The statutory scheme, if it is needed, will be set out in regulations and those regulations—again, public documents—will have to be very detailed and formulaic and contain the criteria to which my noble friend's amendment points.
Perhaps I may turn to the vexed question of what is commercially confidential. There is obviously tension between information that should freely be available and any legitimate right to privacy. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and my noble friend Lord Haskel rightly said that companies already have to publish much information in terms of their corporate governance responsibilities. That is not the level of information with which we are dealing. However, the effective operation of the scheme depends on companies providing information to a level of detail that is not in their published accounts and where such publication could harm their commercial interests. We are talking about a great deal of detail being given. Such areas could include sales and profits forecasts, and information on profits on individual segments of the market to a level not required to be published in any statutory accounts but which could be of great value to competitors.
The exact definition of what generally constitutes "commercially sensitive information" is very difficult to render precisely. I accept the spirit of some of the comments made about it being used in the past as a blanket term and an excuse for not being as transparent as we could be. In that connection, a minimum definition needs to take account of information which, were it to be disclosed, would at least be likely to result in damage to suppliers and manufacturers. Looking at it from the other end of the spectrum, it is easier to say what is not commercially sensitive and previous reports to Parliament achieved a great deal in describing the operation of the PPRS.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would require the Secretary of State to publish details of payments recovered under the statutory scheme arising from excess profits or prices and the publication of otherwise confidential directions made under Clause 31. It is our intention to publish all that can be published without breaching a tight definition of commercial confidentiality. It is important that decisions made under the voluntary arrangements or the statutory scheme are correct, correctly arrived at and can be seen to be so. But we do not want this to be an area of dispute with companies and the Secretary of State coming to different decisions in relation to confidentiality. We want to maintain a climate of confidentiality when it comes to individual suppliers and manufacturers, which is necessary if the operation of both the voluntary and the statutory schemes is to command the confidence of all interested parties.
An additional problem is that, should a supplier or manufacturer perceive a danger of disclosure of commercially sensitive information, he would be less likely to provide the information freely and frankly and therefore push us more into the statutory scheme.

877
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, asked for an example of the circumstances where a company might not be a clear "sinner" but might have excess profits recovered from it. Excess profits do not necessarily mean that there has been a transgression of the statutory or voluntary scheme, or that prices have been increased without reference to the Government, or that information has not been disclosed. The profit derived from sales to the NHS can increase beyond what was expected because of unexpected changes in volume. In those circumstances it is right that excess profits should be paid back, but it could be commercially damaging if that was disclosed in terms of the individual company to which it applies.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's view in circumstances where companies increase prices charged to the NHS without the agreement of the Secretary of State. While it would be unwise to have such a requirement placed on the face of the Bill, it is certainly something at which we should look carefully in terms of future reports to Parliament on the operation of the schemes.
Directions are provided for so that the Secretary of State may communicate with a specific supplier or manufacturer other than by regulation, thereby respecting commercial confidentiality. In that regard the amendment would defeat the necessary mechanism and jeopardise the successful operation of the scheme.
I turn now to consultation. Clause 30, as amended, requires the Secretary of State to consult with the industry body before making regulations. The industry body is alone specified in Clause 30. That is common sense, given that it is the body which stands to be most affected by the implementation and operation of either a voluntary or statutory scheme. But that does not mean that others—consumers in particular—are not affected by those schemes. Nor does it mean that the views of other interested parties will not be sought by the Secretary of State. He is free to consult more widely than with the industry and I am certain that he will consult interested parties appropriately.
I am not convinced that there is a need to put requirements to publish details of the outcome of such consultations on the face of the Bill though, as I said at Committee stage, we have made it absolutely clear in most responses that the Government intend to consult the representatives of patients. The outcome of consultations in those cases will be the schemes themselves. Their form and content will be a clear indication of what the Secretary of State decided after consulting with interested parties. It always remains open for his decisions to be questioned here or in another place. I am not sure that there is value in his being required to describe those decisions separately.
Equally, on the question of an independent audit, I am not sure that we need new mechanisms specifically directed towards the operation of those schemes. The National Audit Office is a highly competent and respected body which has the required expertise and experience to deal effectively with the audit of the schemes. I trust that my noble friend will accept that that body, in undertaking an audit and publishing its
878
findings, will provide more than adequate assurance that the operation of the schemes will be properly scrutinised.
I hope that I have convinced your Lordships that, in urging noble Lords to withdraw the amendments, we are absolutely clear that we wish to move towards more transparency, giving more information in these areas, and that we will not be using the limited circumstances of commercial confidentiality as some sort of blanket exemption to shroud the operation of these schemes in any kind of unwarranted mystery.
Lord Desai: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend the Minister as well as to all noble Lords who took part in this debate. One way to measure the usefulness of an amendment is to measure the proportion of the mover's time as compared with that of everybody else, including the Minister. In that respect the multiplier has been very high. I am especially grateful to my noble friend for a careful, detailed and thorough answer. It has put many of my concerns at rest and it is therefore with pleasure that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 29 [Statutory schemes: supplementary]:
Baroness Sharp of Guildford Baroness Sharp of Guildford moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 22, line 33, after ("body") insert ("and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the brief point that I wish to make with this amendment is that NICE (the national institute of clinical excellence) is being set up under this Bill in order to develop a wide expertise about the relative efficacy of different therapies. In implementing a statutory scheme, which is what this part of Clause 29 is about, it is important to include NICE within the consultations as well as the industry itself. The amendment seeks to ensure that such consultation is written on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I fully understand why this amendment was tabled, but I find it difficult to support it, if only for one important reason.
NICE is a body which is to be established to be pro-active and not reactive. In other words, its responsibilities will include examining different forms of medicine and treatment to be available to the National Health Service; to look at the validity of that treatment and its cost-effectiveness. As I understand from public statements made by Sir Michael Rawlins, its chairman, it will be examining whether it is appropriate, within the NHS, for a specific treatment to be made available and whether it will be cost-effective for a specific group of patients.
To impose upon NICE the responsibility of reacting to consultations with the pharmaceutical industry in relation to issues set out in the Bill, would be an inappropriate measure. Solely for that reason I find it difficult to support the amendment.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant. We all accept that

879
consultation is a good idea, but if we write on the face of the Bill that a body is to be statutorily consulted, we must make sure that it is appropriate that that body should be so consulted.
In this case we are talking about the imposition of a statutory scheme which will be necessary if there is a failure to arrive at an overall voluntary agreement with the pharmaceutical industry, or if an individual company or companies fail to abide by the terms of such agreement. It is hoped that we will not get into that situation, but were that to happen, the form of such agreement would mirror those previous agreements which existed between the Government and the pharmaceutical industry over the years. That is to say, it would aim to ensure that the prices paid by the NHS for its medicines were fair and reasonable, having regard to the overall profits made by a supplier from its trade with the NHS. Of course, we would be looking at issues about appropriate recognition of research and development. Alternatively, if that supplier exceptionally refused to supply information necessary to make a determination, consideration would then be given to the reasonableness of the prices paid for individual medicines.
However, the real focus of Clause 29 is the measures that would be needed in practical terms to introduce such a statutory scheme; for example, what information might be needed before a scheme was in place? In matters such as these it is reasonable to be required on the face of the Bill to consult the industry body; but, as I said in reply to the amendment of my noble friend Lord Desai, the Secretary of State is free to consult whoever he wishes. But, for the reasons explained by the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, I am not sure that NICE is the right body. The clause is concerned with procedural matters which I believe are outside that body's immediate remit. I therefore urge the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply. I take on board the fact that, as she said, the Secretary of State is free to consult whosoever he wishes in relation to setting up a statutory scheme. Therefore, if it were appropriate to consult NICE on such an occasion, he would do so. In the light of that assurance, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 63 and 64:
Page 22, line 35, after ("scheme") insert ("or of a limit under section 27").
Page 22, line 38, leave out from ("person") to second ("to") in line 39 and insert ("to whom such a scheme or limit may apply").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 30 [Enforcement]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 65
Page 23, line 2, leave out ("£100, 000") and insert ("£50, 000").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I shall be brief with this amendment. First of all, I should be grateful to know what considerations led the Government to propose levels of financial penalty in this part of the Bill
880
that appear, at least to me, extremely steep. For example, what bench-marks did they use, and why? Further, what principles will govern the imposition of particular levels of penalty within the maxima laid down?
My second concern bears directly upon the latter, although it relates more to subsection (3). I hope that the Minister is in a position to answer a few questions in that respect. The ability of the Secretary of State to impose a surcharge of 50 per cent. of whatever penalty arises from subsection (2) is a seemingly draconian provision. It is certainly not a provision which, if it were inserted into a private contract, would be likely to be upheld by the courts. Can the Minister say what the model is for that provision and what precedent there is for it?
The only parallel of sorts that I have been able to find is in VAT legislation, but that is surely a poor model for legislation that has nothing to do with taxation; indeed, this is legislation which seeks to regulate the pricing of pharmaceuticals. The penalties are not a tax. Can the Minister say what will govern the imposition of a 50 per cent. surcharge? Moreover, does not the Minister think that such a power is inherently incompatible with the spirit of a voluntary scheme?
I realise that I am guilty of straying outside the strict confines of the amendment on the Marshalled List, and I apologise for that fact. However, this question is intimately bound up with the absolute level of penalties laid down in the Bill, and I believe that we should look at the whole question in the round. I am uneasy about the amounts which might be charged to a pharmaceutical company under Clause 30. Therefore, I beg to move.
6.45 p. m.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl asks what considerations were taken into account when setting the level of these penalties. The considerations were to ensure that they were effective and that they were of a sufficient amount that those who might contravene any provision of regulations or directions under Clauses 26 to 29 would wish to avoid incurring them. However, I recognise that they must not be out of proportion to what is needed. It was finding the balance in respect of those considerations which led us to the amounts set out in the clause.
The NHS spends billions of pounds each year on medicines. Several companies have sales in excess of "100 million. Many companies derive annual profits of tens of millions of pounds. Over 500 medicines have sales to the NHS of £1 million individually. I would ask noble Lords to bear those figures in mind when looking at these penalties. I should also like noble Lords to recognise that amounts stipulated in subsection (2), at which this amendment is directed, are the maximum amounts of those penalties.
It is not the intention to use the maximum amount in all, or possibly in any, cases, but there remains the need to have an effective deterrent against the non-compliance which we have seen with earlier schemes. Clearly the amount of the penalty will be

881
affected by the amount of excess profit or prices made or charged by a non-compliant supplier or manufacturer. That, in turn, will be influenced to a great extent by the level of sales. The detail of how the level of penalties for a given case will be determined will be contained in regulations. Amendment No. 68 to Clause 30 also means that the Secretary of State must consult with the industry body before making such regulations. I remind noble Lords that we have also introduced an amendment which means that these maximum penalties cannot be increased other than by the affirmative resolution procedure.
I have to say that the proposition that the survival of a supplier or manufacturer with sales of, say, in excess of £50 million to the NHS each year is going to be jeopardised by penalties in the range up to those specified is not one that I believe to be realistic. I believe that we have reached an appropriate point.
Perhaps I may now deal with the penalties uplift issue raised by the noble Earl. Clause 30(3) provides that where a supplier or manufacturer increases the price of a product under the statutory element of a voluntary scheme or under a statutory scheme, the amount required to be repaid may be increased by an amount not exceeding 50 per cent. This means that a company which contravened regulations made under these provisions would be liable to repay the amount overcharged to the NHS as a result of the unapproved increase and the penalty of up to 50 per cent. of that amount, plus an interest charge to be specified in regulations.
As I said, the purpose of penalties is to deter companies increasing prices outside the terms of a voluntary agreement or a statutory scheme. What is required is a scale of penalties which is sufficiently flexible to accommodate various types and sizes of transgression. Persistent offenders, or particularly large price increases implemented without the agreement of the Secretary of State, would face higher penalties.
It seems obvious to me that a penalty of £10, 000 per day or a single penalty of £100, 000, as provided for in Clause 30(2), would be an inadequate deterrent against unapproved price increases which might cost the NHS millions of pounds before the excess could be recovered. In all the circumstances, we believe that these arrangements are proportionate.
In terms of the voluntary scheme, these penalties can only be used where a company disregards the terms of that scheme, which would be contrary to the provisions and the spirit of it. In such circumstances, it is reasonable for there to be adequate powers to deal with companies that flout the terms of a voluntary agreement. I hope that my response explains the thinking behind the clause to the noble Earl.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister, especially for what she said about the flexibility inherent in the system and for what I understood her to say about tailoring the penalties to suit each situation. Her remarks merit careful study. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 66 not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 67:
Page 23, line 11, at end insert—
("

(4A) Provision may be made by regulations for conferring on manufacturers and suppliers a right of appeal against enforcement decisions taken in respect of them in pursuance of sections 26 to 29 and this section.

(4B) The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (4A) includes any provision which may be made by model provisions with respect to appeals under section 6 of the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994, reading—

(a) the references in subsections (4) and (5) of that section to
enforcement action as references to action taken to implement an enforcement decision,

(b) the reference in subsection (5) of that section to interested
persons as a reference to any persons.

(4C) In subsections (4A) and (4B), "enforcement decision" means a decision of the Secretary of State or any other person to—

(a) require a specific manufacturer or supplier to provide
information to him,

(b) limit, in respect of any specific manufacturer or supplier,
any price or profit,

(c) refuse to give his approval to a price increase made by a
specific manufacturer or supplier,

(d) require a specific manufacturer or supplier to pay any amount (including an amount by way of penalty) to him;

and in this subsection "specific" means specified in the decision.

(4D) A requirement or prohibition, or a limit, under sections 26 to 29 may only be enforced under this section and may not be relied on in any proceedings other than proceedings under this section. ").

[Amendment No. 67A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 67, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 67 agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 68:
Page 23, line 13, at end insert ("and the Secretary of State must consult the industry body before making any regulations under this section").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 31 [Controls: supplementary]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 69 to 72:
Page 23, line 19, leave out ("particular") and insert ("specific").
Page 23, line 21, leave out ("particular") and insert ("specific").
Page 23, line 21, at end insert ("and in this subsection "specific" means specified in the direction concerned").
Page 23, line 28, leave out from ("powers") to ("are") and insert ("to refuse approval under section 26(4)(a) or 28(6)(a) or to impose a limit under section 27(a) or 28(1)").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 23, line 32, at end insert ("and in so exercising those powers (in the case of sections 27(a) and 28(1) and (6)(a)) the Secretary of State and any other person must bear in mind, in particular, the need for medicinal products to be available for the health service on reasonable terms and the costs of research and development").
[Amendment No. 73A, as an amendment to Amendment No. 73, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 73 agreed to.
Lord Lucashad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 74:
Page 23, line 32, at end insert—
("( ) The Secretary of State shall publish details of any payments made under sections 28(4) and (5) and of any directions given under this section, but such publication may not include information supplied to the Secretary of State by a manufacturer or supplier commercially in confidence. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for the answer she gave me when she replied to the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Desai, with which this amendment is grouped. I shall read that with great interest. I thank the noble Baroness again for that. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 75 and 76:
Page 23, line 41, leave out from ("product") to ("used") in line 42.
Page 24, line 2, at end insert—
(""medicinal product" has the meaning given by section 130 of the Medicines Act 1968, ").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 32 [Evasion of charges etc.]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 24, leave out lines 9 to 15 and insert—
(""Recovery of other charges and payments.
122A. —

(1) Where goods or services to which this section applies are provided and either—

(a) any charge payable by any person under this Act in
respect of the provision of the goods or services is reduced, remitted or repaid, but that person is not entitled to the reduction, remission or repayment, or

(b) any payment under this Act is made to, or for the
benefit of, any person in respect of the cost of obtaining the goods or services but that person is not entitled to, or to the benefit of, the payment,

the amount mentioned in subsection (2) below is recoverable summarily as a civil debt from the person in question by the responsible authority.

(2) That amount—

(a) in a case within subsection (l)(a) above, is the amount of the charge or (where it has been reduced) reduction,

(b) in a case within subsection (l)(b) above, is the amount of the payment.

(3)Where two or more persons are liable under section 122(1) above or this section to pay an amount in respect of the same charge or payment, those persons shall be jointly and severally liable.

(4)For the purposes of this section, the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as not entitled to a reduction, remission or repayment of a charge, or to (or to the benefit of) a payment, include in particular those in which it is received (wholly or partly)—
884

(a) on the ground that he or another is a person of a particular description, where the person in question is not in fact of that description,

(b) on the ground that he or another holds a particular certificate, when the person in question does not in fact hold such a certificate or does hold such a certificate but is not entitled to it,

(c) on the ground that he or another has made a particular statement, when the person in question has not made such a statement or the statement made by him is false.

(5) In this section and section 122B below, "responsible authority" means—

(a) in relation to the recovery of any charge under section 122(1) above in respect of the provision of goods or services to which this section applies, the person by whom the charge is recoverable,

(b) in relation to the recovery by virtue of this section of the whole or part of the amount of any such charge, the person by whom the charge would have been recoverable,

(c) in a case within subsection (l)(b) above, the person who made the payment.

(6) But the Secretary of State may by directions provide for—

(a) the functions of any responsible authority of recovering any charges under this Act in respect of the provision of goods or services to which this section applies,

(b) the functions of any responsible authority under this
section and section 122B below,

to be exercised on behalf of the authority by another health service body.

(7) This section applies to the following goods and services—

(a) dental treatment and appliances provided in pursuance of this Act,

(b) drugs and medicines provided in pursuance of this Act,

(c) the testing of sight,

(d) optical appliances,

(e) any other appliances provided in pursuance of this Act.

Penalties.
122B. —

(1) Regulations may provide that, where a person fails to pay—

(a) any amount recoverable from him under section
122(1) above in respect of the provision of goods or services to which section 122A above applies, or

(b) any amount recoverable from him under section
122A above,

a notice (referred to in this section as a penalty notice) may be served on the person by the responsible authority requiring him to pay to the authority, within a prescribed period, that amount together with a charge (referred to in this section as a penalty charge) of an amount determined in accordance with the regulations.

885

(2) The regulations may not provide for the amount of the penalty charge to exceed whichever is the smaller of—

(a) £100,

(b) the amount referred to in subsection (l)(a) or (b) above multiplied by 5.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order provide for subsection (2) above to have effect as if, for the sum specified in paragraph (a) or the multiplier specified in paragraph (b) (including that sum or multiplier as substituted by a previous order), there were substituted a sum or (as the case may be) multiplier specified in the order.

(4) Regulations may provide that, if a person fails to pay the amount he is required to pay under a penalty notice within the period in question, he must also pay to the responsible authority by way of penalty a further sum determined in accordance with the regulations.

(5) The further sum must not exceed 50 per cent. of the amount of the penalty charge.

(6) Any sum payable under the regulations (including the amount referred to in subsection (l)(a) or (b) above) may be recovered by the responsible authority summarily as a civil debt.

(7) But a person is not liable by virtue of a penalty notice—

(a) to pay at any time so much of any amount referred to in subsection (l)(a) or (b) above for which he is jointly and severally liable with another as at that time has been paid, or ordered by a court to be paid, by that other, or

(b) to a penalty charge, or a further sum by way of penalty, if he shows that he did not act wrongfully, or with any lack of care, in respect of the charge or payment in question.

(8) In spite of section 126(1) below, no order is to be made under subsection (3) above unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament.

Offences.
122C.—(1) A person is guilty of an offence if he does any act mentioned in subsection (2) below with a view to securing for himself or another—

(a) the evasion of the whole or part of any charge under
this Act in respect of the provision of goods or services to which section 122A above applies,

(b) the reduction, remission or repayment of any such charge, where he or (as the case may be) the other is not entitled to the reduction, remission or repayment,

(c) a payment under this Act (whether to, or for the benefit of, himself or the other) in respect of the cost of obtaining such goods or services, where he or (as the case may be) the other is not entitled to, or to the benefit of, the payment. ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments introduces further sanctions to deal with incorrect claims to exemption from NHS charges. They amend and add to Clause 32 and introduce a new clause after Clause 46 in Part II of the Bill. These measures support the Government's comprehensive strategy to tackle fraud and charge evasion in the NHS.
In order to deter the evasion of NHS charges, it is important that there are sanctions available which are both appropriate to the scale of the offence and cost-effective to administer. Clause 32 already creates a new criminal offence of knowingly making a false claim for exemption from an NHS charge or knowingly making a false claim for payment towards the cost of an
886
NHS charge or service. Due to the differences with Scottish law, there is no need to replicate this provision in Part II for Scotland.
As NHS charges involve relatively small sums, it would not be practicable to prosecute most individual cases. For this reason, the amendments introduce a new civil penalty charge in England and Wales and a similar penalty charge in Scotland. It would be the sanction normally imposed where a person fails to pay an NHS charge or claims a payment to which he is not entitled towards the cost of an NHS charge or service. The penalty charge, like the offence, would apply to charges for prescriptions, dental services and optical services, including those provided for hospital out-patients, as well as payments or benefits such as optical vouchers.
It may be helpful if I explain how it is intended to work. I will use the prescription system to illustrate this. Patients who do not have to pay prescription charges are required to indicate on the prescription form the reason for their exemption and to sign a declaration to that effect. Exemption is granted to patients for a number of reasons, including age, certain medical conditions or where the patient is claiming one of a number of benefits or is on a low income. Unfortunately, a large number of exemption claims are made falsely. We estimate that every year in England and Wales alone about £150 million is lost through people evading payment of the prescription charge when they have no right to exemption and should pay.
In this situation, and where checks show that a claim for exemption is incorrect, a penalty notice would be sent requiring the patient to pay the original charge and an additional penalty. The amount of the penalty and the period within which payment must be made will be stated in regulations setting out the detailed arrangements for each service. But the maximum amount of the penalty charge is clearly set out in the amendments at £100, or five times the unpaid charge, whichever is the less.
For evasion of the prescription charge—which currently stands at £5.80—this would mean that a penalty notice would be served requiring the payment of a £29.00 penalty plus the repayment of the £5.80 which should have been paid in the first place, making a total of £34.80. The amendments allow that the maxima of £100 for the penalty charge and the multiple of five may be changed by order. Such orders would be subject to affirmative resolution, which would allow the opportunity for appropriate scrutiny in your Lordships' House and in another place. This would allow the potential for revision of the penalty charge maxima and multiple from time to time, for example, to keep pace with inflation or to take account of our experience in operating this scheme.
Following the issuing of a penalty notice we would intend to allow 28 days for payment to be made. If the penalty charge is not paid within this period, a surcharge would be made of up to 50 per cent. of the penalty charge. If payment is still not forthcoming after a further 14 days, the total debt would be pursued through the civil courts. Liability for the penalty would normally be

887
incurred simply by an incorrect claim to exemption. The amendment provides that a patient may offer a defence that he did not act,
"wrongfully, or with any lack of care".
This would cover such cases as a patient acting on wrong official advice or a patient's representative acting on wrong information provided by the patient.
A patient may make representations as soon as he receives a penalty notice if he believes it is incorrect. There will be an internal process to reconsider the correctness of the penalty, making additional checks as necessary, for example with the DSS if the patient claims to be receiving a benefit. The whole procedure will be carefully monitored. Any patient who wishes to challenge liability for the penalty charge in England and Wales will be able to do so in the county court; or in Scotland in the sheriff court. This right of access to an independent hearing will satisfy the demands of natural justice and fulfil the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Where a patient has a representative—for example, where an individual goes to a pharmacist to have a prescription dispensed and signs for exemption on the back of the form on the patient's behalf—and a penalty notice is issued, they would, together, be held responsible for payment "jointly and severally". In practice, either the patient or the representative could be held liable to pay the penalty, according to the circumstances, but as only one incorrect claim had taken place, only one charge would be payable. The provision of this financial penalty charge would allow use of the criminal offence under this clause to be reserved for those more serious cases where intentional, fraudulent evasion of an NHS charge is clear. In practice, this will be where evasion has happened repeatedly or persistently. A clear safeguard is provided to ensure that a person cannot, in respect of the same incident, be both liable to pay a penalty charge and convicted of the new offence.
I should like to make clear that it is only a small minority of patients who abuse the National Health Service, but I believe we owe it to the vast majority of honest NHS patients to do all we can to stop abuse. This is money that should be going into patient care, not into people's pockets. The new measures in Clause 32, 33 and 46, and also the amendments, show our commitment to tackle all types of fraud and charge evasion in the National Health Service. The Government are investing in measures for the greater detection of those who evade charges. However, for maximum effective deterrence it is vital that detection is backed up by appropriate sanctions and redress. These amendments are essential to deal with those who deliberately set out to cheat the National Health Service. If we wish to tackle charge evasion against the NHS, we must provide the right tools to do this. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I do not have a point to make which will affect the National Health Service, but I have a drafting point to make which I make with some
888
seriousness. I make it because there are too many occasions in this Bill and in other Bills in which, although primary legislation deals with most of the matter, nevertheless power is given to make regulations which in this particular case—I shall draw attention to the detail in a moment—seems a quite unnecessary power.
On the third page of the amendment on the Marshalled List—on page 9—under the heading "Penalties" new Section 122B is proposed to the 1977 Act. The proposed new Section 122B states:
"Regulations may provide that, where a person fails to pay—

(a) any amount recoverable from him under section 122(1) above …

(b) any amount recoverable from him under section 122A",

a notice may be served within a prescribed period. Frankly, most of what is going to be relevant is already set out in the proposed new section. The idea that it should need to be amplified by regulation seems to me to be very strange because the regulations will have little more to do. I know that it is not part of the ministerial responsibilities of the noble Lord who moved the amendment, but I hope that he will carry the message to officials advising him, and especially to parliamentary counsel, and point out that there should be no necessity to make regulations when practically all of what is needed can be stated in primary legislation.
There are other examples to come—I shall not bore your Lordships with the earlier examples. Some are in the Bill and some are in the amendments. I picked this out as a very obvious example of a clause in which the whole of the law could be perfectly well stated in the primary legislation without the need to amplify it by regulations.
7 p. m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble Lord's strictures will, I am sure, be heard by the Government. I wish to ask a simple, practical question. I am one of those people who has occasionally to get some medicament or other with a prescription, and I sign a form to say that I am a pensioner. You can tell by looking at me that I am a pensioner. I know the chemist, who probably knows the year in which I was born and a good deal more about me than I would like to think. Many people are not like that. I was surprised when the Minister said that very few people dodge payment in this way. It is an enormous temptation and the Government are absolutely right to do something about it. I have often wondered why there was not a sanction.
I should like to know how the system will work. To begin with, how will people know that it has come into being? How will they know what it will cost them if they get it wrong? Will it be set out in enormous letters on every counter? Will the pharmacist be obliged to tell the customer that this is the case? It is only right that it should be very obvious indeed and well publicised. How will the penalty, if there is one, be paid? Will it be paid over the counter to the pharmacist? Who will issue the penalty? Who will receive the payment? Where will it

889
go? These matters may be mentioned in the amendment but I have had great difficulty in discovering exactly how it will work.
Will the pharmacist be obliged to tell the customer that an item can be bought more cheaply over the counter than £5.80 if there is the ordinary exemption? I am not sure whether the pharmacist is obliged to do that at the moment. I think not. For example, if one is prescribed Aspirin, one can buy 100 Aspirin, I think, for 90p. But it would cost £5.80 if one bought it on prescription. If one takes an Aspirin a day, as many of us do, will the pharmacist be obliged to tell one about that? That question is linked. I hope that I am not being dim about this, but I should like to know the answers.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I am as anxious as anyone to avoid fraud. It has always seemed to me that, with prescriptions, it is extraordinarily easy to be fraudulent if one so chooses. I am interested in detection. It does not matter how great is the scale of charges or how fearsome it all looks; if there is to be no means of finding out easily whether people are defrauding the NHS, all these penalties will be of no use. Perhaps the Minister could expand a little more on that point.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, like my noble friend, I, too, do not want fraud to appear. I mentioned to the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, when she was in the shoes of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, that I used to have a pre-payment prescription form which lasted for a year. One paid one's money up front and then one would get one's prescription for a year. At the end of the year I never received a reminder that that pre-payment prescription form had expired. Occasionally, when one keeps it in one's wallet, for example, one cannot see the date on the form properly. If we want to stop fraud, why do not the people who issue these pre-payment forms send out a reminder to people that their form has run out of date and that they have to renew it?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I rise briefly to say that I share some of the reservations about the amount of practical detail that the Minister has made available. I certainly believe in the spirit of the amendment. It is quite clear that this is something which probably should have been on the statute book some years ago. I thank the Minister for his very clear exposition when he moved the amendment and I hope that he will give some more practical details. As I understand it, we are creating a new criminal offence. It is of significance that we are doing so. The mechanics of how notices are to be issued, by whom and in what circumstances are clearly important. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, made an interesting point about the drafting. It seems to me that the primary legislation contains all that is required. I do not understand why there is reference to regulations. It is belt, braces and suspenders—the whole shooting match
890
really—which is interesting in a piece of legislation. But generally we on these Benches welcome the amendment.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I wish to ask a very brief question. This change should be made clear to patients. But as so many people have language difficulties, will it be made clear in different languages?
Earl Howe: My Lords, I wish to ask the Minister a very brief question following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said. Are we talking about a new criminal offence or about a set of administrative penalties? That is what I understood us to be talking about.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, this has been an extremely interesting debate. I shall attempt to answer the points that have been raised. I have not been in your Lordships' House very long but I know that when the noble Lord, Lord Renton, rises to question a piece of legislation your Lordships pay that matter full attention. In relation to the specific point that the noble Lord raised, I am advised that the regulations contained in the clause to which he referred were to allow administrative procedures for sending out and collecting the penalty notice. They are to give flexibility to, for example, changing the time limit for sending the notice in the light of experience. They are also for setting the different times for different services; for instance, contrasting between a general medical prescription and dental services. Nonetheless, I shall take back the more general point that the noble Lord raised.
I have been asked a number of questions about the extent of false claims. It was right for me to say that the vast majority of NHS patients are honest. However, the estimate that I originally gave in relation to the potential loss of £150 million was based on an investigation by the Prescription Pricing Authority's fraud investigation unit. It undertook a check over a two-month period and in that period estimated that false claims amounted to 7 per cent. As noble Lords can see, that is quite a high percentage and it is essential that we deal with it.
In relation to what is to be done about it, it is important to say that the position arising from these amendments is but one step in a number of actions that are being taken. The Prescription Pricing Authority's fraud investigation unit will institute more checks in the future. In addition we are introducing dispensing checks in pharmacies in the future and those will provide for the simple verification of claims to exemption within the pharmacy. The pharmacist or a dispensing doctor will ask the patient claiming exemption from the prescription charge if they have supporting evidence for exemption. If the patient does not have the evidence available the pharmacist will mark the prescription form to show no evidence. This will allow subsequent checks of exemption claims by the Prescription Pricing Authority's fraud investigation unit.
In ensuring that through these measures we reduce the degree of evasion in the National Health Service, it is important that we make it abundantly clear to users of the service that we shall introduce this new system. It is

891
intended that an advertising campaign to target prescription evasion will be instituted for a four-week period from the middle of March. Leaflets will be available to the public in pharmacies and surgeries. We will also be advertising in national magazines and women's magazines. I take on board the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, concerning the need to ensure that the leaflets are in a number of languages. It is something that I will take back to the Department of Health.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked whether pharmacists should be obliged to tell patients with prescriptions that they can buy cheaper medicines over the counter for less than £5.80. I do not have an answer for her at this stage and I hope she will allow me to write to her on that point. In relation to the question of prepayment certificates, health authorities often issue reminders when they expire, but they are not obliged to do so. I very much take the point and we would encourage the issue of reminders by health authorities; but the responsibility to renew a prepayment certificate is clearly that of the holder.
Lord Brougham and Vaux: My Lords, reverting to what the noble Lord said earlier regarding the pharmacist asking for proof, I have now reached the stage where I do not have to pay for my prescription but I do not have any proof that I have reached the age of 60. It is only that those at the pharmacy know me. If I went to another one, how should I be able to prove that I can get my prescription free?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, there are various ways in which one might offer proof; for example, a driving licence which might have one's date of birth on it. The important point is that if a customer does not have evidence on him or her to prove that, it does not mean that the prescription will not be given to that patient. Indeed it will be. A mark will be made on the form enabling the exemption claim to be checked in a future improved and developed checking system. I hope that I have answered most of the points. I am advised that it is not a criminal offence, as was suggested, and I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
7.15 p. m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 76B:
Page 24, line 43, at end insert—
("(7) Where, in respect of any charge or payment under this Act—

(a) a person is convicted of an offence under this section, or

(b) a person pays any penalty charge, and any further sum by way of penalty, recoverable from him under section 122B above.

he shall not, in a case within paragraph (a) above, be liable to pay any such penalty charge or further sum by way of penalty or, in a case within paragraph (b) above, be convicted of such an offence. "").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 76C:
Page 25, line 3, at end insert—
("(3) Sections 122A to 122C of the 1977 Act apply to charges which may be made and recovered under section 20 of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 as they apply to charges under the 1977 Act which may be recovered under section 122(1) of that Act; and the reference in section 122A(7)(a) to the 1977 Act includes a reference to a pilot scheme (within the meaning of the 1997 Act). ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 33 [Disqualification etc. of Part II practitioners]:
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendment No. 76D:
Page 25, line 10, leave out from ("receive") to end of line 18 and insert ("from a Health Authority representations that—

(a) a person who is included in any list meets either of the conditions for disqualification, or

(b) a person who has applied to be included in any list meets the second condition for disqualification, ").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Clause 33 already provides for new powers for the NHS tribunal to disqualify Family Health Service practitioners who commit fraud against the NHS. These clauses and amendments are put forward as part of the Government's strategy for countering fraud in the National Health Service. I shall be speaking in some detail about the overall purpose of these clauses, as we have not had the opportunity to debate them previously. I want to set the Government amendments in context.
As in our previous debate, there is general agreement that fraud in the NHS is unacceptable. These clauses expand the role of the NHS tribunal to allow it to deal specifically with fraud among the independent family health service practitioners. The NHS tribunal is an independent non-departmental public body with judicial powers. It derives its powers from the National Health Service Act 1977 and, like the Act, covers England and Wales. The tribunal is the ultimate NHS disciplinary body for family health service practitioners on a health authority's medical, dental, pharmaceutical or ophthalmic list. It is a very small minority of practitioners who abuse the NHS in this way. The vast majority are honest and hardworking. I am sure noble Lords will agree that, however small the minority, this activity cannot be tolerated.
Currently the NHS tribunal decides whether the continued inclusion of an FHS practitioner's name on a health authority's list would be prejudicial to the "efficiency" of the service in question. If it does so decide, it must direct that the practitioner is disqualified from providing the service.
This efficiency regime has meant that health authorities have generally sent cases to their tribunal about practitioners' standard of practice rather than any fraud they may have committed. Clause 33, together with these amendments, introduces an explicit power for the tribunal to tackle fraud. The new power is clearer and more wide-ranging than could be achieved through the efficiency regime, and will give health authorities, via the independent NHS tribunal, a clear route to deal

893
with fraudulent FHS contractors. This clause will not change the constitution or composition of the tribunal, but does extend its role.
The clause allows a fraud case to be referred to the NHS tribunal where a practitioner has applied to be included on a health authority's list, as well as when they are already on the list. This is important as there are instances currently where health authorities may be obliged to engage a practitioner, even one who has made dishonest claims on the NHS.
The existing sanction of interim suspension under the efficiency regime will also apply to fraud cases where there is a significant risk that a fraud will continue or that the investigation of the case will be prejudiced. This also will be important as we are aware of fraud cases where the investigation may indeed have been prejudiced because, for example, the practitioner has continued to practise while awaiting a criminal trial, enabling him to continue to deal with patients or staff who are potential witnesses.
The existing sanctions of local, national or total disqualification (a declaration of unfitness) which can be applied by the NHS tribunal for cases under the existing efficiency regime are applied in relation to cases for the new fraud regime. Clause 33 also introduces a new sanction, which can in future be applied by the NHS tribunal for both efficiency and fraud cases of "conditional disqualification".
Conditional disqualification gives the tribunal a new flexibility. Under this new sanction a tribunal could disqualify a practitioner but provide that the disqualification shall take effect only if the practitioner fails to comply with conditions imposed by the tribunal. That allows the individual to continue practising within those conditions.
For example, if a dispensing GP had used his or her dispensing activities to commit fraud, the tribunal could insist that the right to dispense be withdrawn. If the practitioner broke the specified terms, the tribunal could reconsider its decision and, for example, allow the original disqualification sanction to take effect.
The Government are determined to root out fraud against the NHS. As a result, the NHS tribunal can rightly take severe measures to deal with it. Nevertheless, we do not wish to treat family health service practitioners unjustly. This clause provides that no sanction should be applied where it would be unjust to do so.
Perhaps I may briefly explain some of the main points that the amendments deliver. Noble Lords will note that the majority of the amendments are textual changes which are consequential to the larger changes. Amendment No. 76J allows the NHS tribunal to disqualify bodies corporate which commit fraud from providing general ophthalmic or pharmaceutical services in the family health services. The amendments provide that disqualification will apply if any director or any person controlling the body corporate or ophthalmic and pharmacy business respectively meets the condition for disqualification, whether or not he was a director or person controlling the body corporate when he first met the condition. It is clearly necessary, for example, to
894
prevent a practitioner who has been disqualified for fraud from setting up a company in order to be able to practise again in the family health services.
Amendment No. 76J also provides for liability to fall on the practitioner for the conduct of employees or deputies in fraud cases, where the practitioner has failed to take reasonable steps to prevent this. We believe that these powers are necessary for the prevention of fraud.
Amendment No. 76F makes changes to the definition of fraudulent conduct by the practitioner which would lead to disqualification. This still includes a. "mental element", but this is now "knowledge". The amended condition for disqualification would be that the practitioner knew that he was not entitled to the benefit, which he secured or tried to secure. His knowledge would have to be proved to the satisfaction of either tribunal. The definition in the current clause,
"that a person … has fraudulently acted in a way detrimental to any health service",
is not commonly used in legislation and could, in our judgment, make it difficult for the tribunals to decide whether the test had been met. The amendment provides a clearer definition against which the NHS tribunals would test the conduct of practitioners.
This and the following amendment, Amendment No. 76G, also clarify the kinds of acts which might constitute fraud against the NHS or another publicly funded health service. These acts could include securing a benefit for another person or attempting fraud.
The phrase "detriment to a health scheme" (in new subsection (5B) of Amendment No. 76G) is now defined as including detriment, not only to a patient, but also, as amended, to another person working in that scheme. This provision is to capture a particular type of fraud. Some general medical services, such as capital ion fees, are funded on a "pool" arrangement—there is a fixed overall budget and GPs in effect defraud their colleagues if they register non-existent patients. We believe that that is also unacceptable, even though there is no net loss to the NHS, and so it would be caught by the amended clause.
Amendment No. 102A provides procedures for the application to England and Wales of decisions of the NHS tribunals for Scotland and Northern Ireland. Decisions by any of the NHS tribunals for national disqualification already apply automatically in each country. The amendment would provide for a decision for total disqualification by the NHS tribunals for Scotland and Northern Ireland to be recognised similarly. The amendment also allows for the conditions specified in a conditional disqualification given by the NHS tribunal in Scotland or Northern Ireland to be translated for equivalent effect in England and Wales.
There are a number of more technical amendments, including those on procedures of the NHS tribunals. For example, Amendment No. 76ZC, which provides for the conditions for a health authority to request a review of a conditional disqualification, are now set out in detail. Amendment No. 102A to Schedule 4 allows the tribunal to make appropriate arrangements to manage two inquiries about the same practitioner when they are running concurrently.
Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 46 delivers the same new powers to tackle fraud to the NHS tribunal in Scotland as Clause 33 gives to the tribunal in England and Wales. I should like to take this opportunity to inform the House on behalf of my noble friend Lord Macdonald of Tradeston that he is looking to bring forward similar amendments to the Scottish tribunal at Third Reading to those I am bringing forward today.
These amendments are an essential part of the Government's programme to deal with those practitioners in the family health services who defraud the NHS. It is important, if we are to tackle fraud in the round, that we must also tackle fraud committed by practitioners. These amendments do not change the fundamental purpose or impact of Clause 33, but they are needed for clarity and to ensure that the clauses work as intended.
I apologise for taking up so much time in explaining these amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that lucid explanation which has made this set of amendments easier to understand. I thank the Minister also for the benefit of the newly "re-jigged" clause as a result of previous amendments. It is extremely helpful.
The newly amended subsection (4C) is particularly welcome, in that "knowledge" is now a requirement. That brings the provision much more closely into line with commonly accepted concepts of criminal law. That is particularly helpful. We strongly support the amendment.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for those comments. I commend this amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath Lord Hunt of Kings Heath moved Amendments Nos. 76E to 76ZF:
Page 25, line 20, leave out ("representations within subsection (2)(a) above") and insert ("such representations").
Page 25, line 25, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 30 and insert—
("where the representations are that the second condition for disqualification is met and regulations prescribe the time within which such representations are to be made, within that time.

(4A) Subsections (4B) to (5C) below apply for the purposes of this group of sections.

(4B) The first condition for disqualification is that the continued inclusion of the person concerned in the list would be prejudicial to the efficiency of the services which those included in the list undertake to provide.

(4C) The second condition for disqualification is that the person concerned—

(a) has (whether on his own or together with another) by an act or omission caused, or risked causing, detriment to any health scheme by securing or trying to secure for himself or another any financial or other benefit, and

(b) knew that he or (as the case may be) the other was not entitled to the benefit.

896
(5)").
Page 25, line 41, at end insert—
("

(5A) "Health scheme" means—

(a) any of the health services under section 1(1) above or any corresponding enactment extending to Scotland or Northern Ireland, and

(b) any prescribed scheme;

and regulations may prescribe any scheme for the purposes of this subsection which appears to the Secretary of State to be a health or medical scheme paid for out of public funds.

(5B) Detriment to a health scheme includes detriment to any patient of, or person working in, that scheme or any person liable to pay charges for services provided under that scheme.

(5C) Cases in which representations are made that the first condition for disqualification is met are referred to below as efficiency cases; and cases in which representations are made that the second condition for disqualification is met are referred to below as fraud cases. ").

Page 25, line 44, after ("sections") insert ("and Schedule 9 to this Act").
Page 26, leave out lines 1 to 41 and insert—
("The NHS Tribunal: supplementary.
46A.—(1) Where an ophthalmic optician is a body corporate, the body corporate is to be treated for the purposes of this group of sections as meeting the second condition for disqualification if any director meets that condition (whether or not he first met that condition when he was a director).
(2) Where a body corporate carries on a retail pharmacy business, the body corporate is to be treated for the purposes of this group of sections as meeting the second condition for disqualification if any one of the body of persons controlling the body corporate meets that condition (whether or not he first met that condition when he was one of them).
(3) A person who is included in any list ("the practitioner") is to be treated for the purposes of this group of sections as meeting the second condition for disqualification if—

(a) another person, because of an act or omission of his occurring in the course of providing any services mentioned in section 46(5) above on the practitioner's behalf, meets that condition, and

(b) the practitioner failed to take all such steps as were reasonable to prevent acts or omissions within section 46(4C)(a) above occurring in the course of the provision of those services on his behalf.

(4) The Tribunal is not required to inquire into a fraud case if they have previously inquired into representations in respect of the person concerned and the same acts or omissions.
(5) In a fraud case, regulations may make provision (including provision modifying the effect of this Part of this Act) for the purpose of securing that the person subject to the inquiry is not added to any list until proceedings in that case are finally concluded.
(6) For the purposes of this group of sections, in a fraud or efficiency case proceedings are finally concluded—

(a) if the Tribunal determine not to exercise their power under section 46B(2) below, when they make that determination,

(b) if they determine to exercise that power and no appeal is brought against the determination, at the end of the period for bringing an appeal,

(c) if they determine to exercise that power and an appeal is brought against the determination, when the appeal process is exhausted.

(7) An inquiry under section 46 above is not affected by the person subject to the inquiry withdrawing from, withdrawing any application to be included in or being removed from the list to which the case relates.
Powers of NHS Tribunal.
46B.—(1) Subsection (2) below applies where the Tribunal are of the opinion—

(a) on inquiring into an efficiency case, that the person meets the first condition for disqualification,

(b) on inquiring into a fraud case, that the person meets the second condition for disqualification.

(2) The Tribunal—

(a) shall disqualify him for inclusion in the list to which the case relates, and

(b) may disqualify him for inclusion in all lists within the same paragraph of section 46(5) above as that list. ").

Page 26, line 43, leave out from beginning to ("they") and insert ("(2)(b) above").
Page 26, line 45, leave out ("in question") and insert ("to which the lists in question relate").
Page 27, line I, leave out from ("section") to end of line 8 and insert ("shall have effect when proceedings in the case are finally concluded").
Page 27, line 9, leave out from ("disqualified") to end of line and insert ("for").
Page 27, line 13, leave out from ("The") to ("that") in line 14 and insert ("power to disqualify under section 46B above includes power to make a conditional disqualification, ").
Page 27, line 15, leave out ("they") and insert ("the Tribunal").
Page 27, line 23, leave out from ("any") to end of line 24 and insert ("acts or omissions within section 46(4C)(a) above, ").
Page 27, line 25, at end insert—
("( ) Conditions so imposed shall have effect when proceedings in the case are finally concluded.
( ) Section 46B(5) above applies to a conditional disqualification as it applies to a disqualification").
Page 27, line 26, leave out ("in writing").
Page 27, line 29, leave out ("or").
Page 27, line 33, leave out from ("References") to ("do") in line 34 and insert ("in any enactment to a disqualification by the Tribunal").
Page 27, line 39, leave out ("(whether or not conditional)") and insert (", conditional disqualification").
Page 27, line 40, after ("disqualified") insert ("or conditionally disqualified").
Page 28, line 5, leave out ("46B(2)") and insert ("46B(2)(a) above").
Page 28, line 7, leave out ("46B(3)") and insert ("46B(2)(b) above").
Page 28, line 9, leave out ("46B(3)") and insert ("46B(2)(b) above").
Page 28, line 11, leave out ("46B(3)") and insert ("46B(2)(b) above").
Page 28, leave out lines 13 and 14 and insert—
("(3) If any Health Authority request a review of a conditional disqualification on the ground that—

(a) there has been a change in the circumstances by reference to which the conditions were imposed,

(b) the person concerned has failed to comply with the conditions, or

898

(c) in a fraud case, the person concerned has since the Tribunal imposed the conditions (or made the disqualification conditional) again satisfied the second condition for disqualification,

the Tribunal shall review the conditional disqualification.
( ) In the case of a person who is providing services in Scotland or Northern Ireland, the reference in subsection (3) above to a Health Authority includes any corresponding authority under the: provisions in force in Scotland or Northern Ireland corresponding to this Part of this Act. ").
Page 28, line 20, leave out ("46B(2)") and insert ("46B(2)(a) above").
Page 28, line 22, leave out ("46B(3)") and insert ("46B(2)(b) above").
Page 28, line 25, leave out ("46B(3)") and insert ("46B(2)(b) above").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 41 [Duty of quality]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 77:
Page 31, line 27, at end insert—
("(4) The Secretary of State may by regulations extend the duty in this section to Special Health Authorities of any particular description and to any independent hospital.
(5) In this section "independent hospital" means premises—

(a) within the meaning of "hospital" given by section 128(1) of the 1977 Act;

(b) which are not a health service hospital within the meaning of the 1977 Act nor any other premises maintained or controlled by a government department or local authority or any other authority or body instituted by special Act of Parliament or incorporated by Royal Charter; and

(c) which are used or intended to be used for the provision of health care within the meaning of this section,

but excludes—

(i) any premises used, or intended to be used solely or predominantly, for the reception of and the provision of nursing for persons suffering from any sickness, injury or infirmity;

(ii) any sanatorium provided at a school or educational establishment and used, or intended to be used, solely by persons in attendance at, or members of the staff of, that school or establishment or members of their families:

(iii) any first aid or treatment room provided at factory premises, at premises to which the Offices, Shops and Railways Premises Act 1963 applies or at a sports ground, showground or place of public entertainment;

(iv) any premises used, or intended to be used, wholly or mainly—

(a) by a medical practitioner for the purpose of consultations with his patients;

(b) by a dental practitioner or chiropodist for the purpose of treating his patients; or

(c) for the provision of occupational health facilities,

unless they are used or intended to be used for the provision of treatment by specially controlled techniques as defined in section 21 of the Registered Homes. Act 1984 and any regulations made thereunder;

(v) any premises used, or intended to be used, wholly or mainly as a private dwelling; or

(vi) any other premises excepted from the definition of a "nursing home" for the purposes of section 21 of the Registered Homes Act 1984 by regulations made thereunder by the Secretary of State. "").

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this amendment, in one sense at least, mirrors my earlier Amendment No. 47 in that it seeks to impose the duty of quality in Scotland on the independent hospital sector.
Having carried the House with me on the earlier amendment, I give notice that I propose to press this amendment. I shall not repeat the arguments that I advanced earlier in relation to England and Wales, but the amendment enables me to highlight the same issues in the context of Scotland, as well as a general issue relating to Clause 41.
There is no question in my mind that quality standards in the independent sector in Scotland are as much in dispute there as they are in England and Wales, and that a unitary framework of regulation for both the NHS and the independent sector would provide a necessary and welcome degree of assurance to patients in Scotland.
My general point takes the form of a question. How is it proposed that adherence to the duty of quality will operate in Scotland given that the commission for health improvement is to cover England and Wales only? How will quality standards be monitored? How will doctors and hospitals be inspected and audited on a basis comparable to that south of the Border? I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I support this amendment as we supported Amendment No. 47 in relation to England and Wales. Exactly the same arguments apply. The argument having gone one way on Amendment No. 47, it would seem highly illogical for it not to go the same way in relation to this amendment. I hope that for the purposes of future argument on the Bill in another place, the Government will accept this proposal.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I support the amendment and I hope that the Government will accept it, the House having accepted Amendment No. 47. My noble friend asked how this will operate in Scotland. It seems to me that this is, like the other amendment, an enabling amendment. It would enable each special health board or NHS trust to put and keep in place arrangements for this purpose. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether it will be left to the health board or to the trust to put these arrangements in place or whether it will be prescribed to them if the amendment is accepted. Obviously, he has not had time to think this through, but it would be helpful if we could have an indication. Quality in Scotland matters so much.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, as was said, the amendment covers similar ground to that covered by Amendment No. 47, debated this afternoon. It seeks to extend the duty of quality to special health authorities. This is unnecessary as the clause as drafted achieves this already. Scottish special health boards are the counterparts of special health authorities in England. There is no statutory provision for the creation of the latter in Scotland. Special health boards will be subject to the duty of quality under the terms of the Bill.
In reply to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, perhaps I should say a little more about the arrangements that we have in Scotland relating to quality. As I explained in Committee, we have the well-established Clinical Resource and Audit Group (CRAG). We are in the
900
process of establishing the clinical standards board for Scotland, which I am delighted to say that the noble Lord, Lord Patel, who spoke earlier today, has agreed to chair. These bodies are primarily concerned with the National Health Service, but their guidance and advice will be available to the private sector. We expect the private sector to take that advice and guidance fully into account.
The amendment also seeks to extend the duty of quality to independent hospitals, which it attempts to define. As was explained in Committee, we do not believe it would be appropriate to attempt to use the current Bill to place new statutory obligations on the independent sector. That will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament to consider in due course. No doubt it will wish to take account of the conclusions of the health committee's current inquiry into the regulation, monitoring and inspection of healthcare outside the NHS.
The guidance on clinical governance issued to the National Health Service in Scotland last November makes clear, however, that its provisions apply to services which the NHS commissions from other bodies. Thus, where the NHS contracts with a provider in the independent sector to provide a service to NHS patients, it should use those contracts to ensure that clinical governance principles are applied.
As your Lordships may be aware, my honourable friend the Minister for Health for Scotland published earlier this week a White Paper proposing new arrangements for the registration and inspection of nursing homes in Scotland. That would require a reconsideration of the current arrangements for regulating the private acute hospital sector. We expect the Scottish Parliament to take that work forward.
Your Lordships will understand the Government's reluctance to accept the amendment, given the earlier debate on Amendment No. 47. Furthermore, Amendment No. 77 does not properly reflect the Scottish legislation on these issues. However, in the light of the House's decision on Amendment No. 47, I am prepared to consider whether there are any further steps I can take to provide reassurance to your Lordships on this matter.
I should say, in reply to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, that the Government have issued guidelines on clinical governance and that the clinical standards board will provide further guidance. If there is any detail that I have overlooked in that reply, I shall try to supply it to the noble Baroness in writing as soon as possible.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, is there any reason why the Government should not put an enabling clause into the Bill which the Scots Parliament could then pick up? With all the careful arrangements that the Parliament will have with regard to secondary legislation, it could then proceed with the matter. It seems to me that there should be the same provision for Scotland in the Bill in that respect as there is for England. I understand that the

901
arrangements will be totally different, but could there not be an enabling clause of that kind? I realise that this amendment is flawed.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, as I said in the light of the House's earlier decision on Amendment No. 47, I am prepared to look at the matter again. It will be one of the issues that we shall consider. I hope that I shall be able to provide reassurance to your Lordships on this matter.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that assurance. In the light of that and of his clarification that the amendment is technically defective, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving this Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.20 p. m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Prevention of Terrorism (Temporary Provisions) Act 1989 (Continuance) Order 1999
7.36 p. m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Dubs) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in introducing this order in another place two evenings ago, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary took time to reflect upon the mixture of signs of optimism and violence that have characterised the 12-month period since the last debate extending the life of the prevention of terrorism Act; and I too would invite your Lordships to consider briefly with me some of the key events that have taken place this past year.
But perhaps I may first touch briefly on one other issue referred to by my right honourable friend in his opening remarks. As many noble Lords will be aware, the Government, in their consultation paper Legislation against Terrorism propose the introduction of permanent UK-wide counter-terrorism legislation which we hope will do away with the need for the annual renewal of temporary provisions, and so this debate may be one of the last annual debates on the renewal of the prevention of terrorism Act.
The proposal to introduce permanent counter-terrorist legislation recognises the sad but incontrovertible reality that even a lasting peace in Northern Ireland— something we all hope will be firmly established soon— would not remove the need for anti-terrorist provisions. Terrorism and the threat of terrorism from a range of fronts are likely to continue to exist for the foreseeable future. I intend to say more about our proposals for
902
future legislation in closing. But now, if I may, I shall remind noble Lords of some of the significant events over the past year which form the context of this debate.
Not six weeks after the prevention of terrorism Act was renewed in 1998, the Good Friday agreement was signed. It was subsequently endorsed by 71 per cent. of the people of Northern Ireland and provides the means to take Northern Ireland on the road to lasting peace. My right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and many others on both sides of this House, and outside it, continue to work tirelessly with all the parties to achieve full implementation of the agreement and to see the executive established by the first anniversary of the Good Friday agreement.
But the year has also brought savage reminders of the residual threat from renegade groups opposed to the Northern Ireland peace process. The dreadful atrocity in Omagh on 15th August last year, which claimed the lives of 29 people and injured over 200 more, brought this home in the most appalling manner. And on Monday of this week we had a further terrible reminder of the depths to which such groups will stoop, with the murder in cold blood of Rosemary Nelson, the prominent human rights lawyer. Her death was "claimed" by the Red Hand Defenders, a loyalist splinter group opposed to the Belfast agreement. The proscription of this group—and, subject to parliamentary approval, its specification—was announced just two weeks ago.
The Royal Ulster Constabulary has invited the Chief Constable of Kent to oversee the inquiry into the death of Rosemary Nelson, demonstrating its commitment to a full and independent inquiry into this terrible crime. I am sure that your Lordships will wish to join me in echoing the sentiments of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary in conveying our sympathy to the family and friends of Rosemary Nelson particularly today, the day of her funeral. I am sure noble Lords will agree with me that her death in these dreadful circumstances should serve only to strengthen our efforts to secure a lasting peace for Northern Ireland. Regrettably, I should also at this point remind your Lordships—if it is necessary to do so—that yesterday we were served another grim reminder of Northern Ireland's past with the murder of Frankie Curry in Belfast. There is little we should say about the brutality of an action such as this other than to condemn it in the most forceful terms possible.
The threat of international terrorism has also been with us this past year. The bombings, also in early August, of the United States embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, with the loss of more than 250 lives, were a terrible and shocking illustration of the scale of indiscriminate violence international terrorists are prepared to unleash. The horrific events in the Yemen and, more recently, Uganda, which resulted in the deaths of four and eight tourists respectively, including seven British citizens, have further emphasised the global reach of international terror.
The Government's response to all this is two-fold. First, we do all we can in the international and domestic context to help establish peace and stability; and,

903
secondly, we do all that we can with the police and security services to counter terrorism. The recall of Parliament in early September last year to enact the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 was an illustration of this twin approach. The Act strengthens our anti-terrorist laws against renegade Irish terrorist groups and our conspiracy laws in relation to terrorism and other crimes. The key to the prevention of terrorism is to ensure that the police and others have all the powers that they need to deter, disrupt and investigate. I am sure that the whole House will join me in paying tribute to the diligence, hard work and bravery of the police and the security forces in their efforts on our behalf.
Turning to the Act itself, I am grateful for the report prepared by the reviewer, John Rowe QC, which informs our debate today. I am pleased to say that Mr. Rowe has once again concluded that the powers available under the Act in 1998 were used appropriately and proportionately. I say "available under the Act" because, as your Lordships will recall, the exclusion powers were not included in last year's order and Mr. Rowe has not considered these powers in his report this year.
The order before us now does not contain exclusion powers. I do not propose to explain in detail this evening the reasons for this; they have been well rehearsed in the past. Suffice it to say that it has been the Government's long-standing view that exclusion orders are wrong on policy grounds and in any case have proved to be of limited utility. While the exclusion powers remain on the statute book they could be re-activated on security grounds. But I should remind your Lordships that our consultation paper on proposals for future legislation makes it clear that we do not envisage carrying these powers across into the new permanent anti-terrorist laws. Our ability under the Immigration Act 1971 to deport, or deny entry to, suspected international terrorists will remain unchanged.
To return to Mr. Rowe's report, it was heartening to read of the care that he found was taken in respect of the relatively small number of complaints received about the operation of the powers under the Prevention of Terrorism Act. We must never lose sight of the fact that the powers available under the Act are exceptional and must be exercised with integrity and diligence. If I may add a personal word of testimony, I should like to bear witness to the scrupulous care with which the powers have been used in my experience. I am very conscious of the exceptional nature of the powers when called upon to exercise them, as I am occasionally required to do when giving consideration to police requests to extend detention periods under the Prevention of Terrorism Act.
Noble Lords will recall that the specific anti-terrorist provisions in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998, which amended sections of the Prevention of Terrorism Act, also fall to be renewed for the first time in the order before the House today. Your Lordships may recall these measures mean that the opinion of a senior police officer is admissible in court as evidence of membership of proscribed and specified
904
terrorist groups (that is, the Real IRA and Continuity IRA but, subject to parliamentary approval, not INLA); and courts may draw inferences from a suspect's refusal to answer questions during the course of an investigation into memberships of a proscribed and specified terrorist group. Noble Lords may recall that it is not possible under the legislation for a suspect to be convicted solely on the basis of inferences allowed under the Act or on the statement of a police officer alone.
As Mr. Rowe states in his report, so far there have not been any convictions in connection with these new provisions. But I am sure your Lordships will agree that that cannot be the sole criterion for judging their effectiveness. These measures were introduced as a targeted response to the small but very dangerous renegade groups whose aim is to bring down the Good Friday agreement and who have no regard for human life. The fact that similar action was taken simultaneously in the Irish Parliament sent a powerful signal of the total repudiation of the action of these groups and all that they stand for.
But the provisions offer more than a mere symbolic gesture. They exist to enable robust action to be taken against those who, in the face of the express wishes of the people of the island of Ireland, choose to support groups that do not observe total and unequivocal ceasefires. I am sure noble Lords will, like me, sincerely hope that support for these groups withers away, but if it does not, the strengthened provisions are there to assist in bringing these people to book.
That leads me to touch upon the observations that Mr. Rowe makes in Chapter 2 of his report about the provisions of the Prevention of Terrorism Act and the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). He concludes that most of the measures in the Act do not raise possible issues of incompatibility. He is at pains to stress that, although it has been possible for individuals to bring cases to the European Commission of Human Rights since 1966—long before the Prevention of Terrorism Act first came into force—only two cases have been dealt with by the European Court of Human Rights in all this time and a violation was found in only one of those. Therefore, our ECHR record vis à vis the Prevention of Terrorism Act is good.
But Mr. Rowe raises concerns about the compatibility of the new provisions on membership enacted last year in the Criminal Justice (Terrorism and Conspiracy) Act 1998 with the ECHR, in particular Article 6 (the right to a fair trial). As was made clear when the 1998 Act was considered both here and in another place, the whole issue of compatibility was looked at extremely closely before publication of the Bill. We were then, and remain, satisfied that the provisions are compatible with the convention. Noble Lords can be assured that we would not have introduced this legislation in the form we did if we had believed it was incompatible with our obligations under the convention. But in the light of the remarks made by Mr. Rowe in his report we have looked at the issue again carefully. His arguments do not, however, cause us to change our position. This is therefore something on which we shall have to agree to differ, unless and until these questions are settled in the courts.
I mentioned that I would in closing say a few words about our proposals for new counter-terrorist legislation. As I reminded noble Lords at the outset, the Government issued its consultation paper Legislation Against Terrorism just before Christmas and invited responses by 16th March (Tuesday of this week). In that paper we argue that the range of terrorist threats which the United Kingdom faces, and may potentially face, creates a need for United Kingdom-wide anti-terrorist powers, even when lasting peace is established in Northern Ireland. We believe the time has come to put the necessary legislation on a permanent footing. We envisage legislation that is flexible enough to be able to respond to the ever-changing nature of terrorism, is effective and proportionate to the threat that the United Kingdom faces, protects the rights of individuals and complies with our international commitments. It is our sincere hope that by the time new legislation is introduced the threat from Irish terrorism will have diminished to the point where no additional special powers are necessary to combat it. But if the security situation suggests that some particular measures are needed, it is proposed that they would be included in a temporary additional section of the Act, subject, as is the Prevention of Terrorism Act now, to additional independent review and to Parliament's annual approval to their staying in force.
I do not intend to detail now the measures we have included in the document. As I made clear earlier, I hope that those noble Lords with a particular interest in these matters have been able to read and respond to the paper, which seeks to strike a balance between giving the police and other agencies the powers they need to fight terrorism and guarding the civil liberties of those affected by the exercise of these powers. However, we recognise that it is not an easy task to get the balance right; and we shall consider carefully all the responses we receive to our paper.
Returning, finally, to the focus of today's debate, the question before your Lordships is whether the Prevention of Terrorism Act should remain in force for a further 12 months. In this regard, the Government firmly endorse the conclusion of the Act's reviewer, John Rowe QC, that it should. It is vital that those engaged in the fight against terrorism have all the powers that they need. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th March be approved [12th Report from the Joint Committee]—(Lord Dubs.)
Earl Attlee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reminding the House with his usual clarity of the background to this order. It is interesting that it is mainly a Northern Ireland team playing tonight; and that the legislation is aimed at what is termed Irish terrorism. However, it is also essentially a Home Office matter relating to all types of terrorism. It is merely circumstances which lead to the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, moving the order and my responding to it for the Opposition.
The Minister mentioned the brutal murder of Mrs Rosemary Nelson whose funeral took place today. Other than to say that it is a most evil and disgusting
906
attack which left me feeling very bitter, I shall save my comments until next Monday when somewhat more relevant orders will be discussed. I welcome and agree with what the Minister said on the subject.
In the global context, we agree with the thrust of the consultation paper on legislation against terrorism mentioned by the Minister. The consultation paper recognises that terrorism is changing and that the legislation must also change. We look forward to comprehensive anti-terrorist legislation which will combat internal, external and overseas threats. As the Minister suggested, this may be the last time we debate this order. Does the noble Lord hope to be able to introduce a Bill in the next Session? There are obvious advantages in having (if one may put it this way) normal anti-terrorist legislation which would cover residual domestic terrorism and acts of international terrorism.
Order-making powers under primary legislation would enable the Government to take more draconian powers if necessary. The degree of parliamentary scrutiny and approval procedures would depend upon the nature of the powers sought. Those matters will be handled by my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley when the Bill appears before the House.
Future legislation will have to cater for all likely forms of terrorism in order to avoid having to rush through suitable but knee-jerk reaction primary legislation. The consultation paper covers electronic terrorism, although apprehending an electronic terrorist presents an obvious challenge. The risk from a nuclear, biological or chemical attack is well recognised in the paper and has already been seen in Japan. No doubt the officials at the Home Office and elsewhere will be undertaking brainstorming sessions to identify all other threats and ensure that they are covered by future legislation.
There is also the challenge of ensuring that the legislation does not infringe the ECHR which the Government have so thoughtfully incorporated into UK law. The Minister covered that point and the observation in Mr Rowe's report. The UK Government are quite good on this matter. Therefore we need not be overly worried.
All Parliament can do is to ensure that the legislative framework provides the necessary tools and safeguards for use by the police and security forces. We are highly indebted to them for their efforts in preventing and detecting terrorism wherever it arises and their integrity in using those powers. I am sure the House will join me in paying tribute to their efforts and the sacrifices that they have made.
Although we cannot guarantee the elimination of terrorism, we can take the necessary steps to prevent and react to terrorist acts. Mr Rowe's report makes clear that the powers have not been abused.
The renewal of the order is necessary to protect the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland from terrorist attacks. With that in mind, we are content with the order.
Lord McNally: My Lords, this debate is again as topical as the evening headlines on our television

907
screens. No one has ever doubted the capacity of the men of evil to make headlines. I wish to associate myself with the remarks of the Minister and the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, upon the death of Rosemary Nelson.
The approach of these Benches to terrorism legislation has always been somewhat akin to Thomas More in A Man for All Seasons when Richard Rich advises expediency and More replies, "But where then do you hide when the wind of tyranny blows?".
We understand why the security services need special powers. But those powers have to be reluctantly given by Parliament in a free society. We believe that the legislation is necessary. We think that its renewal is necessary. We support it tonight. However, in considering legislation we must ensure that special powers for special circumstances remain just that and that unnecessary powers do not become permanent. For that reason, we welcome the constant parliamentary review of special powers.
I was interested to hear the Minister talk about the consolidation of counter terrorism measures into a single UK Act. The Minister stated that if extra powers were still retained they would be in an annex, subject to annual review. That is important. We on these Benches still regret the way in which the emergency legislation was brought before the House after the Omagh bomb. We do not believe that some of the international aspects were a genuine emergency and that Parliament was "bounced" in these matters. It is important philosophically to get the balance right between the need to counter terrorism and to underpin civil liberties. Under the pressure of terrorist threats, it is easy to have our civil liberties chipped away. For that reason, we support the Government's non-use of exclusion powers. We accept that there may be a case for comprehensive and permanent legislation. However, we give fair warning to the Minister that when that legislation comes forward, we shall be assiduous in checking it in terms of civil liberties.
I had the pleasure of meeting Mr Rowe earlier this year. I believe that we are fortunate in having a public servant of his quality and dedication willing to take on this work. The report was thorough and impressive. However, as the Minister noted, Mr Rowe makes a specific point about the human rights commitment that we have undertaken without recent human rights legislation. My colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, would quarrel with some of the Government's judgments as regards whether the Acts are compatible with our human rights commitments.
The Minister gave us the Government's assurances based, I am sure, on fine legal advice, but I thought that the sting in the tail from Mr. Rowe was on page 47 of his conclusions. He stated:
"My analysis of the human rights situation in Chapter 2 does not in any way impair this conclusion"—
the conclusion that the legislation had been used properly—
"that Chapter was intended to show what shape the future may take; and it is a future which is near at hand".
908
That is what Ministers must take on board when looking at the new legislation which they are drafting. I do not believe that their confidence—I do not say complacency—that the legislation is compatible with human rights commitments will stand up to judicial tests, but we shall see.
The other aspect which stood out in Mr. Rowe's report appears at paragraph 114 on staffing. He states:
"I wish to make the point that staffing levels of port officers should not be allowed to fall".
He points out that the number of immigration officers and other groups has, for cost or other reasons, been reduced. He concludes:
"Thus, a greater burden falls upon Special Branch officers. And I emphasise that there is as much need as ever for the presence of port officers, from the point of view of both terrorism connected with the affairs of Northern Ireland, and terrorism in the international field".
The House needs to be assured by the Minister that that point made by Mr. Rowe has been taken on board and that the dreaded Treasury and budgetary constraints will not undermine the work of the security services which, as Mr. Rowe points out in the report, is extremely important at port of entry.
We will support the legislation tonight. The Minister gave a review of the present situation in Ireland, but perhaps I may make a personal comment. Your Lordships might gather that with a name like McNally my roots are in Ireland, although some four or five generations ago, from County Mayo. My Irishness was brought up to date by education by the Irish Christian Brothers, but I have never considered myself an ersatz Irishman, as do some Americans with Irish names. I am certainly proud of my Irish roots. The heavy burdens of my business forced me earlier this week to go to Cheltenham where I was reminded how many common interests the Irish and the English have in our history, culture, economy and sport.
The links between Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom have sometimes been painful, but sometimes they have been magnificent. With those roots and that background, I believe that the Good Friday agreement provides an opportunity to create something better, not just with the people of Northern Ireland but perhaps with the Council of the Isles, building on the co-operation and natural friendship between all our people.
The interesting aspect of the renewal of the Act, and the attitude of the people throughout the troubles, is that when civil societies, particularly those based on human rights, face terrorism the terrorists do not understand what makes democrats tick. We support the renewal of this legislation, but we do so on the basis of the old Spanish Civil War poem,
"We came not for glory, honours, medals or pay
We came because with our open eyes we see no other way".
We see no other way to combat the men of violence. We have no enthusiasm for legislation which restricts civil liberties. What we do have is enthusiasm for united

909
resistance from all democrats to the men of violence because from that unity of purpose may come the circumstances which give peace a chance.
Lord Eames: My Lords, I welcome the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, introduced the debate tonight with his usual clarity and care. Not for the first time, as someone living and working in Northern Ireland, have I had occasion to thank him for the care in which he has exercised the office given to him. Tonight has been no exception.
I, too, regret that this legislation is necessary, but necessary it is. The balance to which the Minister alluded between the protection of democracy and allowing democracy to be a democracy is very narrow, as we know from our history. The terms of Mr. Rowe's report should be of some satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government in so far as it reassures us that in his opinion the exercise of what could be described by others as draconian legislation has been fair and above board.
Nevertheless, we must be very well aware that there are those who are only too ready to misuse the concept of civil liberties in criticism of the way in which a democracy attempts to protect itself. I am conscious that this is a very difficult argument to refute, particularly when it comes with consistency and is based on false information and propaganda. Therefore, I welcome the opportunity for Parliament to review this legislation at regular intervals, as the noble Earl, Lord Attlee, reminded us.
I also welcome, on behalf of those of us in Northern Ireland who seek the peace that so much of this is geared to produce, the fact that Her Majesty's Government are preparing a Bill to come before us at a future date. I personally would like to see the very word "emergency" eradicated from our dictionaries. We have memories of the arguments for and against the special powers Act in Northern Ireland and the opportunity which the existence of that legislation gave to those who wish to undermine our concept of democracy. Therefore, I hope that we shall live to see the day when legislation such as that before us tonight is totally unnecessary.
My mind goes back to the aftermath of the atrocity at Omagh in which the British and Irish Governments acted together to introduce legislation which would enable the forces of law and order to try to bring more speedily to justice those who have been responsible for that atrocity. The key to all this, as I am sure the Minister will agree, is the role of the courts and the fact that at times it is so immensely difficult to produce the necessary evidence to gain convictions. Nothing in the order, or in accompanying legislation, or in the Bill which will eventually come before us must be open to the interpretation by anyone that it is removing the priority given to the courts of our land and the need for evidence and witnesses which will allow convictions.
The fact that that has not happened as yet in the case of the aftermath to the atrocity at Omagh is something which we regret. It is also something which obviously must not be taken as any form of denial of the careful,
910
combined work of the security forces north and south of the Irish border. We must welcome and encourage that co-operation.
The other aspect to which I wish to refer briefly is the fact that when we talk about terrorism we inevitably think of Northern Ireland. As the noble Lord, Lord Dubs, explained, the legislation before us tonight is meant to extend the whole concept of the prevention of terrorism right across these islands. I hope and pray the day will come when we can debate legislation such as this without particular reference to my homeland. I hope the day will come when we can debate it in terms of what it does and does not do to a democracy free from the threat of the sort of things that we have seen in Lurgan in the past few days. I am glad that the Minister referred to the murder of Rosemary Nelson.
But we must not forget all the other Rosemary Nelsons. We must not forget all the other events which have scarred my native land and the land that was represented by some noble Lords this evening. I would beg that in consideration of this necessary legislation, we pay due attention to the fact that, at times, democracy demands legislation of this, nature. However, we should never be driven by the terrorists to a point where what this Parliament stands for in terms of the freedom of the individual and the nature of democracy is eroded to the extent that the terrorist has won. The ultimate victory of the terrorist—and I believe this was very much part of the Minister's thinking—will come when the whole concept of democracy is eroded to the extent that we are defending something in which we do not ourselves believe.
Therefore, I thank the Minister on behalf of many people in Northern Ireland for the care that he has shown in dealing with his various portfolios. In this instance, I thank him in particular for the clarity with which he has brought this very difficult subject before the House.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments that have been made, and the support expressed for the Government's proposal before the House this evening. I shall deal with some of the specific questions that have been asked.
The noble Earl, Lord Attlee, suggested that this would be the last time that the order would be renewed. I said that it would be one of the last occasions. We hope to introduce legislation at the earliest suitable opportunity, but it is too early to say yet whether that will be in the next Session.
The noble Earl referred also to the European Convention on Human Rights, as did the noble Lord, Lord McNally. As has been said, it is important that we take full account of our obligations under the ECHR in drafting any new and permanent legislation. I am happy to give the assurance that we shall certainly approach the new legislation in that light.
I do not believe that we can take that matter very much further this evening, in particular the doubts raised by John Rowe's report. We may differ a little as regards the emphasis given by that report and possibly by the noble Lord, Lord McNally. The Government have taken

911
their view after careful assessment of his report and all our obligations under the ECHR. When the legislation is brought forward, there will be ample opportunity to go into that in more detail.
More generally, in the speeches this evening we heard some useful and interesting comments about the proposed new legislation. It would not be sensible for me to respond in detail because we are talking about a consultation process that has just been concluded and which the Government will have to assess in detail before bringing forward their proposals. We shall certainly make sure that we take on board comments made in this short debate this evening to inform the Government's thinking about the new legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord McNally, asked me a specific question about staffing. By mat I take it that he meant staffing at the ports by special branch officers. Perhaps I may give him a few figures with the assurance that the Government are aware of the problem and they do not intend to weaken the strength of that provision at the ports. For 1996–97, there is a figure of 742; the following year, it was 797; the following year it was 897; and for the period 1999–2002, we are talking about a figure of 960. Therefore, if anything, the figure has increased in the past three years and will increase further. Therefore, the noble Lord can feel assured that we shall not neglect the need to have adequate protection at the ports in terms of the issue which he raised.
The noble Lord, Lord Eames, and other noble Lords referred to the balance between our need to have legislation which can deal with terrorism and the need to protect our civil liberties. As I said in my speech, it is clearly a balance which is important to bear in mind but not always easy to strike. However, we are seeking to do just that. If we go too far in the direction of having tough anti-terrorist legislation, that may detract from the value that we place on civil liberties. If we do that then, as the noble Lord said, that gives credence to the terrorists themselves. Therefore, we must make sure— and I use his words—that we have a democracy which is worth protecting and not one which we have undermined. We have certainly taken that point close to our hearts throughout our approach to the PTA and even more so in relation to the new legislation which we propose to bring forward.
I thank the noble Lord for his generous comments. I reciprocate by saying that I found his speech deeply moving and very important as it comes from detailed experience of having lived with that problem for many years. Some of us have seen it more at a distance than close to. Therefore, the views of anyone who has lived with the problem clearly command enormous respect. The Government certainly listen to such views.
In particular, I take to heart the noble Lord's hope, which we all share, that the day will come when Northern Ireland will not be the reason that we have anti-terrorist legislation; that Northern Ireland will have a period of prolonged peace with the terrorist problem going away; and we shall merely confine ourselves to me wider international aspects of terrorism. I hope that
912
they go away also but, if anything, they seem to be becoming rather more serious. I gave several examples in my speech.
I repeat that I am grateful for the support that the House has shown for the Government proposals and I commend the Motion to the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.20 p. m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.17 to 8.20 p. m.]

Health Bill [H.L.]
8.20 p. m.
Consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 42 [Expenditure of Health Boards and other bodies]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 77A:
Page 32, line 21, at end insert ("or
(e) remuneration which is referable to the cost of drugs for which the Health Board is accountable in that year (whether paid by it or by another Health Board)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 77A I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 77B, 77C and 77D. These amendments are the Scottish equivalent to government Amendments Nos. 13, 15 and 17 debated and approved by the House last Monday.
In brief, the amendments refine the definition of the prescribing costs that will be included in a health board's unified budget, the provisions for which are made by Clause 42 of this Bill.
Your Lordships have already considered the principles behind the amendments at some length. I shall refrain from going over that ground in detail again today. However, to recap, the provisions introduced by the amendments need to be considered against the introduction of funding health boards through the concept of unified budgets.
The White Paper, Designed to Care, announced the introduction of unified budgets to provide a single financial envelope to cover the commissioning of hospital and community health services, primary care prescribing and investment in general practice infrastructure.
At present the funding streams for such items are, with limited exceptions, allocated and managed separately from each other. Clause 42 introduces provisions for Scotland that unify the hospital and community health service funding stream with that of general practice infrastructure. The amendments before you now bring primary care prescribing into the financial envelope and, in so doing, will give health

913
boards and, in turn, Scottish primary care trusts, greater flexibility in deciding the most appropriate balance between the three areas of expenditure.
As explained when the equivalent English amendments were introduced earlier this week, while the effect of the amendments is to bring all prescribing expenditure within a unified cash limit, they do not put a cash limit around prescribing expenditure itself. Health boards, and through them Scottish primary care trusts, will be able to transfer funds into and out of their prescribing cost provision to reflect the relative priorities and the financial needs of the local area.
On Monday, the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, asked if primary care infrastructure resources in Scotland would be protected within the unified budget. I have written to her, but to put the matter on the record I can reassure your Lordships that those resources will be protected in Scotland as they will be south of the Border.
The amendments themselves are essentially technical. Their primary effect is to make health boards responsible for the cost of drugs prescribed by the GPs in their areas and not, as at present, for the cost of drugs dispensed in their areas. However, they also provide for the Secretary of State to make appropriate funding flow arrangements between health board areas to ensure that dispensing practitioners continue to receive their remuneration in exactly the same way as at present.
The amendments complete the provision for introducing unified budgets in Scotland. That will give health boards and, in turn, primary care trusts in Scotland increased financial flexibility to secure more cost-effective care and greater value from the total resources available. I therefore commend these amendments to the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the extremely clear letter that he wrote to me. He wrote very promptly and explained everything very well.
I have shown the letter to the British Medical Association—he may also have done that—and it was concerned about the matter. The matter has been considered by bodies in Scotland, and they too are reassured, although there are two questions which I believe the noble Lord will find easy to answer.
First, they want assurance of the ability of local health co-operatives to go back to the primary care trust if they run out of money for prescribing. The arrangements that the noble Lord has just described will mean that individual doctors in Scotland will be able to prescribe all the necessary medication to fulfil the clinical needs of their patients. It would be helpful if the noble Lord could reassure them on that.
Secondly, when the unified budget comes into being, will savings from the prescribing budget remain for use with the primary care trust, or will they revert to the health board for use, for example, in acute hospitals? Perhaps it may not be possible to answer that immediately. I was not able to give the noble Lord notice of that question. I repeat: will any money saved
914
on prescribing revert to the health board, or will it be used in acute hospitals; or can it be retained within primary care?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that if the local healthcare co-operatives run out of money they will be able to turn to the primary care trust and ensure that their needs are properly met.
On the second question, I am advised that any savings will remain within the primary care trust resources.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 77B, 77C and 77D:
Page 32, line 22, leave out ("paragraph (b), (c) or (d)") and insert ("paragraphs (b) to (e)").
Page 33, line 4, at end insert—
("(11) In this section and section 85AB, "drugs" includes medicines and listed appliances (within the meaning of section 27). ").
Page 33, line 4, at end insert—
("Further provision as to expenditure on drugs.
85AB. —

(1) For each financial year, the Secretary of State shall apportion, in such manner as he thinks appropriate, among all Health Boards the total of the remuneration referable to the cost of drugs which is paid by each Health Board in that year.

(2) A Health Board is 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 it under subsection (1).

(3) Where in any financial year any remuneration referable to the cost of drugs for which a Health Board is accountable is paid by another Health Board, the remuneration is to be treated (for the purposes of this section) as having been paid by the first Health Board in the performance of its functions.

(4) The Secretary of State may, in particular, exercise his discretion under subsection (1)—

(a) so that any apportionment reflects, in the case of each Health Board, the financial consequences of orders for the provision of drugs, being orders which in his opinion are attributable to the Board 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 Board other than the Health Board which is accountable for the payment to be reimbursed in such manner as he may determine.

(6) The Secretary of State shall determine what remuneration paid by Health Boards to persons providing pharmaceutical services is to be treated for the purposes of section 85AA and this section as remuneration referable to the cost of drugs. ").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
8.30 p. m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 78:
After Clause 45, insert the following new clause—
("Indemnity cover
INDEMNITY COVER FOR PART II SERVICES
.—(1) After section 28B of the 1978 Act there is inserted—
"Indemnity cover.
28C.—(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 be added to any list unless he holds approved indemnity cover;

(b) for the removal from a list prepared by a Health Board of a Part II practitioner who does not within a prescribed period after the making of a request by the Health Board in the prescribed manner satisfy the Health Board 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 Health Board 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 29;

"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.
(4) 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."
(2) In section 19A of the 1978 Act (medical lists), at the beginning of subsection (3) there is inserted "Subject to any provision made under section 28C".
(3) In section 25 of that Act (arrangements for provision of general dental services), in subsection (2)(b), the word "and" before sub-paragraph (iii) is omitted and after that sub-paragraph there is inserted "; and
(iv) any provision made under section 28C".
(4) In section 26 of that Act (arrangements for provision of general ophthalmic services), in subsection (2)(b), after "practitioners" there is inserted "and any provision made under section 28C". ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment stands in the names of myself and my noble friend Lady Hayman. It applies to Scotland and is the same in all essential respects as Amendment No. 19, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Hunt and debated thoroughly on Monday evening. With your Lordships' leave I shall, therefore, be brief.
The Government's intention is to ensure that GPs, dentists, pharmacists and optometrists practising in family health services in Scotland are able to meet any damages that might be awarded against them in cases of death or personal injury caused to their patients. This includes cover for other persons prescribed in relation to the practitioner such as employees, assistants or deputies. These practitioners employed in NHS trusts are automatically covered by NHS indemnity.
As in other parts of the UK, the vast majority of practitioners in Scotland already act responsibly by arranging suitable indemnity cover for their work. By ensuring that every relevant professional is covered in future, this amendment seeks to address the small minority of practitioners in Scotland who are not so responsible. The scheme would work in the way described by my noble friend on Monday, and I do not propose to repeat what has already been covered.
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 he or she should be able to receive it.
Perhaps I may now reply to a question of which the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has been kind enough to give me notice. She wanted to know why "indemnity" is referred to rather than "membership of a medical defence organisation". The intention behind this provision is to ensure that all practitioners are indemnified so that a patient can be sure of getting proper compensation, when that is warranted. As my noble friend explained on Monday, that indemnity might be obtained from a range of sources. It would not be appropriate in this Bill to limit how such indemnity should be obtained. This is especially so as the clause covers those providing ophthalmic and pharmaceutical services as well as doctors and dentists. The principle underlying the amendment has been warmly welcomed by your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, again, I thank the Minister very much. He has partly answered my question in advance in relation to why the word "indemnity" is used when the phrase "medical defence organisation membership" would be a better description. This point may also interest the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. It has been pointed out to me that medical

917
defence organisations have the discretion as to whether or not to assist in negligence claims in certain circumstances and that because they have that discretion, this is not really what is normally understood to be "indemnity". I think that this is an interesting point, which the Government may want to consider. I do not expect an answer now, but the Government may want to alter both parts of the Bill to meet that point if the provisions are not in order, although they may be.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that point, which we shall certainly consider.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 46 [Disqualification of Part II practitioners]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 78A:
Page 35, line 29, leave out ("29E") and insert ("29C").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment simply corrects an inappropriate cross-reference in the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 38, line 10, at end insert—
("( ) After section 30 of the 1978 Act (as substituted by subsection (2)) there is inserted—
"30A. The Tribunal shall make, and publish, an annual report to the Council on Tribunals. "").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment brings the NHS tribunal into line with virtually all others in the tribunal system. The Council on Tribunals makes reports on the effectiveness of particular tribunals and may make recommendations as to improvements that can be made. Given the importance of the NHS tribunal, it would seem sensible for it to make an annual report to the Council on Tribunals in order that its workings may be exposed to expert scrutiny. That would also ensure that recommendations can be made to keep its work up to date. It would also ensure a measure of consistency between the manner in which it operates and that of other tribunals.
An annual report would be in the public interest. The NHS employs more people than any other public sector organisation and is the one part of the welfare state with which almost everyone comes into contact at some stage. That tribunal should not sit apart from the rest of the tribunal system and it should not be allowed to operate without being subject to a reasonable level of public and expert scrutiny. I beg to move.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: My Lords, the Council on Tribunals, through its Scottish committee, will be aware of any cases heard by the NHS tribunal as it has the right to attend any hearings before the NHS tribunal. Its own report contains appropriate information about the NHS tribunals. The Scottish committee has given us no indication that it would require an annual report. The proceedings before the tribunal must be held in private unless the practitioner has applied for the inquiry to be held in public. The Secretary of State
918
already has a duty to publish any decisions of the tribunal, and such cases are likely to remain relatively rare, because it is only a very small minority of practitioners who commit fraud.
Given those arrangements, I do not believe there is a need for the tribunal in Scotland to make and publish an annual report to the Council on Tribunals. The value of such a report would be limited anyway, as I hope I have made clear, as it would be able to provide no more information than will be available through established means.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful reply. Obviously, I shall read carefully what he said but, in the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 79A:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
RECOVERY OF CHARGES AND PAYMENTS
(". —
(1) After section 99 of the 1978 Act there is inserted—
"Recovery of charges and payments.
99ZA. —

(1) Where goods or services to which this section applies are provided and either—

(a) any charge payable by any person under this Act in respect of the provision of the goods or services is reduced, remitted or repaid, but that person is not entitled to the reduction, remission or repayment; or

(b) any payment under this Act is made to, or for the benefit of, any person in respect of the cost of obtaining the goods or services but that person is not entitled to, or to the benefit of, the payment,

the amount mentioned in subsection (2) is recoverable as a debt from the person in question by the responsible authority.

(2) That amount—

(a) in a case within subsection (l)(a): is the amount of the charge or (where it has been reduced) reduction;

(b) in a case within subsection (l)(b), is the amount of the payment.

(3) Where two or more persons are liable under section 99 or this section to pay an amount in respect of the same charge or payment, those persons shall be jointly and severally liable.

(4) For the purposes of this section, the circumstances in which a person is to be treated as not entitled to a reduction, remission or repayment of a charge, or to (or to the benefit of) a payment, include in particular those in which it is received (wholly or partly)—

(a) on the ground that he or another is a person of a particular description, where the person in question is not in fact of that description;

(b) on the ground that he or another holds a particular certificate, when the person in question does not in fact hold such a certificate or does hold such a certificate but is not entitled to it:

(c) on the ground that he or another has made a particular statement, when the person in question his not made such a statement or the statement made by him is false.

919

(5) In this section and section 99ZB, "responsible authority" means—

(a) in relation to the recovery of any charge under section 99 in respect of the provision of goods or services to which this section applies, the person by whom the charge is recoverable;

(b) in relation to the recovery by virtue of this section of the whole or part of the amount of any such charge, the person by whom the charge would have been recoverable,

(c) in a case within subsection (l)(b), the person who made the payment.

(6) But the Secretary of State may by directions provide for—

(a) the functions of any responsible authority of recovering any charges under this Act in respect of the provision of goods or services to which this section applies;

(b) the functions of any responsible authority under this section and section 99ZB,

to be exercised on behalf of the authority by another health service body.

(7) This section applies to the following goods and services—

(a) dental treatment and appliances provided in pursuance of this Act;

(b) drugs and medicines provided in pursuance of this Act;

(c) the testing of sight;

(d) optical appliances;

(e) any other appliances provided in pursuance of this Act.

99ZB. —

(1) Regulations may provide that, where a person fails to pay—

(a) any amount recoverable from him under section 99 in respect of the provision of goods or services to which section 99ZA applies; or

(b) any amount recoverable from him under section 99ZA,

a notice (referred to in this section as a penalty notice) may be served on the person, by or on behalf of the responsible authority, requiring him to pay to the authority, within a prescribed period, that amount together with a charge (referred to in this section as a penalty charge) of an amount determined in accordance with the regulations.

(2) The regulations may not provide for the amount of the penalty charge to exceed whichever is the smaller of—

(a) £100;

(b) the amount referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b) multiplied by 5.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order provide for subsection (2) to have effect as if, for the sum specified in paragraph (a) or the multiplier specified in paragraph (b) (including that sum or multiplier as substituted by a previous order), there were substituted a sum or (as the case may be) multiplier specified in the order.

920

(4) Regulations may provide that, if a person fails to pay the amount he is required to pay under a penalty notice within the period in question, he must also pay to the responsible authority by way of penalty a further sum determined in accordance with the regulations.

(5) The further sum must not exceed 50 per cent, of the amount of the penalty charge.

(6) Any sum payable under the regulations (including the amount referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b)) may be recovered by the responsible authority as a debt.

(7) But a person is not liable by virtue of a penalty notice—

(a) to pay at any time so much of any amount referred to in subsection (1)(a) or (b) for which he is jointly and severally liable with another as at that time has been paid, or ordered by a court to be paid, by that other; or

(b) to a penalty charge, or a further sum by way of penalty, if he shows that he did not act wrongfully, or with any lack of care, in respect of the charge or payment in question.

(8) Section 99ZA and this section apply to charges which may be made and recovered under section 20 of the National Health Service (Primary Care) Act 1997 as they apply to charges under this Act which may be recovered under section 99; and the reference to this Act in section 99ZA(7)(a) includes a reference to a pilot scheme (within the meaning of the 1997 Act). ".

(2) In section 105(3) of the 1978 Act (Parliamentary procedure for certain regulations) after "endowments)" there is inserted "or orders under section 99ZB(3)". ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 47 [Regulation of health care and associated professions]:
Lord Morris of Manchester Lord Morris of Manchester moved Amendment No. 79B:
Page 38, line 14, at beginning insert—
(" ( ) Her Majesty shall by Order in Council make such provision relating to the regulation of the profession of chiropody and podiatry as set out in paragraph 1A of Schedule 3. ").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 79B. In moving the amendment, I shall also be speaking to the other amendments standing in my name. I have an interest to declare in the debate as president of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, but the office is honorary and involves no financial interest.
My noble friend will recall that both at Second Reading and in moving my amendments in Committee I raised with her the society's concerns that the Bill made no specific mention of protection of title or of any definition of the future regulatory regime. I made it clear that state registered chiropodists/podiatrists, for whom the society speaks, are wholeheartedly in support of the Government's stated aim of strengthening self-regulation to protect the public. Not unnaturally their principal concern is to ensure that future practice matches current precept in the case of their profession.
My noble friend's response in Committee to my amendment on protection of title on 4th March is welcomed by the society, as I said it would be when withdrawing the amendment. But it is less happy with the response to the amendments that I moved in Committee about the future regulatory structure for the profession once the 1960 Act is repealed. Thus the aim

921
of my further amendments today is to clarify the role and powers of any board or committee to be set up to regulate chiropodists/podiatrists.
The society is by no means alone in believing that a profession ceases to be a profession unless it maintains statutory control of the functions set out in sub-paragraph 8(2) of Schedule 3: namely, keeping the register of members admitted to practice; determining standards of education and training for admission; advising on standards of conduct and performance; and disciplining members.
My noble friend said in Committee that "uni-professional input" would be preserved where appropriate, and that:
"In some areas, such as fitness to practice, it is absolutely appropriate that they (individual health professions) should be in the majority when considering cases which come before them".
It would be most helpful if she can now provide any more detail on this and, in particular, whether she can say as much today as she did in Committee on "fitness to practice" about how and to what extent she foresees the potential for uni-professional input in the other key areas to which my amendment refers.
If self-regulation is to have any real meaning, then surely at least the functions set out in my amendment ought to be carried out by a statutory committee with a chairman and a majority of members who are state-registered chiropodists/podiatrists. I have said that the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists is by no means alone in holding this view. Let me, therefore, quote from a letter I received yesterday from the Chartered Society of Physiotherapy (CSP). It says:
"As you stated at Committee Stage, one possible option for reform includes the abolition of the individual professional boards in favour of committees on which each profession would have only one or two representatives. If this were to happen, essential functions of self-regulation will have been taken from the profession—against its will.
"To protect professional self-regulation the Society believes it is essential that physiotherapists constitute a uni-professional majority in all boards/committees that decide on all essential regulatory functions, which obviously include: fitness to practice, educational standards, validation of courses and entry to the profession".
The letter then recalls that the Minister clearly stated in Committee that there should be uni-professional majorities when considering issues of fitness to practice, and it proceeds:
"However, it is not clear whether other elements of professional self-regulation, educational standards, validation of courses, entry to the profession etc, will be protected. It is of the utmost importance that the Government clarify their intentions".
The CSP's letter concludes,
"The Government need to go further to reassure this profession that its professional self-regulation is not under threat. In this regard we believe your amendments are proving to be very useful. We would particularly welcome anything you can do at Report Stage to secure more reassurances from the Minister on uni-professional majorities".
State-registered chiropodists/podiatrists diagnose and treat patients independently of medical practitioners. They carry out highly invasive bone surgery and have access to anaesthetics and other prescription-only medicines. That is why a strong regulatory regime, based around self-regulation, is essential for the profession.
In Committee I pointed to some recent research at Manchester University showing that, among patients with diabetes, leg amputations increased by 50 per cent. in the absence of timely intervention and appropriate treatment by a qualified chiropodist/podiatrist. And I make no apology for recalling today a statement made to me during this Bill's Committee stage by Mrs. Sue Sharpe, the Director of Professional Standards of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain, on the danger to patients of using non-state-registered chiropodists, and her advice to members of her society to promote the services only of state-registered chiropodists. She wrote:
"our advice makes the case for your amendments when you consider the possible consequence of services for diabetics being provided by individuals who may have no insurance and no qualifications".
Nothing could more strongly emphasise how important it is in the public interest for fully qualified and insured chiropodists/podiatrists to play their rightful part in effectively regulating their profession.
Since moving my amendment in Committee, I have also heard most helpfully from Professor Andrew J. M. Boulton, MD, FRCP, Professor of Medicine at Manchester University and consultant physician at the Manchester Royal Infirmary, who writes:
"Foot problems remain the commonest cause of hospital admission amongst diabetic patients in this country. They account for 1 in 5 of admissions. Ensuring a quality foot care service for patients with diabetes is, therefore, essential for both medical and economic reasons".
He goes on to say that chiropodists/podiatrists form a pivotal part of the footcare team and that indeed many teams are led by members of the profession. He adds:
"It is essential also that a fully informed regulatory body is responsible for entry into the profession and also for overseeing standards of training to avoid anomalous situations that exist today, when individuals can self-proclaim themselves as chiropodists after the shortest of courses.
"Whereas most State-Registered practitioners provide an invaluable service to diabetic foot care, there are some individuals who lack sufficient experience in such care and can cause irreparable damage to diabetic feet, resulting in devastating end points such as gangrene and even amputation".
Professor Boulton also has the distinction of being Chairman of Post-Graduate Education for the European Association for the Study of Diabetes and chairs its Diabetic Foot Study Group. I am sure noble Lords in all parts of the House will be grateful to him for this eloquent and authoritative testimony to the importance of effective self-regulation for the profession of chiropody/podiatry.
I know my noble friend appreciates that state-registered chiropodists/podiatrists are not seeking aggrandizement for their profession and that any suggestion that they are being unhelpful in pressing their concerns is totally unwarranted. Their abiding concern is to protect professional standards in the public interest and Professor Boulton's letter to me shows how vitally important that is to people whose disabilities make them at once highly vulnerable and vitally dependent on fully qualified help.
I look forward to hearing from my noble friend that her objectives on self-regulation are identical to those of the profession. Perhaps she would also now confirm that

923
it will be the Government's intention to continue the Privy Council's role in relation to the profession of chiropody/podiatry as well as to the medical profession. Meanwhile, I conclude by thanking her again for what she has already done in relation to protection of title and for her readiness to arrange further dialogue with the society. I beg to move.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, it has been drawn to my attention that when the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, proposed amendments on this topic at Committee stage, I made a comment which may now be regarded as being outdated.
Some years ago, when I was consulted by the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists, it was then the case that the chiropodists with the primary qualification undertook minor procedures on the feet, whereas those who called themselves at that time podiatrists, undertook an additional period of post-graduate training, often of some two years, with surgical training as part of that to enable them to use local anaesthetics and to carry out surgical procedures of a much more invasive nature. That was the case several years ago; but, in fact, the term "podiatry" has become internationally recognised as being virtually synonymous with chiropody as it stands in this country. So, as the noble Lord said in Committee, the terms are now interchangeable.
However, when the issue of self-regulation of this profession is further considered under that body which is instituted under the Bill in succession to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act, I hope that it will, like the other professions—such as, physiotherapy, and so on—receive separate consideration. When that happens, I trust that those chiropodists and podiatrists who have undergone that specific period of post-graduate training to enable them to carry out surgical procedures on the feet will be properly and separately identified in any register which may be established. I know that this is a matter of concern to the Royal College of Surgeons and to the British Orthopaedic Association.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I would add to that the public at large because there are all sorts of naturally invasive procedures conducted by professions allied to medicine which are currently not regulated or, indeed, are insufficiently regulated. That is a very wide concern.
The whole point of Clause 47 is to change the statutory regime whereby these professions are regulated by Act of Parliament into professions regulated by order. I go along with that to a great extent. However, it is important that the same sort of controls, the same sort of inspections and the same sort of registration as are currently conducted under an Act of Parliament should continue to be conducted under regulation. That is something I would very much like the Minister to confirm this evening.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for introducing his amendments. I shall certainly do my best to be reassuring. I hope that he will understand that if I cannot give firm commitments on
924
matters of detail it is because of the stage in the legislative process at which we currently find ourselves, rather than any lack of concern regarding the fact that these are important matters that we need to address.
As ever, my noble friend has put a powerful case for respecting the contribution to healthcare given by chiropodists and podiatrists; and, indeed, by members of other professions supplementary to medicine. As the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, rightly said, they can have a crucial role to play in the health of patients and we all have an interest in ensuring that they have effective self-regulation.
I should point out to the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that the reason I shall not give him an assurance that it will be the same sort of regulation that will replace the current Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act is because I believe that that framework is too weak. We are looking to provide stronger professional self-regulation. I shall quibble with the noble Lord on the semantics and say that it is not that we wish to take any functions away from any successor body, but that the many criticisms which the chiropodists and the podiatrists have made of the current regulatory structure—indeed, other professions supplementary to medicine have grave concerns about the weaknesses that are there—are one of the main reasons for seeking an order-making power to enable progress to be made on establishing a more effective regulatory structure for these professions.
The Bill makes clear our intention to repeal and replace the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act under which the chiropodists and podiatrists are currently regulated. A review of the Act was published in 1996, following extensive consultation with the professions concerned, education providers, employers, consumer representatives and those who wished to be accredited under the Act. The review made important recommendations for new legislation to cover the professions allied to medicine, the broad thrust of which was accepted by the Government.
Given that the review was published almost three years ago, I understand the impatience of the professions to get into the detail of the replacement legislation. But perhaps I should remind the House that the Bill before this House does not contain any specific proposals other than that the 1960 Act be repealed. This is precisely because the proposed order-making power is an enabling measure, which is subject to the checks and balances and the limitations on the scope of orders that we have already debated. I believe that all Members of your Lordships' House agree that they are necessary, given that we are changing from a situation of primary legislation to one of secondary legislation.
During the passage of the Bill we have rightly debated what use the scope of the order-making power should have and the procedures for using it. Indeed, we shall do a little more of that later on. However, this is not the time to debate the detailed proposals of a future order. There will be plenty of opportunities for such a debate in the future as set out in the Bill. We are committed to full consultation on any proposals for replacement legislation. Once a draft order has been

925
developed the Bill provides for the publication of it; for consultation, including with the professions concerned; reporting the responses to the consultation to Parliament; and, finally, affirmative resolution procedures. It is our intention to work closely with all the professions concerned in creating an appropriate legislative framework for the professional self-regulation of the professions allied to medicine.
Although I cannot go into detail as regards what the outcome of that process would be, perhaps I may repeat that our aim is not to diminish but to strengthen the regulation of chiropodists, podiatrists and all the other professions allied to medicine. I explained in Committee that we want to take action to ensure the proper protection of title. I was grateful for the welcome that my noble friend gave to that proposal. I have also explained, and am happy to repeat, our intentions in relation to the Privy Council; namely, that we will consult on the basis of retaining accountability to the council, not just for the chiropodists and podiatrists alone. I believe that that is what my noble friend was suggesting. We will be consulting for all the professions which will be regulated under the successor legislation.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, it was not my intention to exclude any other profession. As I believe I explained, I was speaking as president of the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists. Thus, naturally my concern was to obtain for them the assurance that my noble friend is now giving. I know from my very close contacts with other professions allied to medicine that they will also be extremely glad that this important link with the Privy Council is to be maintained.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I completely understand why my noble friend used that particular example. I was only drawing attention to the breadth of my reply because the way that he phrased his introduction did relate to chiropodists and podiatrists. It is important to understand that it is accountability to the Privy Council for the successor body dealing with all the professions supplementary to medicine.
Perhaps it might be helpful at this stage to explain that one of the most fundamental recommendations of the review report was a move away from parent uni-disciplinary boards towards a federal council with a much stronger strategic role. Within this structure it envisaged that input on matters specific to individual professions would be secured through extensive advisory networks and provision for "peer review" in fitness to practise cases. The review recommended the establishment of a strong cross-professional council in order to strengthen the overall effectiveness of the regulation of the professions supplementary to medicine, as there is a great deal to gain from more collaborative working, both for the professions concerned and for patients.
As I have said, I understand and share the concern of chiropodists that the distinctive contribution of each profession within a joint regulatory framework should be properly acknowledged. Areas such as the content of education and training syllabuses and fitness to practise cases are matters where uni-professional input will be essential.
926
Your Lordships will, however, understand that many fitness to practise cases deal with issues not directly related to the practice of the profession itself but with the conduct of the registrant, for example, in cases of abuse of patients or criminal convictions. This is an area on which the professions could usefully share and develop common values and standards for the better protection of patients. I do not think it is in the interests of patients for there to be a variety of standards of protection according to the individual profession concerned. However, fitness to practise cases on matters of clinical competence are obviously an area where uni-professional input must be properly secured. Getting the system right will be a delicate balancing act.
But, equally, the health professions have many aims and values in common, and we see great merit in strengthening the collaboration between them so as to promote genuinely patient-focused team-working of the kind to which my noble friend referred. It is worth noting that nurses, midwives and health visitors are jointly regulated, and that the recent review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act recommended that this arrangement continue, although there too we have to ensure that the right uni-professional input exists on appropriate matters.
It is therefore our intention to work closely with all the professions concerned to ensure that the new arrangements strike the right balance. It is useful to remember that there are nine other professions within the CPSM and three more hoping to join, all of whose views will need to be taken into account. What we all share is a desire to see a stronger and more effective successor body to the CPSM.
I hope my noble friend will understand that I have given as much detail as I can at this stage on our proposals. But I can certainly give an undertaking to ensure that, in working closely with the professions to develop proposals for replacement legislation, I will ensure that this very important issue of securing proper individual contributions from each of the professions concerned is paid the closest of attention, as indeed must be the case with nurses, midwives and health visitors. I hope that, given my assurances about how the next stage in the process will be tackled and that we will have proper regard to the concerns my noble friend has raised today, he will feel able to withdraw his amendments.
9 p. m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, I am grateful for the kindliness of the remarks of my good friend Lord Walton this evening. I know that the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists will also be most appreciative of what he said about our exchanges in Committee. He is a friend and colleague for whom I have the highest regard.
I am grateful also to my noble friend Lady Hayman for her reply which I shall discuss with the Society of Chiropodists and Podiatrists before the Bill's Third Reading. I know that it will carefully consider all that my noble friend has said and that its starting point will be the hope that agreement can be reached with the

927
Government in pursuit of shared objectives. It is on that basis that I withdraw the amendment at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 79C:
Page 38, line 16, at end insert ("so far as appears to Her to be necessary or expedient for the purpose of securing or improving the regulation of the profession or the services which the profession provides or to which it contributes").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it has been our aim from the beginning in matters of professional self-regulation to strike an appropriate balance in the provisions in this Bill between the flexibility required to enable the modernisation of the legislation concerning professional self-regulation and the safeguards appropriate to such a broad power. I listened carefully to the concerns that were expressed on all sides of the House at Committee stage at certain aspects of the order-making power and undertook to bring forward amendments on a number of issues. These amendments reflect that undertaking.
First, I shall discuss consultation and the recommendations of the Select Committee of your Lordships' House. We have been mindful in taking these powers of the great responsibility to use them carefully and reasonably. We have built into the process for the making of orders a number of checks and balances: the requirement for draft orders to be published at least three months before they are laid before Parliament; the requirement for consultation on the draft order during that period; and the requirement for approval of Parliament under affirmative procedures.
As I said in Committee, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation has given these proposals its usual thorough scrutiny. I am particularly grateful for the assistance of the committee in proposing a way of meeting the concerns expressed at Second Reading. Taking these powers imposes an obligation on the Secretary of State to act reasonably and responsibly, and this requires transparency. The suggestion that the Minister should be called to account by a requirement to report on the outcome of consultation appears to us to be a sound one and we have included provision for a report on the consultation to be made to Parliament in paragraph 9(2) of Schedule 3 by Amendment No. 97.
This would be particularly important when the unqualified agreement of the profession concerned has not been secured to the change but where the strength of the argument is for the order to be made. I envisage that the report would provide a summary of the representations made to the Secretary of State and, in particular, would include whether the proposals have the agreement of the professions concerned and the points of disagreement if there are any. It would certainly need to include the points that most influenced or contributed to any decision to go ahead without the agreement of the profession.
The Select Committee also recommended that the Bill,
"might also be amended to include a statement of the criteria against which the Minister could act in the absence of agreement with the professional body or bodies concerned".
We believe that an important aspect of professional self-regulation is that the statutory regulatory bodies should be accountable and act transparently. It behoves us as a Government to do the same when using these order-making powers. We have therefore gone one step further and built into the main clause, at Clause 47(1)(a), a statement of the purpose for which the order-making power may be used to make any changes to professional self-regulation. Amendment No. 79C addresses that matter.
We believe that protecting patients is at the heart of professional self-regulation. It is clearly of fundamental importance, therefore, that the order-making power may be used where this would improve the services provided to patients. The order-making power could therefore be used to strengthen protection of title; to improve fitness to practise provisions; to institute measures to deal with poorly performing practitioners; or to institute revalidation or mandatory continuing professional development. These are all issues of protection of patient safety.
Secondly, the power may be used for the better regulation of the profession concerned. This is extremely important, not least to ensure that modern, effective and flexible legislation can be made to replace some of the overly detailed, overly specific legislation of the past. For example, an amendment to the Dentist Act is required simply to enable the GDC to increase the number of lay members on its board. An amendment to the Medical Act is required to enable the GMC to bring forward a single procedure for the registration of overseas doctors.
I was grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, for reminding us in debate in Committee last week that the primary purpose of regulating the healthcare professions is the protection of the public. That was clear in the contributions of the professionals who spoke. She made that point very much in the context of taking into account the consumer interest—that of patients, families and carers—in developing healthcare policies. The whole House will agree that this is of fundamental importance in the development of professional self-regulation, where patient protection is such a key issue.
It has always been our intention that consultation should be wide so that we capture the views of the professions, the National Health Service and the public in all parts of the United Kingdom. We do not wish to create a list on the face of the Bill. But we want to make it quite clear that the Secretary of State should be required to consult not only the profession affected by the proposed order but also representatives of the users of professional healthcare services. That is the issue to which the noble Baroness's amendment addresses itself.
At Committee stage I said that I would give the issue some thought and bring forward a suitable amendment at some stage in the further progress of the Bill. I assure

929
the noble Baroness that we remain committed to doing so. But I hope she will understand that there were quite a large number of amendments to be drafted in rather a short period of time and we have not managed to deal with everything in time for Report stage. This is a matter of timing, not of intent. On that basis, in order to allow us to draft a suitable amendment, I hope that she will be willing not to move her amendment when we reach it. Perhaps it would be helpful to mention to the House that I hope to bring forward other government amendments in time, if possible, for Third Reading so as to meet other commitments made to the House in Committee and at the Report stage, in particular on Part II with regard to remuneration and to make some other minor improvements.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Baroness is speaking more and more quietly as the evening progresses. I am not surprised by that. Will she repeat her last two or three sentences because I did not catch them?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I apologise. I shall clear my throat and try to do better. I asked the noble Baroness, Lady Wilcox, whether she would be willing not to move her amendment on the basis of the Government bringing forward an amendment at a later stage, and I flagged up that I would hope to be able to bring forward some other government amendments, if possible in time for Third Reading, to meet commitments made in Committee and on Report, in particular on Part II regarding remuneration and to make some other minor improvements.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, some concern was expressed at the Committee stage, and by the professional regulatory bodies, that the Government might seek to use the order-making power to impose a lay majority on regulatory councils. That was never our intention. Therefore, we have brought forward Amendment No. 94 which prevents the order-making power being used to impose a lay majority on a regulatory body.
I should like to emphasise, however, that this in no way reflects any doubt about the value of the contribution of lay members on professional regulatory bodies both in developing policies and in the fitness to practise committees. Rather we welcome the moves of some councils to increase lay membership and improve accountability to the public. We believe that lay membership offers an opportunity to involve people with different expertise and experience; helps ensure that regulatory bodies do not operate in isolation from developments and changes in other parts of the professional world or society at large; and demonstrates the bodies" commitment to open and accountable self-regulation.
The order-making power can still be used to increase the number of lay members or to enable a regulatory body itself to ensure a lay majority. But many of the
930
professions believe that a key element of professional self-regulation is that there is a majority of the profession on the statutory regulatory body. We would not wish therefore to impose a lay majority against the wishes of the profession.
As I said during the Committee stage, I understand the importance that many of the professions attach to their accountability to and relationship with the Privy Council, and that is why we have provided that for the existing regulatory bodies they should not be transferred to another person. In response to the proposed amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Walton, I promised to consider this matter further and to bring forward an appropriate amendment if it were possible. It was. Amendment No. 94 preserves the role of the Privy Council in respect of pharmacists, doctors, dentists, opticians, osteopaths and chiropractors. I hope it provides the reassurance that these professions and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, were seeking.
I also said that I believe that it is right that the lines of accountability for new and replacement organisations should be fully explored. We propose to set up bodies to replace the CPSM and the UKCC. Their current accountability arrangements differ. As with other bodies, the CPSM is accountable to the Privy Council. The UKCC, however, is accountable to the Secretary of State, and that relationship has proved a very effective one. The Review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act recommended that accountability to the Secretary of State should be retained under new arrangements. The review of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act left open the question of accountability under the new arrangements. As I have already indicated on previous amendments, in view of the strength of feeling expressed on this issue, we intend to consult on the basis of retaining Privy Council accountability for the CPSM's successor body.
On 9th February I announced the publication, with a government response, of the independent report of the review of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act. One of the main recommendations, which we: accept, is that the dual regulatory structure of a council and four national boards be replaced with a new UK-wide body, with ultimate responsibility for regulating the professions, and that national arrangements be made in respect of some functions previously carried out by the boards. The Government response to the report was issued with a health service circular inviting views, particularly on a number of issues of detail. Following consultation on specific proposals for new legislation, we propose to bring forward new legislation to replace the current arrangements.
We have therefore brought forward an amendment which allows for the repeal of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act once new arrangements are in place. It should be noted that the successor body to the UKCC will be subject to the same protection under the order-making power as the remaining regulatory bodies: the four fundamental functions will not be able to be transferred from the successor body, it will not be able to be abolished, and a lay majority will not be able to be imposed.

931
It might also be helpful to note that although the intention to repeal both the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act are included within the same subsection, this in no way prevents their repeal at different times. That means that the repeals can be made as and when the replacement legislation is ready to be brought into effect. We have already provided that the power may not be used to abolish the existing main regulatory bodies, and I have been quite clear that such action should require primary legislation. I explained in Committee that this is the reason that the Bill itself provides for repeal of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act. These amendments ensure that the same provision applies to the regulatory bodies that succeed the CPSM and the UKCC and to any other main regulatory body established by an order; that is, it will not be possible to abolish these bodies by order.
Perhaps the most strongly argued issue in Committee was that of the protection of the four fundamental functions. We have brought forward an amendment (Amendment No. 95) which will prevent the order-making power from removing the four fundamental functions from the relevant regulatory body except, of course, the CPSM and UKCC, which we are to replace. However, the provision safeguarding these functions would then apply to the successor bodies to the CPSM and UKCC and to the regulatory body of any further professions regulated by order in future. These four fundamental functions are essential to what we understand as professional self-regulation: keeping the register; setting the standards of education for entry into the profession; the provision of guidance on standards of professional conduct; and fitness to practise procedures. We believe that the responsibility for them should not be removed by order—such a measure could only be taken through primary legislation.
I shall now deal with Amendments Nos. 106 and 107. Section 10 of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act enables new professions to be brought within the umbrella of the CPSM. There are several professions which have made petitions to be included under the CPSM and those are being considered. However, the order-making power makes Section 10 of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 redundant, as Clause 47 can be used to bring new professions into the CPSM. Perhaps more importantly, it enables such new professions to be regulated on a UK-wide basis, whereas Section 10 cannot do so in a post-devolution world, where the regulation of these new professions is not a reserved matter. Under Clause 48(7) a draft of such an order will have to be laid before, and approved by resolution of, the Scottish Parliament, in addition to the UK Parliament. Section 10 will therefore be repealed immediately on enactment of this Bill.
Amendment No. 98 removes the definition of "professional body" because it is no longer required. With the amendment of paragraph 8, the phrase does not need to be defined.
932
With reference to Amendment No. 92 on the charging of fees, this amendment is consequential on the removal of the definition of "professional body". Paragraph 4 ensures that provision can be made for new professional self-regulatory bodies to be given the financial independence which the other statutory regulatory bodies enjoy through the charging of fees for registration and certification, or indeed for any other services they provide.
I should make clear that repealing this Act would not affect the reserved status of the regulation of nurses, midwives and health visitors.
I hope that what we have done in bringing forward these amendments has properly covered the concerns raised both by the professions and by Members of this House. I beg to move.
9.15 pm
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, following certain activities behind the scenes in this House, the noble Baroness the Minister might well regard me as a "PMM". Neither of the M's stands for "medicine" or "medical"—they stand for "parliamentary moaning Minnie". Therefore, I must begin my comments by thanking the noble Baroness for answering my moans. She did so, first, in a private letter to me on the subject of the late arrival of information from the department, for which I am truly grateful. I readily accept her information and explanation. Secondly, I received, as I suspect many noble Lords did, what was essentially a Keeling schedule to this enormous group of amendments, for which, incidentally, (another slight moan) I did not hear the noble Baroness apologise. The amendments could happily have been split up into more digestible groups. Another "mini moan" is that Amendment No. 85 pre-empts my Amendment No. 86. That is why I have risen to speak on this group of amendments. No one bothered to tell me—no one from the department, the Whip's Office, the Public Bill Office, the Minister's private office or anywhere else, or indeed my noble friend on the Front Bench. Your Lordships are all guilty.
There is a very serious point in Amendment No. 85 and my Amendment No. 86. Amendment No. 88, of course, is consequential and the noble Baroness will have been briefed on that subject.
The Explanatory Notes on the Bill point out that Clause 47 provides,
"for Her Majesty by Order in Council to modify the regulation of pharmacists, doctors, dentists, opticians, osteopaths, chiropractors and nurses, midwives and health visitors",
all of which are currently registered and controlled under Act of Parliament.
Paragraph 256 of the Explanatory Notes goes on to state:
"However, the scope of the order-making power is not limited to those Acts".
My hackles immediately rose. We are talking about two sorts of professions. In all the documents I have ever seen, the noble Baroness and the department have talked only about what might be described as professions

933
supplementary to medicine. The noble Baroness has not talked about alternative therapies. And I am very worried about the control of alternative therapies.
There was a very good reason for the control of chiropractors and osteopaths by Act of Parliament. First, it was the only way at that stage of regulating them, and I readily accept that. The other reason is that noble Lords and Members of another place had views on how the registration should be conducted. If my memory serves me right, there was alteration to the Government's original plans by Members of both Houses of Parliament during the passage of those Acts.
As I read the Bill, under the current proposals in the noble Baroness's enormous group of amendments it will be possible to regulate other alternative therapies by order. The noble Baroness is nodding so I assume that I have got that right.
In Committee, I questioned whether that was desirable. I chose the illustration then of the acupuncturist, who must be in the list to which the noble Baroness referred a few moments ago. When I mentioned acupuncturists in Committee, the noble Baroness gave a speedy reply, totally ignoring that point. She said:
"It might well be that a profession joins a successor body of the CPSM. At the moment it is possible, by secondary legislation, for a new profession to be regulated for the first time. It has been done with the art therapists recently".
Art therapy is non-invasive and, with the best will in the world, cannot be described as an alternative therapy. The noble Baroness went on to say:
"There are now three applications to the Privy Council including one from clinical scientists". —[Official Report, 4/3/99; col. 1804.]
That again is something which is readily understood and accepted by the medical profession. But there are other therapies of various kinds—for example, reflexology and aromatherapy—all of which, if badly conducted, could cause injury resulting in hospitalisation for the patient who has voluntarily undergone the therapy and paid for it.
I do not believe it is right that such therapies should be considered as professions supplementary to medicine, which is what the Bill, even as about to be amended, gives the impression will be the situation. The noble Baroness shakes her head. I am sure that she will shortly explain at length why I am wrong and why I should sit down and shut up.
In her introduction to this group of amendments, the noble Baroness said something about Scotland which worries me even more. One of the amendments to which she spoke concerns the new Scottish Parliament "doing its own thing". That is all very well and, as I understand it, that provision is already established in law under the Scotland Act. But could the position ultimately be different either side of the Border? In other words, am I more likely to go to an alternative therapist and end up in hospital as a result of mal-treatment on one side of the border than the other? If that is the case, it must
934
be totally wrong. I believe that I have said enough to prove my point and so I shall now, as I said, sit down and shut up.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, for the benefit of my noble friend, and to save time, perhaps I may put on record my gratitude to the Scottish Office Minister for clarifying the point to which my noble friend has referred. I have had several letters from him and have asked further questions. I quote from his last letter, which puts the matter very clearly:
"The Scottish Parliament will … have no legislative powers whatsoever in this area [of regulation] either over existing bodies or any self-regulatory bodies which might be set up after 1 July 1999".
The noble Lord goes on to explain that that does not rule out the possibility that the Scots Parliament could have an interest in professional self-regulation when it touches on matters to be devolved, but that in those circumstances there would have to be close consultation between the Scots Parliament and the Westminster Parliament. I have satisfied myself and those with whom I have discussed the matter that there is no question of any regulation or alteration to regulation being devolved; it is all in Schedule 5 to the Scotland Act and will be done at Westminster.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, at Second Reading and in Committee I expressed some concern about the provisions of the Bill relating to the regulation of various professions, the regulation of which at present is enshrined in individual Acts, such as the Medical Act, the Dentists Act and many more. I am happy to say that the amendments which have now been tabled by the noble Baroness on behalf of the Government have met the concerns of those professional bodies. It seems to me and the organisations that I have consulted that by these amendments the Government have walked that important and difficult tightrope between, on the one hand, enabling order-making powers to be used to modify in some respects a few of the functions of these regulating authorities and, on the other hand, leaving their basic structures and functions intact. The evidence from each of these organisations, not least the General Medical Council and the General Dental Council, is that they are very satisfied with these amendments and commend them.
I comment briefly on the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale. I had the privilege of sponsoring the Osteopaths Bill and the Chiropractors Bill in this House. I did so following the reports of the King's Fund upon these particular professions. Like the King's Fund and the inquiry that it sponsored, I was satisfied that those professions had developed a formal training programme of adequate length and content such that those with the protected title of chiropractor and osteopath had been sufficiently well trained for the protection of the public.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is absolutely right. There are many other professions in the field of complementary medicine that would welcome the opportunity of self-regulation. But as yet relatively few of them have achieved the standing and recognition in training and other matters that is sufficient in my view

935
at least—I speak as a member of the Council of the Foundation for Integrated Medicine established by the Prince of Wales—to seek self-regulation. I believe that that time will come. It may well be that under order-making powers it is proper for them to be included in the body that will subsequently succeed the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act. But in the meantime I commend these amendments which I believe answer the anxieties of the existing regulatory bodies. I congratulate the Government upon the skill with which they have tabled these amendments.
9.30 p. m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Walton, sits down perhaps I may put one question. Does he believe that the alternative therapies that are in the queue, albeit, as he said, a very long way off, can be happily regulated by order as opposed to Act of Parliament?
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, that is certainly my belief.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, the Minister always presents her case so reasonably and with such charm. Clearly, she has taken a great deal of trouble over these amendments and therefore it seems positively churlish even to raise a slight query. Nevertheless, I do so. I fear that I shall join that select group of parliamentary moaning minnies to which my noble friend belongs. Is it not true that, even though these powers are now hedged about in a way that they were not before, a determined Secretary of State still has considerable powers to bring forward changes that it is hoped will be agreed with the professions concerned, but may not be? Does she agree that when we are faced with an order that must be accepted by both Houses or rejected entirely the Secretary of State is still left with a considerable amount of power? That is the purpose of my rising to speak now. Quite a number of powers remain, do they not?
Baroness Emerton: My Lords, I too thank the Minister for the way in which she introduced this set of amendments. I join my noble friend Lord Walton in saying that the nursing profession is very pleased by the way in which these amendments together answer its queries on the order-making powers.
As to Amendment No. 79C, the profession is concerned about one matter in particular and asks the Minister to clarify it. It concerns the functions set out in the schedule. Standards for professional conduct could be set out. At present there is reference to administering procedures. Amendment No. 79C gives a wide scope. Therefore the profession is anxious that the standards for professional conduct could be better provided for than by using the word "administering". I ask the Minister to clarify that point which was raised during Second Reading. I was not present, unfortunately, at Second Reading but have read the debate in Hansard.
936
I congratulate the Minister on achieving the balance between flexibility and safeguards which is extremely difficult in such legislation.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I, too, wish to join the noble Lord, Lord Walton of Detchant, in thanking my noble friend and the department for producing what appears to be an extremely satisfactory regime. It may be my inadequacy, but I wish to ask my noble friend two minor questions and one of more significance.
Am I right to believe that Amendment No. 96 is a transition facility or arrangement enabling the current regime to continue while the new regulatory system is formulated and brought into play? Am I also right to think that the middle paragraph of Amendment No. 94 applies to midwives? As my noble friend said in Committee, a committee consisting of a majority of registered midwives could deal with the self-regulatory aspects of midwifery.
The more substantial question relates to Amendment No. 87 which will result in the repeal of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997. Section 16 of that Act states that:
"A person other than a registered midwife or a registered medical practitioner shall not attend a woman in childbirth".
I am sure the whole House will agree that that is an important safeguard for expectant mothers. It is late at night and I shall not delay the House with a list of horrendous situations which have occurred in the past where a woman in childbirth has not been attended by a midwife or doctor.
I have two questions. First, under this Bill will the Government have the power to enshrine in law the Section 16 provision of that Act? Secondly, and almost inconsequentially but hoping for a positive reply, is it the Government's intention to enshrine in law such a provision if they have the ability?
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add the appreciation of these Benches for the fact that the Minister has brought forward the amendments and responded so comprehensively to the concerns of the professions and their regulatory bodies. As the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, reminded us, there are still considerable powers under the Bill for the Secretary of State. We on these Benches believe that the amendments go a long way towards mitigating those powers. We welcome them.
However, there are still some concerns by the profession about the way in which the safeguards will work. The Minister went some way towards answering them, but perhaps I may replay one or two in order to make sure that we on these Benches have understood her reply. The noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, raised the issues of importance to the chiropodists. Others in the professions allied to medicine also have concerns about not being too narrowly confined, in terms of uni-professional majority to fitness to practice, but also involved is the whole issue of education standards, the validation of courses and entry to the profession. Those professions will appreciate the Minister's assurance about securing proper individual

937
contributions from those professions in the debate as we go forward. One cannot anticipate the result of those consultations.
A further question for the professions allied to medicine relates to the role of the Privy Council. I understood the Minister to say that she will be consulting on the basis of the retention of that Privy Council role. That will be much appreciated.
A further question surrounds the combination of the effect of Amendments Nos. 95 and 97. The wording is difficult and confusing, but I understood the Minister to say that, although in the first instance one must jump over the hurdle of those Acts, successor bodies will be protected. Therefore, it will not be possible to have their functions transferred by order, even though it will be possible for the UKCC and the CPSM.
Furthermore, there is the issue of devolution and the regulation of professions. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, was clear in her understanding, I am not sure that my own understanding is quite so clear. It is important that the Minister confirms to the more confused of us that, despite the repeal of the 1960 and 1970 Acts, the professions currently covered by them will continue to be regulated on a UK-wide basis.
Another concern is that if the healthcare assistants are brought into a regulatory scheme, that is not reserved. Therefore, there would have to be agreement by the Scottish Parliament to any joint UK regulation of that set of staff in the health service.
The noble Baroness answered the question about the timing of the repeals. I understand that one can have a different appointed day for elements of a particular subsection. It would be helpful to have confirmation of that.
Finally, I make a cognate point to that raised by the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, about the committee of a newly constituted UKCC or successor body. It would be helpful for the noble Baroness to reconfirm her understanding of the state of play so far. For instance, will it be an equally balanced body between nurses and midwives? If so, it may well be unnecessary for there to be a committee. If it is not balanced, a committee, that uni-professional majority which deals with issues such as entry to the profession, will be necessary. It would be helpful if the Minister, even at this late hour, were able to throw a little more light on that aspect.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I have little to add to what other noble Lords have said. The amendments represent a very satisfactory resolution of the difficulties highlighted at Second Reading and in Committee. The Minister deserves our thanks for all that she has done. I beg to differ slightly from my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale because I do not believe that any apology from the Minister is called for after all the hard work that she has done.
My only question relates to Amendment No. 79C. I have been asked by the Association of Optometrists to obtain an assurance from the Minister. As the Government say in their Explanatory Notes to the Bill, the purpose of professional regulation is to set a standard of conduct and competence for each profession
938
which protects the public. By implication, the purpose of the order-making power in Clause 47, as amended, is not only to keep the legislative framework surrounding the professions up to date but also to strengthen that legislative framework. That was a point which the Minister made this evening.
Therefore, will the Minister respond to the concern expressed to me by the Association of Optometrists that the order-making power in Clause 47 and Schedule 3 will be used essentially to preserve and develop the statutory regulation of health professions and that, in particular, it will not be used to reduce the responsibility of the profession for a particular reserved activity such as the testing of eyesight?
9.45 p. m.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale mentioned alternative medicine, which I use very readily. I felt that he cast aspersions—twice in fact. He said that often people, having been to alternative medicine therapists, then needed "proper" help from the NHS. I believe that that needs to be looked at.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I must interrupt my noble friend on that. I said that intervention by alternative therapists could—and I stress "could"— result in hospitalisation. I gave three examples of which I had personal knowledge where that was the result. That is most certainly not to say anything damning about alternative medicine therapies. Not only have I used many of them myself, but I was also the Minister responsible for them when I was at that department at the relevant time.
Lord Rowallan: My Lords, I am delighted to accept my noble friend's assurance on that. I have certainly come across many cases where the opposite was the case. People have found great help from one of those alternative medicine therapies.
Further to that, such therapies have existed for a very long time indeed. I have spoken to therapists although only in Scotland, because that is where I live. However, they have led me to believe that they would all be more than happy to welcome self-regulation, compulsory if necessary. There would be little argument from them on that. I believe that it is an extremely good idea. I certainly welcome the amendments which the Minister has brought forward.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for their generous acceptance of the fact that we have tried hard with these amendments. I say first to the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, that I accept her point absolutely. There are still considerable powers given to the Secretary of State under secondary legislation. The Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee and those who have participated in the debates have recognised that if the order-making power were to be effective to do that which the profession wants it to da— for example, to provide a successor body for the CPSM

939
and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act and to allow sensible and flexible changes in the regulation of the professions—it had to be a substantive power.
The argument has always been to make sure that that power was not untrammelled and that the appropriate safeguards were built in. Our concern has been to ensure that we strike what I think the noble Baroness referred to as the balance between flexibility and the safeguards. The reaction of the professions indicates that we have managed to do that in the numerous changes which have laid me open to the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, of having too many amendments at one time. I understand that that makes it difficult for noble Lords.
Perhaps I may deal with one or two specific points raised in the course of the debate. I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Emerton, as I tried to make clear in Committee, that I share her concern about the word "administering" not seeming to be particularly clear. It is simply a matter of drafting and covers the issues upon which she had concerns.
In dealing with nurses, midwives and health visitors, perhaps I can answer the questions about the transitional nature—if I can put it that way—of some of the amendments relating to UKCC and CPSM, particularly concerning Amendments Nos. 96 and 97.
In drafting the government amendments on this issue, we have had to balance the need to protect the fundamental functions in respect of the professions supplementary to medicine and the nurses, midwives and health visitors with a need to replace the current bodies. It has not proved possible to draft provisions which would both secure these functions to the CPSM and UKCC and allow us to transfer them to successor bodies, but although in theory we could, therefore, transfer the four core functions to another body—I make it absolutely clear that the Government have no intention so to do—I would like to give the clearest of undertakings on this point. We framed the amendment in order to allow for the transition from the current to the successor bodies which will, of course, have those core functions protected. We shall not remove the four core functions from the CPSM or the UKCC, except to transfer them to the successor bodies when the orders creating those successors come into effect.
On the issues relating to midwifery, perhaps I could reassure my noble friend on the absolutely basic point that it is, and will remain, an offence for anyone who is not a midwife or a doctor to attend a woman in childbirth other than in an emergency. I would also like to reassure him that we value the independent practice of midwives and have no intention of diluting it. In consulting on our proposals for replacing the current Act, we have made it clear that the new council will have a duty to make rules on the midwifery practice and will have a continuing responsibility for the statutory supervision of midwives.
Midwives will have a decisive voice in these arrangements because we intend to provide that matters solely affecting their profession cannot be determined
940
on the votes of other professions or lay members. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, will find that reassuring, bearing in mind the questions that he asked.
As regards the question from the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on optometrists, we intend to use the power to strengthen professional self-regulation. It is not our aim to preserve the roles of the existing professions which, quite rightly, develop over time. Our aim must be to ensure that any professional is properly trained to carry out procedures and that they maintain their competence. That is very much the purpose behind these provisions.
Perhaps I can also reiterate to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that I believe that I made clear the position with the Privy Council and the CPSM and the reserve nature of the professions supplementary to medicine and nurses, midwives and health visitors.
That brings us to the Scottish issues to which reference has been made. All professions regulated under statute as at 1st July 1999 are considered to be reserved to the UK Parliament. Professions seeking statutory regulation after that date will need the approval of the Scottish Parliament to come into a UK-wide scheme, but it is not possible to change the UK-wide powers and the reserved nature of the powers for the existing professions.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. Perhaps I may take the purely hypothetical example of the reflexologists. If a UK-wide scheme is proposed from Whitehall, that is fine. The Scots can either accept it or reject it. If, however, the idea comes from Scotland, are the Scots then allowed to do their own thing? Equally, if it comes from Whitehall, are they allowed to say no?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, perhaps I may deal with the regulation of new professions, which was the main issue to which the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred. I was not quite sure whether the noble Lord was concerned that a new profession could be regulated by order only as part of the successor body to Professions Supplementary to Medicine or whether he was concerned with what is in fact the case, which is that a separate, free-standing regulatory scheme can be provided for by order which will include the four main functions.
Perhaps I may clarify the position. Both situations are possible under the order-making power. There is a precedent for one in that it has been possible by secondary legislation to add professions to the Professions Supplementary to Medicine. It will be an innovation to be able to regulate a new profession by an order-making power.
We believe—the noble Lord, Lord Walton, confirmed that it was also his belief—that, given the very detailed nature of the consultation that would take place, the laying of the draft orders and the consultation upon them, that is an appropriate way to deal with those groups. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to alternative therapists. Psychologists spring to mind as a group that might seek professional regulation. We

941
believe that there are sufficient safeguards to make this an appropriate way forward, but the noble Lord may not share that view.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, what springs to the mind of the noble Baroness is somewhat different from what springs to my mind. As the noble Baroness has mentioned psychologists, which profession is very close—
Earl Howe: My Lords, we are on Report.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I know, but the noble Baroness gave way.
As the noble Baroness mentioned psychologists, who are very close to the established medical profession, that is fair enough, but others are very worried about, for example, psychotherapists, who are very akin to them, although the psychologists regard them as very much a lower form of animal.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, whatever the profession—or the putative profession—concerned, there will be the opportunity to debate whether it is appropriate for it to be given professional self-regulation and the status of a profession that regulates itself. We shall have those debates with each group with which it seems appropriate to deal. I do not think that we can anticipate that. We have to decide whether it is appropriate, with the order-making power, to include new professions either within the new umbrella organisation that will replace the UKCC or in a separate free-standing regulatory scheme. The latter is the proposal which is envisaged in the Bill and I think that it is the appropriate one.
I turn now to the related devolution issues. If an order is made for a profession not reserved to the UK Parliament under the Scotland Act 1998—that is, those that are already regulated—and the proposal comes from Whitehall, to use the noble Lord's formulation, the Secretary of State must also lay the order before the Scottish Parliament. It must be approved by resolution of the Scottish Parliament before he can recommend to Her Majesty that the order be made for the whole of the United Kingdom. If within Scotland anew profession wants to be regulated on its own or refuses to be regulated with England and Wales, equally that will be a matter for the Scottish Parliament. So, there is an alternative approach for the new professions.
It is unlikely that Scotland would want to go ahead alone, for example, with the reflexologists. We would hope that both administrations would consider the issue in tandem and agree the best way forward. Our overall aim must be the protection of patients, wherever they live and wherever they are treated. That is the rationale for professional regulation being a reserved matter. We are dealing with the fact that we may have a changing situation. But I hope that that changing situation will be dealt with on a common basis and a common approach.
I hope that I have covered most of the points that were raised in the debate. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
10 p. m.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 80 to 85:
Page 38, line 17, leave out from ("any") to end of line and insert ("other profession which appears to Her to be concerned (wholly or partly) with the physical or mental health of individuals and to require regulation in pursuance of this section. '").
Page 38, line 18, leave out ("those") and insert—
("(a) the professions").
Page 38, line 20, after ("1993") insert ("and").
Page 38, line 21, leave out first ("and") and insert—
("(b) the professions regulated by").
Page 38, line 21, at end insert—
("
(c) the professions regulated by the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960,
(d) any other profession regulated by an Order in Council under this section. ").
Page 38, line 22, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the leave of the House I shall move Amendments Nos. 80 to 85 en bloc. I beg to move.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 38, line 29, leave out ("is") and insert ("and the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997 are").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Regulation of health care and associated professions]:
[Amendments Nos. 88 and 89 not moved.]
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 51, leave out lines 21 to 23.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, on this amendment I shall lead in place of my noble friend Lord Skelmersdale. I should emphasise that I do not approach this issue from any expertise in health matters. I should perhaps also say that I regret that this amendment "slipped through my net" at Committee; I suspect that it would have been more appropriate to debate it at that time. While in no way excusing my lapse, I offer by way of token defence the fact that it may also have escaped the attention of other noble Lords.
As the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation observes, the effect of paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 is to make the order-making power contained in Clause 47 a Henry VIII power. My limited experience of your Lordships' House advises me that, with every justification, we are always nervous of such powers being granted to Ministers. As my noble friend Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish commented in debate only yesterday, it was this House that set up the Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee to examine primary legislation and to be particularly vigilant on Henry VIII clauses.
Of course, the real difficulty here is the generally agreed perception that neither House is in a position to

943
scrutinise secondary legislation properly. The order-making power on the face of the Bill of,
"amending or repealing any enactment…or prerogative instrument and any other instrument or document",
creates the position where secondary legislation can be used to amend primary legislation. At any time that is a dangerous precedent. Indeed, as the Minister herself said earlier, it is important to ensure that these wide-ranging powers on the face of the Bill are not untrammelled.
As a matter of principle, Henry VIII clauses sit very uneasily with me, the more so because I simply cannot see the justification for such in this instance. That may well be my own failing. However, I hope that the Minister can elucidate the matter for me. The Explanatory Memorandum offers no assistance. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, my noble friend has virtually said it all. However, I shall read from page 6 of the 7th Report from the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation which says, at paragraph 30:
"The Committee wishes to draw the attention of the House to its recommendations concerning the lack of Parliamentary control over the creation of Primary Care Trusts"—
in which we are not presently interested—
"the provisions in the Bill for pharmaceutical price regulation"—
with which we dealt with a little earlier—"and", most importantly,
"the provision enabling the Queen to regulate health care and associated professions by Order in Council (Clause 47 and Schedule 3)".
In this case, Schedule 3 gives the nuts and bolts, as schedules are wont to do, for Clause 47. I feel it necessary to repeat my question. I have had an answer from the noble Lord, Lord Walton, but I have not really heard an answer from the Minister. Are such wide ranging powers appropriate for secondary legislation?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, the noble Earl and the noble Lord have raised a fundamental issue. It is a fundamental issue that I tried to address on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. The reason for taking these powers and suggesting that they are appropriate is very much the need to be able to protect patients by being able to provide strong and effective professional self regulation. We need to be able to do that not only in theory but also in practice. The delay that has taken place in terms of waiting for primary legislative slots to do something as simple, for example, as increasing the number of lay members of the General Dental Council as well as something as substantial as replacing the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 has been the motivation for the professions being willing and, I believe, from their reaction this evening, welcoming of a properly constrained order-making power in this respect.
The amendment before us would prevent the order-making power being used to amend any current legislation. I appreciate the concerns that have been raised in general, in principle and, indeed, specifically. However, when one looks carefully at the report of the
944
Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation, it will be seen that it recognised the need for such a power in this case if appropriately safeguarded.
We had a very helpful debate in Committee on our intentions as regards the power and on the safeguards and limitations that were needed to reassure Parliament and the professions of those good intentions. We have taken note of what has been said at the various stages of the Bill, the concerns raised by the professions and the recommendations of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Deregulation. I hope that noble Lords will agree that we now have provisions that strike the appropriate balance between flexibility and safeguards and which allow us to make progress in what is a very important area.
We are not taking these powers for the sake of it; indeed, we are taking them because we need to work with the professions to strengthen professional self-regulation in a way that will protect patients. I hope that the government amendments brought forward today—and, in the case of consultation, to be brought forward at a future stage—will reassure the House and the professions that we have taken care to ensure that the safeguards and limitations on the use of this power are sufficient to meet the concerns that have been expressed. Indeed, I trust that the noble Earl and the noble Lord will not feel it necessary to press the amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the Minister for that explanation. However, I still remain extremely concerned because we are, to a certain extent, being asked to legislate in the dark. One of the fundamental features which brought this matter to my attention was the considerable reference in Committee by the noble Baroness to the fact that everything that the Government intend to do is not on the face of the Bill. Therefore, the fundamental issue of being required to legislate in the dark remains; indeed, it remains to worry me deeply. None the less, I shall read the Minister's response with extreme care. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 91 to 96:
Page 51, leave out lines 25 to 27.
Page 51, line 37, leave out from second ("the") to end of line 38 and insert ("charging of fees").
Page 52. line 3, leave out ("47(1)(a)") and insert ("47(2)(a)").
Page 52, line 3. at end insert (", any regulatory body established by an Order as the successor to the Council for Professions Supplementary to Medicine or the United Kingdom Central Council for Nursing, Midwifery and Health Visiting or any other regulatory body established by an Order.
( ) An Order may not impose any requirement which would have the effect that a majority of the members of the regulatory body of any profession would be persons not included in the register of members admitted to practice.
( ) An Order may not provide for any function conferred on the Privy Council, in relation to any profession to which section 47(2)(a) applies, to be exercised by a different person. ").
Page 52, line 4, leave out from ("provides") to ("to") in line 7 and insert ("in relation to any profession, for any function mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) to be exercised by the regulatory body or any of its committees or officers, an Order may not provide for any person other than that regulatory body or any of its committees or officers").
Page 52, leave out line 14 and insert—
("( ) In sub-paragraph (1), "enactment" does not include any enactment contained in or made under the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 or the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Act 1997").
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Wilcox Baroness Wilcox moved Amendment No. 96A:
Page 52, line 20. at end insert—
("( ) consult representatives of patients and carers; and
( ) consult any other persons he considers appropriate. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall withdraw this amendment. I tabled Amendment No. 96A because in response to my amendment at Committee stage the Minister indicated her intention to put a broader requirement to consult on the face of the Bill. It was disappointing indeed to note that no amendment had been tabled by the Minister at this point despite the fact that she had tabled a number of other amendments. I wondered whether I would get this amendment past her this evening because all I have done is to redraft it in a way that I hoped would be attractive to her. However, I was delighted to hear her say that this was a matter of timing, not of intent, and that was the reason she had not tabled an amendment. That is an honest revelation for which I am grateful. I fully understand the pressures of time which impinge on her. The enormous sweep of this Bill—some would say that it is too enormous—makes it a complex Bill with many audiences to satisfy from management and organisation right through to the crucial relationship between professionals and the people they serve. I look forward to seeing an amendment at the next stage of the Bill. With the Minister's encouragement, I beg to move.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am grateful for the comments of the noble Baroness and for her stated intention to withdraw the amendment. I reiterate my desire to fulfil her aspirations.
Baroness Wilcox: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 97 and 98:
Page 52, line 23, after ("appropriate, ") insert ("together with a report about the consultation, ").
Page 52, leave out lines 30 to 32.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 99 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Regulations and orders]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 100:
Page 39, line 7, at end insert—
("( ) No order is to be made under section 30(6) unless a draft has been laid before, and approved by resolution of, each House of Parliament. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendment No. 101:
After Clause 49, insert the following new clause—
INTERPRETATION
(". In this Act—
"the 1977 Act" means the National Health Service Act 1977,
"the 1990 Act" means the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990,
"the Commission" means the Commission for Health Improvement,
"enactment" includes an enactment whenever passed or made. ").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Amendments of enactments]:
[Amendment No. 102 not moved.]
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 102A, 102B and 102C:
Page 55, line 2, at end insert—
(". In section 29A(3)(b) of the 1977 Act (medical lists), for the words from first "disqualified" to "46" there is substituted "disqualified for inclusion in the list by, or by virtue of a direction of, the NHS Tribunal".
In section 48 (disqualification provisions in Scotland or Northern Ireland)—

(a) in paragraph (a), for the words from "services" to "above" there is substituted "any of the services mentioned in any of the paragraphs of section 46(5) above",

(b) in paragraph (b), at the beginning, there is inserted "in relation to the services in question" and for the words from "a list" to the end there is substituted "any list and (if also the subject of a declaration under those provisions corresponding to a declaration of unfitness) be treated as if a declaration of unfitness had been made in respect of him.

(2) Where under the conditional disqualification provisions in Scotland or Northern Ireland—

(a) any conditions are imposed in relation to the provision by any person of any services mentioned in section 46(5) above, or

(b) any conditions so imposed are varied, the Secretary of State may, by a notice in writing given to each Health Authority and to the person in question, impose those conditions in relation to the provision by that person of those services under this Pan of this Act.

(3) A notice under subsection (2) above may make such modifications of the conditions as the Secretary of State considers necessary for them to have the like effect in relation to England and Wales as they have in relation to Scotland or (as the case may be) Northern Ireland, but only if the Secretary of State has previously given the person concerned written notice of the proposed modifications and an opportunity (in accordance with such requirements, if any, as may be prescribed) to make representations about them.
(4) Conditions imposed by a notice under subsection (2) above shall cease to have effect if the Secretary of State withdraws the notice by giving written notice to the person concerned.
(5) In this section, "the conditional disqualification provisions in Scotland or Northern Ireland" means any provisions in force in Scotland or Northern Ireland corresponding to sections 46C and (so far as relating to conditional disqualifications) 47 above. "
. In section 49 (regulations as to sections 46 to 48)—

(a) in paragraph (c), after "disqualifications"' there is inserted "or conditions",

(b) at the end of that section there is inserted—

947
"(2) Regulations under subsection (l)(a) above may in particular provide that, where (apart from the regulations) it would be the duty of the Tribunal to inquire into both an efficiency case and a fraud case in respect of the same person, they may inquire into one case before inquiring into the other and, after proceedings in the first case are finally disposed of, may if they think it appropriate adjourn the other case indefinitely. "
In section 49A (application for interim suspension)—

(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—

"(1A) A Health Authority may, if they have requested a review of a conditional disqualification on the ground mentioned in section 47(3)(b) or (c) above, at any time before the review is concluded apply to the Tribunal for a direction to be made under subsection (2) below in relation to the person to whom the review relates",.
(b) in subsection (2), for the words from "it" to "patients" there is substituted "either of the conditions for doing so is satisfied" and after "in question" there is inserted "or the case to which the review in question, ",
(c) after that subsection there is inserted—
"(2A) The conditions for giving such a direction are—

(a) that it is necessary to do so in order to protect persons who are, or may be, provided with services under this Part of this Act to which the case in question, or the case to which the review in question, relates,

(b) in, or in the case of a review relating to, a fraud case, that unless they do so there is a significant risk that—

(i) an act or omission within section 46(4C)(a) above will occur, or

(ii) the investigation of the case or the review will be prejudiced",.

(d) in subsection (3)", for the words from "under" to "engaged in" there is substituted "of unfitness in relation to".
(e) in subsection (4), after "case" there is inserted "or review",
(f) subsection (5) is omitted,
(g) in subsection (6)(a), "prepared under this Part of this Act" is omitted.
. In section 49B (continuation of suspension pending appeal)—

(a) for subsection (1) and the preceding sidenote there is substituted—

Suspension pending appeal
"49B. — (1) Where, on disposing of a case under section 46B above, the Tribunal disqualify the person concerned under subsection (2)(b) of that section, they may, if they consider that either of the conditions mentioned in section 49A(2A) above is satisfied, direct that section 49A(3) above shall apply or, if a direction has been given under section 49A(2) above, shall continue to apply to him as respects services of the kind to which the disqualification relates. ",.
(b) in subsection (2), in paragraph (a), for "direction under section 46(2)(b) above" there is substituted "disqualification under section 46B(2)(b) above" and, in paragraph (b), for "that direction" there is substituted "the disqualification",
(c) in subsection (3), for the words from "direction" to "section 46(2)(c) above" there is substituted "disqualification which is not coupled with a declaration of unfitness",
(d) subsection (4) is omitted.
. In section 49D (suspension provisions in Scotland or Northern Ireland), for "46(1)" there is substituted "46(5)". ").
Page 56, line 25, at end insert—
(". In section 122(2) (recovery of charges), "as a simple contract debt" is omitted. ").
Page 57, line 31, at end insert—
(". In Schedule 9 (NHS Tribunal), in paragraph 5A—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2)(a), for "section 46" there is substituted "sections 46 to 46C",

(b) in sub-paragraph (2)(b), after "disqualification" there is inserted "conditional disqualification or declaration of unfitness",

(c) in sub-paragraph (2)(d), for the words from "the application" to the end there is substituted "section 49A(3) may be made to apply or continue to apply". ").

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 102D:
Page 58, leave out line 16 and insert—
("(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) after paragraph (a) there is inserted—

"(aa) Special Health Boards;",

(ii) after paragraph (k) there is inserted—

"(ka) Primary Care Trusts established under section 16A of the National Health Service Act 1977;",.

(iii) paragraphs (d) and (j) are omitted, and").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments in my name to Schedules 4 and 5 make minor and consequential changes to ensure that all Scottish National Health Service bodies are able to make service agreements with each other and with relevant bodies, such as the new English primary care trusts, outwith Scotland. They also tidy up paragraph 41 of Schedule 4. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does that mean that the internal market continues?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: No, my Lords.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 102E:
Page 59, line 6, after (""or") insert ("Health").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Repeals]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 103A:
Page 64, line 48, column 3, after (""or") insert ("Health")
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 51 [Devolution]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 104 and 105:
Page 39, line 37, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(4)")
Page 39, leave out line 39.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 52 [Commencement]:
Baroness Hayman Baroness Hayman moved Amendments Nos. 106 and 107:
Page 40, line 16, after ("Act") insert ("(including the Schedules)").
Page 40, line 19, at end insert—
("( ) Subsection (1) does not apply to the repeal of section 10 of the Professions Supplementary to Medicine Act 1960 (power to extend or restrict application of Act), which accordingly comes into force on the day on which this Act is passed. ").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I cannot let the day go without congratulating the noble Baroness on her
950
enormous stamina. When I criticised her a little while ago for her voice fading I said at that time, if I recall correctly, that I was not in the least surprised. I would be well under floor level, not to say Guy Fawkes level, by this time of night were I in her position. My only reason for speaking in that vein was to have the acoustics improved by the magic intervention of those who manage the acoustics system in your Lordships' House. I must say that I achieved my objective and it was absolutely no slight on the noble Baroness.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at a quarter past ten o'clock.

  Millennium Date Change
  Millennium Date Change
  Developing Countries: Debt
  Developing Countries: Debt
  Euro
  Euro
  Buxton Memorial Fountain
  Buxton Memorial Fountain
  Hyde Park: North Carriage Drive Closure
  Hyde Park: North Carriage Drive Closure
  The Mall: Closure
  The Mall: Closure
  North Durham Healthcare Trust
  North Durham Healthcare Trust
  Culmore Landfill Site
  Culmore Landfill Site
  Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty: Destruction of Nuclear Warheads
  Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty: Destruction of Nuclear Warheads
  Menwith Hill: US Forces
  Menwith Hill: US Forces
  Iraq: Rules of Engagement
  Iraq: Rules of Engagement
  Millennium Experience: Ticket Prices
  Millennium Experience: Ticket Prices
  Government Departments: Sponsorship
  Government Departments: Sponsorship
  Scottish Parliament Election Campaign: Rules for Special Advisers
  Scottish Parliament Election Campaign: Rules for Special Advisers
  Peers: Appointments to Public Bodies
  Peers: Appointments to Public Bodies
  UK Fleet: Tonnage Increases
  UK Fleet: Tonnage Increases
  Countryside: Conditions for Access
  Countryside: Conditions for Access
  Standard Spending Assessments
  Standard Spending Assessments
  Environment Council, 11 and 12 March
  Environment Council, 11 and 12 March
  DfEE Green Paper: The Learning Age—A New Britain
  DfEE Green Paper: The Learning Age—A New Britain
  Palestine-European Union Trade
  Palestine-European Union Trade
  Bosnia: Aid
  Bosnia: Aid
  Royal Gallery: Maclise Paintings
  Royal Gallery: Maclise Paintings