Sitting of 19 May 1999

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

British Child Migrants
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
9.33 am
Mr. David Hinchliffe: I begin by expressing my gratitude to you, Madam Speaker, that we are holding this debate on the report of the Select Committee on Health. In 1992, in your House, you hosted a function for the international board of the Rugby Football League at which I met Tilly Brasch from Queensland, Australia, who is the wife of an Australian rugby league official. She told me the tale of the British child migrants—about which I had previously heard nothing. Subsequently, I became involved with that issue and, on several occasions, was moved to press the Government about my concerns.
I express my profound thanks to Mrs. Margaret Humphreys who wrote the book "Empty Cradles"—now a bestseller—about her fight to uncover what she described as Britain's most shameful secret. The book is about the history of child migration and how Mrs. Humphreys came across it through her work as a social worker with Nottinghamshire county council. I express my gratitude to her and to the Child Migrants Trust which she formed and which has done a tremendous amount of work to bring the issue to light. It is also appropriate to record the Health Committee's thanks to Nottinghamshire county council for its work in supporting the trust financially and in other ways over several years.
I am grateful to the all-party parliamentary group on child migrants, some of whose members are in the Chamber today. I hope that they will catch your eye, Madam Speaker, as I know that they want to speak about their work. I sincerely thank my colleagues on the Health Committee for the support that they have given me during our inquiry, especially those Members who went to Australia and New Zealand for what was an extremely traumatic couple of weeks taking evidence. It would be wrong of me not to thank the staff of the Health Committee. Although I should not single out individuals, I especially want to thank Second Clerk John Whatley for his valiant work in helping the Committee to draw up the report, and Committee Assistant Frank McShane for his support in organising the visit to Australia and New Zealand.
I thank all the former child migrants who participated in the inquiry. I shall mention some of them later in my remarks. I thank the Canadian representatives of the Ellen Foundation Inc. and Home Children Canada, who came to the United Kingdom at their own expense to give
980
evidence to the Committee. I sincerely thank the high commission and consular staff in Auckland, Wellington, Melbourne, Canberra and Perth for their efforts on behalf of the Committee and for the help that they have given to the former migrants. It is appropriate to give special thanks to the consul-general in Melbourne, Peter Innes, and his wife Robbie, for allowing their home to be used for two days while we took evidence from the former migrants. I also thank Ministers, politicians and officials in New Zealand and Australia for their co-operation.
Finally, I thank the British Government. Although there will be critical comment today, I realise that the Government's response to the Health Committee report has, in general, been extremely positive. That is appreciated by all those who are concerned about this issue.
I will say a little about the background to our report, but whatever we say in the debate will fail to do justice to the issue. All those who know about child migration will accept that point. I apologise to those affected by child migration for the fact that we will not be able to do justice to what they all went through. The debate is about one of the most shameful secrets of Britain's recent past. It is about the deportation, in effect, of thousands of vulnerable children and young people from our care system. It is about this country washing its hands of responsibility for its own citizens, who, in many instances, had the most appalling experiences as a direct consequence.
To illustrate that point, I refer to an answer that I received from the previous Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). I have always regarded the right hon. Gentleman as basically a decent human being, despite our differences. In answer to my question on child migration, he said:
"Any concern about the treatment of the children in another country is essentially a matter for the authorities in that country."—[Official Report, 2 November 1993; Vol. 231, c. 147.]
Those were British children, placed by British agencies and local authorities in a scheme authorised and encouraged by successive British Governments. Those children were, and still are, our responsibility.
The debate is about a top-level cover-up of the results of policies pursued by British Governments of different political persuasions. It is about the suppression of the scandalous consequences of a bizarre scheme that had clear undertones of racism and physical and sexual exploitation. Most important, the debate is about what we can do now to help those whose lives were affected and, in many instances, ruined by the child migration schemes.
I will touch on several of the key points of our report. Most hon. Members will be aware that, from 1618 to 1967, about 150,000 children were sent from the care system to various parts of the former Commonwealth. After the second world war, 10,000 children were sent to New Zealand and Australia. Most, if not all, of us here today could have been eligible to be one of those children. This week, I checked in the House of Commons Library to find the average age of Members of Parliament; somewhat surprising, but refreshing, was the discovery that I am one of the younger Members, the average age being 51.1 years. Therefore, given that the child migrant scheme ran until 1967, the majority of serving Members of Parliament could have been eligible for it and might have been sent abroad. We are talking not about ancient history, but about events that occurred within our own lifetime.

981
The scheme was ostensibly designed to enable children to have better lives, and I concede that we met some people in New Zealand and Australia who said that they had probably gained from the scheme, even though all of them were aware of how badly organised it was and how questionable were the motives underpinning it from the word go. In my view and that of the Committee, the real motivation for the child migration schemes was often to obtain cheap labour and, in Australia, to increase what was described as "good white stock"—a racist motivation to which our report refers.
The reality for significant numbers of the children involved was separation from their siblings: we heard tale after tale of brother being separated from sister, never to see each other again after arrival, especially in Australia. The reality was years of suffering, degradation and denial of the fact that most of the children had natural parents and families still living. For the natural parents, who were often persuaded to part with their offspring on the pretext that they would be adopted in good circumstances in Britain, the reality was years of lies and deceit.
Our report opens with a quote from the chief executive of Barnardo's, and it is worth repeating:
"It was barbaric; it was dreadful. We look back on it in our organisation with shock and horror."
I believe that his remarks are honest expressions of sincere regret that reflect the views of an organisation for which I have the greatest respect. Barnardo's is genuinely trying to face up to its past practices, but, sadly, not all the organisations and Churches involved in the child migrant schemes share that profound regret. Some are still anxious to avoid their responsibility and to obstruct the right of former migrants to know the truth about themselves.
One witness felt that the consequences of the schemes had been overdramatised by television—the term he used was "sensationalised". He referred particularly to a television drama-documentary called "The Leaving of Liverpool", which some hon. Members will have seen. That programme showed a child being torn from his mother by a nun and put on to a train at Liverpool station. We met that child, now grown up and living in New Zealand, after having been sent to Australia by the system. We spoke to him and he told us that those events had not been sensationalised, but that they actually happened. He described his memories of having been placed in care by his mother, who could not afford to keep him; she had to go out to work, so she placed him in a Catholic institution. She found out that her son was, in effect, to be deported and he has a vivid memory of, as a youngster, seeing his mother wrestling with that nun at Liverpool station. All those things happened; we must face up to that and do something about it.
Most of the report's recommendations have been addressed in the Government's response, and I welcome the fact that the Government have responded so positively to an extremely difficult issue which has not been satisfactorily addressed by previous Governments. However, I want to press my hon. Friend the Minister on certain specific concerns relating to the Government's response.
I am concerned about the continued failure properly to resource the Child Migrants Trust—the agency which, in the Committee's view, is carrying out the most important
982
work of rehabilitating former migrants in their natural families, counselling them and supporting them. The increase of £130,000 on last year's grant, which was £20,000, is welcome, but the actual increase is only £70,000. That is because although Nottinghamshire county council has supported the trust with Nottinghamshire taxpayers' money, it has now reduced its grant to the trust. It is commendable of the council to have supported the CMT so positively, but perfectly reasonable for it to have reduced its grant now, because Nottinghamshire has no responsibility whatever in this matter.
The result is that the overall funding increase is nowhere near as large as the Government anticipated, or anywhere near the £500,000 annual revenue costs that the CMT needs to meet the demands placed on it. I do not know how its staff have continued their work through the years—their dedication, passion and commitment to dealing with this awful issue should be recognised, as should their need for proper support.
The other issue about which the CMT and others are concerned is the imbalance between the resourcing of the family research element of their work and the travel fund. It has been put to me that the cart has been put before the horse: there is no point having a travel fund unless people are found and rehabilitation with natural families is possible. I am not arguing about the sum available for the travel fund, although I think it is insufficient, but the imbalance between that money and the sums given for research must be redressed and more money made available for research. The CMT is desperately frustrated by having insufficient resources to make the links between people. Many former migrants have parents who are still living, and every day is crucial in making the links between them and enabling former migrants to return to Britain and meet their natural families.
There has been criticism of the travel fund, especially from the International Association of Former Child Migrants and their Families, saying that £1 million is inadequate. The Minister has told me that about 300 applications have already been made to the fund, which shows the extent of people's interest in making use of it. There is also concern that the issue will not go away in three years—it will continue for some time to come. Many of the migrants in Canada have grown old and died, but many of those sent to Australia and New Zealand are younger, being of an age similar to or less than that of hon. Members present here today. The adequacy of the sum in the travel fund is questionable.
The organisation of, and practical arrangements pertaining to, the travel fund remain unclear, so I hope the Minister will give some clarification on that point. In addition, the criteria for eligibility need to be examined within the context of the problems being encountered. The issue is a completely new one—we have never had to deal with anything like it before and I hope we never have to do so again, so we are in unknown territory.
There is concern that funds are available only for a first visit. Some people who would have been eligible for travel funding had already spent their entire savings on coming over to this country before the fund was established. Having visited once and perhaps found a member of their family, surely they deserve help to come again? Do we not have an obligation to give them that help? There is also concern about funding being restricted to visits to close family only. Some people do not fit into those criteria, because their natural parents and siblings

983
are dead and their only living relative falls outside the definition of "close family". For goodness sake, that relative is as important as a mother or father to those people and we should recognise that. Finally, there are concerns, of which I know my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, about the operation of the means test. No doubt, he will respond to those concerns.
An issue to which the Government did not respond, but where their response might be helpful, was the Committee's proposal that there should be an international conference. Because so many countries and agencies were involved in the scheme over the years, people have tended to blame each other and pass the buck, saying that it is not their responsibility, but someone else's. To be frank, it is entirely our responsibility—a collective effort landed us in this mess. That is why we, as a Committee, felt strongly that an international conference might be able to resolve many of the inter-country issues.
One good example of such an issue, which was raised with me by former migrants in New Zealand, is the concern about International Social Service, which is responsible for the travel fund, having subcontracted the travel fund in New Zealand to the New Zealand Department of Social Welfare—a receiving agency. That contradicts the Select Committee's recommendations. We recognise that the migrants have no confidence in dealing with any of the agencies that placed or received them, so they will not access a travel fund operated by an agency that was involved in this devious scheme.
This is a tragic affair. It has been a traumatic experience for all those involved in the inquiry and I pay tribute to my colleagues for the courage that they have displayed. I place on record what an honour it has been to meet so many former migrants. We saw their tears, and were impressed by their incredible sense of humour—despite the many problems that they have experienced—and their immense courage in the face of appalling adversity.
I have one recollection of a former migrant's sense of humour—I cannot do the Aussie accent, which ruins my story somewhat. At a public hearing with migrants—I think it was in Perth, but we had many such sessions—a guy got up and said something like, "For 50 years I thought I was an orphan, but I was delighted to discover recently that I am actually a bastard." He made a very important point, which all Committee members will understand.
For an example of real courage, I refer hon. Members to the testimony of John Hennessey, the first witness to appear before the Committee. He travelled from Australia to give evidence in the Grand Committee Room. John has a terrible stammer, acquired as a result of the beatings that he received from the Christian Brothers. His courage at that first session was an example to us all, and I will not forget it for as long as I live.
For me, there was no better conclusion to the inquiry than the discovery that the Child Migrants Trust had found Mr. Hennessey's elderly mother, alive—although not particularly well—at 87. She lives in this country and John was reunited with her two months ago. He had last seen her when he was two and he was sent away at age 10. He did not know that his mother was alive and he knew nothing about his background.
I will never forget taking John to meet the Prime Minister at Downing Street—I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for finding the time to see us. The Prime Minister arranged
984
for John to be shown around No. 10. Hon. Members who have been to Downing street will know that there are stairs with photographs of previous Prime Ministers along the wall. John identified Clement Attlee, who was Prime Minister when he was deported to Australia. He said something like, "Hello, Prime Minister, I'm back; it's taken 50 years, but I'm back." I pay tribute to John and to all his fine colleagues who have shown so much courage.
I end with a final plea. We must learn the lessons of this episode and it must never be repeated. I am afraid that, in years to come, people will look back on present events and ask, "Why did that happen?" I remember travelling to Romania shortly after the revolution in the early 1990s when there was a lot of pressure to adopt Romanian orphans. I visited an orphanage where I asked how many of the little kids piled on top of me were orphans. I was told that 99 per cent. of the children up for adoption overseas had parents or families. I believe that we should have tried to reunite those children with their families and assist their parents in caring for them.
I do not want to make a political point, but, not long after our report was produced last summer, the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, said in a speech that we should place the children of one-parent families in the care of religious organisations. That is exactly what happened under the child migrant scheme: children were sent to those sorts of organisations and we all know what happened to them. The Select Committee sent a letter and a copy of our report to Baroness Thatcher, but we never received a reply—just like the migrants never received replies to their questions over many years. They want to know who they are, what went on, why it happened and what went wrong. I think they deserve those answers today.
9.55 am
Dr. Peter Brand: It is a tremendous privilege to follow the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Health Select Committee, in this debate. I endorse all of the tributes that he paid to the long list of people who have been concerned about this matter. I also thank the hon. Gentleman for the way in which he has handled this sensitive issue.
What emerged most strongly from the Select Committee's investigations was the fact that this was an institutionalised use of institutions: it was a case of the establishment trying to deal with a problem. Committee members viewed many historical documents and the notepaper was always headed with long lists of names of the great and the good who were trying to do what they thought was best for the children, for the empire, and for the race that they wanted to perpetuate across the globe. It is chilling how national and local governments, the Churches and the charities conspired to forget the needs of the children.
Many people probably had the best intentions: they assumed that the children would be better off. They probably believed much of their own propaganda that they fed to badly off parents and to the children. However, the evidence revealed that the ends did not justify the means. The awful deception, the lies and the economic pressures made it almost impossible for parents—especially single parents—to keep their children. We have heard about the bullying and the trading of children as chattels in order to

985
maintain the viability of institutions, especially towards the end of the regime. A most shameful element of the scheme is the way in which children were abandoned at age 16 because the institutions no longer received any income for them. Many people are stateless because they were abandoned at 16 and never received the paperwork that would have allowed them to acquire citizenship of either their adopted country or the country in which they were born.
The hon. Member for Wakefield detailed the Committee's recommendations and the Government's response. I endorse his comments in welcoming the positive aspects and in attempting to strengthen those areas where the Government could have gone a little further. I wish to spend a few minutes considering the lessons that we should learn from this investigation. Children are still placed many miles away from the communities from which they come. The Utting report had little to do with north Wales per se because it revealed that most of the children involved came from communities many miles away and that social services supervision was not as good as it should have been—just as it was not good in Australia, New Zealand or Canada. I share the concerns expressed about inter-country adoption. It is beholden on us to try to keep children with their families.
What is happening with our present social services system? Social services departments are so stretched for money that they tend to concentrate on their statutory responsibilities. In most parts of the country, the child protection teams—or the crisis intervention teams—are well resourced and work effectively. However, that success has been achieved at the expense of the child support and, more especially, the family support aspects of social services work. Social services has become an enforcement arm when there are accusations of child abuse. It is rare that such families are supported by their own advocate, such as their social worker, who will guide them through a difficult, complicated and often inevitable set of consequences that is almost Kafkaesque.
I still meet single parents who cannot afford to look after their children, and the recent change in benefit regulations certainly does not send out the right message. We need a structure in which parents who are accused of neglect or child abuse have the opportunity to get high-quality legal aid to make sure that they are aware of the grinding process that will inevitably take their child away from them. We seem to have a strange system in which parents cannot have their children back unless they admit that they have abused them, even if they genuinely believe that they have not abused them. Professionals, whether in social work or medicine, are not always right. I am aware of cases in which mistakes have been made with dire consequences, not only for the children but for the parents.
The debate is extraordinarily valuable and timely because we are witnessing a redetermination of access to the courts and to legal aid. There ought to be a system of checks and balances. The child migrants story demonstrates that we cannot, even now, rely on the establishment or on the professionals to protect children and their families. We cannot rely on the court system, as
986

it is currently accessible, for that protection. There are too many delays, courts are too busy, and legal advice is not readily available and not always of sufficient quality.
I urge the Minister to review the working of the Children Act 1989 on compulsory removal of children from their homes, so that we can put as much effort into keeping families together—whether they have one or two parents—as we do, at present, into purely protecting children irrespective of what would be the right course of action.
10.3 am
Audrey Wise: When the Health Committee went to Australia and New Zealand, we were told, "You will meet only the hard cases, not the success stories." During our visit, I was struck by the fact that that was totally untrue. We were not meeting the hardest cases because many of them were in psychiatric wards or dead. We met relatives of some of those people, but many were completely unknown even to other witnesses whom we met.
We met people who felt that they had survived pretty well, but I was struck also by the fact that even those who were not physically abused or cruelly treated were extraordinarily critical of the system because they all suffered the trauma of separation, lack of knowledge and destruction of identity. That is true even of those who managed to reach good positions. They came to talk to us, so we certainly acquired good knowledge of what had happened, even though we did not meet people in the worst cases.
We were also told, "That is all in the past. You should be concentrating on the present." I became more and more aware that the past is never past; it is the present for those who have survived those events and for their relatives in this country. If we do not learn the lessons of past events, we will not make a proper contribution to improving the present.
A Conservative member of the Committee and I discovered, when we returned to Britain, that we each had a member of our local party who had narrowly and accidentally escaped being a child migrant. They realised that when we published our report and they found out what would have happened if, for example, they had not been unwell on the day and had been put on the ship. As well as not being entirely past, those events are also very near to us.
We were told also to be careful about making judgments because there was a "different social climate" at the time. That expression was used in the first memorandum given to the Committee by the Department of Health, so that idea was prevalent even in the Department. I am pleased that its attitude seems to have shifted during, and, in my view, because of our inquiry. When we met the Secretary of State, his attitude was very different from the Department's original view. Child migration went on until the late 1960s, and the Secretary of State told us that he was now chilled by the belated knowledge that it was happening when he was watching the world cup in 1966 and he did not even know about it.
That dark secrecy that has shrouded the consequences of child migration is another significant aspect of the issue. Some people knew about those consequences. Officialdom in this country knew about them as long ago as 1875, when a report said that child migrants were being

987
mistreated and used as cheap labour. Those who did not know were the people who would be most intimately affected: the families to whom child migration would apply. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), the Chairman of the Select Committee, has already said, those children could have been many of us here today. Our families managed to escape that fate, but it could have happened to us.
We are not discussing a dim and distant time about which we can say, "Wasn't it awful then?" These events occurred in the very recent past when many of us were politically active. The Secretary of State was politically active in 1966 and he knew nothing about them. I was a mother and I had been politically active for many years as a councillor, but I knew nothing about what was happening. Some people knew, and kept it secret.
Why did those events occur? I do not want to impute too many motives, but one point that clearly emerged in evidence was that, for some voluntary organisations, child migration was a means of getting income; for others, it was a means of cutting costs. We are lucky that there was such resistance to the policy within professional social work and local authorities that few children in the care of local authorities migrated. Most of the child migrants were in the care of voluntary organisations.
The evidence to the Committee made it clear that, at the time, the Government were putting pressure on local authorities and children's officers to send children abroad because it would be cheaper than caring for them here. Those professionals were tackling issues involving human considerations and being told that the existing policy was too expensive and there were cheaper policies. I do not know whether the term "cost-effectiveness" was used then, but that term rang in my head as one which would be used now. That confirmed my deep suspicion of policies that are primarily driven by the wish to cut costs.
The question of secrecy is also very much in the present, and I welcome the Government's response to the index and the data and the understanding of their importance that was shown. Although the Chairman of the Committee quoted the striking repudiation of his organisation's policies by the Barnardo's witness, which we were pleased to hear, other witnesses did not always share his view. Some attempted to defend what happened, and the standards of the time were rolled in again. I was a mother when this happened—it might have happened to me or to my kids if I had been a single parent.
Our inquiry took place around the time when there was controversy about single parents. I was pleased about the attitude that I took towards single parents, because we also heard about the insufferable moralising that took place. Women who were unmarried single parents were told to put their babies in the orphanage, forget about them and be good girls in future. Those whose marriages broke up had to struggle financially because there was no state support. I am glad that I support state benefits for single parents and for low-paid people in general. That is another respect in which the past is certainly in the present.
What we discovered was utterly harrowing and our report is explicit—much more explicit in its language and descriptions than any Select Committee report I have seen. We discussed that earnestly, because we were not sure whether it was proper to say some of the things that we said in an official report, but we decided that it was
988
absolutely proper and that we should not contribute to a veil being drawn over the matter. Despite that, the report cannot provide the full flavour of what we learned.
The Chairman of the Committee has said that the experience was traumatic, and I do not know how the Child Migrants Trust has managed to endure dealing with this issue for so long. We found it traumatic to talk to the victims and survivors for only a couple of weeks, but the CMT has been talking to them for years and years. The experience showed us what happens when power is abused, although several other concepts, such as secrecy, are involved.
Awful things are happening in the world, frequently around a war situation. People are demonised—one race against another, one colour against another—and made to seem less than human. The most chilling aspect was that hearing about this process was like hearing about war crimes without the war and without even the shallow justification that people were being misled in the heat of the moment. The process was very cold and involved children and people like us, which was the most chilling realisation. That means that we have special responsibility.
I was pleased, but not ecstatic, about the Government's response, which was a good start. I welcome the setting up of the £1 million fund, but we should not put a top limit on it. Taxpayers' money was used to subsidise the process, and I want taxpayers' money to be used to try to do something to rescue some of the survivors' lives. I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Government to say that there is £1 million and that is it. There is £1 million for the moment, but we should not have a top limit because there was no top limit on the suffering of those kids.
We should look again at the social security issue. The worst aspect is that the people involved are frequently deprived of entitlement, when they come here, on the ground that they do not pass the habitual residence test. Whose fault is that? They were forcibly deported. They wanted to stay here, and it is not their fault if they have not lived in this country—it is the fault of successive Governments and agencies and to compound the crimes that were committed by saying that people are being deprived because they did not live here is the most profound insult.
I hope that the Government's response, welcome though it is, is not their last word. If it is, the case will not have been sufficiently met. If it is their first word and their first attempt to remedy the matter, it is a good first word. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister, who was not in post at the time, will study the evidence that we took and our report to try to get the flavour of what we learned.
I also hope that my hon. Friend will then use that knowledge and understanding in considering present policies as a member of the Government and to try to repay those people. There is a difficulty of wording here—we cannot repay them, but we must at least acknowledge properly the awful process that went on in our name and which was cloaked in secrecy. If we do that, we shall be able to say that we have done our best and, although it was not our fault, we are trying to remedy the matter. I hope that the Government will look at it in such a way.
10.17 am
Mr. John Heppell: I do not propose to say a great deal. Most of what I wanted to say has already been said very well by my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) and for Preston (Audrey Wise), but I think that I have something special to add to the debate.
I was one of the councillors who voted to give money to the Child Migrants Trust back in the mid-80s, but I have to be honest and say that most of the credit for what happened is not mine. It belongs to Margaret Humphreys, the social worker involved, and the then chair of social services, Joan Taylor. We were strapped for money and things were tight, but she persuaded the leader of the council and other councillors that we should be doing something about this matter. We said, "It's not our responsibility, but if it isn't ours, whose is it?" That is the message that I want the Government to take on board.
Someone has to take responsibility for what has happened and take account of this tragedy. I remember my utter disbelief back in the 80s when we heard about the case. We could not believe how recently it had happened and we could not believe the stories, but they were true. At first, it was difficult to grasp what had happened and to think about how some of it could be put right. I congratulate the Committee on making recommendations that will help to put things right. We cannot ever put them right completely, but we can try to help some of the people who have suffered.
Hon. Members have talked about how the issue was shrouded in secrecy. It happened not only because the organisations involved wanted to keep it secret, but because the child migrants themselves wanted to keep it secret because they felt stigmatised. John Hennessey described himself as one of the devil's children, and we could see how their self-esteem had been destroyed by the system, by the Government, by the voluntary organisations and by the way that they had been treated. If nothing else, they deserve to have their self-esteem back.
I make a plea to the Government. I share the concerns of my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield and for Preston that the £1 million limit may not be sufficient. If it proves to be insufficient and more people apply to the travel fund than there is money for, will the fund be bolstered in the future if that becomes necessary? I am not asking for a guarantee of extra money, just that the matter will be reconsidered if there are problems in the future.
10.20 am
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I should like to add my congratulations to the Select Committee on Health on its report and the way it went about its inquiry. Having spoken to some members of the Committee, I know that they were drained and exhausted and found the many tales harrowing.
I have also spoken to some former child migrants who gave evidence to the Health Committee, and they were pleased with its handling of the issue, its sensitivity and understanding, and the fact that it gave them time. The Committee was determined to go to Australia and New Zealand so that as many as possible of the people who had been treated appallingly could have their say. However, it was symbolic that the former child migrants came to the House of Commons, because the state was ultimately
990
responsible for shipping those children abroad. It was important for them to come back to make their case and to tell their story in the House of Commons.
I should also like to congratulate and acknowledge the work of the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He has, for many years, been the driving force in the House of Commons on this issue. As he rightly said, he would not have done anything had it not been for the work of Margaret Humphreys and the Child Migrants Trust.
The report tells what happened to those British children at the hands of their abusers, and leaves nothing to the imagination. Many of those abusers purported to represent God. We should never hold back our condemnation of the treatment of those British children. Part of the responsibility must lay with the state—with the House of Commons.
I am one of three or four former social workers in the Chamber—there are no corduroys—and, like my colleagues, I have had to remove children from their parents. That was carried out with the approval of the courts and partnerships agencies, and for the right reason: to protect children. It is not a pure science. As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) said, we can get it wrong, and that has been proved. But we had authorisation, records and files were kept, and there were hurdles to overcome. Removing a baby from his mother at birth, for whatever reason, is the hardest thing I have ever done. Deciding that a child should not be brought up by his parents and removing him from his mother is the ultimate state intervention. Hurdles must be overcome before that intervention can be made, and that is absolutely right. That is the best we can do, and we must continue to review the process and ensure that we are getting it right.
When the children that I took from their parents grow up they will be able to understand the reasons for that decision. They may not agree with them, but they will be able to read the files and the court records and understand why the decisions were made. We have been following such procedures for a long time—they have improved over the years—including the time when British children were shipped to Australia. People may say that it was different back then, but that is not so. What was afforded to children in Britain did not apply to children who were subject to forced deportation without the permission of their parents, and without birth certificates and passports. Children as young as four were condemned for years to an existence of abuse and fear.
I should like to draw on some remarks made to me by one of the former migrants who came here, Mr. Norman Johnston. As I am the secretary of the parliamentary group, I had the privilege of meeting some of the former migrants and giving them support when they were giving evidence. Like so many others, Mr. Johnston suffered at the hands of the Christian Brothers. One of the brothers attempted to drown him. I asked him why they tried to drown him, and he said that they did not need a reason, because they had carte blanche to do whatever they wanted. There would not have been an inquiry if he had died. The beatings were harsh and frequent. He also told me that if he witnessed a child being beaten or whipped—or whatever form of abuse we care to imagine—there was a sense of relief, because at least it was not happening to him and he was out of the frame for a little while.
Mr. Johnstonalso said that living in such a climate of fear took away all emotional feelings, which made the children perfect recruits for Nazi officers. They became bereft of all feelings of human suffering. It was a matter of survival. He was taken from the institution to a farm in South Australia, and the passing comment from the person in charge of the institution was, "Next time I see you boy, you'll be in Fremantle jail." As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) said, we have not heard evidence from many of the former migrants who have had a life of alcohol problems and have been led into crime. They did not fit into society.
Mr. Johnstonsaid that there should be an inquiry into the well-being of people who were in those former institutions. Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider that? Perhaps a note could be sent to the Australian Government asking them to hold an inquiry. Mr. Johnston spent two and a half years on a farm working 14 hours a day, seven days a week but earning less than he would if he were unemployed. That was slave labour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Preston said. He even contemplated cutting off his finger to get off the farm. He shared his bathroom with farm animals. He served three tours in Vietnam with the Australian army. The irony was that he was serving the country in which he lived but of which he was not a citizen because he had no birth certificate and no passport.
These people are remarkable because their main preoccupation is not to obtain compensation—and goodness knows they have an overwhelming case—but to allow those who were taken from this country to be reunited with their families, to have some peace and to understand the circumstances in which they left Britain to go to a world of abuse. Without the completion of the picture, many of them have a void in their lives. For the reasons given by all hon. Members who have spoken, we must do everything we can to fill that void.
For many child migrants time is running out. Every day that goes by is another lost opportunity. There are people in Australia who can trace their parents, but it requires a great deal of work, which must be done by the Child Migrants Trust.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Preston, I hope that this is just the Government's first response. While I welcome their response to the Committee's inquiry, we need to take further steps. We must look at the travel arrangements, and ensure that the trust is adequately funded. A simple apology is not enough; to apologise properly, we must fund the trust properly.
10.30 am
Mr. John Austin: I shall be brief, because I know that the chairman of the all-party group wants to speak. I am grateful to the group for bringing this matter to our attention. I also echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) said about Margaret Humphreys and Joan Taylor, without whom we would not be having this debate.
I must admit that when the Chairman of the Select Committee first suggested that we should conduct an inquiry, I was a little sceptical. I wondered why the matter should be so high on our agenda, given the number of pertinent issues of the day; but the Chairman persuaded the Committee.
992
Our visit was one of the most traumatic experiences of my life. The Committee contains some very hard cases—former social workers, general practitioners and people who have been in politics and local government for a long time. They are not short of experiences of human misery. However, no one who reads the evidence presented to us—evidence of years of wholesale, systematic, institutionalised abuse—could fail to be deeply moved and shocked by what was done in our name. This House of Commons is responsible for what happened, and has a duty to those British children. As the Committee Chairman said, these are members of our generation.
When I arrived in New Zealand, a man came up to me and asked, "Are you the Member of Parliament for Erith?" I was surprised that anyone in New Zealand had heard of Erith. He said, "You are my mother's MP." For 50 years, that man had thought that he was an orphan; then, having discovered that he had a mother in her eighties living in England, he was reunited with her after all those years. We must provide the Child Migrants Trust with the resources to enable further such reunions to take place. I hope that if the demands on the trust and the travel fund are such that they cannot be satisfied, my hon. Friend the Minister will be prepared to review the position.
This is on-going: it is here and now. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and I spent some time conversing with a young woman who was not a child migrant herself, but who had been placed for adoption in Australia and was the daughter of a child migrant. She wanted to know why her mother had been taken from her own mother, and whether that had influenced her mother's inability to continue to care for her. There was a void in her life, and there were questions that needed answers.
I am pleased that the British Government have issued an apology. Some of the child migrants did not want an apology, but for others it was all-important, as was the fact of the Select Committee's visit. It was the first time that these people had been listened to and that their horror stories had been believed.
All this happened after our Parliament had passed extensive legislation in the 1940s and 1950s, and after we had signed conventions on human rights protecting children. We denied these children those human rights. Let us leave aside the question of sexual and physical abuse; we took away their human rights by removing them from their families.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) spoke of the lies and deceit, the falsified names and falsified birth certificates. All that makes the trust's job of tracing people and their families that much more difficult. An apology for the deceit is needed, not only from the Government but from the voluntary organisations that were involved. Why will Barnado's not issue an apology? Have its solicitors and insurers told it not to? Why will Fairbridge not own up to its responsibilities? Has it changed the terms of reference in its constitution, and is it now looking after a different group of children?
The state and the voluntary organisations ought to own up. We in the House of Commons have a responsibility to provide the Child Migrants Trust and other organisations with the resources to enable them to ensure that families can be reunited and supported. As my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise) said, for many time is running out.
10.35 am
Mr. Vernon Coaker: I want to pay tribute to a number of people. It is important for us to recognise those who brought about the Select Committee's report and today's debate and enabled us to uncover and publicise this scandal.
I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). He helped to uncover the scandal, not just in his capacity as Chairman of the Select Committee but through his work on the issue in the last Parliament. I know of his personal dedication and the efforts that he and his fellow Committee members have made. Their work is a credit to the Select Committee system, and shows how well it can function. We can all be proud of the Committee's report.
It is a source of great pride to all of us from Nottingham, and Nottinghamshire, that we have been at the forefront of the support for efforts to uncover the scandal. We have heard of the work of the Child Migrants Trust, but the trust would not exist without the support of Nottinghamshire county council. It cannot be said too often that that council has worked, and paid, to uncover a national scandal. I also pay tribute to individual members of the council: its leader, Sir Dennis Pettitt, and Joan Taylor.
My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) was very modest, but he worked hard for many years in Nottinghamshire, as well as in Parliament—supporting the efforts of the all-party group—to bring this about. I also think that Margaret Humphreys should receive an honour for all the work that she has done in uncovering the scandal.
I became involved in the issue as a new Member of Parliament, and became chairman of the all-party group. I have been proud to work with the group in supporting the Select Committee's work. When we hear the stories that we are told, we find them incredible; we cannot believe that such things can happen. My hon. Friends have spoken of the incredulity that they felt. It is impossible to believe that this has taken place—and that it has taken place while we have been doing ordinary things, such as watching television and going shopping. Horrific things have been done to children. They have been taken abroad, split from their families, and lied to; they have been told that their parents were dead, or that they did not want them and had abandoned them—and there was no supervision when they were sent away.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield said, one of the worst things is that the policy was explicitly said to be about ensuring that good white stock was put into some of our former colonies. That is unbelievable: "good white stock" was being exported in the form of children, and that was officially sanctioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) pointed out that the process has been justified on the grounds that it took place in a different social climate, and in different times. That is ridiculous; it is scandalous; it is rubbish. When has it ever been right to abuse children and take them from their parents? I do not believe that it has ever been right, or that, in any times, it has been thought right to do that to children simply to provide "good white stock" for our former colonies. I say again: in tackling that scandal, the Health Committee report has been a credit to Parliament.
The Government response generally has been good; it is a credit to them. At least they have recognised that there has been a huge problem and a huge scandal. They have
994
not ducked the issue, or tried to hide it away. This morning's debate is a credit to the Government and to Parliament. It is taking place in the full glare of publicity; we are debating and discussing the report.
There are some points that I should like to raise. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister, if he cannot address them in his brief remarks, to look at them afterwards. The Government have set up a travel fund, which started in April, but the procedures for people to access the fund are not yet properly in place, and people are finding it difficult to access it. I therefore ask the Minister to try to speed up that process.
My hon. Friends have mentioned the grant to the Child Migrants Trust. If we bring these people back, which is obviously what we have set out to do, clearly, they will need support and counselling; they will need help when they find their lost relatives. We need to ensure that the trust, which does an immense amount of work, is funded properly to provide that help. The county council will soon start to withdraw the money that it provides to the trust on the basis that it has done it for years and it is a local authority. It is now up to the Government to start to put in that amount of money. I ask the Minister to find out whether more money could be made available.
The database that is being set up is welcome, but there are concerns about the sharing of information. We are going back many years. When people come back to try to find lost relatives, accessing those records will be important. Ensuring that people have easy access to the database is important. The Government will have to take the lead in co-ordinating the agencies and ensuring that all of them provide the necessary information.
I reiterate the point that was made by, I think, my hon. Friend the Member for Preston. An international conference would be important and helpful to everyone. Speed is of the essence. These people are not getting any younger. They need access to their families quickly. The Government need to do everything that they can to act quickly.
We must ensure that such a scandal never happens again. How many times, after reports and debates, and after such scandals emerge, do we say, "It must never happen again"? How many of us can be absolutely sure that, in children's homes and in various families throughout the country, children are not being abused and that all the things that are scandalising us today are not still happening? We must learn the lessons and do all we can to ensure that such things never take place again.
It needs to be stated again that, for all of us who have been involved in the matter, it has been personally traumatic to listen to people's harrowing stories while working with them to restore them to their families and to help them to find their past—but it has also been a privilege. As I often say, when people are in the most terrible adversity, we are inspired by their courage and by the way in which they can face the most desperate circumstances head on. All that those people ask of Parliament is that we show the same courage in ensuring that, at long last, they can meet their lost families, and in supporting them with counselling and with all the other things that will be needed. Let us show that courage.
10.44 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in this short debate on their

995
thoughtful and well-informed comments. The subject has raised some powerful and strong emotions as all of us have a deep concern to ensure the welfare of children, past as well as present. The contributions of my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) have borne witness to that concern.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) on raising the subject in Parliament. I pay particular tribute to both him and the Select Committee on Health, which he chairs, for its landmark inquiry into the misguided policy of child emigration. It is estimated that, during the period that the policy was in operation, as many as 150,000 children were transported to Canada, Australia and New Zealand, as well as to some former British territories in central and southern Africa.
The largest number of children went to Canada. Child emigration there had more or less ceased by the end of the 1930s, but emigration schemes to New Zealand were still in progress in the post-war years and, as many hon. Members have commented, some emigration occurred to Australia up to the late 1960s. Those schemes have no defenders today.
The greater understanding of these issues that now exists in Parliament and in Government is largely thanks to the work of the Health Committee. As the Committee itself recognised, it was able to draw on valuable research by a number of workers, authors and voluntary groups, not least the Child Migrants Trust.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield will know from the Government's response in December to the Select Committee report that they accept the Committee's adverse judgment of what happened. We deeply regret what happened and the anguish and misery that many child migrants must have experienced. We strongly support the Committee's view that the prevailing mood is to move forward positively and to concentrate on improving support for former child migrants.
We have therefore committed ourselves to action on a number of fronts. We have set up a support fund to help former child migrants who have not previously visited this country to have a first reconciliation with their close families here. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield raised a number of concerns about access to the fund, including the definition of "close families." We will look sympathetically at all cases where people seek support, including cases involving grandparents, half-brothers and half-sisters.
We have committed ourselves to financing the scheme to the tune of £1 million over three years. It is now in operation. It is being administered for us by the International Social Service in the UK, which has branches and contacts in Australia, Canada and New Zealand.
We fully accept that it has taken slightly longer than originally anticipated to finalise the financial eligibility criteria that feature in the local application forms for the fund—my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Mr. Coaker) referred to that. That was because, although it had been agreed that the same formula for assessing financial eligibility should be applied to everyone concerned, the differences in living conditions and costs between the countries where the child migrants now live had to be recognised and taken into account.
996
In Australia, for example, considerable research, involving many different state offices, was required before a national mean was identified. The ISS has now authorised its branches in Australia, Canada and New Zealand to send out the application forms. We understand that those have begun to be distributed. As far as I am aware, the scheme is now fully in operation. The application forms are out and we anticipate a response.
There has already been a considerable number of inquiries of ISS branches in those countries, most notably in Australia, where I gather that more than 300 have been received, but there have also been a number of inquiries of ISS contacts in both New Zealand and Canada. Applications will be decided by the ISS in London, to which they will eventually be sent. I hope that we shall soon see the first arrivals in this country under the scheme. Obviously, cases that are urgent, due to the age or health of either the former child migrant or their close relative, will be given priority. Several hon. Members have spoken about the need to prioritise cases. I assure them that that will be done.
The arrangements for running the scheme were foreshadowed in our December reply, where we made it clear that we were in discussion with the ISS over its administration. Since then, after further discussion in the three countries, the role of the ISS has been confirmed and agreed, and the scheme opened formally early in April, as we had intended.
I wish to explain how we have publicised the new arrangements, as concern has been expressed about that. The Government issued a press notice here in the UK which was picked up by many of the media and led to some central inquiries. More importantly, however, we have liaised very closely, through the Foreign Office, with the overseas posts in Canada, Australia and New Zealand to ensure that there has been appropriate publicity in all of the receiving countries. A great deal of effort has gone into this, and I shall detail some of the activity that has taken place to date.
We are keeping all the arrangements under review, as we want the scheme to be properly and effectively publicised. We will make sure that that happens. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield raised other questions about the operation of the scheme which I will deal with in a few moments.
In Australia, there was a strong response to the press release issued there. The British high commissioner conducted a number of interviews, both on television and radio, to publicise the fund, and the news was picked up by a number of national and local newspapers. A press release was issued in New Zealand, where the Department of Social Welfare is in any case seeking to notify individually all known former British child migrants about the fund.
My hon. Friend also asked whether £1 million will be sufficient for the support fund over three years. It is hard to be certain what the level of demand will be from those who come within the scope of the scheme—that is, those wishing to have a first reconciliation with their close families here and who, without support from the fund, would not have the means to bring that about.
Our rough estimate is that, over three years, the sum would be sufficient to bring some 450 people to this country. As time passes, we will be monitoring the scheme carefully. My hon. Friend will understand, I hope,

997
that with the pressures on my Department's programme, I am not able to give any commitment today to increase the funding for the scheme. However, we would, of course, welcome any contribution that any of the other agencies involved in child migration might wish to make.
My hon. Friend has raised the question whether there should be a means test for support fund applicants. I understand very well why he makes that point. However, we have a responsibility to ensure that the fund operates effectively and is targeted on the former child migrants who most need and deserve the support that we are able to provide. I cannot say with any confidence that it would be realistic to expect taxpayers in this or any country to finance visits here by people with the means to pay their own expenses, even with the unhappy legacy of the child migration policies.
As my hon. Friend is aware, the Government responded positively to the Committee's recommendation that a central database should be established as soon as possible, containing basic information that will direct child migrants or their representatives to more detailed sources. This project is now well advanced in the hands of the National Council for Voluntary Child Care Organisations. The sending agencies, which hold most of the detailed records, are, generally speaking, co-operating satisfactorily with this project. The index will be available by the autumn.
Finally, the Government responded positively to the Committee's recommendation for a larger grant to the Child Migrants Trust. My hon. Friend mentioned that we have increased the grant from £20,000 last year to £150,000 in the present year. This is less than the trust requested, but it was a very large increase indeed compared to the grant that it has had from the Department in the past. It is, of course, the case that quite a number of the bodies that we fund would like larger grants than we can afford, but I am very glad that we have been able to make so large an increase in the grant to the Child Migrants Trust.
The first instalment of the grant was paid at the beginning of May. The grant had been on a cycle of quarterly payments starting in May of each year, with subsequent payments being made in August, November and February. If the trust would prefer a different cycle of payments, we should be glad to discuss that with it.
In its report, the Committee made a number of recommendations about the trust's accountability and the audit of its accounts. In the Government's reply, we said that we were in discussion with the trust about those issues and expected a positive outcome. We spent a good deal of time with the trust on these matters, and a small audit team visited it in Nottingham. I am very happy to say that, as we anticipated, there are no outstanding anxieties of that kind. We received the auditor's final report of the financial appraisal on 7 April, and a letter confirming the grant offer and conditions was sent on the same day.
I understand, however, that because of the withdrawal of other funding from the Nottinghamshire county council, the Child Migrants Trust is nevertheless struggling to cope with the demands placed on it and still needs additional funding. A number of my hon. Friends referred to that today. I very much take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield that there
998
has to be an appropriate balance between the money made available to help child migrants to be reunited with their families, and the resources available to help them to trace and make contact with them in the first place, which is the trust's main concern. Clearly, without the tracing, there can be no reunions. That is an important point, and we will consider the suggestions made by my hon. Friend about how we address that.
I should add that my officials have been looking for other sources of funding outside of Government resources which might be available to the trust, and we will be in touch with the trust about this shortly. If this situation cannot be resolved, or there are other problems which the trust would like to discuss further, I shall of course be very happy to meet it.
I should make it quite clear, however, that any adjustments to the funding that the Government have made available for increasing the availability of tracing and counselling services for child migrants and to support reunions must be made within the same overall resources which we have already committed and which we announced in December.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield asked about the contributions being made by the sending agencies. The agencies have already agreed—in addition to providing the information for the new central information index for child migrants—to expand the tracing and counselling services that they offer to meet any increase in demand. This should ensure that child migrants have a choice about where they turn for such help, although I recognise that many child migrants may prefer to conduct their search through an independent agency, such as the Child Migrants Trust.
A number of my hon. Friends asked specific questions to which I shall try to respond. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred to intercountry adoptions. I remind him that the Adoption (Intercountry Aspects) Bill, sponsored by the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), will allow the UK to ratify the Hague convention and make sure that those adoptions are placed on a sound legal basis in the future, with full and proper safeguards for the children placed at the centre of our concerns.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to the existing problems with social services in the UK. I should remind him that the Government are determined to improve the quality of children's services. That is why we have introduced our "Quality Protects" programme and why we are supporting it with an additional £375 million of targeted resources to help local authorities improve their children's services. I am confident that the programme will make a significant contribution.
I wish to pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) for his role in supporting the Child Migrants Trust. I can assure him and the House that the Government take our responsibility seriously. He is right that we cannot rewrite history, but we can try to do the right thing for the former child migrants in the future. That is what we intend to do.
In conclusion, I emphasise the Government's determination to stand by the commitments that we gave in our reply of December last year to the Committee's report. The historic policy of child migration was tragically misguided. We acknowledge that, along with the Governments of the receiving countries, we have an

999
obligation to do what we can realistically to improve the welfare support of former child migrants who can still be helped. That is involving us in a complex international programme which we shall carry forward and monitor carefully.
I am grateful to all hon. Members today who have made their comments known to us. We have a clear responsibility towards the former child migrants. The Government intend to discharge that responsibility to the best of our ability into the future.

Eurostar Services
10.59 am
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: When the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 was going through the House of Commons, we were told that, because it was a national project with considerable impact on all the regions of the United Kingdom, extremely good services would be provided outside the London area and there would be no concentration on what used to be called the golden triangle of the south-east. That was the basis on which the legislation was accepted and on which Members of Parliament were prepared to support the expenditure of very considerable sums. So far, the taxpayer has paid well in excess of £320 million.
The original company put in a bid that many of us believe, in the light of subsequent circumstances, may have been pitched deliberately too low. The company was subsequently replaced, and none of the regional services are now running. That seems to many of us to be a subject for considerable worry and regret.
The Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee produced a report that examined in detail both the history of the matter and what the House has a right to expect now. We began by saying that we believed that we had been cheated. There have been few signs that the trials and tribulations of the rail service have produced new thinking, imaginative plans or even the suggestion of some services north of Watford that would begin to provide decent regional access.
We said that the Government should make it very clear that they believe not only that the regions have a right to equal access but that that access should be smooth, with a high level of service. We said that we did not think that there were now any significant technical barriers to operating regional Eurostar services on the west coast main line or even on the east coast main line by early 2000.
The regional train sets were almost the ultimate toy for the taxpayer. We now own large numbers of train sets that have never been used; they have been mothballed and it seems to me that they have been treated in such a manner that the taxpayer does not even have an acceptable asset in them.
We believed that the present Government, who took over this mess, were prepared to take urgent and targeted action, but the reality is that there has been no firm decision about regional Eurostar services. We want an immediate response. The Government have said that they will not only ask for plans but use the effective new consultancy to produce some facts and figures for the House.
Some companies have said that they do not accept that regional Eurostar services could not be run efficiently. Virgin has produced a business plan that at least merits careful examination. It may be workable, because of Virgin's marketing skills, which have been shown in other fields, but it should at least be considered. We want to know whether Virgin's proposals are sensible.
What is the attitude to Olympia as a stop? Do the Government accept that one way in which regional services could have been developed would have been to allow access for domestic passengers? The Committee made it clear that we do not underestimate the security

1001
problems that would be produced if domestic passengers were able to use a service intended for international use, but other countries have demonstrated that the problems are surmountable, and I see no reason why the ingenuity of the British should not be applied here.
The Committee said that it thought that Watford was very well placed to become an integrated transport hub.
Ms Claire Ward: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Dunwoody: I am glad to have my hon. Friend's totally unbiased support.
We suggested that the Government's review should consider what benefits and costs would be associated with direct services from Watford and with through services on the west coast main line calling at Watford. However, we said that we thought it unlikely that the plan for development and change to Eurostar services at Heathrow would meet universal support from the passengers. We did not believe that people who had flown in to a very large airport would automatically be prepared to join a rail service at that point for the next stage of their journey to Paris or elsewhere.
The review should consider what additional benefits might be gained by British Airways, which is after all one of the partners in Inter-Capital and Regional Rail Ltd., from the introduction of a Heathrow to Paris service. We do not in any way underestimate the advantages of having other transport companies involved in the planning of rail services, but we would expect the Government to examine the matter in detail and with an honesty that will perhaps make it clear where the real commercial benefits lie and what the effects will be on passenger traffic.
We recommend that the Government consider the possibility of regional Eurostar services having regard to the impact of the second phase of the channel tunnel rail link. The last phase of the link will be difficult and involve considerable costs, as it will be built through parts of London that are extremely congested. It will have to be considered as part of the overall service. One cannot suggest that the channel tunnel rail link should end at a point south of the most important and congested parts of the capital city and still expect it to produce the high quality of rail services that we require.
We also said that we think that the promise of regional services implicit in section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 should be the concern of Her Majesty's Government. The House of Commons was given clear and sensible undertakings that we expected to be honoured. It is clear that, without ease of access for the regions, the economic benefits of such a service, which will be largely funded by the taxpayer, will be lost to large sections of the United Kingdom.
It is clear that transport has a direct and immediate impact on economic development, and if the regions are to be deprived of the benefit of something that they have been asked to fund, frankly, the Committee will have been right to say that we have been cheated.
Mr. Peter Snape: I served in Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill, and we thought that the pledge to run regional Eurostar services was based
1002
on the completion of the channel tunnel rail link. Who did my hon. Friend and the Select Committee feel would travel on the trains under the current circumstances?
Mrs. Dunwoody: That is precisely why the careful work done by my hon. Friend and by that Standing Committee needs to be treated seriously by the Government. It was precisely because we were concerned that domestic passengers would not have access but would still have to bear the costs, and that if we were not careful the only region to benefit would be the south-east, that we made our feelings so clear in the report.
Mr. Graham Brady: I represent a constituency not far from the hon. Lady's, and I am all in favour of greater choice and greater access to facilities for the north-west. My concern is about her suggestion that the region is losing out. No doubt the south-east is benefiting, but surely the north-west is not losing out, because the journey times by air are shorter.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The Committee considered that idea carefully, and history shows us that areas that do not keep up with modern transport, or allow people to move freely in and out, lose out on economic development. We all ask about airport development because we know that without good access by air, rail and road, a region's economic development is stunted. It is not totally shut off, but it does not go ahead at the rate or in the way that it should.
I know that many hon. Members want to speak, so I shall finish when I have made one more point. When the Department's representatives were being questioned by the Committee on the annual report last week, they said that they would give us information about what was happening to those train sets that cost us so much.
We were especially concerned because there had been a suggestion that the company intended to let the drivers of the train sets go, and, in view of the real worth of the assets and of what such a move would mean for the future development of an efficient service, we wanted to know how much that would cost.
I have now received from the Department information that the House of Commons has a right to know:
"Eurostar have offered voluntary severance to the 32 regional drivers following consultation with …their unions. 12 drivers have accepted the offer, at a cost to Eurostar of £266,000".
That sum must be added to the cost of the original arrangements.
What I find really depressing is what the Department says about depreciation:
"The Regional train sets were accounted for in the fixed assets of Eurostar (UK) Limited at a cost of £174.6 million as at March 1996."
However, they have now depreciated so that their book value went down by £100 million in 1997, and by £45 million in 1998. The letter continues:
"The current book value of the regional train sets",
which cost the taxpayer so much,
"is £45.9 million".
That is a disgrace. The House of Commons was given undertakings, spent the money and demanded the service, yet finished with nothing to show for it. That should not be allowed to continue.
Mr. James Gray (North Wiltshire): Is the hon. Lady not aware that the value of the train sets themselves has

1003
not fallen at all? All that has happened is that, by standard accountancy procedures, their book value has been decreased. Because they have not yet been used, they are of precisely the same real value as they were when we bought them.
Mrs. Dunwoody: The hon. Gentleman can provide as many apologiae pro vita sua as he likes, but the truth is that the House of Commons was sold a nonsensical bill of goods. The House has the right to be indignant and to say that that is not acceptable.
I do not need to wax indignant on behalf of my Committee, because many other Members will do that. I shall simply say that the future of transport and economic development in this country are closely linked. The development of the channel tunnel rail services presents an opportunity to provide not only the taxpayer but the rail traveller with a high-quality service. If that is not taken, either by the Government or by individual Ministers for Transport, we shall all suffer.
I hope that Ministers will be able to tell us today when the report will be ready, what quality of service will be provided, what undertakings the company has given, and how soon the House of Commons can realistically expect to see a company operating the service. The company should be one that does not simply write unrealistic plans that can never be translated into services, but provides for the United Kingdom the level of rail service that we have a right to demand, and which we have paid for over and over again. We should surprise the taxpayer by producing the goods this time. That would be a real development for the future.
11.15 am
Mr. Peter Snape: The House will have heard with interest what my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who chairs the Transport Sub-Committee, has said. Many of the points that she made were valid.
I begin by declaring an interest as a director and chairman of various companies involved with the National Express group, none of which have anything to do with the railway industry. National Express obviously does not find my railway experience of any value. All the companies with which I am involved concern either the bus or the property interests of the group. I ask the House to accept the fact that I have not been in touch with the group in any way about its views on what we are discussing.
The Committee used strong language, as did my hon. Friend, about the regional Eurostar saga. Its report said that the regions had been cheated—a phrase repeated by my hon. Friend. She will be aware, as will the rest of the Committee, that there is no legal obligation for Eurostar (UK) Ltd. to run regional Eurostars. Section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 simply imposed a duty on the British Railways Board to prepare a plan for
"the provision or improvement of international through services serving various parts of the United Kingdom".
My hon. Friend will also be aware, as will many of my hon. Friends who have taken an interest in such matters, that in 1989 the chairman of the British Railways Board, Sir Robert Reid, said about regional Eurostars:
"Our duty is not to run a service because it is desirable; it is to run a service which will be profitable".
1004
It appears that that doctrine is still true—or rather, is still believed, although it may not be true,
My hon. Friend suggested some alternatives to Eurostar UK Ltd.—other companies that might run regional Eurostars—and she mentioned Virgin. I have sat in this Chamber several times and heard her say scathing things about Virgin Trains. I live in the west midlands and represent a west midlands constituency, so from time to time I share her anger about Virgin's performance.
As recently as last year, the review carried out by the Deputy Prime Minister, in its submission to the Transport Sub-Committee, described the Virgin proposals as unlikely to be commercially viable. Virgin has been understandably vague. So far, as far as I am aware, it has not provided either the Government or Members of Parliament with detailed costings or information concerning traffic forecasts or the costs of operating the trains. In view of my hon. Friend's strictures about its patchy performance in operating the west coast main line services, if Virgin took on that additional burden, it could lead to even more strident criticisms by both my hon. Friend and other users of the west coast main line in the near future.
There is another reason why I suggest that regional Eurostars should not be introduced now—certainly not on the west coast main line. We have almost had the 1,000 days and nights in which Railtrack promised to refurbish that line and transform it to make it suitable for train operation in the 21st century. We have concrete information, rather than hype, from Virgin this time, and we know that a considerable number of new trains destined for that line are under construction.
I am long enough in the tooth to remember the last time that the west coast main line was rebuilt, and such work is, to say the least, not conducive to punctuality and the maintenance of the existing service, let alone to adding more trains. I am concerned that Railtrack may take much longer than a thousand days and nights to modernise the west coast main line, and its task will not be helped if additional trains are run.
The essential point that the House has to face about regional Eurostar trains without the channel tunnel rail link is who would use them. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) may wish to justify his comments about the north-west, but it is difficult to imagine business travellers who usually pay a premium being too interested in using a rail service from Birmingham or Wolverhampton that takes much longer than the air service. However, those considerations should not apply once the channel tunnel rail link has been completed.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend understand the concern in the south-east where people have waited years for the CTRL to get off the ground? It is being constructed through my constituency now. If money is diverted to regional trains, that could stall the process.
Mr. Snape: My hon. Friend makes his point well. Without the CTRL it is impossible to conceive any economic operation of regional trains. For example, from Glasgow, on the best estimates it would take three times as long by train under current circumstances as it does by air. There may be a leisure market for such a service from cities including Glasgow, but a service at regular intervals is hypothetical rather than realistic.

1005
My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) reminds me of a point about the CTRL. Those of us who served on the channel tunnel Committee in the mid-1980s presumed that once the go-ahead was given for that great project, the CTRL would be built around the same time. Before too many Conservative Members participate in this debate, I hope that they will accept some responsibility for the appalling mess that the CTRL is in. At that time, a route was settled upon that would bring the trains into Waterloo and, eventually, under much of London and out to the north-west and north-east using the rest of the railway network. It was that great architect of social change, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who decided—having allowed British Rail to spend hundreds of millions of pounds in acquiring property on the original route—to scrap it and to divert the trains via Stratford.
I concede that those of my hon. Friends who fought for that diversion fought a good campaign.
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Hear, hear.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman, who managed to drift in to the Chamber for the debate at seven minutes past 11, agrees that it was an effective campaign, but those of us who wanted to see the project completed sooner rather than later made the point that the campaign for Stratford—I do not wish to upset anyone, but it is not a place that leaps to mind when people talk about visiting the United Kingdom—would delay the completion of the CTRL. It has done so to such an extent that we are still concerned about the second portion of the line.
My conclusion is obvious. Although I understand the ire of the Select Committee, I do not see any alternative to what has been proposed. My hon. Friend the Member for Watford (Ms Ward) enthusiastically supports a quicker way to Europe than we have at present, but that will depend on the completion of the full CTRL if the trains are to compete with the airlines.
Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does my hon. Friend agree that while the Select Committee may be angry, the people in the north of England feel that they were cheated? They travel on train sets that frequently break down and they want to know why carriages should stand idle when they could be used to transport them to London and perhaps on to Paris.
Mr. Snape: I visit my hon. Friend's constituency occasionally, and he is aware of my one vice these days of supporting Stockport County. I have not been conscious of his constituents' anger that they cannot travel direct by train to the fleshpots of Paris and Brussels, which might be because they are not interested in such things in my home town and the town that he represents. However, he makes a valid point.
There is no point in running empty trains, because that will not benefit the north-west, the midlands or anywhere else. The task of all of us involved in that great project is to ensure the completion of the CTRL, and the use of Watford as a transfer point for passengers for Paris and Brussels. However, with the best will in the world and having spent most of my life working in the
1006
railway industry, I cannot see a regular interval service from some of the cities represented so ably by my hon. Friends present today being sensible or viable in the short term.
11.26 am
Mr. Tom Brake: I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. We are in another fine mess, as Laurel and Hardy would say. That is the best way to describe the state of the railways bequeathed to the nation by successive Governments. Hardly a day goes by without reports of increases in trains failures and cancellations. Today's free paper, Metro London, contains details about a report from the Office for Passenger Rail Franchising. It states:
"Rail firms have been forced to pay about £1 million in fines because they have failed to meet basic performance targets.
On almost half Britain's rail routes, reliability worsened while fewer than a third showed any improvement."
Where does responsibility for the chaos lie? It is partly down to decades of under-investment in rail, and that was the responsibility of previous Administrations, and it is also down to the absence of a level playing field between road and rail freight. The failure so far of regional Eurostar services to emerge is another example of the UK's inability to provide train services of a quality that travellers on the continent take for granted. Their services are fast, frequent and, when I make use of them, they seem to be fairly crowded.
It is true that in France and other European countries much higher subsidies are given to rail services. However, they have other advantages that we should not discount and which may offset the additional subsidies. Why do French towns fight so hard to get the TGV to stop there? It is because they expect economic development to result from a train station being built in or close to the town. It is good for business and for tourism in the area. We should not underestimate that potential.
Rail services carry other advantages that should be taken into account. They bring clear environmental benefits, for example. Transport is a major growth area for CO2 emissions. Eurostar compares itself with the aviation sector in which CO2 emissions are increasing quickly and significantly. They tend to have an impact in the higher atmosphere, so it is perhaps even more damaging.
Mr. Gray: We are not talking about the advantages of air over rail in general but about regional Eurostar services. Why should any business man consider spending six hours on a regional Eurostar service from Manchester when he could travel for an hour and 20 minutes by air? Even if it is environmentally better to go by rail, why would he wish to do so, particularly if the service is more expensive?
Mr. Brake: I shall come to that point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel later that it has been adequately addressed.
Rail can provide the potential for shifting passengers from short-haul flights to rail services. Rail is less noisy when the impact of airports on communities is taken into account. Rail generates less congestion. I have no evidence to support that proposition; it is merely a hunch, but I suspect that the congestion associated with airports, which are placed outside cities, is much greater than that

1007
created by rail stations, which tend to be in the centre of cities. People more often use public transport to get to and from the rail stations.
The Government must also consider the costs of CO2. If they identify the cost of each tonne of CO2 emissions, they will be able more clearly to compare the impact of train and air services.
Let me return to the point made by the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). Even if rail has benefits for wider society rather than Eurostar or its passengers, they will not be achieved if Eurostar decides that services cannot be commercially justified because they cannot compete with air travel times. However, Eurostar's time comparisons for journeys to Glasgow by train and by air fail to take a significant factor into account—the time taken travelling from the centre of a city to an airport, to another airport and on to the centre of another city. Many journeys are from city centre to city centre rather than from, say, Gatwick airport to Charles de Gaulle, and a more accurate comparison would take that into account.
The business man or business woman may consider only the time factor, but other people travel by train. My family frequently travels by train to the south of France. Our two-year-old is much more manageable on a train than she would be if cooped up in a plane for two hours. We have made that choice not only on how long it takes to get there. It would be much quicker if we flew to Avignon, although I do not know whether there are any scheduled flights from Gatwick, so we might have to resort to a charter flight, which would cost considerably more.
Cost is important if people decide to travel at the last moment because air fares are significantly higher. Eurostar should consider the time and cost factors in their deliberations on regional services. Other matters on the horizon may affect the relative competitiveness of rail and air. Only an hour ago, the Minister for the Environment said that supported the introduction of an aircraft fuel duty. Although he did not substantiate it with hard evidence, he took the view that there was widespread support for such a measure in Europe. If such a tax were introduced in Europe, it would affect the balance between rail and air services.
Eurostar should not underestimate the commercial benefits that could be derived from regional services. Nor should the Government underestimate the other benefits. The review that will be conducted should consider socioeconomic benefits. If the benefits are shown to be enormous, the Government will have to consider finding imaginative funding for the schemes.
Mr. Snape: The hon. Gentleman is making a very Liberal speech. If the owners of existing train sets are correct in thinking that the loss on regional Eurostar services is about £95 million, does the hon. Gentleman think that the Government should produce that money, or could it come out of the ever-expanding penny that the Liberal Democrats would put on income tax?
Mr. Brake: I am not sure that I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. That is a question for the Government, not for me.
Mr. Snape: Decisions always are.
Mr. Brake: Of course they are. I have stated clearly that if clear socioeconomic benefits could be derived from
1008
regional Eurostar services, the Government would have to consider how they should be funded. Eurostar will not fund the services as a social initiative, but only if they are competitive and profitable.
I want the Government to act quickly on the train sets that sit in sidings. I suffer from overcrowding every day as I travel into London. If rolling stock can be released—
Mr. Gray: In Carshalton?
Mr. Brake: Yes, in Carshalton. If rolling stock can be released, we can have Eurostar regional services and a significant improvement in services across the whole country.
11.37 am
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I shall be brief. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs had used strong language in its conclusions. By contrast, I would say that our language was moderate under the circumstances. To say that we were badly let down is to be extremely moderate. Scotland has been totally conned given what Eurostar now proposes.
Charlie Gordon, chairman of Strathclyde passenger transport authority, is jumping up and down with rage about what the company has done, and is threatening legal action. It is nonsense to suggest that Strathclyde should accept what is proposed under section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 when one considers the investment that the authority made when the services were first introduced. They did not invest directly in the rolling stock, but indirectly by creating travel centres dedicated for Eurostar services at Glasgow central station and other service centres.
All that was funded by Strathclyde PTA, but for what? The authority has been completely conned. Compensation is to be offered to drivers, which is ridiculous. The Government must deal with that as a priority. I understand that Charlie wrote to the Department as far back as December and is still waiting for a reply.
As we say in our conclusions to the report, why have the Government or the company not conducted any research into the usage of Eurostar services through the tunnel? During the Select Committee investigation, we asked where passengers were coming from. We were given no information. The Government did not seem to know the facts. The brief that I received from Eurostar does not mention where clients come from. It is a priority to find that out so that we can make conclusions about the value of continuing to argue for a regional Eurostar service.
I said that I would be brief so I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to take note of what I have said and to give us answers to our questions.
11.41 am
Mr. Eric Martlew: I, too, shall be brief. The Whip has permission to give me the nod if I go beyond five minutes. I welcome the report and congratulate the Committee. The Chairman is right. We have been cheated. There is no doubt about it. We have not got the services and we have spent more than £300 million of taxpayers' money not to get them.

1009
I am joint chair of the west coast main line all-party group. We take a particular interest in regional Eurostar services. We are disappointed by what is happening, or not happening. The group is used to being disappointed. We have existed for six or seven years now and all that we have seen is services getting worse on the west coast main line. I understand that today's results from the Rail Regulator show that services are getting poorer, although in Scotland, in which Carlisle is counted for this purpose, we have a better service—only one in five trains are now late. That is an improvement on last year.
We have a poor service in Cumbria, and we expect better. Two proposals have supposedly been made by the companies, but in reality only one has been made, because Eurostar UK's is not a proposal. It is not even an apology, which it should be. The only proposal on the table is from Virgin. Harsh things have been said about Virgin in the past, especially by me and by the Chairman of the Select Committee, and rightly so, but it has made a proposal. My hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) said that it had not, but I have it here. It was a supplementary proposal that went to the Select Committee. It give details of pricing, the number of sets a day, where the trains would call and the cost. I am disappointed that it does not say that the trains would come from Glasgow via Carlisle and down the west coast, but I accept that that will not be an option in the near future. There is a vital link to be made with the station at Watford.
Mr. Gray rose—
Mr. Martlew: I give way to our honourable clever Friend across the way.
Mr. Gray: Despite the hon. Gentleman's note of irony, I should like to correct one minor point. Virgin does propose services from both Glasgow and Edinburgh.
Mr. Martlew: The proposed services start from Glasgow and go to Edinburgh and then down the east coast, not from Glasgow to Carlisle and down the west coast. I think I am right on that one.
Points have been made about the option of flying. The reality is that people who live in my constituency will probably have to leave home three and a half hours before their flight from Manchester airport. Parking is expensive. Many people do not like airports. They find them uncomfortable and unsatisfactory. They are stressful places. It would be much easier to get on a west coast main line train, get off at Watford and go through the channel tunnel. We should not underestimate people's dislike of airports. We need a rail service.
I greatly admire my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East and respect his expertise on railways, but all that he seems to offer us on the west coast is that things will get worse, there will be no extra services and it may take much longer than one thousand days to
1010
modernise the west coast main line. That is a negative estimate of what will happen. I hope that I do not become as cynical as my hon. Friend as I spend longer here.
Mr. Snape: It is not cynicism but realism. 1 was a signalman when the line was last modernised. I ask my hon. Friend to accept that modernisation and punctuality do not go together.
Mr. Martlew: I accept that, but the technology used 30 years ago when my hon. Friend was a signalman has advanced considerably.
If I am not to have Eurostar services on the west coast main line, I make a plea that the seven train sets be made available to Virgin West Coast. There is no doubt that our rolling stock is unsatisfactory. To use a technical term, it is clapped out. The seven sets would make a great deal of difference. Instead of being in sidings gathering graffiti, which I am sure they are, they should be put to good use on services to Europe down the west coast or, if not, on the west coast main line.
11.46 am
Mr. Bill O'Brien: I want to make a plea for my county and the region that I represent. I attended the Second Reading debate on the Channel Tunnel Rail Bill as an Opposition Member, regularly making the plea that the regions should be serviced by Eurostar. We were promised regional services on several occasions. One has to ask why the company is reneging on that promise and what the Government will do to ensure that it is fulfilled.
I shall not go into technical details. They were covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody). People suggest that there would be no passengers on regional Eurostar services and that, if people want to travel to Europe, flying is best. If hon. Members read our reports on aviation, they would find that we want a service into the hub airports. We have no service from Leeds-Bradford into the hub airports. We are moving fast towards a similar situation with the hub airports on the continent. There will no slots for regional connections from our regional airports. I deprecate that. We need such a service.
It is important that West Yorkshire—Leeds and Wakefield, my own area—should have a rail link into Europe. There are passengers who want such a service. We need an opportunity for people to demonstrate that they want to travel by train. Rail passengers benefit a great deal from the freedom that the railways offer as compared with flying. It would be wrong for a conurbation such as West Yorkshire, with a population of 2.5 million and five large authorities-—eeds, Bradford, Calderdale, Wakefield and Kirklees—to be denied Eurostar services.
My right hon. Friend the Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning is familiar with Yorkshire. We have a regional development agency, and we need a service to sustain it. He is dedicated to developing the regions. If we are to succeed in generating economic development in the region, we need a regional Eurostar service. I cannot imagine or envisage that the area in Yorkshire where I live will be denied this service. We must press the company at all levels to ensure that the promises that were made when we were discussing the then Channel Tunnel Bill are fulfilled.

1011
There has been talk about people being cheated. I shall consider that my constituents have been cheated if the service is not extended into the area where I live. The rail paths are clear and a system is in place. We need an additional service and the trains that will provide it. There is a demand for the service and, along with my parliamentary colleagues, I plead for the service to come into the area of the Yorkshire region that I represent.
11.50 am
Ms Claire Ward: As someone who much appreciates the opportunity to travel on Eurostar at any time, I am particularly enthused by the prospect that I can get on the service at Watford and end up in Paris three and a half hours later.
The Select Committee has correctly identified that Watford is well placed to be an integrated transport hub. Indeed, the town is already on its way to becoming that. For example, the Silverlink service takes 20 minutes to get into Euston and there are Virgin services on the west coast main line. If the Government support the regional Eurostar scheme, there is the prospect of the Croxley rail link, which will bring tube links direct into Watford Junction.
I share some of the concerns of my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). There are capacity difficulties on the west coast main line, even given the modernisation of that line. I recently held a rail summit, bringing together all the train operating companies that serve Watford and Railtrack. When we considered potential new services and regional Eurostar, it emerged that there is no capacity for any new or innovative services. That is the position now and, even with modernisation and upgrading of the west coast main line, there will not be much capacity for additional services. There will be only the improvement of existing services.
We may have real problems in extending regional Eurostar to other areas, and there is no doubt that the solution lies in Watford. The town can provide a real hub for trains coming along the west coast main line from all parts of the country and connecting with Watford. Watford has other good connections. It is very close to the M1 and the M25 and is only a short distance from Heathrow. A proposal was put forward by Anglia Railways Train Services to link Watford and Heathrow by rail. Unfortunately, that has been turned down by Railtrack because of capacity issues. I believe that the link could offer more opportunities for regional Eurostar services. As I have said, there is a tube link. Many people will be surprised to know that it extends as far as Watford. We hope that, eventually, it will be brought into the Watford Junction service.
There are cost issues. The Select Committee report correctly identifies that the costs involved in making Watford a base for regional Eurostar would be considerably less than those of extending the service much further beyond Watford. I understand that investment of about £2 million would be needed at Watford for new passenger facilities and for immigration controls. There is no doubt that the cost would be much lower than that of an extended service and it would be a much quicker alternative. It would ensure that we see Eurostar services extended beyond London. It would be much cheaper than extending them from Glasgow, for example.
1012
I understand that other hon. Members are keen to speak in this debate and I do not wish to prolong my contribution. I merely say that my constituents would greatly welcome the extension of the regional Eurostar to Watford. The town can cope with such opportunities and provide much better onward travel links for anybody who wishes to come from Europe straight through into Watford. I hope that the Government will consider this option as soon as possible. I look forward to seeing Eurostar operating from Watford to Paris as quickly as possible.
11.55 am
Mr. George Stevenson: The Select Committee report does not say that we want any delay in the construction of the high-speed rail link. It says specifically that we do not want that. For those hon. Members who seem to have written off the regions in terms of Eurostar, the report specifically does not say that we want to see empty trains running into the regions. I am disappointed that some hon. Members have made contributions that seem to write off the regions. I can only conclude that the Members responsible have not read the report. If they have—
Mr. Brady: Is the hon. Gentleman referring to me?
Mr. Stevenson: Yes, I am referring to the hon. Gentleman, who represents a constituency in the north-west.
Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way? Mr. Stevenson: I do not have time.
I suggest that those who seem to have written off the regions should either read the report or read it again more carefully.
The report also states that the one assessment of, or piece of research into, regional Eurostar—it was carried out by Capital and Continental Railways—lacks credibility. That company was appointed by the Secretary of State in July 1998. It knew then that it would be appointed as the leader of the regional Eurostar consortium. It had made it clear that its preference was for Eurostar to be based at Heathrow.
Lo and behold, at about that time, British Airways took a 10 per cent. stake in the consortium. There we have it. That is why the Select Committee said that the research that was carried out by Capital and Continental Railways, or its assessment, lacked any credibility. Indeed, when the company gave evidence to the Committee, a number of us asked a specific question: "Which is your preference for the development of Eurostar services?" The answer was clear—Heathrow. The representatives of the company told us that their assessment of Heathrow was that, if they could develop a service there, they would take passengers away from Waterloo. Nevertheless, their preference was development in the south-east. That was all that they were interested in.
We were delighted when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that he was not completely satisfied with the outcome of the assessment by Capital and Continental Railways. He decided that there should be another inquiry with different terms of reference. Crucially, they include economic benefits to the regions,

1013
something which was not included in the terms of reference of the first inquiry. The credibility of the first assessment, on which some hon. Members have based their opinions, must be treated with great caution. We are delighted that the Secretary of State has recognised that. We are delighted also that there will be a further investigation. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to ensure that the next inquiry is conducted as speedily as possible but consistent with a thorough job being done.
I have no doubt—I think that the majority of members of the Select Committee, if not all of them, equally have no doubt—that, when the next inquiry takes place, with the terms of reference that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has laid down, very different conclusions will be reached about the need and demand for, and the essential nature of, regional Eurostar services.
11.59 am
Mr. Graham Brady: I sorry that the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson) did not give way, having referred to me in his contribution. I understood that that was a normal courtesy in the House. As a point of correction, I ought to make it clear at the outset that it was his hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) who referred to empty trains. I do not see anything wrong in that—the hon. Gentleman made a sensible and intelligent contribution to the debate.
Like the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, I feel that the important question about regional Eurostar services is not whether there is outrage and anger on one side or another, or whether it is fundamentally right that there should be rail services from the regions to Europe, but simply whether there is a demand for those services.
I speak with some care and caution on the matter, as I am aware that my constituents are fortunate in numerous respects, but particularly fortunate with regard to transport. They are well connected for motorway transport, reasonably well connected by rail, and extremely close to Manchester airport, which is a major regional hub airport. In terms of time taken to travel from one place to another, they are therefore on the other side of the debate from the constituents of some of the other hon. Members who have spoken.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that residents of the north-west living in Liverpool, Lancashire, Cumbria and elsewhere are many miles away from a suitable airport, and that, in any case, the existence of an airport in no way obviates the need for rail links to the channel tunnel—a need which was identified by the north-west chamber of commerce and manufacturing industry in the north-west?
Mr. Brady: The hon. Lady makes a valid point. Of course, she has an airport in Liverpool, and it would be nice if it were used more than it is at present, perhaps with a greater variety of services. She makes a sensible point, and one that I was trying to develop.
There are parts of the regions where there may be demand, which may lead to full, rather than empty, trains. However, in most circumstances, my constituents would
1014
recognise that it would be a more sensible choice for them to fly, rather than to take a regional train service, were it available.
The matter must be addressed in a commercial sense. By that I mean not that the profit element should be put first, but from the perspective of demand for the service. The hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) referred to the environmental benefits of train travel over aviation travel. That may well be true if the train is full, but not if the train is empty or nearly empty.
I shall not detain the House for long, as I know that there is little time. I want simply to bring the House back to the sensible contribution from the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East, who sought to focus the debate on whether demand exists. There may well be demand in West Yorkshire, Stoke-on-Trent, Carlisle and Liverpool. 1 have no difficulty with that possibility, but the debate should focus on the real question of whether there is demand and whether the services will be used, not whether people feel angry or let down. That may be a legitimate feeling, but it should not be the motivation for creating a new rail service.
12.3 pm
Ms Jenny Jones: I am pleased to have been called to speak in the debate. I am not a member of the Select Committee, but Eurostar regional services are a matter of great interest to my constituency and my region.
I have a copy of the front page of the Wolverhampton Express and Star on 9 December last year, the day after the announcement about the feasibility or otherwise of Eurostar services. The headline states:
"Rail link for the chunnel hits buffers—midlands route to Europe shunted into siding".
The article goes on to reflect accurately the frustration and disappointment with which people in Wolverhampton and the surrounding region greeted the news that the long-expected services might not take off.
The other reason why I pointed out the article is that there is great interest in the regions. People are following the debate, and we should not underestimate that.
The key recommendation in the report is that the Government should carry out a review of the economic and social impact of a regional Eurostar service on the regions. The report acknowledges the alternative of upgrading Watford and running passenger links to Watford. I believe that that would be a good alternative.
My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) was spot-on when she said that the issue was the economic development of some of the regions. It is not just a matter of how profitably or otherwise passengers can be shunted round the rail service to Europe. It is a matter of economic development. I shall use Wolverhampton as an example.
Wolverhampton is the rail gateway to Staffordshire, Shropshire and Wales. In the 1980s, its economy collapsed. It has worked hard to restructure its local economy, but there is no doubt that a decent transport infrastructure is vital to its future growth. People who want to travel to Paris and Brussels have the choice of Birmingham airport or a complex and time-consuming

1015
journey involving several other modes of transport. The midland motorway system is so congested in parts that it is a liability, rather than an asset.
The business community of Wolverhampton wants the rail link. More than half of the new firms moving into Wolverhampton since the 1980s recession are from the European Union. They form the economic base of the town, and European trade is vital. The business community is asking for a direct rail link into mainland Europe.
Wolverhampton is a visitor centre. It has 3.5 million visitors a year, which may come to some people as a surprise. Wolverhampton has a growing tourist industry, but it needs a rail link into mainland Europe to realise the full potential of attracting visitors to the town.
A Eurostar link or a link through Watford would be a major asset in attracting inward investment. New companies that want to relocate to the area have pointed out that the congestion on the M6 north of Birmingham is a major barrier to economic development in Wolverhampton and the surrounding region. An alternative direct link to mainland Europe would be a significant factor in the economic regeneration of Wolverhampton and the region.
Finally, the report states that the regions have been cheated. They most certainly have. They are being cheated out of realising their full economic potential. As a matter of some urgency, the Government must carry out a review of the economic impact of regional Eurostar services. I point out to my hon. Friend the Minister that the majority of people living in this country who are likely to use those services live south of Scotland, east of Wales and north of the Watford gap.
12.7 pm
Mr. Bernard Jenkin: First, I apologise to the House for arriving a little late for the debate.
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): Rail problems?
Mr. Jenkin: I cannot blame the train. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) fairly had a dig at my slightly late arrival, so perhaps I may reciprocate and wonder where he has gone, as he does not seem to be in the Chamber to hear—
Mr. Caborn: I shall say why.
Mr. Jenkin: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's apologies will be conveyed by the Minister.
I congratulate the Select Committee, under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), on the report, which raised issues of concern to all parts of the House. When her Committee, which was unanimous, says that it feels cheated, we should all feel that.
It is not just a matter of the important emblematic issues involved. The fact that the promise was made to the regions and to Scotland but not delivered rather reinforces the unfortunate impression that the south-east does not care about the rest of the country. That is a sad indictment of the accretion of economic forces in the south-east.
1016
There are important strategic issues for areas such as Wolverhampton, which were described by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones). It is not the great volume of people who will use the service, but the key decision-makers who need access to the continent for their business. They need to be attracted to places such as Wolverhampton, Manchester and ultimately to Glasgow and other parts of the United Kingdom. They attract the business, so they are crucial for economic development. We share those concerns.
I shall keep my remarks as short as possible, as the House deserves a comprehensive reply from the Minister—[Interruption.] I shall do my best. I take the House back to the statement about the channel tunnel rail link on 3 June last year, when the Deputy Prime Minister said:
"1 can assure the House that LCR remains under an obligation to provide the infrastructure for regional Eurostar services. The trains for those services are currently lying idle. I have therefore asked the consortium to review urgently the feasibility of such services, and to put proposals to me before the end of the year. I shall inform the House of the outcome of that review in due course."—[Official Report, 3 June 1998; Vol. 313, c. 369.]
The Deputy Prime Minister did not promise to make an announcement before the end of the year, but there was a clear impression that the matter was urgent. However, those trains have been lying idle during the two years in which the Government have been in office. No decisions have been made and, understandably, people are becoming frustrated.
The first point that I ask the Minister to address is why, in the 1997 bidding process for the Eurostar services that included the regional services, did the Government accept the consortium bid when it was subsequently announced that that bid did not include an obligation to run the regional services? The alternative—the original Virgin bid—seemed to be—
Mr. Caborn: That was the situation that the Conservatives left us.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. The Minister must not reply prematurely from a sedentary position.
Mr. Jenkin: It gives me nothing but satisfaction to have riled the right hon. Gentleman already. However, that is not my intention; I genuinely want an explanation. Virgin was firmly under the impression that it was bidding with a clear obligation to run regional services. The consortium bid was accepted, and the Government then announced that regional services were not an obligation.
There was a second red herring in relation to running services to London Heathrow when, technically, that will not work. We have all seen the picture in Rail magazine of a Eurostar train standing at a platform at Heathrow, but the only way to get that train to that platform to take such a picture would be to alter the platform or to remove bits of the train. That service is not a viable option until terminal 5 is constructed; that is some way off—too far off for most Members of the House.
Thirdly, what have the Government done since last year's statement on the channel tunnel rail link? We have received the reports of Mercer Management Consulting Ltd. and of the Transport Sub-Committee, and the Government have now commissioned another independent

1017
review. That looks suspiciously like a stalling exercise. However, during that period there has been another offer from Virgin. As the hon. Member for Watford (Ms Ward) pointed out, there are great virtues in Watford acting as a hub for regional services and in starting a service from Watford through the channel tunnel to Paris. The Waterloo service takes three hours; the Watford service would take three hours and 20 minutes.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) said, there may be problems about the viability of services running as far north as Manchester and Glasgow. However, that does not apply to Watford. The tracks and the train paths are in place. I understand that Virgin has even discussed with Eurostar (UK) Ltd. the possibility that Virgin should run such services. Virgin's real interest is in adding critical mass and viability to its services running into Watford and down the west coast main line. I want to correct the hon. Member for Carlisle (Mr. Martlew), who said that it is not viable to run Eurostar services up the west coast main line. I understand that it is viable to do so and that that is Virgin's intention in the fullness of time.
Mr. Martlew: I said that Virgin's proposals are to run trains from Glasgow and Edinburgh down the east coast line—not down the west coast line from Carlisle.
Mr. Jenkin: I may have the wrong information; I am prepared to stand corrected on that point. However, the question whether those trains could be used to improve the services on the west coast main line is not in doubt. At present, the trains are sitting idle—that might be the information to which I referred.
In paragraph 21 of the Government's response to the report, they half accepted the key recommendation of the Committee, but have merely handed the matter back to the British Railways Board. Paragraph 22 states that the board
"should prepare a plan stating measures which ought to be taken by any person in the United Kingdom or France with the aim of securing the provision or improvement of international through services serving various parts of the United Kingdom."
We want a decision from the Government. Have they merely put the matter into the box labelled "Too difficult"? Transport Ministers come and go; I remember that there was some criticism that were too many Transport Ministers under the previous Conservative Government. The same disease seems to afflict the Labour Government. Perhaps the officials in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions hope that the Minister will not have time to grapple with the matter before he moves on and they can start on the education of a new Minister. On the other hand, perhaps the Government are imprisoned by their interest—the financial stake that they have taken in the Eurostar consortium. They have a 10 per cent. stake, a 35 per cent. share of the profits and a potential 35 per cent. share of the sale proceeds. Has the Treasury told the DETR that the viability and the profitability of the existing Eurostar service should not be compromised because the Treasury has made a financial investment that is tied to the channel tunnel rail link deal?
One of the reasons why the services are in doubt is that there is no obligation on the company running the channel tunnel rail link to build phase 2. We are left with a most
1018
unsatisfactory situation. I want to leave one final thought with the Minister, although I realise that he is not the Minister of Transport, but has responsibilities for the regions. Any solution would be better than the present situation. That is a plea. We share the difficulties that he faces in resolving the situation, but it is absurd that seven good train sets should be lying idle. The right hon. Gentleman's Government have been responsible for that during the past two years; we are anxious to give him any possible assistance and support in resolving it. It is time that the Government took some decisions instead of setting up more and more reviews.
12.16 pm
The Minister for the Regions, Regeneration and Planning (Mr. Richard Caborn): First, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise for the sedentary intervention that I made earlier. It was not becoming to a Member on the Treasury Bench.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) on initiating this important debate. Although the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) said that I was not the Minister of Transport, I was a member of the Committee when the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 passed through Parliament. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Labour Opposition at that time forced the Conservative Government to include section 40 of the Act. Labour forced that Government to take on board our belief that the asset of the channel tunnel rail link should be for the whole nation and not merely for part of it. The nature of the Bill was such that financial responsibility could not be placed on its sponsors, so we had to deal with the matter by including section 40. That measure dealt not only with passengers, but with freight as well. It was an extremely important section of the Act that dealt with the well-being not only of the English regions, but of Scotland and Wales.
The inquiry held by the Transport Sub-Committee and its report echoed the views expressed by hon. Members today. The Committee's recommendations have been invaluable in informing the review that the Government are commissioning. We have already announced that we intend the review to be wide ranging. Its terms of reference were drawn up in the light of the Sub-Committee's thinking and encompass a broad range of issues—including consideration of routes, stopping patterns, operational issues, demand for services, impact on the construction of the channel tunnel rail link and, of course, the wider socio-economic benefits of such services. That is set within the broad context of section 40 of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987.
My hon. Friends were the main participants in the debate, which shows the interest of Labour Members in the regions and in Scotland and Wales. Some of that information about the origin of passengers, for which my hon. Friends asked, is confidential, but I assure my hon. Friends that it will be available to the consultants. The consultants' report will take into account Railtrack's modernisation programme for the west coast main line. Services for Watford and the Watford hub will also be considered by the review. My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich made a number of points and I hope that they will also be factored into the review. We want to factor in all those matters, but we want to ensure that there is no delay in the work of the review.

1019
As the House will know, on 12 April, we announced that we had invited five firms to bid for the appointment as consultant to undertake the review. Those firms are Arthur D Little, Booz Allen and Hamilton, Colin Buchanan and Partners, PricewaterhouseCoopers and WS Atkins. The bids were received today, and we expect to make the appointment in June. We shall instruct the successful firm to undertake the broad-ranging study that I have outlined. I hope that that report will be with us by the end of the year. The hon. Member for North Essex shakes his head, but he knows that we inherited one hell of a mess in respect of the financing of the channel tunnel rail link. As my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich said, we hope that the taxpayers and the travelling public are in for a nice surprise, because the first surprise that we gave the taxpayer was to unravel the mess that the Conservatives had left. We would not be having this debate had the channel tunnel rail link itself failed, and that was a high possibility because of the give-away mentality of the previous Government. We had to get a better deal for the taxpayer by unravelling the mess and making sure—
Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Caborn: I shall not give way to hon. Members who, having only just come into the Chamber, decide to intervene. Only Members who have sat through the debate are entitled to intervene.
Mr. Jenkin: We are entitled to point out that the forecasts for the financing proposals for the original channel tunnel rail link were thrown out of kilter by the fire—[Hon. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Oh yes. To be fair to LCR, it should be emphasised that, until the fire, the company was broadly on track in financial terms, but the financing arrangements were thrown off by the fire.
Mr. Caborn: I shall not respond to that intervention, except to say that I think that the hon. Gentleman is being slightly economical with the truth. I shall let hon. Members arrive at their own judgment.
We are determined to ensure that the review takes proper account of the views of all interested organisations. We shall therefore instruct the firm of consultants appointed to consult, among others, the Local Government Association, the regional development agencies, and the Fast Tracks to Europe Alliance, to ensure that the views of the regions are properly represented.
There has been concern about Eurostar's reported plans for the regional trains sets and the drivers whom Eurostar employed to operate regional services. The Government understand and share the disquiet that has been expressed about Eurostar taking decisions that might pre-empt the Government's review. However, I assure the House that, although the trains are owned by Eurostar (UK) Ltd. and decisions on their use fall to the company, the Government have agreements in place that prevent assets from being used outside the Eurostar business without the consent of the Secretary of State. That power may well be used.
The Eurostar business is defined as the operation of international passenger services. We have made it clear to Eurostar that any plans it has for alternative uses of the
1020
regional train sets must be within the terms of the agreements that it has with Government and that it must not pre-empt the Government's review. Eurostar clearly understands that.
One alternative use of the regional train sets that I understand Eurostar is considering is their lease to domestic train operators—a point made by several of my hon. Friends. That option was encouraged by the Sub-Committee in its report, and I understand that Eurostar has already approached Virgin, Great North Eastern Railway, Connex, South West Trains and GB Railways to see whether they would be interested. As I have said, under the agreements we have with LCR, the lease of the regional rolling stock to domestic rail operators would be subject to the Secretary of State's consent. However, I can say now that if Eurostar can come up with a commercial arrangement that would enable the stock to be put to use on the domestic network, pending the outcome of the Government's review, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister would not stand in their way.
Decisions on the deployment of Eurostar drivers are, of course, a matter for the management of Eurostar (UK) Ltd. However, I have been assured by the company that its action in no way prejudges the outcome of the review. I understand from the company that, as a result of the delay in the introduction of a regional Eurostar service, it is incurring costs estimated to be about £250,000 per month—getting on for £3 million a year. To ameliorate those costs, the company has decided to offer a voluntary—I repeat, voluntary—severance scheme to the 32 regional Eurostar train drivers.
That decision was taken following consultation with the regional drivers themselves and with their unions. Eurostar tells me that 12 drivers have now accepted the offer of voluntary severance, at a cost to Eurostar (UK) Ltd. of £266,000. Those costs will not be met by the Government; they are rightly the responsibility of Eurostar.
As I have mentioned, the Government are keen to ensure that actions are not taken that might prejudice the outcome of our review. We have therefore asked Eurostar's management whether the loss of those drivers would affect the company's ability to run regional services, should that be decided. I am glad to say that we have received an unambiguous assurance from Eurostar (UK) Ltd. that, in the event that our review leads to a decision to start regional services, any requirement for additional drivers could be met and would not delay the introduction of those services. The professionals estimate that it would take only two to three months to recruit and train a driver to run a regional Eurostar train.
I know that many hon. Members remain concerned about the time that it is taking for the regional train sets to be cleared to operate on the west coast main line and east coast main line. I understand their concern. However, Eurostar regional rolling stock is technically complex, because it must be able to draw from four different traction current supply systems. Early testing revealed significant electro-magnetic induction problems when regional train sets interfered with the operation of track circuits. In lay person's language, that could affect all the signalling on the tracks, which would be extremely dangerous. Neither the Government nor Eurostar will act until we have clear confirmation that it is safe to use the

1021
rolling stock. We hope that clearance can be given sooner rather than later, but uppermost in our mind is passenger safety.
Several hon. Members raised the question of regional Eurostar trains carrying domestic passengers, and I am happy to confirm that security is not a bar to Eurostar running regional services. The Government have always said that, provided procedures are in place that satisfy security requirements, there would be no problem with regional Eurostars carrying domestic passengers, and that remains the case. The Government's review will include consideration of the costs and benefits that might be incurred by Eurostar if domestic passengers are carried.
The decision to abandon European night services was made in 1997 by European Night Services Ltd.—not by the Government—following a commercial review of the services. ENS is a joint venture company comprising Eurostar (UK) Ltd and several European railways. The reason the Government became involved was because the lease agreed by ENS and Metro Cammel in 1992 was underpinned by a Government guarantee, given by the Conservative Government. ENS took the view that it would cost too much to complete the building of the stock; and, as there were no plans to use it, the company decided to leave the partially built stock with the manufacturer and allow the lease to terminate. The lease automatically terminated as none of the rolling stock had been delivered to ENS by the manufacturer.
The problem was that, at that point, LCR, which owns Eurostar (UK) Ltd., had just told the Government that it could not continue with the channel tunnel rail link project, and Eurostar did not have sufficient money to fund its portion of the lease termination costs. Payment would have led to the insolvency of Eurostar (UK) Ltd., which would have caused the collapse of the channel tunnel rail link project. The Government decided to allow the guarantee to be called and, on 1 June 1998, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions paid out £109 million for the security left to us by the previous Administration. However, the Government are entitled to recover the payment as part of the restructuring deal agreed with LCR, the owner of Eurostar (UK) Ltd.
Although the rolling stock is now the responsibility of the manufacturer, Metro Cammel, part of the deal in allowing it to keep the trains involves a profit-sharing arrangement if they are sold on. ENS will get a 50 per cent. share of the profits if Metro Cammel—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Time is up for this debate.

Primary Schools (Bury)
12.30 pm
Mr. David Chaytor: I am grateful for the opportunity to introduce this debate. It is the first time in parliamentary history that the town that I have the privilege of representing has had a debate to itself in this place. I had hoped that my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South (Mr. Lewis) would be here to share it, but urgent business has prompted his return to his constituency. However, my hon. Friend and I speak with one voice about all education matters in Bury.
The purpose of this debate is essentially twofold. First, I want to draw attention to the excellent performance of primary schools in Bury, whose reputation is growing as time passes. Secondly, I want to draw attention to the other noticeable feature of education in Bury: chronic funding inadequacies. That is not a recent phenomenon. If time allows—I know that this is a short debate—I shall give some feedback to my hon. Friend the Minister from teachers in Bury whose views I canvassed recently during a series of visits to primary schools.
Let me outline the nature of the local authority and the schools in Bury. The local education authority, which serves a population of a little more than 180,000, is one of the smallest in the country. Therefore, it has a proportionately small education budget that does not allow for the economies of scale common to larger authorities. It has a little over 60 primary schools and a coherent 11-to-16 system of secondary education, which feeds into two highly regarded colleges—a general tertiary college and a Catholic sixth form college. Although this debate focuses on primary schools, I also pay tribute to the performance of Bury's secondary schools, which are equally well regarded. Their performances to GCSE, in terms of passes at A to C, and particularly A to G, feature at the top of the annual league tables.
The local authority was inspected by Ofsted last year and its report was published in the first week of this year. I shall comment briefly about some of the remarks in it. The chief inspector of schools—whose comments I would not necessarily always quote with such gratitude—described Bury as an authority that
"delivers … without rhetoric and fuss".
He said that the schools are doing very well and getting steadily better and that the authority
"makes highly effective use of money achieving high levels of service efficiency … plans well … supports literacy and numeracy, behaviour and attendance very well".
Following that report, the Secretary of State referred to Bury's schools in his speech to the north of England conference on 8 January, praising Bury's effective use of the performance data and baseline assessment to help identify the development needs of individual pupils. More recently, the Department for Education and Employment has particularly praised Bury's educational development plan, saying that it reveals an exemplary process of establishing targets for the LEA and for individual schools.
The message is that the local authority and its schools are regarded highly. I pay tribute to the teachers in Bury's schools, without whose skill and dedication those results would not have been achieved. I pay tribute also to

1023
the governors. Being a school governor is a thankless task in many respects, but Bury is fortunate in having a large group of dedicated and experienced governors who support their schools particularly effectively. That has enabled the schools to develop and advance on a wide range of fronts, particularly in their literacy and numeracy strategies, the use of the national grid for learning investment and in many good examples of community involvement.
The facts relating to performance in Bury's primary schools are straightforward. At key stage 1 last year, in all aspects assessed—reading, writing, spelling and mathematics—Bury's primary schools were about 2 per cent. above the national average. By key stage 2, it is significant that Bury was rated as the second highest scoring metropolitan district and the eighth highest scoring local authority in the country. That is because the scores of pupils achieving level 4 and above were 8 per cent. higher than the national average.
In that context, I shall mention some individual schools from my constituency—if my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South were present, I am sure that he would quote many good examples from his constituency. I must draw attention to the results achieved at Hollymount school, where 100 per cent. scores at level 4 and above in maths and science were achieved as well as scores of 93 per cent. in English, and at Greenmount, St. Mary's, Lowercroft and Our Lady of Lourdes school, which also achieved 100 per cent. in one subject.
Those schools serve catchment areas that are comfortable and, in many cases, very affluent. However, I also draw attention to schools such as Sunny Bank and Guardian Angels, which serve mixed areas, whose scores in English and maths were exceptionally good. I draw attention also to East Ward school and St. Thomas's school, which serve some of the most deprived wards in Greater Manchester. Both those schools obtained results of about 95 per cent. at level 4 and above in science. Some exceptional work is being done in schools that serve very deprived communities: the message is that there have been enormous improvements in various primary schools from key stage 1 to key stage 2.
Having cited the league tables and scores as evidence, I should add a note of caution. Teachers, head teachers and school governors in Bury are a little sceptical about the way in which league tables operate. They know that a small difference in the number of pupils taking the tests each year can result in a disproportionate difference in the end results. They know also that the league tables as currently published reflect mostly the nature of the school's catchment area rather than the value added by an individual school. I plead with the Government to move as quickly as possible—I know that the Minister is aware of this point—to introduce a value-added concept into the league table system. Nevertheless, the fact remains that Bury's primary schools have out-performed schools with similar catchment areas that serve similar local authorities and similar populations in other parts of the country and have shown particular progress between key stages 1 and 2.
On finance, Bury local authority has suffered historically from a low standard spending assessment. That is particularly evident in the impact on education. The aggregated schools budget per capita spend is £100 below the national average for primary schools and £150 below the national average for secondary schools.
1024
That is despite the fact that, based on population, Bury comes in the middle of the social and economic indicators that are used to describe local authorities. The effect on a large primary school of 400 pupils is a deficit of about £40,000 a year and the effect on a small secondary school—a typical 11-to-16 school in Bury—is about £120,000 a year.
The SSA for primary education in Bury is £2,200 and £2,800 for secondary education. That contrasts markedly with the London SSA—I do not want to reopen the debate about SSA differentials between London and the rest of the country, but I must make this point—of about £2,800 for primary schools and about £3,600 for secondary schools. If we compare Bury and London—we all accept that London has special needs and difficulties—we find that a primary school in Bury is worse off to the tune of about £250,000 and a secondary school is worse off by about £640,000.
I know that Ministers at the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are highly conscious of the inequities of the SSA system. I know also that a considerable amount of work was done on that last year and that a change to the children's social services criteria was introduced which benefited some of the poorly funded authorities such as Bury. However, I again draw attention to the fact that we must wait a further three years for the next review of SSAs. The contentious issues of the area cost adjustment and the additional educational needs criteria remain to be resolved. In those three years, Bury and other small local authorities will continue to be funded by a system that is widely regarded as being unjustified and methodologically unsound.
For many years, Bury spent about 11 per cent. above its SSA, which was a measure of the local authority's commitment to education. Unfortunately, that could no longer continue because of the severe budget cuts by the previous Government in 1996–97 which forced the local council to impose cuts of £12 million on the authority. That is not a large sum compared to the budgets of some local authorities, but for a very small authority such as Bury, it is huge. The effect on the education service was cuts of about £5.5 million, of which more than £3 million came directly out of school budgets.
The teachers in Bury's schools, the parents and the local authority welcome the new investment that my Government have introduced since 1997, particularly the total of about £4 million from the standards fund and about £1.8 million from the new deal for schools. That has enabled our primary schools to reduce almost all their infant class sizes—which, before 1997, were among the highest in the country—to 30 or below by the end of the forthcoming school year. That investment has also enabled primary and secondary schools in Bury to start a long-overdue programme of repair and new build.
I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for the interest that he has taken in education in Bury, following his recent visit to Holy Trinity primary school, and his particular interest in the local authority's attempts to get funding through the new deal for the East Ward primary school. I must now declare an interest because that is the school which I attended, but more importantly, it has operated on a split site for 40 years. It serves one of the most deprived areas in Greater Manchester, and the local authority's project for developing the school on one site is part of a

1025
much wider community regeneration project, which can now proceed as a result of the funding under the new deal for schools.

The failure to make significant changes to the SSA system this year means that even the 5 per cent. annual increase projected for the next three years will barely restore the core level of funding to that which applied before the cuts made during the previous Government's last year in office. The difficulty is that even though the SSA will now increase year by year, part of the additional funding received by the local authority must be set aside for the matched funding that it hopes to receive from the standards fund. Even though Bury passports to the schools all the funding that it can, the amount of money that goes to the schools is inevitably reduced.
I do not say that Bury is unique, because I know that many other local authorities in metropolitan districts and shire counties have a similar struggle, but I am not sure that schools in Bury can wait for another three years before there is comprehensive reform of the SSA system. I know that the system is not my hon. Friend's responsibility and that DETR Ministers must grapple with it, but it seems to me that there is now a powerful argument for using the funding that the DfEE has at its disposal—the standards fund and the new deal—to compensate for the inadequacies of the core funding from DETR. There is a powerful argument also for establishing the concept of a minimal level of core funding, below which no local authority and no school should fall.
The 5.4 per cent. increase in Bury's SSA this year was higher than the average increase for metropolitan districts, but that average was lower than the average increase in SSAs for inner and outer London. We welcome this year's increase for Bury and the 5 per cent. increase next year, but for small local authorities, percentage increases serve simply to increase the cash differential. That is why small authorities need a cash injection to compensate for the inadequacies of the percentage increase.
Will my hon. Friend monitor closely the financial situation in Bury, particularly in primary schools, and make representations to his colleagues at DETR about the reform of SSAs? Will he find out whether there are ways in which the standards fund and the new deal for schools can be used to support local authorities, particularly small ones with the lowest levels of funding?
I have been fortunate enough to be able to visit about two thirds of primary schools in my constituency. The messages from teachers, governors and head teachers are clear.
First, the continually low funding makes it difficult to maintain the high standards that have been achieved in Bury. Secondly, the local authority has set demanding new targets to which the schools, after some arm-twisting, have agreed. I should point out that the literacy target for primary schools in Bury is now set at 90 per cent. of pupils by 2000, which is 10 per cent. above the national average target. The numeracy target is set at 80 per cent. of pupils by 2000, which is 5 per cent. above the national average target. It is disproportionately difficult for schools and local authorities that are already performing extremely well to achieve that extra increase. If only 20 or 30 per cent. of pupils are obtaining level 4 or above, it is relatively easy to increase that number by 5 or
1026
10 per cent. The higher the starting point, the more difficult it is for schools to attain those final few percentage points. There is, therefore, a concern about the demanding new targets.
There is concern also about the proposals to reform teachers' pay and the way in which that will be linked to pupils' performance. If the budget is cash-limited, what are the implications for schools that already have a high level of pupil performance? Will they sweep up a disproportionately large share of the overall budget, or will there be discrimination between teachers who, by any national standards, are performing extremely well and wish to go through the threshold?
There is continuing concern about future funding, but there is massive support for the Government's actions through the standards fund, particularly on pupil improvement strategies and the national grid for learning, and the extra investment from the new deal. There is also a welcome for the Government's other initiatives, particularly the numeracy and literacy strategies, but there is concern about the pace of change, especially on the literacy strategy. Having gone through that process, however, most teachers feel well equipped to take on the introduction of the numeracy strategy from this September.
I repeat my point about league tables, about which schools are concerned. Schools at the top of the league tables in Bury express the most concern because they know that their position is due not only to dedicated, skilled teaching staff, but to their privileged catchment area.
I shall summarise my points about Bury's schools. The first related to high performance. The success that has been achieved, particularly in primary schools, between key stages 1 and 2, has been bought at the human cost of stressed, exhausted teachers. There is a question mark over how much more teachers in those schools can give. According to socio-economic data—whether we are comparing levels of unemployment, numbers of single parent households or other indications of poverty—Bury is always somewhere in the middle of the list, yet our funding is always in the lower quartile. The Government need to think of interim measures to help the local authorities with the lowest funding prior to completing the next review of SSAs.
I want to focus on the need to recognise high performance not only in Bury's schools but in those of other local authorities. How will the Government reward and recognise those schools and, in particular, what can be done to help to disseminate that good practice?
That brings me to my final point, which relates to the recent Ofsted reports on other local authorities. We have all read the reports on Hackney and Islington, and I imagine that we shall all read that on Liverpool. It seems odd that, when there is such expertise in certain parts of the state sector, we have not used it in the past to help those parts of state education that are not performing as well.
I am not suggesting that Bury should take over the schools of Islington, Hackney or Liverpool, but the expertise that exists in the schools in my constituency, that of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, South and in other primary schools across the country could be used to help our colleagues in Islington, Hackney and elsewhere. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister commented on that.
12.50 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) on securing the debate; I had not realised that this is the first time that the affairs of Bury alone have been debated in the Chamber.
Everyone in the House knows of the personal commitment, energy and expertise that my hon. Friend brings to bear on behalf of his constituents and the children in his constituency's schools. As he said, I was fortunate enough to visit a school in his constituency where I met people from the local education authority and many teachers and discussed many of the issues that he has raised. I know that he has accurately reflected the feelings of his constituents and I congratulate him on continuing to prosecute his case.
The first issue raised by my hon. Friend, and the one with which he concluded, was the Ofsted LEA inspection report for Bury. As he said, that report was very positive. Ofsted held a press conference to announce the report's publication, and to give an example of what LEAs can achieve and how well they can support their schools. Bury's report says that the education service has shown itself to be a highly effective organisation which is providing excellent support for schools and value for money. It is well led and has good relationships with its schools. It provides excellent support for literacy, performance data to support target setting and strong support for pupils with educational and behavioural difficulties.
My hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards wrote on behalf of the Government to commend Bury on that inspection report, so I am happy to associate myself with my hon. Friend's positive remarks about the role played and contribution made by the teachers, governors, pupils and officers of his local LEA in the metropolitan borough of Bury. That outstanding achievement deserves public recognition, which he has secured today.
I believe that LEAs across the country can learn many things from Bury, which is one reason why Ofsted publicised the report. I am not sure that that goes quite so far as taking over the schools of Islington and Hackney, although we will examine with great interest the suggestion that that might happen; it is a new twist on the suggestion that what Greater Manchester does today, the rest of the world does tomorrow.
As my hon. Friend will know, our specialist schools initiative, our beacon schools initiative—another of which was announced recently—and our approach show our strong commitment to disseminating good practice in every aspect of the delivery of educational services. I heard what he had to say about Bury's achievement in key stage 2 results, which have been outstanding.
On league tables, which my hon. Friend mentioned, I agree that one should not interpret them too precisely in their various respects. They must be set in context, and we always do that, but the data to which he referred help to motivate target setting and drive educational standards upwards. They should be publicly available, not kept in some secret garden away from the public, so that will inevitably lead to their publication. My only health warning is that the league tables should always be set in context.
1028
I note my hon. Friend's particular point about the need to develop value-added statistics for the league tables and I agree about their importance. As he knows, the Government are setting about that task. We have introduced a number of pilot schemes to see how that data might best be collected and it is our declared intention to include value-added data, as long as we can be sure that they are reliable. Reliability is a key point, because people rest judgments on league tables and must know the facts.
My hon. Friend made a range of points about funding and resources. He was fundamentally right in his description of the situation; Bury is 130th out of 150 LEAs in funding per pupil—towards the bottom end, as he said. It receives about 7 per cent. per pupil less than the national average, despite, as he rightly says, being nearer the centre of the various tables on socio-economic indices. I therefore accept what he said about the SSA formula, as will my colleagues across the Government as they consider the issues that we are addressing. My hon. Friend's comparisons with London were, as always, interesting; my LEA in Norfolk makes exactly the same point. His comparisons are not only on the record, but will be heeded by Ministers in my Department and across the Government.
Since 1997, Bury's education SSA has increased by £8 million and its primary school SSA has increased by 11.6 per cent. I commend the authority on passing on in full the increase in SSA to education, and we are keen to establish that practice across the country. As my hon. Friend said, the standards fund has made a major contribution to improving the situation in Bury and I was glad to hear about the teachers' welcome for it. I also acknowledge his point about the difficulties that can arise over matched funding.
On class size, since 1997, Bury has received £1.7 million to provide additional teachers and £1.4 million is available for additional classrooms. As a result, Bury has achieved a major reduction in the number of five, six and seven-year-olds in large classes and, from January 1998 to January 1999, that number fell from 3,326 to 460. I congratulate the LEA on a robust plan for reducing class sizes, its speedy implementation and achieving good value for money.
On literacy, as my hon. Friend correctly pointed out, the national target is 80 per cent., but Bury has set the more challenging target of 90 per cent. We have allocated £302,000 from the standards fund to raise primary literacy standards in Bury. On numeracy, the national target is 75 per cent., but the target in Bury is 80 per cent. Again, I congratulate the LEA on driving those targets forward. Bury received £196,000 to raise primary numeracy standards.
On other standards funding, the total amount available to Bury is more than £3 million, including the funding to which I have referred and funding for the national grid for learning, school security and a range of other issues. Those resources are significant and important, and we are delighted that they are being used to such good effect in Bury. I have heard, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will hear, my hon. Friend's remarks about the possibility of using the standards fund to target resources on areas of greatest need. That is precisely what we have done through capital funding.
The new deal for schools, to which my hon. Friend referred, is specifically targeted on schools with the most serious defects to ensure that they are properly addressed.

1029
That is why Bury has received a total capital allocation of almost £6 million since the Government were elected, £2 million of which is in respect of the new deal for schools. An additional £2.4 million has been made available through advance capital grant and grant to voluntary-aided schools.
I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that that major improvement on past funding has enabled him to set about overcoming, with his characteristic energy and enthusiasm, many of the serious problems that he inherited when he became Member of Parliament for Bury, North.
I understand the points that my hon. Friend has made. I have listened to what he said about the contribution of parents, teachers and governors, and I congratulate the LEA on its work. The Government will continue to support education in Bury with substantial resources, working in partnership with everybody involved to raise standards. We will consider most carefully the specific points that he reported in the debate. I am delighted to have been able to highlight them, because they reveal my hon. Friend's commitment and that of his colleagues to drive forward the improvement in educational standards in Bury. The Government share that commitment.

Primary Schools (Admissions)
1 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: Few things matter more to parents than their child's education. As a parent with a three-year-old child, I well understand parents' concern about the choice of primary school and about the need to get that right. It should be right for the family and right for the child. My reason for securing this debate is my concern that, in their entirely laudable desire, which I share, to reduce infant class sizes, the Government have introduced legislation that has proved to be unduly rigid in its application and that may be to the detriment of some of the very children that it aims to support.
I shall give a specific example, which prompted the debate, and I shall then consider the more general situation in South Gloucestershire council and in other local authorities. I should like to draw the House's attention to the case of Chloe, who is three and will be four next month. Her parents recently moved back to the village of Elberton in South Gloucestershire. Elberton does not have a school of its own: the children of the village walk to the school in Olveston, which is a popular village school. Parents buy houses in the village to make sure that they get their children into the school. I live in Olveston, and in due course I hope that my children will go to that school. To be honest, I do not need to declare an interest, because if my argument is successful I may prejudice my children's chances, but I shall leave that on one side.
The parents of Chloe Wilson applied to Olveston school, which is their local school. They also applied to Almondsbury school, which is another popular local school. Because Olveston school is popular, it is full: 30 children already have their names down to go there. Almondsbury is also full. The local authority wrote to the Wilsons to say that it regretted that their child could not go to their preferred school, and that she could go to St. Helen's school in Alveston.
I do not want to criticise St. Helen's school in Alveston, which is a good school. The question is whether it is the right school for Chloe Wilson. Without going into too much detail about this individual case, I have good reasons for thinking that it is not the right school and that Olveston would be the best school, partly because the children from the village all go to the same school and partly because it is within easy walking distance and the family have an older child with Down's syndrome whom they have to drive to a special school. Those reasons make the case of Olveston school.
Chloe goes to a nursery and she has for the first time begun to talk to other children. She is a chatty girl at home, but out in company she has been reclusive and has only just started to talk to children. The cohort of children who attend the nursery and will go on to state primary school will go to Olveston.
In previous years, the parents would have appealed, and the appeal panel would have made its judgment and may well have decided—we cannot be sure—that a 31st child at Olveston would be of great benefit to the individual child and would not unduly prejudice the other children already there. That is not longer possible, and an appeal is likely to be unsuccessful because of the rigidity of the new rules.

1031
Chloe's parents have put her on a waiting list for Olveston, and every week they hope that the phone call will come and one of the 30 pupils will have been withdrawn so that Chloe can go to the school of her choice. Her friends from the village are visiting the school to see what it is like, meeting the teachers and buying the uniform, but Chloe can do none of that. Chloe and her family are torn, and the situation has created uncertainty.
I am sure that the Minister would not have wanted that to be the product of the legislation. Indeed, I have had the pleasure of discussing education in South Gloucestershire with her, and I know of her concerns. I should be grateful if she would tell me what to say to Mr. and Mrs. Wilson when I go back to my constituency later in the week. What can I say to them that will persuade them that the legislation was right? Better yet, how can I reassure them that future Chloe Wilsons will not be put in this difficult position? Is there any way in which the desirable goal of lower class sizes can be achieved with greater flexibility?
We obviously cannot overturn the whole of the Government's admissions policy for one child, but there are wider problems in South Gloucestershire. As the Minister would expect, primary and infant schools across the area are setting the standard number for admission at 30 or multiples of 30. That is already creating problems for some schools. The schools that have reduced the standard number to 30 are very popular—Crossways in Thornbury and Raysfield infant schools to name but two—and more parents have applied to send their children to those schools than the 30 that will be accepted.
The director of education in South Gloucestershire provided me with a briefing note for the debate. It says:
"The key impact of the infant class size reductions this year relates not to the reductions in standard numbers but to the process of appeals."
He thinks that up to 20 schools could be affected by the new regime. Appeals that might otherwise have been heard and considered on their merits now face a blanket ban. Parents tell me that they have a good case for their child to go a particular school and say, "Surely they will listen to us." I have to explain to them that the authority has a prior claim, and that they may not even have a hearing.
Why do not the schools in the area build more classes? The education department has funded extra classes in South Gloucestershire to enable class sizes to be reduced to 30. However, not all the bids that the authority believed it needed to provide the extra places have been accepted. It has had to put in an extra £600,000 to ensure that it complies with the legislation.
Mr. Don Foster: My hon. Friend refers to the schools in his local area, but the picture that he is painting is not unique to his local authority. Bath and North East Somerset council has similar problems. Newbridge St. John's infants school is very popular and has an intake this year of 87 pupils. Its two requests to the Department for Education and Employment for additional funds for new buildings have been turned down. As a result, the standard number will drop to 60, so that next year up to 27 parents will be denied their choice. The policy is reducing parental choice.
Mr. Webb: I learned of that case only today. I am concerned about such a dramatic swing from one year to
1032
the next, which is a direct consequence of a rigid law from central Government that is not backed up by the necessary funding to implement it.
Capital funding has been inadequate. My authority says that the figure of £85,000 per classroom is not always adequate. Some of the problems are in rural areas where there is only one village school and children cannot be shuffled around between three or four neighbouring schools. The village school may be an old Victorian building, and adding an extra classroom may not be cheap, because planning regulations have to be adhered to and it must be made with the right stone. The authority has found that the amount of money per school has been inadequate. It is not crying wolf. It has built the classrooms—brick is being laid on top of brick at the moment—so it knows that £85,000 is not enough. It has had to find the money from other parts of the education budget and from other parts of the council's budget.
Not only has capital funding been inadequate; there is also a problem with revenue funding and the rigidity of the rules. The authority dare not breach the requirement for class sizes of 30. One school is expecting 93 infants to start in May. History shows us that by September three or four of them will have dropped out—that is quite common. However, the authority is not permitted to plan on that basis, because if four do not drop out it will be in breach of the law in two years' time when those five-year-olds become seven-year-olds. In the school with 93 pupils, the authority has had to create not three but four classes. Obviously, I have no problem with four classes of 23, but that additional funding may have been better spent elsewhere in the education budget, for example to keep junior class sizes down. The rigidity of the legislation is not helping local authorities to use their scarce resources rationally.
One of the biggest problems identified by South Gloucestershire LEA is that the rigidity of the rules is forcing schools, against their will, into mixed age teaching. St. Mary's in Thornbury is a popular local school with a typical intake of about 35. It achieves superb Ofsted results, and parents want to send their children there, even though the class size is 35, because they believe that the school achieves great things. The school, however, will not be able to accommodate them, because it is going to have to move to mixed-age classes.
I am no educationist. I do not know whether it is better for a child to be taught in a single-year class of 35, perhaps with additional teacher support, or for that child to be taught in a mixed-age class of 30. I am not convinced that the answer is obvious: I am not convinced that it is obviously and automatically true that to have a class of 30 is better than avoiding mixed-age classes. I should be grateful for the Minister's comments.
It is fairly clear that the knock-on effect of the focusing of resources on children aged five, six and seven is to the detriment of those aged eight, nine, 10 and 11. The Minister has said that that should not and will not happen, but it is happening. The number of children in South Gloucestershire who are being taught in large junior classes is rising.
Mr. Don Foster: And nationally.
Mr. Webb: Yes, nationally as well.
My local authority already spends substantially more than its standard spending assessment on education. It is already taking money from other areas on which the

1033
Government think it should be spending in order to support education, yet it has had to increase junior class sizes.
The director of education wrote to me:
"I do worry that, unless the Government is prepared to tackle the class size issue at KS2 also, the problems of KS2 are only going to be exacerbated".
The authority receives good reports from the Office for Standards in Education for key stage 1, but is concerned about key stage 2. That may get worse, and I am not sure that such a development would do our children a service.
Having voted for the Bill that became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, I must take a share of responsibility for its consequences. On Second Reading, my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made the following prescient comment:
"I am genuinely concerned that there may be insufficient flexibility in the approach to class size reduction to take account of local circumstances. We shall still need to know how the Government expect a local education authority to deal with the arrival of the 31st child of a particular age group, hoping to attend a small village school. Will he"—
or she—
"be sent a long distance to another school to meet the requirements of the class size ban, or will there be some flexibility?"—[Official Report, 22 December 1997; Vol. 303, c. 701.]
My hon. Friend might have known the Wilsons, but he did not. In any event, he made his point to the Government, and—having looked at the record of the debate—I am not convinced that he received a response. I hope that, in replying to me now, the Minister will tell me what I can say to the parents of Chloe Wilson, and to other parents who say to me, "The rule is too rigid. It is denying our children a place at their local school. We support small class sizes, but must the rules be so strict? Can this rule be relaxed?"
It may not be possible for the rule to be relaxed by September, because plans have been made; but will other children have to go through what Chloe Wilson has had to go through? Can the Minister reassure us that she is aware of the problems, and intends to do something about them?
1.13 pm
The Minister for School Standards (Ms Estelle Morris): Wednesdays are becoming a time for regular meetings between Liberal Democrats and me—and so they should be: education is an exceptionally important issue. I feel that I am getting to know the constituency of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) quite well, as this is certainly not the first occasion on which we have exchanged views.
I know that the Liberal Democrats support our policy on reducing class sizes, and that they were as cross as we were when, under the last Government, the number of children in classes of not 30 but 40 rose and rose. A generation of primary school children have suffered because that Government were not prepared either to act or to commit money. That is, I think, a common starting point between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.
On the whole, the Liberal Democrats have supported not only the extra resources that we have put into key stage 1, but the determination with which we have approached the policy. According to our own criteria, we will meet our targets early.
1034
I acknowledge that the admissions issue is incredibly difficult. All that matters to parents is their children, and long may that continue, because if the parent does not bat for the child, the system often will not do so. The system has to provide education for all the children in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. This may sound harsh, but when he returns to his constituency at the end of the week, what he must say to Mr. and Mrs. Wilson is what I have to say to a bundle of my constituents who are currently not getting their children into first-choice schools.
By coincidence, this morning I signed three letters to constituents whose 11-year-old children had not got into their first-choice schools. As all hon. Members will know, at this time of year our postbags are heavily laden with letters from parents who have not secured their first choice. We are torn: we know that we cannot deliver to all those parents, but we know the importance to them and their children of securing the first choice. The hon. Gentleman will have to explain the situation in the same way as he has had to explain it every year since he has been a Member of Parliament.
I say that because, when we are talking about children not getting into the schools of their choice, we must not—I must not—allow class-size policy always to be the reason for that. I accept that it is the reason in this instance, but there are many other reasons why people do not secure their first preference. I do not think that we do our constituents a service by allowing them to latch on to that one reason.
Let me give the context of the progress that has been made in class size policy. It is ironic that the hon. Member for Northavon should say that there is not enough money, given that his hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), his party's education spokesman, keeps saying that we spend more than we said we would spend. They cannot have it both ways. [Interruption.] I know that the Liberal Democrats always want it both ways, but my logic tells me that that is not possible.
We have spent more than we said we would. In fact, the cheapest option is to fill up the empty schools. We have adopted the more expensive option for two reasons. One is speed: we will fulfil our pledge 18 months ahead of time. The other is our wish to guarantee parental choice.
We have provided 12,000 extra places at popular schools. The places may not be in the constituency of the hon. Member for Northavon, but they are real places in real schools that are currently oversubscribed. In many cases, especially in rural schools, that has meant the introduction of two classes. If the figure of 23 had been achieved, rather than 30, rural schools could probably have taken more children.
In deciding class size policy, I have sometimes made expensive decisions in order to prevent a child from having to travel what I consider to be an unreasonable distance. That is why our policy has been more expensive. In all our allocations, we have tried—within what it is reasonable for any Government to do—to accommodate particular pressures, and the wishes that parents may have.
Mr. Don Foster: The Minister will recall that, during the Committee stage of the School Standards and Framework Bill, she made a number of pledges—as did her right hon. Friend the Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers), who is now Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. She is right to say that a number of additional

1035
places have been made available, and that is welcome; but in some parts of the country parental choice is being reduced. My hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) has given examples, as have I, and many hon. Members on both sides of the House could do so as well. I hope the Minister will agree that it is not good enough to say that overall there have been additional places, when in many parts of the country choice has been restricted and the situation is worse than it was under the last Government. That is totally contrary to the promise that was made during the passage of the Bill.
Ms Morris: I will come to that. It is an important point: indeed, it is almost the crux of the argument. There are 12,000 extra places in popular schools, but it is true that some parents who might have obtained not a 31st but a 35th or 36th place will now not obtain that place. This is about hard political decisions. We were determined to implement the policy and make it work, and, to some extent, to change the culture.
Year after year, numbers have crept up. The figure of 31 sounds fine; for Chloe to be the 31st child sounds fine; but what will the hon. Member for Northavon say when he returns to his constituency next Friday, and Mrs. Smith tells him that she wants her daughter to be the 32nd? Over time, the numbers have ratcheted up, because parents see the needs of their children. Eventually, there will come a Friday when the hon. Gentleman has to explain to 37 constituents why there are now 38 in a class, whereas when they first applied there were only 30. That is the problem: parental choice is also about the right of other parents to demand reasonable class sizes.
As well as 12,000 extra places, we have given a cast-iron guarantee to all parents—millions of people—who have an infant-aged child that their child will not be in a class of more than 30. Those are not the parents who write to us or go to advice bureaux: they are people whose children will be brought up under a Government who have said that class size matters—a Government who take the flak in Adjournment debates such as this but who have made it happen. That is what we are determined to do.
I now refer specifically to South Gloucestershire. Hon. Members will be pleased to know what our guiding aim has been. Although we have been prescriptive over the class size limit because we are accountable to the electorate for that, we have tried to allow local authorities to plan their provision as they see fit. Let me run through the figures. We have made available £1.5 million to take on 48 extra teachers and £704,000 to build nine extra classrooms.
The hon. Member for Northavon says that some places on the plan have not been funded. Since I announced the latest round of class size plans, we have gone back to local authorities where there have been complaints and talked to them. We want to make the system work, but as reasonably as possible. There of course comes a time when our money is spent, but I have been careful to ensure that we are open to reasonable argument.
South Gloucestershire, which I gather is now Liberal Democrat controlled—having gone from no overall control—will be able to say by September 1999 that, whereas in September last year, 3,391 children were in classes of over 30, this year, the number will be 326. That is cause for celebration.
Mr. Webb: The hon. Lady gave me those figures, or corresponding ones, a little while ago in a written answer,
1036
but the other half of the written answer was on junior class sizes in South Gloucestershire. Does she accept that they have gone up? Can anything be done about that?
Ms Morris: What I do know is that the teacher:pupil ratio has fallen for the first time in 10 years nationally. I cannot not give the figures on that ratio for South Gloucestershire, but, nationally, they have fallen for the first time in 10 years. As I have said before, when we have approved class size plans, we have ensured that there will be no consequences for key stage 2 class sizes and that extra money is going to local authorities to accommodate key stage 2.
The hon. Member for Northavon asked—and we could have another interesting debate about this—whether 35 with a teacher and an assistant was not better than 31. That is a point that the Tories make. Once they are in train, the 20,000 extra classroom assistants—I do not put it forward as a better alternative—will mean that there will be a better adult:pupil ratio within key stage 2.
Mr. Don Foster: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I say to the hon. Gentleman and to the House that the half-hour Adjournment debates are the property of the Member who introduces them, who is guaranteed a ministerial reply. They are not general debates. They are certainly not platforms for exchanges between those on the Front Bench.
Ms Morris: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will cheer up the hon. Member for Bath. Let me go back to the point about our willingness to listen and to try to get it right for local areas. Since we announced the first round of extra money, we have gone back to areas where there have been complaints. I have asked officials to talk, to look at builders' reports, to visit the schools, to measure classrooms and to come back; we want to get it right. As a result, we were able to give £110,000 extra to Warmley primary school.
I am delighted that, today, I have written to the hon. Member for Bath to say that I have made available £73,925 for Newbridge St. John's infants school, a Church of England school, which shows that the case that it made, following our decision not to privatise, was a good one. The reason why it did not get the support first time round had to do with something in the paper application not ringing true. Sometimes, figures do not match up, or the school has not made the case on paper sufficiently.
Where local authorities have come back and said, "You have got it wrong," over the past few weeks, I have been asking officials to talk to them. That is why there is extra aid in the South Gloucester area and in Bath and North East Somerset. At Castle primary school, £17,265 has been made available.
I hope that hon. Members will accept not only that we are determined to deliver our pledge to the electorate, but that the line of accountability is important to us. We will deliver the pledge early—by the time of the next election, but we want to do it as sensitively as possible.
Chloe is Mr. and Mrs. Wilson's second child. I know that their eldest child has special needs and that the education of that child will have been of paramount

1037
concern to them; they want to ensure that that child receives the support that is needed. I understand that it is disappointing for Chloe that other children in her village are going to the school of her choice. What is ironic is that, had the family moved in before 23 October, class size policy would not have stood in their way. Chloe lives close enough to the school and most children in the village get a place. What is happening is that people who live further away are taking those places because of late entry.
I say as gently as I can that that is a consequence of the family having moved in since admissions closed in October last year. It is a matter for local decision. The local authority has taken a decision that the school that 2.65 miles away that is offering a place is of good standard and is not so far away that it makes life impossible for Mr. and Mrs. Wilson and Chloe. If it had not been of good standard and would have made life impossible, I feel sure that the local authority would have come back to us and asked for an extra teacher at the school, even at that stage. It did not.
Locally, the solution to the problem of Mr. and Mrs. Wilson and Chloe was to offer a place in a good-quality school that was 2.65 miles away. I accept that that is a disappointment, but I hope that, when she starts in September, Chloe will settle down and succeed. I hope that, in years to come, the family will look back at this time as one that was traumatic for the children, but made no difference to what I hope will be a happy and fulfilling career for Chloe.

Boundary Walls (Scotland)
1.27 pm
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: I am grateful to be given the opportunity to speak on this subject. The situation started with a dispute between Mr. Thom and his neighbour, Mrs. Hetherington, who are both constituents of mine, concerning the single brick boundary wall between their respective properties. I have represented Mr. Thom for many years, and the case was raised on the Adjournment on 13 March 1996.
The case went to the Court of Session, where it hinged on whether the wall was jointly owned by both parties, more commonly known as "common property", or whether each party owned half of the wall up to the mid-point, which is known as ad medium filum. The court decided to opt for the ad medium filum option, meaning that Mr. Thom lost his case. However, there were two conflicting lines of legal theory and precedent, and the matter was thus referred to the Scottish Law Commission. The subsequent handling of the case is at the crux of Mr. Thom's complaint. At all points, the SLC has taken a long time to resolve the matter. Nine and a half years passed from the original referral to a report finally being produced.
The commission issued a discussion paper, to which Mr. Thom made lengthy submissions, pointing out that the decision by the court was irrational as there was no way in which to divide a single brick wall and, thus, the ad medium filum approach was inoperable. The same would be true if a fence were used, rather than a boundary. That much was conceded by the commission, which declined Mr. Thom's invitation to visit such sites as it was instead convinced by written and verbal representations.
Since the matter was first referred to the SLC, its composition has changed radically, and a committee of three has been set up to investigate the situation.
One new member of the committee was a Professor Reid, who had written the article on boundary walls for "The Laws of Scotland Stair Memorial Encyclopaedia". In that article, he stated that the law was clear and that the ad medium filum approach was correct. As my hon. Friend the Minister should know, the Stair encyclopaedia is treated as a definitive statement of the law. It was thus irresponsible of Professor Reid to publish such an article while the SLC was considering the matter.
The second new member of the committee was Lord Gill, who was at the time a judge in the Court of Session. It would be astonishing if he were to find that his colleagues were in disarray on the matter. It appears that there are clear conflicts of interest in both cases and that both men should not have taken their places on the committee as they could not approach the issue with an open mind.
Last year, the SLC issued a short, summarised report of four pages. A longer report was impossible as the SLC would have had to deal with Mr. Thom's objections, showing the deficiencies of the ad medium filum solution. The original commission put the matter out to consultation and received an informative range of replies. However, the new commission ignored those responses which did not agree with its own predetermined position. The commission claimed that the balance of legal opinion favoured the ad medium filum approach.

1039
The majority of all opinion—and, crucially, the majority of the construction professions such as architects and surveyors—favoured common property. That view was ignored by the SLC, as it was not what it wished to hear. When the inevitably biased opinion of the Court of Session and the support for the court from academic sources—who partially make their living from slavishly following the court and writing about it—are stripped out, the decisive balance of legal opinion is in favour of common property.
The vast majority of opinion stated that the report should include fences. No mention of fences was made in the report, as it is impossible to consider fences and maintain the desired approach. Instead, the SLC has used the responses selectively to justify a conclusion that it has already arrived at. It has failed to engage in genuine consultation. The SLC believes that the law is now settled, and that the absence of further cases shows that. Mr. Thom has demonstrated that the law is not settled, and has submitted 16 different cases where the ad medium filum approach is inoperable. These have not been refuted by the SLC.
It is my belief that so few cases come to court because the public have a great deal more sense than lawyers, and realise that they are both responsible for boundary walls. As was indicated, the original commission refused the invitation to conduct site visits as it was convinced by Mr. Thom's arguments. The present commission has refused a similar opportunity to examine the situation at all. As the SLC concedes, the law rests on the decision in Thom v. Hetherington, although it admits on page 3 of the report that common property is more suitable for fences and thin walls.
Following representations to my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish)—a Scottish Office Minister at the time—it was made clear that the Government accepted the SLC report, and that the SLC had considered the problem of single brick walls and fences, but had decided that there was no problem, as such divisions rarely form the actual boundary between two properties. That is blatantly not the case. Thousands of title deeds specify that property ends at the appropriate division, which is either a fence or a single brick wall. One such example was the wall in the case of Thom v. Hetherington.
According to the SLC, single brick walls such as that in Thom v. Hetherington are rarely found in the boundary. We know that to be untrue. It says also that for thin walls and fences, a common property approach is the best option. The wall in Thom v. Hetherington was just such a wall, and the commission has been forced to admit that its judgment was less than perfect. The inoperability of the law in such cases—which are becoming more common as modern dividing walls are often indivisible—creates difficulties for insurance companies, as they do not know what insurance to offer. The problem has again been ignored by the commission.
It also means that title deeds that state that a single brick wall or fence forms the boundary between two properties are invalid and, as ad medium filum cannot be applied to such divisions, it is completely unclear what the legal situation is in such a case—although the law is supposedly based on Thom v. Hetherington. It is disappointing that the Scottish Office legal department has concurred with the SLC's work and appears to be no more willing to deal with the difficulties.
1040
There is a clear failure of accountability in the SLC, whose standards as a public body on issues such as conflict of interest have been utterly ignored. This has led to an obviously flawed decision, which the Scottish Office and the SLC still support, despite the fact that the flaws have been pointed out. Neither the commission nor the Scottish Office is willing to answer queries about the report, leading to the obvious impression that they have something to hide.
Mr. Thom believes that the manner in which the commission has behaved is fundamentally dishonest. He feels that the commission and the Scottish Office have deliberately refused to deal with the matter on its merits. I would therefore ask the Minister to initiate a full inquiry into the way in which the matter has been handled. Clearly, throughout the case the SLC has not acted in the way in which a public body should.
Through its actions, and those of the Scottish Office, the commission has rendered itself effectively unaccountable. I would ask the Minister to look at the legal situation surrounding boundary walls and to make up his own mind on the basis of the evidence, instead of accepting the discredited report.
1.37 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Calum Macdonald): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, South (Mr. Donohoe) for raising the issue of the ownership of boundary walls in Scotland. I am conscious that this is an issue which his constituent, Mr. Thom—and, indeed, my hon. Friend himself—has pursued over a number of years with great energy and application. Mr. Thom succeeded in having the matter considered by the Scottish Law Commission, and the judgment in Mr. Thom's original case stands as the modem authority in this area of law.
As my hon. Friend is aware, neither the court nor the Scottish Law Commission has been persuaded of the need to reform this area of law. Ministers have accepted the conclusions of the Scottish Law Commission report, which was presented to the House in March 1998. I appreciate that my hon. Friend and his constituent continue to disagree with those conclusions, but this matter has received the fullest consideration.
As my hon. Friend has explained, this issue came up as a result of a case brought in the Court of Session by his constituent, Mr. Thom. Mr. Thom objected to a fence that was erected by his neighbour and attached to the boundary wall between their properties. He was unsuccessful in that litigation. Put briefly, the court took the view that such walls are owned by each neighbour individually up to the centre line, and each may do as he or she pleases with his or her own half of the wall, so long as the integrity of the wall is not damaged. In Mr. Thom's case, the court did not accept that his neighbour's action had in fact damaged the structure of the wall. If it had, it would have been open to the court to order redress.
Mr. Thom took the view that the court, in the person of Lord Jauncey, had got its law wrong, and that boundary walls were more properly considered as belonging collectively to both parties. There seems to have been some discussion in the course of the case as to the proper terminology for these two views, and the court ultimately adopted the term "mutual property" for the idea of individual ownership up to the middle line, but with a shared interest in the integrity of the wall, and "common property" for the collective ownership model.

1041
Mr. Thom, with admirable persistence, and with the very proper and energetic assistance of my hon. Friend, has continued to argue that the common ownership approach is preferable, raising the matter regularly with Ministers of both the previous and the present Government. As a consequence of his representations, the Scottish Law Commission agreed to consider that area of law, complementing a much larger review of the law of the tenement.
In a 1990 discussion paper on the law of the tenement, the commission said that it was minded to recommend that shared walls between buildings should be commonly owned, but with special provision for the right to make minor alterations so that neighbours would not have to get agreement before putting up shelves or perhaps even hanging a picture. Following that train of thought, in 1992 it published a consultation paper that tended to favour a similar common ownership approach to boundary walls, but in both areas of law it concluded, after consultation, that the mutual ownership model was to be preferred.
The commission published its final report on boundary walls in March 1998, taking the view that the current common law of Scotland on the matter is clear and not in need of statutory restatement, and that, as a matter of legal policy, the mutual ownership model is not in need of change. It accepted that the approach is not without some drawbacks, but concluded that those were fewer than in the alternative approach.
Ministers considered and accepted the commission's recommendations. Following further representations from my hon. Friend, a meeting was held at which he and Mr. Thom were able to press their points with the Minister who was then responsible and with Scottish Office officials. The Minister considered the detailed representations presented at that meeting, but saw no reason to depart from the decision to accept the commission's recommendations.
Let me deal briefly with the arguments that persuaded the commission that a change in the law was not needed. The existing approach of mutual ownership gives both parties the maximum freedom to make reasonable use of the wall bounding their property, as long as they do not disturb the stability of the wall as a whole. The owner of a property could, for example, fix a trellis or other support for climbing plants to the garden wall without having to seek his neighbour's permission as co-owner. At the same time, the neighbour's interests in the wall are safeguarded, as the owner is under a restraint preventing him or her from damaging the stability of the wall, and under a positive obligation to maintain his or her own half of the wall.
The commission recognised that no solution is perfect and that the existing law is less readily applicable to thin walls or fences. The report fairly draws attention to that and to the fact that the final views diverge somewhat from those in the discussion paper, primarily because of the obvious difficulties involved when, for example, two neighbours are each theoretically obliged to maintain one half of a wire fence, or of a single thickness of brick, up to the middle line. In practice, that simply means that maintenance of the whole is a common responsibility.
The commission, in evaluating the response to its consultation, had to weigh up two conflicting bodies of opinion. The construction industry favoured the common
1042
ownership approach, but the legal profession, including the judges of the Court of Session, considered that the existing law had been helpfully clarified in the case of Thom v. Hetherington and needed no change. The commission was not made directly aware of any significant practical difficulties with the present law other than those raised by Mr. Thom in his submissions. In other words, no one else was pursuing the matter with either the commission or the Scottish Office.
It is a further advantage of the existing approach that the law on boundary walls is consistent with that proposed by the commission for adjoining walls between dwellings. In reviewing the law of the tenement, it concluded that individual ownership up to the halfway point, constrained by obligations to one's neighbours, was the best solution, and that is reflected in its report on the law of the tenement laid before the House in March 1998.
I know that my hon. Friend's constituent has some worries about the Scottish Law Commission and the way in which it went about its task. It may be helpful for me to respond to the points that he made. The commission is an independent body which exists to advise the Government on the need for, and context of, reform in the law of Scotland. It brings together considerable expertise in the law, from both practice and academic lawyers, and is chaired by a Court of Session judge, currently Lord Gill.
The Lord Advocate appoints to the commission leading experts in particular fields. Those commissioners are experts precisely because they have studied and written extensively on the areas of law that they have to address. Mr. Thom's concern about conflict of interest or lack of impartiality is misplaced because the commission is not that kind of body: it is a body of experts, not a neutral panel of adjudicators.
The commission is not in any sense a court or tribunal. In reaching its conclusions it consults widely, as it did in this instance, and the contributions of those who respond are greatly valued, but it is the content of the arguments that carries weight; the commission does not operate by counting votes, one way or the other, from those consulted.
Given Mr. Thom's concerns, as reported by my hon. Friend, it would be opportune to make it clear that, in every report produced by the commission, including the one on boundary walls, the recommendations are arrived at after detailed debate among all its members. The conclusions and recommendations do not represent the views of one commissioner or group of commissioners. They are presented to Ministers and to Parliament as the recommendations of the commission itself. We are perfectly satisfied that that process was followed for the boundary walls report, as for others. I emphasise how highly Ministers value the work done by the commission.
My hon. Friend has also expressed concern about the time taken by the commission to consider the issue. It is important to remember that during that period it addressed a range of pressing issues and produced a number of weighty reports. The issue was not accorded priority over other issues then being considered. That was explained in correspondence to my hon. Friend and to Mr. Thom. When Lord Gill took over as chairman there was a review of the work in hand and the matter of boundary walls was accorded greater priority. This led to the report being published in March 1998.

1043
The Government are free to accept or reject the commission's recommendations in the light of such other advice as may be available. In this case, we have received no representations, other than from Mr. Thom, against the commission's approach, so we have accepted its report. Nevertheless, as my hon. Friend knows, the matter is one which the Scottish Parliament could reopen at some time in the future were it minded to do so. I suspect, however, that for the issue to become a matter of priority on the Parliament's agenda, concern would have to be expressed by others, such as the construction or insurance industries.
I hope that I have been helpful to my hon. Friend. I know that his constituent may be disappointed, but I do not think that it would be proper to reopen the issue
1044
at this time. I admire the way in which my hon. Friend has taken up the issue and the persistence of his constituent.
It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), till half-past Two o'clock.

NEW WRIT
Ordered,
That Madam Speaker do issue her warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in this present Parliament for the borough constituency of Leeds, Central in the room of the right hon. Derek John Fatchett, deceased.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]

Oral Answers to Questions
  CABINET OFFICE
  The Minister was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Publications
    Mr. Tom Clarke: What progress has been made in providing Her Majesty's Government's publications in readable form for people with sight impairment and other disabilities. [83639]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): Arrangements have now been put in place to enable people with visual impairment to obtain key Government publications in suitable alternative formats, including braille, large print and audio formats.
    Mr. Clarke: Is my right hon. Friend aware that organisations which deal with people with sensory impairments are keen to encourage the Government to provide first-class information from Departments? Those organisations have praised the Department of Trade and Industry, but have expressed some disappointment that the recent White Paper "Modernising Social Services" was not available to them. Will my right hon. Friend encourage all Departments to walk that further mile to make information available, especially in braille and on tape, to that important group of people?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, I will do that. The recent White Paper "The Future Management of Crown Copyright" stated that, in future, when Departments contract for the publication of their work, they will be encouraged to make provision for the publisher to supply data in electronic form and in a form suitable for translation into other forms. The "Modernising Government" White Paper is certainly so available. As my right hon. Friend will know, the Royal National Institute for the Blind has a copyright licence, issued free of charge, to reproduce all Crown and parliamentary texts in braille, audiotape and braille-coded floppy disk formats.

    People's Panels
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What steps he is taking to evaluate the work of people's panels. [83640]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): It is for the individual organisations that have set up people's panels to evaluate them. The Cabinet Office will carry out an independent evaluation of the people's panel.
    Mr. Swayne: I find that answer extraordinary. Will the Minister undertake, in this age of open government, to publish a list in the Library of those policies that have been changed as a consequence of the deliberations of people's panels? Will he also undertake to ensure that,
    1046
    on Second Reading of Bills, Ministers will report to the House how any provisions have been altered as a consequence of the intervention of the people's panel?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The hon. Gentleman may have found that an extraordinary answer, but it was an extraordinary question. First, it was not clear whether he was referring to the people's panel or to the current trend for establishing people's panels, or citizens' panels, by local government around the country. That is the distinction that I tried to make. Secondly, the deliberations of the people's panel do not dictate policy: policy makers decide policy and the people's panel merely informs their considerations. Thirdly, if the hon. Gentleman has a specific question for any of the people's panels that have been set up, it is the responsibility of the organisation that established them.

    Charter Mark
    Jacqui Smith: What plans he has for the promotion of the charter mark scheme.[83642]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The Government are committed to developing and expanding the charter mark. At least 80 per cent. of applicants secure better performance from applying. We shall continue to promote it through a dedicated seminar programme, targeted contacts with the public sector and the use of local, trade and technical media.
    Jacqui Smith: May I tell my hon. Friend that the departments of Redditch borough council and Alexandra hospital which achieved the charter mark have been encouraged by it? Meanwhile, I am often struck during meetings with voluntary organisations by the extent to which they provide high-quality services and work in partnership with public sector organisations. Does my hon. Friend agree that it would make sense to encourage those organisations to apply for the charter mark, and to extend eligibility criteria so that they may do so? Will he outline the Government's plans, or any action that they have taken, to promote the charter mark among voluntary organisations that work with the public sector?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating Alexandra hospital, two units of which have applied for the charter mark and learned from the experience. From 2000, any voluntary sector organisation that provides a public service and that receives more than 50 per cent. of its funds from public sources will be eligible to apply for the charter mark.

    Public Appointments
    Mr. Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on the maintenance of political balance in public appointments. [83643]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): All appointments are made on merit. Political affiliation is not a criterion for appointments, except on a very small number of bodies that include cross-party representation.
    Mr. Brady: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his response. He will be aware that I have had cause to raise

    1047
    a concern with the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments about the large number of Labour councillors appointed to health trusts and authorities. Given that the Nolan report and the Neill report recommended that appointments should be made from lists held by the independent commissioner, not Departments, when do the Government intend to put that recommendation in place? When will the commissioner control the list, rather than the Minister and his right hon. Friends?
    Dr. Cunningham: It is not surprising that local councillors of all political persuasions play a part in local health authorities and other organisations. The attitude of the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues betrays the fact that they engaged in the systematic appointment of their friends and cronies when the Conservatives were in office. That is not our approach. The Government accept the Nolan principles, and we abide by them.
    Mr. Derek Wyatt: As Members of Parliament, we are asked to comment on bishops and health chief executives, but we are not always asked about regional development agency chairmen or chief executives. Where is the consistency in that?
    Dr. Cunningham: Anyone can nominate anyone for a public appointment. Indeed, anyone can offer himself or herself. The process is perfectly open and straightforward, but if my hon. Friend has a particular complaint, I should be happy to discuss it with him.
    Mr. Robert Maclennan: I welcome the Government's acceptance and implementation of the Nolan proposals. The Minister said that Members of Parliament sometimes play a useful role in encouraging people of suitable qualification to go forward for public appointment. However, will he take on board the fact that the responses of different Departments are extremely variable? It may be helpful if the Government went beyond merely signalling adherence to the Nolan principles by indicating that they would be willing to accept such advice and help as is offered.
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, we are open to advice and help from all Members of Parliament from both sides of the House. I have recently encouraged colleagues in the north-west to put up suitable candidates for nomination for appointment to the Bench in the Duchy of Lancaster area for which I have responsibility as Chancellor.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my right hon. Friend take great care to consider the political balance of many existing lists? Some of us are increasingly concerned by the number of Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and, in particular, ex-members of the Social Democratic party who now sit in the other place who are being appointed to positions of considerable importance. It worries some of us very much indeed.
    Dr. Cunningham: It just goes to show that you can't satisfy all of the people all of the time. In the Duchy of Lancaster, it is important to achieve political balance not
    1048
    only on the Bench but in the membership of the advisory committees for appointments to the Bench. I am pursuing that agenda with the appropriate people.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: But in an attempt to satisfy some of the people some of the time, will the right hon. Gentleman place in the Library, and tell me when he has done so, a list of all those who have been appointed to public office since 1 May 1997, together with their known political affiliation? May we also have a list of those who have not been reappointed, with their affiliation?
    Dr. Cunningham: By definition, all names of people appointed to public office are already in the public domain. I am not sure that I intend to go to extraordinary, costly, bureaucratic lengths to republish all their names. The reason people are not reappointed these days is either that they choose not to continue or that, according to the Nolan requirements, their time is up.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: What does the right hon. Gentleman have to hide? Why can we not have the political affiliation of these people? Their names may all be published in various places, but can we not have a list of them with their political affiliations?
    Dr. Cunningham: We have absolutely nothing to hide. The appointment of people to public positions since May 1997 is far more open and balanced than it ever was in the 18 years of Conservative Governments.

    Better Government
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the progress made by the ministerial group on better government. [83644]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): We set up the ministerial group on better government to develop and implement the Government's programme for public service reform. The group oversaw the work leading to publication of the "Modernising Government" White Paper, and will oversee the implementation of the whole modernising government agenda.
    Mr. Chapman: NHS Direct is a fine example of a public service that has been modernised using information technology. Does my right hon. Friend propose to apply that example to other public services, and ensure that they are similarly modernised and that people have access to them 24 hours a day, seven days a week?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, we shall do that. As the "Modernising Government" White Paper makes clear, we have set ourselves targets. By 2008, we intend that all Government services will be accessible using information technology. Where there is a demand, let us say to fill in self-assessment forms for the Inland Revenue, people should have access to services via their own equipment at home. Similarly, small businesses and others should be able to complete their VAT returns at their leisure and send the information electronically to the appropriate Government Department.
    Sir George Young: When the ministerial group on better government next meets, will it

    1049
    reflect on the plea for pay restraint made last night by the Chancellor? Will it reconsider the huge increases that Ministers have given to their special advisers—increases far more substantial than those same Ministers have given to teachers or nurses?
    Dr. Cunningham: I have already published the figures for the average increase in specialist advisers' pay. In the current financial year, special advisers have not yet been paid their annual increment, let alone had any regrading. I advise the right hon. Gentleman not to believe everything that he reads in the newspapers.

    Service First Programme
    Mr. David Amess: What recent representations he has received on the service first programme. [83645]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): We have received no representations, but there has been a great deal of interest in and support for the service first programme, which is an important part of our modernising government initiative.
    Mr. Amess: Now that the service first programme can be seen for the public relations exercise that it is, amounting to a lot of codswallop, will the Minister tell the House how many of the 5,000 people on this ridiculous panel are my constituents? How will his policy improve services? It seems to me that ever since we have had this dreadful Government, services have got much worse, especially services from Ministers.
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on the fact that Southend council is one of the councils interested in networking in the better government for older people pilot network, which is part of the service first unit. I hope that he will reconsider the position before he tells his local council that the process is, to quote him, a load of codswallop.

    Public Appointments
    Fiona Mactaggart: What progress he has made in ensuring that people from a wider range of backgrounds are appointed to public office. [83646]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Government are committed to ensuring that public appointments are open to candidates from all backgrounds. We are making progress in increasing the numbers of women and ethnic minority people who hold appointments.
    I am also taking forward work to mainstream equality of opportunity issues into all Government policies.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. I am glad that progress is being made on appointing more women and more members of ethnic minorities to public bodies. However, I am still concerned about the appointment of young people to public bodies. The most recent report of the independent Commissioner for Public Appointments revealed that in the year before the election of this Government there had been no
    1050
    appointments of anyone under 38 years of age to a public body. I was struck by a report published last week by Demos and Save the Children Fund, which showed the degree to which young people feel alienated from a political system that they feel has turned its back on them. Is my right hon. Friend able to do more to appoint young people to public bodies?
    Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend raises an important point. She is right to say that it is a recurring weakness in the system. We can do much better than has been done in the past. I assure my hon. Friend that we shall be devoting some time and attention to trying to make better progress in the aspect of public appointments to which she has referred.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Does this approach extend to the appointment of special advisers, and has the Minister discussed it with the Lord Chancellor?
    Dr. Cunningham: I certainly will not make any public comment about the impending court case involving my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. As the right hon. Lady and some of her hon. Friends, especially the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie)— incidentally, he was a special adviser for six years and was one of the architects of the boom and bust policies of the previous Government—have had much to say about special advisers, I would point out that, in the last two years of the previous Conservative Government, Ministers and their special advisers spent far more on travel abroad than has been spent by Ministers in the first two years of this Government.
    Mr. Peter L. Pike: Is it not a fact that for 18 years we saw public appointments filled by Tory lapdogs? In the past two years, have not the present Government made appointments based on merit, involving people living in the local community who use services such as the local NHS?
    Dr. Cunningham: Yes, indeed. It is because of the abysmal performance of the Conservative Government that we have the Nolan principles and the Neill committee report on these matters.

    Drug Misuse
    Mrs. Ann Winterton: If he will list the initiatives taken by the anti-drugs co-ordinator over the past 12 months in relation to reducing the level of drug misuse in prisons in England and Wales. [83647]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The prison drugs initiative, launched in May 1998, operates within the framework of the Government's anti-drugs strategy. The comprehensive spending review for anti-drugs activities included £76 million between 1999 and 2002 for the implementation of the prison drugs strategy in England and Wales. The Prison Service is taking forward the implementation of the strategy.
    Mrs. Winterton: The Minister will be aware that, last year, 88,304 mandatory drug tests were conducted

    1051
    on prisoners and that 20,152—almost a quarter—tested positive. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that although some prisoners may have been tested more than once, these figures illustrate the severity of the drug problem in prisons? Will he suggest to the Home Secretary that if we are to assess the true position more accurately, mandatory drugs tests should be carried out on the entire prison population in selected prisons when least expected, perhaps, for example, during or after a weekend? Without more accurate statistics, the effectiveness of the measures undertaken cannot be gauged. Will these matters be covered in the drugs co-ordinator's first annual report, and when may we expect publication of it?
    Dr. Cunningham: I hope to make a statement on the first annual report on drugs shortly. The hon. Lady is certainly right to say that the baseline information throughout this aspect of policy is exceedingly fragile. Some of it, as she implied, is not particularly reliable. That is why we are using some of the money in the drugs programme to create databases in which we can have confidence. With the £76 million that the Prison Service has been allocated, as I mentioned earlier, it is working closely with the Home Office, the probation service and the police to try to improve the situation in prisons. The hon. Lady is right to say that we need to do much better than we have done in the past.
    Mr. Robin Corbett: Although every step should be taken to deter staff and visitors to prisons from bringing in drugs, does my right hon. Friend agree that the problem starts earlier, at ports of entry? How does he react to complaints that those manning controls at our ports have neither enough staff nor the right equipment to do that job as effectively as they would wish?
    Dr. Cunningham: My hon. Friend is right to say that Customs and Excise is an important part of our defences against the importation of illegal drugs. It is a matter of record that between 1989 and 1996, 500 front-line members of Customs and Excise were cut from the service. When we came to office, we took action to prevent a further reduction of 300 Customs and Excise officers. In the comprehensive spending review, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer provided an increase in support for Customs and Excise, precisely because it has such an important role to play in these matters.
    Mr. Humfrey Malins: The Select Committee on Home Affairs is conducting an inquiry into drugs in prisons. We recognise that it is an extremely serious problem. A number of prisons are doing some good work. Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on three possible remedies—first, sniffer dogs in all our prisons; secondly, the appropriate equipment for screening all staff and visitors to prisons; and thirdly, suitable punishments for all visitors who are found to be bringing drugs into our prisons?
    Dr. Cunningham: Prison governors are taking new initiatives and introducing new measures to control a serious problem, as the hon. Gentleman points out. I will study the recommendations of the Home Affairs
    1052
    Committee with interest, but principally it will be for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to respond. I will consider with him the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised.

    Electronic Information
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: If he will make a statement on progress in increasing the amount of Government information available to the public by electronic means. [83648]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The "Modernising Government" White Paper restates the 25 per cent. target for electronic service delivery set by the Prime Minister for 2002. We have also set a new target of 50 per cent. by 2005 and, subject to limited exceptions, 100 per cent. by 2008. We will publish six-monthly progress reports against these targets, and the first report will be published shortly.
    Mr. Mackinlay: In the interests of candour and in a spirit of openness, will the Cabinet Secretary arrange to put on the internet on each working day details of the hopes and aspirations of the Government for that day, together with their likes and dislikes, instead of imparting that information to the clandestine Lobby briefing from which we, as elected Members, are excluded? As part of that exercise, will he issue a communiqué on each day that the Cabinet meets, setting out the information that would otherwise be imparted to that Lobby briefing, or the sultans of spin—namely, what has been discussed and the duration of each Cabinet meeting?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I cannot speak for the Cabinet Secretary, but, as the Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office, I shall relay my hon. Friend's wishes to the Cabinet Secretary. I shall certainly relay my hon. Friend's remarks to the Prime Minister's official spokesman who, in the estimation of virtually all Labour Members, does an estimable job in keeping the Lobby informed on a day-to-day basis of the hopes and aspirations of the Prime Minister and the rest of the Government.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Does the Minister agree that one of the most deplorable releases of Government information by electronic means was the posting on the internet of more than 100 names of alleged officers of the Secret Intelligence Service? Although those names were posted by the convicted US fraudster and fantasist Lyndon LaRouche, does the Minister know whether any links have been reported between LaRouche, Richard Tomlinson—the former SIS officer—the publicist Max Clifford and the egregious Mohammed Fayed? If any of them is within the jurisdiction of this country's courts, will the Minister take action?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: No, I have no such knowledge, but I am not a conspiracy theorist. No one could expect me to comment on allegations that have been made on the internet—a notoriously difficult medium to control in any shape or form.

    Public Services
    Mrs. Linda Gilroy: What steps he is taking to improve access to public services by older people. [83649]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Mr. Peter Kilfoyle): The Government have set up 28 pilots under the better government for older people programme to improve services. In March, we also launched a new network, which already involves more than 100 local authorities and central Government agencies. This month, we begin the first of our listening to older people events with a "virtual conference" of older people on the internet.
    Mrs. Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. I believe that one of those pilot schemes is taking place in Devon. I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's points about the internet. Older people are often thought of as being less able and less willing to use the internet, but in fact they are one of the fastest growing age groups in their use of the internet. Will he tell us a little more about how the internet is being used to give convenient access to public services?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: I happily agree with my hon. Friend that there is much misinformation about the facility with which older people take to the internet. Older people who use the internet are a fast-expanding group. Some of the pilot schemes that we have set up under the better government for older people programme enable older people to acquire internet skills to access local and national information. Last, but not least, I entirely agree with my hon. Friend about Devon county council's participation in the pilot studies, which involve a broad range of urban and rural areas, different sizes of local government units and different cities. There is a wide geographic spread.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that the Cabinet Office has an interest in the co-ordination of the range of Government policies, and that it has an interest in the progress—or lack of progress—of Government policies in respect of public services, can the Minister tell the House what proportion of those people who have been waiting for hospital treatment for more than 12 months are of pensionable age?
    Mr. Kilfoyle: The honest answer is that I cannot; I shall have come back to the hon. Gentleman with that number. I do know that, because of the successful programme that was set up by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we are able to allocate an extra £21 billion this year to ensure that those waiting lists are further reduced, so that we can maintain all 177 manifesto commitments that we made.

    Chancellor of the Duchy
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: In what circumstances the Chancellor of the Duchy's flag is flown on public buildings. [83650]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office (Dr. Jack Cunningham): The Duchy banner is flown on a variety of occasions, including when the Vice-Chancellor is sitting in the Crown courts and during the installation of a Duchy high sheriff.
    Mr. Prentice: Is the Minister proud or slightly embarrassed that he is the only member of the Cabinet with his own flag? Does that not dramatically underline what a terrible anachronism the Duchy of Lancaster is? [Interruption.] Splendid though the Minister is, he should not be responsible for the appointment of magistrates, for example. Such appointments should properly lie with the Lord Chancellor.
    Dr. Cunningham: This year, as my hon. Friend knows, is the 600th anniversary of the Duchy's link with the Crown. It is a bit presumptuous to suggest that the banner is mine; it is the Duchy banner. Unlike one of my Conservative predecessors, I have not tried to insist that the pennant be flown on my car as I go about my ministerial business.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Andy King: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 May.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further meetings later today.
    Mr. King: As Slobodan Milosevic continues his campaign of terror, genocide and ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, is not our first priority to care for those refugees who have been forced from their home; and our second to ensure that they can return home in peace and safety to rebuild their lives?
    The Prime Minister: That is precisely what the refugees want, and having been to one of the camps yesterday only redoubles my determination to ensure that they are allowed back. Each and every one of the stories that are now being told by the refugees and all the evidence that is being compiled by the United Nations and the UN High Commissioner for Refugees are appalling—tales of the most terrible acts committed inside Kosovo, of families divided, young men disappearing, young women being raped and whole villages being razed to the ground. The NATO campaign will go on until our basic demands are met: that Milosevic's troops go out, our troops go in and the refugees go back.
    Mr. William Hague: On that subject, the whole House agrees that what we have seen in Kosovo is a humanitarian disaster, and that we cannot and must not walk away from that, but must now do everything in our power to redeem the promises that we have made to the refugees. Does the Prime Minister share

    1055
    our concern about newspaper reports in recent days which have alleged that there is division between our Government and that of the United States—reports that are damaging to NATO and can only provide encouragement to Milosevic? Will he take the opportunity to deny those reports, and specifically deny that he and the Government want to use ground troops to fight their way into Kosovo, when the American President has decided that he does not?
    The Prime Minister: There is absolutely no difference. As was made clear by the President of the United States yesterday, all options are under review; that is what he has always said. I know the President well and I know that he will always do the right thing by America and by the world. He is as committed to this campaign as anybody else. The NATO demands and NATO's unity behind those demands are absolute and will remain.
    Mr. Hague: I thank the Prime Minister for that reply. May I also ask him about the comments made earlier today by the German Chancellor, who, after talks at NATO headquarters in Brussels, insisted that any change in current strategy would require unanimous agreement, and that Germany would never back sending in soldiers before a ceasefire? Do those comments place any restriction on the development of NATO policy in future?
    The Prime Minister: No. As we have said before, the Secretary-General of NATO is tasked with planning and updating all assessments. The German Chancellor is right to say that the air campaign is working, for there is no doubt that Milosevic is weakening. There were reports yesterday of riots in Yugoslavia and reports today of desertion, and the fact that there has been huge damage done to the Serb military machine shows that the air campaign is working. However, as we have said and as we have tasked the Secretary-General of NATO with doing, we review all options.
    Mr. Hague: We very much hope that the Prime Minister is right and that air strikes will succeed. However, if NATO is to achieve its objectives, as it must, the Government may soon face some extremely difficult decisions. The Government will have the support of the Opposition in making difficult decisions, provided they clearly justify them by having clear and militarily achievable objectives. We have made a lot of promises to a lot of people in a dire situation. With the pressure of time growing with every day, does the right hon. Gentleman remain confident that NATO is ready to face up to the very difficult decisions that may soon face it?
    The Prime Minister: We have had to make difficult choices and I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his support in making them. However, the basic NATO demands have remained exactly the same throughout. They do not alter, and neither does our determination to achieve them. We demand that Milosevic withdraw his troops and his paramilitaries, that an international military force go in and that the refugees be allowed to return to their homes in peace and security. That is why we began this campaign, and we were right and justified in doing so. For the sake of the refugees, for the sake of NATO's credibility and for the sake of the safety of the outside world, we must continue until we succeed.
    Ms Sally Keeble: May I change the subject to welfare spending? Is my right hon. Friend aware that the proposed amendments to the Finance Bill would blow a £19 billion hole in public finances before the next general election, wiping out my right hon. Friend's plans for extra spending on the national health service? Given that those proposed amendments emanate from the Tory Front Bench, does my right hon. Friend agree that it shows that the Tories' claims to support Labour's plans for the NHS simply do not add up?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, we have put the extra £40 billion into schools and hospitals precisely in order to ensure that we get that additional investment. However, it must be paid for, and we will not return to the huge borrowing requirements that we saw under the Conservatives. For the Conservatives to claim that they support our spending plans—which they used to call "irresponsible"—while tabling vast amounts of costly amendments to the Finance Bill, shows, I am delighted to say, that they are now behaving like an Opposition.
    Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is not the true situation in Kosovo simply this: only if NATO is prepared to use ground troops can we be sure of victory? If NATO is not prepared to use ground troops, it may have to be satisfied with compromise.
    The Prime Minister: I could not have made it clearer in the past few weeks that there is no question of compromise in our basic demands. We have said—I repeated it a moment ago—that we keep all options under review. There cannot be any compromise in our demands, and I shall explain why. It is for the simple reason that, in the end, the Kosovar Albanians must feel safe and free to return to their homes. They cannot do that unless the international military force is credible and unless Milosevic's troops, who have done them so much damage, are withdrawn.
    Mr. Ashdown: I have never wished to be wrong more enthusiastically than over my assessment of the necessity of sending ground troops into Kosovo. Is it not true that, by ruling out the use of ground troops at the beginning—as NATO did—we left ourselves with only one means of prosecuting the war: by bombing? If bombing does not succeed and if we now rule out ground troops, we will leave ourselves with only one means of prosecuting the peace. That is—whether the Prime Minister likes it or not—compromise.
    The Prime Minister: I have just made it clear that we have all options under review. That was our position and it remains the position today. I believe the bombing campaign is working and is weakening Milosevic. As I said in my speech the other day, I have no doubt that we must do whatever is necessary to ensure that we succeed and that there is no compromise in our basic demands. That has been our position throughout and it remains our position. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman will be proved wrong, but I believe that I will be proved right and that NATO's demands will be met.

    Post-16 Education
    Mr. David Chaytor: What plans he has for reform of the funding mechanisms for post-16 education and training.
    The Prime Minister: We have consulted widely with businesses, colleges, the voluntary sector and others. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education will announce his proposals for post-16 education and training in the summer. My hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor) will know that we want to increase the opportunities for young people and adults to undertake high-quality education and training that allows them and us to have a fully competitive work force for the 21st century.
    Mr. Chaytor: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. The post-16 review is welcomed throughout the further education sector, as is the record investment of £700 million in further education due to commence next year. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the continuing problem of differential funding of further education institutions, whereby some institutions receive up to £1,500 per student more than others for an identical course? Will he assure the House that the post-16 review will resolve that problem once and for all and achieve a level playing field for further education?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right to say that we have backed our statement that we attach importance to further education with a record settlement of over £700 million over the next two years. The review aims to get value for money and make sure that we attach proper importance to education, including further education, and training. We shall do that in a way that does not disadvantage sixth-form colleges and people who are still at school. We are conducting the review, and the results will be announced soon, and my hon. Friend will then realise that his concerns have been taken into account.
    Mr. Eric Forth rose—
    Madam Speaker: Order. This is a closed question.

    Engagements
    Mr. Ben Chapman: My right hon. Friend will have seen the employment and unemployment figures, published today, which reveal that there are more people in work than ever. The claimant count reveals an annual national reduction of 72,000 and a reduction of 4,000 in my own region of the north-west. Is not that good news for, and a function of, the economy and is not it especially good news for those who are finding work? Do not those figures entirely repudiate the claims of the many merchants of gloom on the Opposition Benches who, since the election, have consistently and regularly tried to talk down this country's economy?
    The Prime Minister: The figures published today are excellent news. They demonstrate that, since the election, more than 400,000 new jobs have been created. Just as important is the news that long-term unemployment has fallen by over 50 per cent. and youth long-term
    1058
    unemployment has fallen by over 60 per cent. That gives a great deal of hope to young people and the longterm unemployed. Of course, the Conservatives were predicting disaster and recession a year ago. Today's news may be bad news for them, but it is good news for the country.
    Mr. John Randall: The Prime Minister will no doubt remember that last week the Secretary of State for International Development promised that the Kosovan refugees who had family contacts in this country would be given priority among those who were given temporary leave to stay. The Prime Minister will not be aware that, for the past five weeks, I have been trying, on behalf of my constituent, Mrs. Merita Lumley, to get her father, mother, brother and sister out of Macedonia, where they are currently refugees. I have not yet received a single answer about that from any Department. Is not it time that action replaced rhetoric, or will this be just another empty promise?
    The Prime Minister: First, I point out to the hon. Gentleman that we have done an awful lot for the refugees whom we have taken in. I am not aware of the individual case of his constituent; I shall look into that today and ensure that he gets a reply about it this evening.
    Siobhain McDonagh: Will my right hon. Friend join me in welcoming the Labour party's victory in the Israeli elections? Does he agree that the results represent the best chance of a just and long-standing peace in the region? Will he use his best efforts to ensure that all parties agree on a speedy introduction of the Wye agreement?
    The Prime Minister: I am delighted to endorse my hon. Friend's remarks. I spoke to Ehud Barak yesterday and gave him our congratulations. His victory offers the middle east peace process a chance to move forward, and I know that that will be done on the basis of the Wye River memorandum, which offers a tremendous opportunity for rebuilding the middle east on the basis of security for Israel and justice for the Palestinian people.
    Mr. William Hague: Does the Prime Minister agree with the leader of his MEPs, Pauline Green, who said that we should abolish Britain's veto over asylum, immigration and every aspect of foreign and security policy?
    The Prime Minister: No. We have set out clearly the position on the veto and we believe that it is important that we keep it for areas such as defence and taxation; but we do not agree with the Conservative party, which says that it is now opposed to any extension of qualified majority voting in any circumstances.
    Mr. Hague: The leader of the Prime Minister's MEPs said on 12 January:
    "We believe in the extension of majority voting on everything except changes to the treaty, the membership of new countries … and taxation".
    Labour MEPs have specifically voted for majority voting on asylum, immigration and foreign and security policy. Should not we be arguing not for giving up Britain's veto,

    1059
    but for maintaining it and—when the interests of the country are at stake, as with the withholding tax—using it?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has a little difficulty with that, because I have just been informed that his own Tory MEPs have voted for the Conservative Euro manifesto, which argues for exactly the same abolition of qualified majority voting. He should get his facts right first. We have made our position quite clear; I do not, however, accept that we should rule out qualified majority voting in any set of circumstances. I remind him that the largest ever extension of qualified majority voting was made by the previous Conservative Government.
    Mr. Hague: The trouble with the Prime Minister on Europe now is that we cannot take him at face value. Sometimes his MEPs take him at face value; he told them to clean up Europe and one put a hoover and his dry cleaning on his expense account. For years, he has tried to have it both ways. He says he stands up for Britain, but he wants to diminish the veto. He says he loves the pound, but he wants to abolish it. He says he is against a federal Europe, but the socialist manifesto that he has launched today prepares for a federal Europe. Is not it true that the veto is vital for Britain and his party cannot be trusted to keep it safe?
    The Prime Minister: First, in relation to the veto, as I have pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, the party that surrendered the veto more times than any other party in government was his. It is, however, entirely sensible, in certain areas, to have qualified majority voting—we would not have got the beef ban lifted and we would not get the single market completed without it. People have a simple choice at the European elections—one Government party with one manifesto or two Tory parties with two manifestos. After the lack of influence and weakness in Europe to which his party reduced us, I believe that people should stick with the Government and the party that knows what it is doing in Europe.
    Dan Norris: On average, 40 children are abused before a paedophile is convicted. What can the Government do to address that problem and will they consider changing the burden of proof to ensure that those awful people cannot harm children in the way that they currently do?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend will know, the Protection of Children Bill makes a number of significant advances in that area, particularly in the way that we vet criminal records and make sure that the people who are looking after children are only suitable people. We of course look at all other potential aspects of that, but I believe that the work that is being done now to provide, for the first time in a Government, a cross-departmental view of how we look after, nurture and protect children and provide them with proper education is the best hope for the future our children have.
    Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We have become accustomed to the Prime Minister bypassing the House of Commons. On how many occasions this year has he cancelled Cabinet or
    1060
    delegated chairmanship to a colleague? Does he still believe in collective responsibility and accountability to Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: In relation to Parliament, I did a little bit of research on that the other day. I have answered more parliamentary questions in my first two years than my predecessor answered in his last two years. I have spent more time at Prime Minister's questions than he did. I have made double the number of statements to the House on which I can be questioned. Those are the facts. As for Cabinet, recently-and obviously, with the war on-I have not been able to attend the two or three Cabinet meetings to which the right hon. Lady refers, but I believe in collective responsibility. What is more, and unlike the Cabinet of which she was a member, I have my Cabinet behind me.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Returning to the topic of the European Parliament, does the Prime Minister agree that it is important that the British and other European Governments press for increases in the democratic accountability of the European Parliament and for it to be shown that expenses are being met according to what people spend? Is he concerned about the fact that Conservative MEPs last week rejected the reform package that would have greatly increased confidence in the European Parliament?
    The Prime Minister: We support the independent auditing of accounts and expenses. We also support the new European statute that introduces far greater transparency. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Conservative party has refused to support the package that would give us the best opportunity to ensure that we root out fraud and inefficiency in the European Union.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Will the Prime Minister confirm that the total salary paid to an individual who is a Member of the House, a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, and is also Secretary of State for Wales and First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales is £187,122?
    The Prime Minister: I have just been informed that the hon. Lady is wrong about that figure, and the individual does not get the amount to which she referred.
    Mr. Graham Stringer: This morning, the Select Committee on Culture, Media and Sport published an excellent report on the staging of international sporting events. It gave the organisers of the next Commonwealth games a clean bill of health. Its recommendations went further: it said that if this country is to get the most out of the next Commonwealth games, there will have to be direct ministerial involvement and more resources. May I thank my right hon. Friend for his support for the Commonwealth games, and ask him to consider those recommendations with a view to giving a positive response?
    The Prime Minister: I welcome the report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. We shall carefully consider its recommendations. The Manchester

    1061
    Commonwealth games is a tremendous opportunity for Manchester and for the country, but it is evident that questions of resources must be given careful consideration.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: A little while ago the Prime Minister told the House that it would be his particular pleasure—I think those were his words—to introduce legislation to implement Lord Neill's recommendations on the fair funding of referendums. Why is he intending to ask his troops—as we understand—to kill off tomorrow the Bill proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan)?
    The Prime Minister: We are about to introduce our own draft Bill, which implements the Neill committee recommendations. The hon. Gentleman should remember that the Labour party set up the Neill committee on party funding when the party that he supports refused to have any inquiry into the matter.
    Ms Beverley Hughes: One in four men aged between 60 and 65 are currently in receipt of incapacity benefit. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is inconceivable that such a proportion of men in that age group are incapable, and that that figure reflects the extent to which incapacity benefit was used under the previous Government to keep people off the unemployment register? Would not it be fairer and better if incapacity benefit reverted to the purpose for which it was intended, if people who can work were helped to find it, and if really disabled people, adults and children, got a much better deal than they currently get?
    The Prime Minister: Everybody knows that in the 1980s the Conservatives used invalidity benefit to transfer people off unemployment benefit. That is the truth of what happened. We now have triple the numbers on incapacity benefit. There are more people on it than on unemployment benefit. Conservative Members are now complaining about that. Last week the Leader of the Opposition said that he wanted welfare spending to be cut to deliver tax cuts, but the first opportunity the Conservatives have for proper welfare reform they refuse it. Instead, the Government are taking the money that is saved and getting it to people who really need it. Those people who talk about welfare reform should have the courage to see it through.

    Constituency Visit
    Mr. David Amess: What plans he has to visit Southend, West.
    The Prime MinisterI have no plans to visit Southend—and I rather think that the hon. Gentleman did not either, until he saw the writing on the wall in Basildon.
    Mr. Amess: There you are, Madam Speaker. Labour has never got over the fact that we kept Basildon for the Conservatives—and today half my old constituency is still represented by a Conservative. Anyway, it is just as well that the Prime Minister is not going to visit Southend, West, given the anger that is felt there about the way in which he has broken up the United Kingdom.
    1062
    If the Prime Minister did visit my constituency, however, he would learn at first hand about the effect of reducing class sizes to 30 and under. That policy means that parental choice will be ended this autumn. Why do the Prime Minister, his party and his Liberal partners in crime despise working-class people so much that they want to prevent them from having the choice that he and his colleagues have as a result of their power and money?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman says that working people in Southend will not support the Government's policies. I believe that they support the statutory minimum wage introduced by us, the 20 per cent. rise in child benefit introduced by us and the £40 billion of investment in schools and hospitals introduced by us—and they certainly support the lowest interest rates for more than 30 years.

    Engagements
    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Why should a Member of the House of Commons who has a Scottish seat and represents some 52,000 people be paid the same as a Member of this House who has an English seat and represents some 100,000, given that after 1 July, when the Scottish Parliament starts to act, the Member with a Scottish seat will have only half a job? Is that the Prime Minister's idea of fairness at work?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with what the hon. Lady says. I think that it would be wrong to have two classes of Member of Parliament. When Stormont was sitting in the 1960s and before, we had precisely the same arrangement in relation to Northern Ireland. The argument used by a then Conservative Prime Minister is the argument that I use now: it is in the interests of the United Kingdom that we have devolution, it is fair that we have devolution, and to have two classes of Members of Parliament would be wrong.
    Mr. Peter Bradley: Given the Government's pledge in advance of the election to reduce class sizes for every five, six and seven-year-old in the country, will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating Telford and Wrekin council and Shropshire county council, which have delivered on that pledge to infants in my constituency—not on schedule, not one year ahead of schedule, but, because of Government funding, two whole years ahead of schedule?
    The Prime Minister: The fact that more than 130,000 five, six and seven-year-olds are now in classes of under 30 who would not be otherwise, and the fact that the size of primary school classes is falling for the first time, underscore this Government's commitment to education. Once again, every single one of those measures has been opposed by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Is it all right to lift the beef-on-the-bone ban in one part of the United Kingdom, but not in another?
    The Prime Minister: That, of course, is what devolution provides for. I hope that that was a statement of support from the hon. Gentleman.

    1063
    We introduced the ban because of the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. The reason why the issue of any ban on British beef has arisen is, of course, BSE—and the hon. Gentleman will know who was responsible for
    1064
    introducing BSE. That is, I am afraid, an outstanding example of the rare combination of incompetence and financial profligacy that was the true legacy of the last Conservative Government.

Jury Trial
3.30 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg(by private notice): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will inform the House as to his proposed restrictions on trial by jury.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary sends his apologies. He has a longstanding commitment to speak at the Police Federation conference. I am sure that hon. Members would want him to keep that commitment.
In response to a written question that appeared on Tuesday's Order Paper, the Home Secretary has announced—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the Minister. I ask Members who are leaving to do so less noisily. We still have business to do here.
Mr. O'Brien: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
The Home Secretary has announced that the Government propose to change the way in which the mode of trial is determined for those cases that are triable either way.
In 1993, the royal commission on criminal justice and, more recently, the 1997 Narey review of delay in the criminal justice system recommended that defendants should not be able to choose to be tried in the Crown court in either-way cases where magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear the case.
We have considered that recommendation, along with the responses to the consultation paper that the Home Secretary issued on 28 July last year. Today's answer to the parliamentary question indicates that we will be introducing legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to abolish the ability of defendants to decide for themselves whether to be tried in a magistrates court or the Crown court in either-way cases. Magistrates should decide whether the trial should properly take place in the Crown court.
Some believe that to remove the defendant's veto on the magistrates' decision that they should hear a case would erode fundamental individual liberties that were established in the middle ages, if not by Magna Carta itself. However, although trial by jury is ancient, a defendant's ability to choose to be tried by a jury rather than by the justices was introduced in 1855.
The Government agree that jury trial is right for certain sorts of case. The question is whether it should be available on demand by a defendant, or whether it should be restricted to business that objectively warrants it. In the same way as defendants do not have a choice of which magistrate, judge or jury hears their case, we believe that defendants should not be able to choose where their case is tried. In Scotland, there is no ability to elect for trial. Indeed, the prosecution decides the venue. I know of no other country in which such an ability to elect is allowed on this scale.
The majority of cases in which the defendant elects for Crown court trial result eventually in guilty pleas, but only after greater inconvenience and worry to victims and witnesses, and at considerable extra cost, sometimes using
1066
up valuable police time to little effect. Home Office research shows that nine out of 10 people who elect to be tried in the Crown court have previous criminal convictions. It is clear that some persistent offenders are abusing the system of election. The Government's proposal will end the practice that many rightly regard as a manipulation of the criminal justice system: defendants demanding Crown court trial for no good reason other than to delay proceedings and the evil day when they should be sentenced.
There will be safeguards for those of good character. When determining the mode of trial, magistrates will be required to have regard not only to the defence's representations, but to such features as the gravity of the offence and the complexity of the case, as legislation already requires. There will be an added safeguard, in that the effect of conviction and the likely sentence on the defendant's livelihood and reputation should be taken into account.
In addition to the automatic right of appeal to the Crown court against conviction, defendants will be given an extra safeguard—a right of appeal to the Crown court against the magistrate's decision on mode of trial. We believe that our proposals will ensure that justice is delivered in a fair, just and efficient way.
Mr. Hogg: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response. Does he understand the concern in this House that the Home Secretary should have failed to make a statement in this House with regard to a matter of this magnitude, but rather preferred to announce it outside on the radio this morning, and—as I understand it—in a speech this afternoon? I hope that proposals of this importance will be made the subject of a White Paper and, thereafter, that a Bill will be published early and then referred to the Special Standing Committee procedure.
Is it true that the proposals are motivated primarily by considerations of finance, not by considerations of justice? Will the proposals apply to persons of previously good character? If so, does the Minister understand the real concern that will be felt in the House? In respect of the right of appeal, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that any proposals to that effect will give the trial judge an unfettered discretion in the matter of the decision of the magistrates court, that there should be no presumption in favour of that decision, and that the trial judge should have a right to take into account the damage to the reputation and good name of the defendant?
Finally, will the hon. Gentleman tell the House precisely the class of offences to which the present proposals relate?
Mr. O'Brien: As for the way in which the matter was announced, the right hon. and learned Gentleman will be aware that the Home Secretary has a reputation for being scrupulous about the prerogatives of the House. He certainly intends no discourtesy and would regret it if anyone believed otherwise. The Home Office consults on a wide range of issues, and normally reports the results—if there is a wide-ranging series of conclusions—in a statement. However, a more narrowly based statement of a broad intention is often given in a written answer, as it was today. In due course, perhaps a consultation paper or a White Paper on the detail might be the time for a statement.

1067
In the meantime, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary was to speak to the Police Federation conference. The right hon. and learned Gentleman will know that the Police Federation conference—like party conferences and other events—is a place where broad-based statements can be made. My right hon. Friend was anxious to be scrupulous about the way in which he dealt with the House. He wanted to be sure that a parliamentary answer was given today, before he made the statement, so that he could be sure that the House was aware of the situation—even though all the detail was not in this statement.
During yesterday afternoon, it became clear that the press had been alerted by a question on Tuesday's Order Paper, and was making inquiries of the Home Office press office. I am assured by the press office and officials at the Home Office that they did not actively brief, but reacted to inquiries in broad terms. However, there was a concern this morning that some of the press might mislead in their reports, so the Home Secretary decided to clarify matters on "Today". However, he is scrupulous in the way in which he deals with this House.
The change is not motivated primarily by finance: it is a recommendation of the royal commission and the Narey report. There will be safeguards for people of previous good character, as I set out in my original reply. There will be a right of appeal on venue, and the judge can take into account the effect on the reputation of a person of good character. That will apply to either-way offences.
Mr. Chris Mullin: What evidence is there that the existing arrangements are widely abused? My hon. Friend says that many people who have elected for a jury trial plead guilty at the door of the court. Is not that in many cases because the charges have been substantially reduced?
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is right: some defendants seek Crown court trial for all sorts of reasons. I have already said that Home Office research shows that nine out of 10 are not persons of previous good character. People choose Crown court trial to apply pressure on the Crown Prosecution Service to reduce the seriousness of the charges, as he suggested, and they think that it is less likely that prosecution witnesses will attend, because of the elapse of time—which could also make memories more vague—and because those witnesses may be fearful of the Crown court. They also do it simply to put off the day of sentence, so that they can be held in a local prison, perhaps close to their friends and partners in crime, enjoying the privileges of being unconvicted prisoners for a longer time.
Sir Norman Fowler: I join my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) in protesting at the way in which this announcement has been made. Over the past two weeks, we have had important announcements on refugees from Kosovo, on privatisation of the Tote, on the Macpherson leak inquiry, and now on trial by jury, and in not one of those cases has the Home Secretary volunteered a statement to the House. Indeed, he is not even here to offer a response today.
There will be a strong feeling among Government as well as Opposition Members that that is an entirely wrong way to treat the House. Does not the Minister realise what
1068
resentment is caused throughout the House when self-evidently important announcements are first leaked and then announced outside Parliament?
Does not the Minister feel that there is a particular obligation on the Home Secretary to volunteer a statement when, as in this case, he has totally reversed the position that he set out two years ago? Is not it a fact that on 27 February 1997 the Home Secretary spent half his response to the statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on criminal justice attacking the very proposals that he is now making? Did not he say on that occasion that time was needed to see whether the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 improved the position? In so doing, he put his finger on one of the reasons why we will oppose the proposals.
Do not the Crown Prosecution Service figures given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) show that, whereas in 1988 46 per cent. of those charged with an either-way offence elected for trial in the Crown court, the figure for 1998 was down to 28 per cent.? On the radio this morning, the Home Secretary suggested that some other European nations regard the English and Welsh system as unusual, but surely the view of other countries is not remotely the deciding factor in changing our law. By and large, our system of justice has worked well; above all, it has the confidence of the majority of the public.
The Home Secretary made his announcement to the Police Federation conference in Blackpool, where I was yesterday. Many will feel that if he wants to tackle crime effectively, he should concentrate on strengthening the police rather than changing the jury system.
Mr. O'Brien: I have already dealt with the way in which the announcement was made. I gave a full explanation, and I will not take the synthetic anger that the right hon. Gentleman displays, after everything that we have seen in the House from his party over the years.
The Home Secretary properly gave a written answer to a question, so as to give notice of a view that he had taken following a consultation. He did that in the proper way, and I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman's criticisms are justified. However, my right hon. Friend does not wish anyone to think that he is less than scrupulous in his approach to the House. He always seeks to do things in the proper way, which is why the question was tabled.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about people changing their minds, but the Conservative Government were committed to taking away the right to jury trial. They made an announcement to that effect, without putting in the safeguards that my right hon. Friend now wishes to see included.
Mr. James Clappison: Wrong.
Mr. O'Brien: It is true that my right hon. Friend changed his mind. He has considered the evidence, and the possibility of other safeguards that were not proposed by the previous Government.
Those safeguards include a right of appeal to the Crown court on venue, and the fact that magistrates will have to consider the issue of reputation before deciding at which venue the trial will take place. My right hon. Friend

1069
believes that, with those safeguards, the proposals of the royal commission and the Narey report should be supported.
Mr. A. J. Beith: Is there not something seriously wrong when the Home Secretary does not even recognise that this issue is sufficiently important to require a Minister to appear before the House and answer questions? Is there not also something seriously wrong with arguing that a right that has been an important principle of the justice system of England and Wales should be removed simply because it does not apply in other countries, however different their jurisdictions may be? In Scotland such cases are tried before a professional judge, not by magistrates, so that comparison is not appropriate.
Will the Minister confirm that the consultation elicited many expressions of concern about the proposal, not least from representatives of the ethnic minorities, who had particular fears about its effect? What will be the grounds on which people can appeal against magistrates' decisions? Will there be legal aid for such appeals? Does the Minister not realise that the Government will create a new bureaucratic complication, just to take away a right exercised only by a limited and falling number of people?
Mr. O'Brien: I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman dismisses with such cavalier disregard both the report of the royal commission on criminal procedure and the Narey report. Those reports fully considered the issues surrounding the right to choose the venue, and dealt with the arguments in a sound and reasoned way. We should have due respect for the views of the royal commission and of Mr. Narey.
There have been some suggestions that the ethnic minorities will have concerns, yet according to the statistics, ethnic minority defendants tend to be given longer sentences, partly because disproportionate numbers of them elect for Crown court trial—and following conviction, Crown courts can give longer sentences.
The Lord Chancellor is engendering greater confidence in the magistrates courts among ethnic minorities by appointing more magistrates from ethnic minority communities. That process is under way; we are also putting in additional safeguards to help to build confidence among ethnic minorities. Not only will more magistrates come from such communities, but they will be able to consider the impact on the reputation of a person within those communities before determining the venue.
There will be a right of appeal on venue to a Crown court, where all those issues can be considered, if necessary. There will also be an automatic right of appeal to the Crown court on a sentence or a finding of guilt. Those safeguards will be sufficient to ensure that ethnic minorities are satisfied with the way in which the decision has been made.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: May I say, with a heavy heart, that I agree immediately with the observations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who asked the private notice question? The way in which
1070
this fundamental matter has been brought before the House is a disgrace, and shows contempt for hon. Members on both sides.
I shall make one or two observations and ask questions in respect of the matters that my learned Friend—or rather, my hon. Friend—raised. First, does he not understand—from his experience, or anecdotally—that the vast majority of people elect for trial by jury on advice because they believe that they will thereby obtain a better standard of justice in a more judicial arena?
Secondly, does my hon. Friend seriously advance the proposition that those of bad character—that is to say, those who have had the misfortune, probably justly, to have been convicted in the past, and sentenced and punished—should now be rewarded with the further penalty of the loss of their rights in perpetuity to jury trial?
Thirdly, and while we are on the subject of saving money—because we may suspect that the proposal is Treasury driven—how will it save money to have three hearings instead of one? If the proposal is adopted, a Bench of magistrates will have to decide whether someone has a right to be heard in the Crown court. That Bench of magistrates cannot later try the trial, because they will have heard all about the defendant's antecedents. The trial will have to go to another Bench of magistrates, but before that it will have gone to the Crown court on appeal, no doubt on legal aid, for the benefit of the profession.
If a person with a string of previous convictions is convicted in the magistrates court, he will be sent back to the Crown court because that is the only place where he can be sentenced. That would make four hearings instead of one. How much research has been done into how many people would arrive at the Crown court in any event but will now, under this procedure, spend so long getting there?
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. and learned Friend is a lawyer, and he is obviously concerned that the issues that the legal profession holds close to its heart are safeguarded. I, too, am a lawyer and like him I have represented people who sought to go to the Crown court merely to delay the point at which they would have to go to prison. They wish to remain on bail for longer, or to remain on remand for longer with the privileges of remand prisoners. I find it difficult to believe that he has not had clients who have taken that view and pleaded guilty at the door of the court, because throughout they have sought to abuse the system of election for trial. That has unduly wasted the time of prosecution witnesses and the police, and given rise to costs for the Exchequer.
Police time would be better spent on catching criminals than on sitting outside a court door waiting for banisters and their clients deciding to plead guilty after all. It is about time it was recognised that nine out of 10 defendants who elect to the Crown court have previous convictions and many are simply abusing the system.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Speaker: Order. I felt as if I was in court during the last questions. Now may we have brisk questions, and only one from each Member?
Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: Quite apart from the bizarre way in which the matter

1071
was announced, the Minister has overstated his case. More than 90 per cent. of criminal cases are already dealt with in the magistrates courts. Are not those people the Minister describes as manipulating the criminal justice system exactly the people who will appeal each and every time and clog up the Crown court with needless appeals?
Mr. O'Brien: No, we do not believe that there will be needless appeals. The hon. Gentleman is right that most people who are accused of offences are dealt with in the magistrates courts. Indeed, when given a choice, most people of previous good character choose to be dealt with in the magistrates courts.
There is much hot air and theory, particularly among some lawyers who believe in an ancient view of the protection of the right to election. Once we cut away from the stories and fairy tales about the right of election, we get down to reality. The magistrates courts are capable of delivering efficient and effective justice. We have had faith in them for many years—since the middle ages, indeed—and we should continue to have faith that they will be able to deal with appropriate cases and that matters that should be referred to the Crown court will be referred there.
Audrey Wise: I listened with interest to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on the radio this morning when he implied that some new evidence had emerged that had caused him to change his mind. Exactly what new facts have emerged in the two and a half years since we heard my right hon. Friend give his statement, to great approval from the Labour Benches? Will my hon. Friend also accept that some of us are less than enchanted with the idea that we are going back only 150 years rather than to the middle ages?
Mr. O'Brien: My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he had re-examined the issue and considered whether new safeguards could be introduced which the previous Government had not suggested when they supported change. My right hon. Friend had felt that there were insufficient safeguards for defendants, but now takes the view that an additional requirement that magistrates should look at the reputation of a person who is convicted and the impact on his or her livelihood would provide an extra safeguard. A right to appeal to the Crown court on the issue of which court—venue, as the lawyers call it—the case should be tried in would provide the additional safeguard that would allow my right hon. Friend to support the views of the royal commission on criminal procedure and the Narey report into dealing with delays in the criminal justice system.
Mr. Edward Garnier: Is not the protection afforded by the right of appeal illusory when one considers that magistrates will have the discretion to make a decision and that appellate courts rarely interfere with the discretion of the lower courts? While the Minister may pump up his story about the protection of the appeal, there is no such protection in reality.
Mr. O'Brien: I am sure that magistrates will exercise their judgment in a considered and proper manner. If there is no such due and proper consideration, a Crown court will,
1072
on appeal on the issue of venue—a new procedure—be able to make an alternative decision if appropriate. That is a good and effective safeguard.
Ms Bridget Prentice: Having been a magistrate rather than a criminal lawyer who might benefit from cases taking a much longer time, I very much welcome my hon. Friend's statement. He is right to say that nine out of 10 of those who elect to go to Crown court are people with previous convictions. In my experience, the vast majority of the people who turn out to be innocent want their trial to take place as quickly as possible. The adage that justice delayed is justice denied is one that hon. Members on both sides should consider carefully.
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is entirely right and her welcome for the proposals is justified. I suspect that constituents of Members on both sides will feel that our proposals are about delivering a system that puts the criminals where they ought to be while safeguarding the rights and interests of the individual.
Mr. Richard Shepherd: Has the Minister no shame at having to give the House a preview of what seems to be a Queen's Speech, at seeming to defend clauses in a Bill that the House has not seen and at arguing for something that we will address in due course, perhaps next year? Is this the Queen's Speech? Will he publish the draft Bill so that we may read it? Will he accept that for many of us, the constant tilting at the interests of the innocent—those whose interests are the first that our system was designed to defend—is deeply disturbing? The Government, in their bureaucratic rigour, are increasingly squeezing out some of the classic freedoms of this country.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman rather overstates his case. A majority of the people who elect for crown court trial plead guilty. They are not innocent; they plead guilty. Nine out of 10 are not of previous good character. The hon. Gentleman has to be careful about over-egging the pudding. The matter has been the subject of a royal commission, a report, and a consultation paper. We are merely announcing now the results of the consultation. The hon. Gentleman is just overstating things.
Mr. Desmond Browne: As my hon. Friend said in his answer, there is no right of election in Scotland. Before I became a Member of Parliament, I practised for 20 years in that system. The choice of forum—as we call it in Scotland, not venue—lies with the prosecutor. Only 2 per cent. of criminal cases in Scotland are prosecuted before juries. It is instructive that the system in Scotland has enjoyed the consistent support of both the House and the Scottish people. Does my hon. Friend believe that the system of criminal justice in Scotland is inherently less fair than the system in England and Wales?
Mr. O'Brien: The system in Scotland is not inherently less fair. As my hon. Friend says, there is broad support among the Scots people for the criminal justice system. It does not include the right of election, which some criminals have been able to abuse. We are now cleaning up some of the problems in our legal system. Far from

1073
undermining public support for our legal system, I suspect that we shall restore confidence among the English and Welsh people in our criminal justice system.
Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I shall put to one side for the sake of brevity what has already been said about the way in which this announcement has been handled—I agree with those remarks. I have been in precisely the same business as the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), probably for the same number of years. I urge the Minister to reject comprehensively everything that he said.
The Minister has referred on four occasions now to the effect that a court case can have on reputation, and he has said that reputation will be an aspect of his proposals. If a thief with a long criminal record were convicted of the theft of £100, his conviction would make little difference to his lifestyle or his reputation in his community. However, if many people, including the Minister or me, were convicted of stealing just £10, our careers would be wrecked and destroyed for ever.
I do not ask for a definitive reply to my question, but will the Minister at least consider that, where a person of previous good character is tried for the first time for an offence in which there is an essential ingredient of dishonesty—in which dishonesty is the mens rea—there should be not just a discretion to allow that person to elect a Crown court trial but an absolute right to do so? Who knows?—the Minister may then find that support for his "disgraceful" proposals is rather wider than he thinks.
Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman makes a point that will no doubt be the subject of debate when the matter comes before the House as a Bill in due course. We currently intend that magistrates will have to consider the impact of conviction and sentence on the reputation of a person of previous good character in their community, and perhaps on their livelihood too. We believe that magistrates are able to make an informed and reasoned decision and to make the best judgment as to where the case can be dealt with.
Mr. David Lock: I did not intend to speak this afternoon, but having heard protestations on behalf of what I can only describe as the lawyers' party rather than the party for which Opposition Members were elected, may I ask my hon. Friend to put the matter in context? Does he agree that someone who appears before a court accused of an offence as serious as assaulting a police officer, which could well carry a sentence of six months' imprisonment, has to be tried before magistrates; yet someone who steals a Mars bar from the corner shop has a right to trial by jury and can cost hundreds of pounds and many months of delay by making an election?
Mr. O'Brien: My hon. Friend is a distinguished lawyer and is well able to understand that the courts are able to deal with these issues effectively. The magistrates courts deal with many cases involving people of previous good character and many others in which people have many serious issues before them. The magistrates court adjudicates on these cases and is a perfectly good venue for dealing with them. My hon. Friend is right.
Madam Speaker: We shall now move on.

Points of Order
4.5 pm
Sir George Young: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. This is not the first time important changes of Government policy have appeared in the press before they were announced to the House. That has the effect of undermining the role of the House and making it more difficult for Parliament to hold the Executive to account. What steps are open to you, Madam Speaker, perhaps in consultation with the Procedure Committee, to ensure that this insidious practice comes to an early end?
Mr. A. J. Beith: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. There is a consideration that you might like to bear in mind. I have noticed that this practice tends to happen most often when the policy announcement to be made involves a reversal of the Government's previously declared policy. I wonder whether you would bear that sort of case in mind as one for which oral statements are particularly appropriate.
Mr. Norman Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
Madam Speaker: Is it related?
Mr. Baker: Yes.
Madam Speaker: I did not call the hon. Gentleman in Question Time, so let me hear it.
Mr. Baker: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The explanation given for why the issue turned up on Radio 4 this morning and on the front page of the Daily Mail is pathetic. The wafer-thin explanation was that the newspapers telephoned and asked for an explanation, or for answers to their questions. I ask many questions of the Government and receive no straight answers from them. Why should the Daily Mail get a straight answer?
Mr. Quentin Davies: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. The Government have been caught red-handed in a particularly blatant case of abuse of Parliament. An attitude of slight contrition might have been rather more appropriate from the Minister, rather than one of defiance coupled with multiple and unconvincing excuses.
What can we do about this? What can you do about it, Madam Speaker? I am afraid to say that if nothing is done about this systematic abuse very soon, you will be seen in retrospect to have presided over a period of fundamental erosion of Parliament.
Madam Speaker: That is a very serious allegation.
Mr. Davies: It is no criticism of you, Madam Speaker. I am simply saying objectively—
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. He must remember that I granted the private notice question today. The House knows that I deprecate statements that are made in the written press or in the media before they come to the House. I do so very

1075
much again today. I have been asked by right hon. and hon. Members to do whatever I can to ensure that the leaks or information given to the media cease. I have been involved in this for very many months and I shall continue to use my best endeavours.
Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. So that we have a little balance in these matters, will you confirm that there were similar practices hundreds and hundreds of times under the 19 years of the previous Government?
Madam Speaker: Yes, I am aware that Governments of all colours tend to use the media when they feel that it is to their advantage to do so. I am quite wise to what happens in the House; I have been a Member for a quarter of a century.

Bells on Pedal Cycles
4.8 pm
Dr. Palmer: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the fitting, maintenance and use of bells on pedal cycles.
Among the Bill's virtues is simplicity, and I will take 10 seconds rather than 10 minutes to describe it. The current law permits the Secretary of State to require bells to be fitted on bicycles. The Bill simply amends the law to make it mandatory, thereby restoring the position as it was until 1983.
The Bill has generated considerable interest, not least because the Government are currently brooding on the results of a consultation exercise. In May 1997, Baroness Hayman informed another place that the question was being considered with priority. In August 1997, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions wrote to the Lakes parish council, which has campaigned on the issue for some years, to say that an announcement was expected "in the near future". In September the Department wrote to the Lakes parish council again, stating that a decision was anticipated "very soon". In April 1998 the Government completed a consultation exercise in which 150 responses were collected, and said that they hoped to make an announcement "soon". The baby seems to be somewhat overdue.
The Bill is intended to stimulate the debate and encourage an early, favourable decision. I am aware that the black hand of Bromley and Chislehurst will close its clammy grip on the Bill, as it has on so many others, but I hope to influence the Government's decision.
The originator of the initiative was a constituent and newly elected councillor in Broxtowe, Janet Thorley, who typifies the indomitable spirit of so many poorly sighted people. When her guide dog was hit by a bicycle, her response was to organise a petition for the restoration of bells on all cycles, for which she amassed no fewer than 2,487 names, including those of my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Liz Blackman), for Luton, South (Ms Moran), for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe), for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) and myself. I shall present that petition, by leave of the House, this evening. I was delighted to receive support from Maureen Colloquhon, whom many hon. Members will remember from her time in the House.
I am extremely grateful to all those who have written to me, in particular the environmental campaign Sustrans, which sells more cycle bells at £3 than any other product and warmly supports the proposals, and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which has given me strong support in the context of a major new transport and mobility campaign, which it is launching this week.
It is important to stress that all the organisations supporting the Bill are also strongly in favour of cycling. The Bill is not a veiled criticism of cyclists, as we recognise that only a small proportion of road accidents are due to cycling. We are seeking to achieve a reinforcement of cycling's image as a safe, environmentally friendly form of travel that threatens no one.
The RNIB's briefing notes that bells will also help cyclists to avoid collisions with each other, as well as the injuries incurred in collisions with pedestrians. I am

1077
encouraged that whereas in 1984 nearly all cycling organisations opposed the idea, on this occasion the Bicycle Association has no strong view against bells being fitted.
Is there a real problem? In 1997, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents reported that there were 329 cyclist-pedestrian incidents, in which there were 427 injuries. Fourteen cyclists and 86 pedestrians were seriously injured, and three cyclists and three pedestrians were killed.
The RNIB notes that accidents and near-misses are frequent enough to be a factor in discouraging poorly sighted people from going out. A survey of 500 active blind and partially sighted people showed that 73 per cent. were worried about cyclists, and that that was the strongest reaction on transport issues in the survey.
It is, of course, possible to shout instead of ringing a bell. Sometimes that will be the best action in an emergency, as the highway code points out. However, shouts tend to be intimidating and cause poorly sighted people to freeze, whereas a bell gives a clear directional indication that can enable the pedestrian to step out of the way.
The figures mentioned are dwarfed by those for car accidents, but they are sufficient to suggest that there is a problem. If a £3 add-on to bicycles will make a useful difference, should we not take that step?
In summary, the Bill will help to reassure elderly and blind people, the cost to individual cyclists will be minimal, and the image of cycling will be enhanced. If, as we all hope, cycling becomes increasingly popular in the years to come, interaction with pedestrians will increase further. The measure will help to preserve good relations between the cycling and pedestrian communities, to the benefit of all. I commend it to the House.
4.14 pm
Mr. Ben Bradshaw: It gives me no pleasure to speak against the Bill, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Dr. Palmer) brings it to the House with the noblest of motives. I should declare an interest in that I am chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on cycling, which now has a record membership. I cover about 200 miles a week by bike, both in my Exeter constituency and in London.
Although the Bill is well intentioned, I speak against it because I do not think that forcing people to fix bells to bikes is the most effective way either to improve pedestrian safety or to reduce accidents. My hon. Friend has already mentioned that the number of accidents between pedestrians and cyclists is remarkably low; in fact, bicycles are involved in only 0.07 of accidents in which pedestrians are injured. That is seven in 10,000.
1078
My other objection to the Bill is that anyone who knows about bicycle bells knows that they are extremely unreliable and rather quiet. Indeed, my hon. Friend pointed out that it is often much more effective to shout. In my experience, on occasions when a bell might be useful—for example, when one is cycling along a road and a pedestrian is about to step off the pavement without looking, or when a pedestrian is meandering across a cycle path where he or she should not be—in fact it is worse than useless, especially in urban areas. Pedestrians cannot hear a bell. I find it far more effective to give a loud shout or a scream as a warning. The pedestrian can hear that. In the unfortunate case involving my hon. Friend's constituent and her guide dog, I am not sure how the guide dog's movements would have been affected by the rather quiet tinkling of a bicycle bell.
I do not believe that the Bill will improve the atrocious behaviour of a small, but regrettable, number of idiotic cyclists, who will disregard it—as they already disregard far too many of our traffic laws. To burden responsible cyclists and the parents who are trying to encourage their children to use bikes with even more requirements and legislation will be a deterrent. Cycle use is extremely low and the Government are committed to doubling and redoubling cycle use in this country by 2012. The Bill would be yet another impediment to achieving their admirable aim.
Our aim should be to improve the behaviour of all road users. The most effective way of protecting pedestrians is to concentrate on the proper separation of pedestrians and cyclists. In recent years, there has been a regrettable move to encourage pedestrians and cyclists to share the same pavement space. That is not the way forward and I am glad that the Government are not practising that system.
In conclusion, I regret opposing the Bill; it is well intentioned, but it will not help pedestrians and it might deter cyclists.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 23 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business), and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Dr. Nick Palmer, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Kelvin Hopkins, Ms Margaret Moran and Mr. Alan Simpson.

Bells on Pedal Cycles
  BELLS ON PEDAL CYCLES
  Dr. Nick Palmer accordingly presented a Bill to require the Secretary of State to make regulations on the fitting, maintenance and use of bells on pedal cycles: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 105].
Opposition Day
[13TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  European Union Fraud
  Madam Speaker: We now come to the main business of the day. I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.18 pm
  Mr. Francis Maude: I beg to move,
  That this House notes that for four successive years the European Court of Auditors has declined to provide assurance that the transactions underlying payments from the European budget are legal and regular; regrets the failure of the UK Presidency to achieve any concrete measures to tackle fraud and mismanagement in the EU budget; congratulates Mr. Paul Van Buitenen on his courageous action in exposing the incompetence and unwillingness of the European Commission to tackle fraud; condemns the action of Labour MEPs, urged on by the British Government, in seeking to protect the Commission from censure; notes that, despite the vote in the European Parliament to censure the Commission, no Commissioner has yet left office; believes that confidence will only be restored if all existing Commissioners are replaced forthwith; and calls on the Government to ensure that genuine and effective measures to tackle fraud in all of the institutions of the European Union are taken as a matter of urgency.
  The debate falls only five months after the Chancellor unveiled his plan for a head of fraud investigations. At the time, the Government said that the proposal was well received. That may have been the case, but the proposal was speedily buried. Each year, according to the Court of Auditors, 5.5 per cent. of the European Union budget mysteriously disappears. That is about £3 billion this year; by coincidence, it is equivalent to the United Kingdom's annual net contribution. It is about £53 for every person in this country.
  It is now absolutely clear that there have been cases of mismanagement, wastage and outright fraud, which increase each year as the budget grows. That scandal will not solve itself. For the fourth year running, the Court of Auditors has refused to clear the EU's accounts. It describes the incidence of substantive errors affecting payments as "unacceptable".
  Fraud against the EU budget is daily defacing the European Union, which is why it must be a major issue in the European Parliament elections. It is significant that today it is we, the Conservatives, and not the Government who have decided to focus on fraud. The debate gives us a chance to scrutinise the Government's record, because Labour's posturing on fraud in the EU is a matter that, to be frank, it would prefer not to expose to closer scrutiny.
  Mr. Derek Twigg: If the Conservatives intend to make fraud an issue in the European elections, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us with what record on stopping fraud the Tories can go to the electorate?
  Mr. Maude: We have a consistent record of putting forward coherent proposals, which began to make a difference—indeed, I did so myself. We secured some improvements in the Maastricht treaty, which my signature adorns, as Ministers are always keen to remind the House. I am glad to be able to assure the House that
  1080
  that treaty ensured the taking of some steps, albeit not enough, to improve scrutiny. One of the crucial elements, which is just beginning to bear fruit, is the elevation of the Court of Auditors to the status of a proper institution; that was a Conservative Government initiative.
  Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman that one of the great speeches of my 20 years as a Member of the House of Commons is one made in 1985—nearly 15 years ago—by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), now Home Secretary, on the issue of fraud in the EU? Nothing happened as a result of that speech, and every year thereafter, for the next 10 years, we had conversations about how so little was happening. Only since the election of the Labour Government has the issue gone up the agenda.
  Mr. Maude: It is not especially kind of the hon. Gentleman to draw attention to the lack of influence wielded by his right hon. Friend the Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw), who was not present to answer questions on the private notice question earlier today. It is also significant that, yet again, the Chancellor has failed to come to the House of Commons to answer for the conduct of his Department.
  The issue is not only one of securing better management of the EU's finances.
  "It is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility"
  inside the Commission—not my words, but those of the independent experts who were eventually given the task of investigating the allegations raised earlier this year by Mr. Van Buitenen.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No. I want to make some progress. We were late in starting the debate and many of my right hon. and hon. Friends want to speak on this important issue.
  We want to tackle fraud head on, by dealing with the vacuum of responsibility that originates in the fundamental lack of accountability within the Commission. That absence of responsibility was illustrated by the auditors' discovery that certain Commission officials working overseas had used the interest accrued on their budget funds in the PHARE programme—Poland and Hungary Aid for Reconstruction of the Economy—to buy themselves 26 new cars. It is that lack of responsibility which breeds arrogance and carelessness. Where else can one find Commissioners who, two months after having been dismissed, have yet to clear their desks and leave? Where else can one find a development operation that left behind 1.3 million ecu in the National Housing and Savings Bank of Liberia—a sum that, after nine years, has yet to be reclaimed; or a 600,000 ecu budget for buying flagpoles?
  Instilling a sense of accountability is the first, crucial step, but it is not surprising that it has not yet been taken. Is not the problem the Commission's ambitions, which constantly outreach its capacity, its endless drive to

  1081
  arrogate more and more powers to itself, and its constant drive to do more but doing it worse? In its 1997 report, the Court of Auditors noted that
  "the Commission committed at least 330 million ecu for operations which lacked a legal basis"—
  which were not even legal—and that it overspent on its legitimate activities by 750,000,000 ecu. As the Select Committee on International Development observed:
  "there are huge discrepancies between political priorities and administrative capacity"—
  in other words, doing more and doing it worse.
  No one has made that clearer than Mr. Prodi, the Prime Minister's personal choice for the new President of the Commission. He was brought in precisely to clean up the scandals and the fraud. What was Mr. Prodi's first great initiative? Was it a grand anti-fraud campaign, bringing in clean, new Commissioners or perhaps reinstating the man who blew the whistle and who was outrageously suspended on half pay while the sacked Commissioners kept their first-class seats? Did Mr. Prodi do any of those things? Forget it. His top priority was to expatiate on the absolute necessity of a European army. He is planning not how he can save our money but more ways in which to spend it. The Commission should be doing less, not more—and doing it better. It should not pursue a dogmatic, federalist agenda that taxpayers do not want, let alone want to pay for.
  At every turn, there is evidence of an institution that is out of control and is over-reaching itself. For example, its Russian nuclear safety fund cannot account for £100 million of the nearly £600 million that it has spent since 1991. Its Mediterranean fund does not know where £40 million of its budget went in 1997. The European Community Humanitarian Office has already written off much of the £420 million it lent but failed to secure guarantees for. Not only is the Commission over-reaching itself, it is covering up its actions with impunity. Let us consider another example from ECHO, which is run by Commissioner Marin, who was also dismissed but is still there.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman rose—
  Kali Mountford rose—
  Mr. Maude: No, I will not give way at this stage. I will give way later. The debate started late and many hon. Members wish to contribute.
  "In some cases they even made financial allowance for people who don't exist. Here the Commission simply told us untruths."
  That is not some scare story by The Sun, but a comment by the President of the Court of Auditors. Only under pressure, did the Commission release a document on its humanitarian projects—and, even then, it was so "heavily censored" as "to render it illegible". They are also the words of the President.
  It seems that there is only one thing these days with which the Commission is economical: the truth. That is why we are pressing to introduce a new and fully independent anti-fraud office in Brussels. That is a positive commitment that contrasts with the Government's studied evasion of the issue. We are not alone in that call. There was widespread support among Members of European Parliament for
  1082
  James Elles's proposals for the reform of the Commission—except from one quarter, the European parliamentary Labour party. It did not want that. The Conservatives in the European Parliament raised the possibility of an independent fraud office early on, but, as usual, Labour came late to that debate.
  Mr. Andrew Love rose
  Mr. Maude: I will not give way as I must make some progress.
  The Chancellor eventually got around to proposing something at the January ECOFIN meeting, but his proposals showed that he had not been paying attention. The Conservatives had campaigned for an independent fraud office precisely because Commission interference in corruption investigations had come to light. Labour just did not get it. Its so-called head of fraud investigations could not have fought his way out of a wet paper bag. He would work in a fraud office that was staffed by Commission officials and based inside the Commission, yet, according to the Prime Minister, he would be somehow independent. We all know the Prime Minister's definition of independence: about as independent as a Labour Back Bencher.
  Mr. Mike Gapes rose—
  Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman is getting very excited, so I will give way to him.
  Mr. Gapes: The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned repeatedly an independent fraud office. Is he aware that the Commission and the member states under the German presidency have already agreed to establish such a body? It is not a Conservative proposal: it is already in the system.
  Mr. Maude: That intervention illustrates vividly the hon. Gentleman's concept of independence. The proposed fraud office would be based inside the Commission and staffed by Commission officials. It would not be independent, as anyone outside the parliamentary Labour party would understand.
  Mr. Geraint Davies rose—
  Mr. Maude: No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  The fact is that Labour's cosy back-scratching relationship with the European Commission means that it will never take on the Commission. Our demands for an independent fraud office, which would have dealt with the problem, were therefore bypassed in favour of a pseudo-proposal, which would have done nothing to change the status quo.
  In January, the Chancellor proclaimed proudly—he is not, of course, here to defend his remarks—
  "We need to move quickly to tackle fraud in the EU."
  Quickly? We have seen quicker snails. It is not as though the Government did not know about that fraud.
  Mr. Love: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No. Paul Van Buitenen, enraged by the complacent inertia around him, blew the whistle early

  1083
  in January, explaining why he was speaking out. On 6 January, he said that he was
  "disappointed about the attitude of the Socialist faction, and notably Mrs. Green … because she seems to support the Commission."
  He continued:
  "Perhaps they have a higher agenda in the Euro."
  That is right. The socialists are going with the flow in Europe and they do not want to upset the Commission; it is mutual back-scratching.
  The subsequent treatment of Mr. Van Buitenen differed considerably from that of the Commissioners, whose downfall his revelations precipitated. That is funny. He was smeared as a religious fanatic. I suppose that the definition of a religious fanatic is one who is able to tell right from wrong. He was suspended on half pay, whereas the Commissioners who were found wanting by the independent experts were left on full pay, full rations and a first-class return ticket on the gravy train.
  Mr. Van Buitenen was not the only person to notice that Pauline Green was slow to get on the case. The budget spokesman for the Party of European Socialists resigned in protest at Pauline Green's dilatory stance on fraud. She was not the only one to find Mrs. Green's argument tortuously contrived. First, Mrs. Green tabled a censure motion on the Commission after a majority in the European Parliament agreed with the conclusions of the Elles report. She then declared that the Party of European Socialists would oppose the motion in a vote, since the only way to register confidence in the Commission was to call for censure and then vote against it. Only a trusty double negative would do for that stout upholder of Britain's interests.
  How delightfully intimate it all was: the thumbs up; the celebrations, and Commissioner Kinnock gratefully kissing Mrs. Green's hand. It was not, therefore, too surprising that Mr. Santer announced proudly that the Commission's escape from censure amounted to a vote of confidence. Cover-ups, back-scratching and cosy deals to avoid the frightful embarrassment of being held accountable are the story of Labour's brave battle against fraud.
  Let us consider the legendary Mrs. Cresson and her cosy ménage, including her live-in dentist, who is employed as an adviser. What did Labour do about that? It supported her. According to Mrs. Green, that was a principled stance—I suppose that, by her standards, it might have been—which helped
  "to achieve a seismic change in the balance of power from the Commission to the Parliament".
  Well, the earth did not exactly move under Mrs. Cresson that day. What a cop-out that was. Most of Labour's MEPs had not voted for the very report that described the problem of fraud in the first place. They did not vote for the motion withdrawing support from Mrs. Cresson two weeks after she and other Commissioners had resigned and after the independent experts had found her guilty of favouritism.
  There has not been much evidence of Mrs. Green campaigning for a new Commission to be appointed, because that would mean the removal of the very people whom she hoped to protect. Her credentials on clean financial management took another tumble when it was revealed that, three years ago, she had—no doubt, coincidentally—arranged a conference outside the EU,
  1084
  in Cyprus, for a number of MEPs and their advisers in the same week in which her adviser was getting married on the island. We are utterly confident that the taxpayer was absolutely delighted to be helping with those travel expenses.
  How sensible Mrs. Green was to send her driver out to Cyprus three days before the conference began. He said:
  "We always go early to places, otherwise we get stopped in traffic".
  He went three days early—that is some traffic jam, particularly as he flew there. [Laughter.] That's right, he flew there, and the taxpayer paid.
  We do not even need to dwell on the complex affairs of Mr. Glyn Ford, which bring a new dimension to the phrase "money laundering". We assume that Labour has instituted an urgent inquiry into the extraordinary allegations made in today's edition of the Daily Express. No doubt the Chief Secretary will comment on that when he responds. We assume also that, pending that inquiry, Mr. Ford will be removed from his position at the head of Labour's list of candidates for the south-west region. After all, those at Millbank tower parachuted him in there. If they mean business, they will airlift him out.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: No, I will not.
  Labour Members' claim to be tough on fraud is pretty thin, and now they have admitted it. The Economic Secretary said
  "we will continue to do everything we can to ensure that the Commission … take action".—[Official Report, European Standing Committee B, 24 February 1999; c.6.]
  She said that not once, but a further five times in all. We were all agog to know what the "everything" of which she boasted would amount to. Sadly, not very much, which the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the right hon. Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Ms Quin), was forced to admit only two weeks later. Days before the Commission resigned, she made the shameful admission that
  "the Council has not formally discussed the way in which the Commissioners have performed their duties".

  What did the Government do? What was the "everything" of which the Economic Secretary bragged? We know that there were no formal discussions, because that admission has been dragged out of the Government. Were there informal discussions—perhaps a little light conversation over lunch? What was said and what was done, or is the truth that, despite all their protestations, they did nothing and said nothing on this crucial matter? The only thing that they agreed was a cut in the anti-fraud expenditure of 16 per cent. in the 1999 draft budget when fighting fraud was meant to be at the top of their presidency wish list only a year ago.
  In the European Parliament, Labour denies that a problem ever existed. In the Council of Ministers, Labour sits on its hands and stays stumm. Is that what Labour Members call leading in Europe? Unlike Labour, Conservatives mean what they say—
  Mr. Derek Twigg: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Maude: I am coming to the end of my speech, because this is a brief debate.

  1085
  Unlike Labour, Conservatives mean what they say about fraud. People have a clear choice in the European Parliament elections. The Conservative party is determined to be in Europe, but not run by it; the Labour party is so committed to going with the flow in Europe that it is incapable of taking any real steps to combat the fraud that defaces the European Union. It is a simple choice. I commend the motion to the House.
  4.37 pm
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alan Milburn): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "welcomes the efforts of the Government to work with fellow Member States and European institutions to crack down on fraud against the EU budget; notes the real practical progress made in this regard by the Government during the United Kingdom Presidency of the EU; welcomes the Chancellor's initiative for a strong head of fraud investigations heading an independent fraud prevention office; welcomes the role played by Labour MEPs in securing the establishment of the Committee of Independent Experts; joins the Government in calling for recent events to be used as an opportunity for root and branch reform of the Commission; calls on Romano Prodi, following his recent nomination as President-elect of the European Commission, to place the fight against fraud at the top of the new Commission's agenda; and believes that the only way of reforming Europe is the Government's strong leadership and constructive engagement rather than the Opposition's weak leadership, division and isolationism."
  I always welcome the opportunity to debate Europe with Conservative Members and, before I come to the substance of my speech, I thank them for the contribution that they made to our general election victory by debating the issue in the campaign.
  Today's debate is not only about the level of fraud in Europe or the fact that fraud is wrong and must be stopped—we can all agree with that. It is about how best we can go about tackling fraud. That takes us to the fundamental issue underpinning the debate: if we are to tackle fraud in Europe successfully, we must do so as part of a wider process of reform in Europe. That requires strong leadership and constructive engagement in Europe, and, unlike the previous Government, that is precisely what we are providing.
  Sir Michael Spicer: On the subject of criminality, what is Government policy on corpus juris?
  Mr. Milburn: I do not know the answer to that question, I am afraid.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: I think the Chief Secretary used the expression "strong leadership in Europe". Is he aware that the leader of the Labour party in Strasbourg, Pauline Green, tabled a motion to sack the Commission in December 1998, which she withdrew in January 1999? Did Millbank ask her to do so? She then voted against the motion tabled by the centre-right parties. Does he agree that that is hardly strong leadership in Europe?
  Mr. Milburn: If the hon. Lady will bear with me, I will come precisely to the sequence of events that led to the appointment of the committee of experts—the
  1086
  so-called committee of wise men—and to the subsequent resignation of the Commission and the President. The shadow Chancellor alluded to that in his contribution, and it is right and proper that I should respond.
  If we are successfully to tackle fraud in Europe, we require strong leadership and constructive engagement. That is precisely what we, unlike the previous Government, are providing. That approach is delivering the goods for Britain: the lifting of the beef ban; the successful retention of the United Kingdom's abatement; an excellent deal for the regions of our country thanks to the Agenda 2000 negotiations; real progress on reform of the common agricultural policy, and the commitment in principle to join the single currency if it is in the British economic interest to do so. Those developments show that this Government, unlike the last, are a player rather than a spectator in Europe.
  Those developments also show that the leadership that we are giving in Europe to tackle fraud and deal with other issues, and to drive forward the modernisation of European institutions, brings direct benefits to our country and our people.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: The Minister may be paying a high price for some of his alleged achievements. May I return him to the question that he was asked a moment ago, and offer him a second opportunity to answer it? Does he agree that introducing corpus juris into our own system, alien as it is to habeas corpus, is far too high a price to pay for dealing with fraud in the European Union?
  Mr. Milburn: According to my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary, who, as hon. Members can see, is whispering in my ear, some Conservative MEPs voted against what the hon. Gentleman is advocating. I shall develop that theme in a moment. What the Conservative party says in the Westminster Parliament is very different from what it says in the European Parliament. With the European elections coming up, it is important that we show unity and clarity on European issues.
  The approach advocated by the Conservative party would jeopardise all the benefits that the Government have won for Britain in Europe. Weakness, division and isolationism are no way to get the best for Britain from Europe, and they are no way to win the war against fraud in Europe.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) and then I shall make some progress.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: The right hon. Gentleman proudly lists the Government's achievements in Europe, but three of them have not yet been accomplished: they are the lifting of the beef ban, joining the single European currency and the final negotiations on the common agricultural policy, which will run into trouble with the World Trade Organisation. I hope that the Chief Secretary will tell the House what the Government have done—particularly when they held the presidency of the

  1087
  European Union—to control fraud in the European Commission, as exposed by Van Buitenen, the whistleblower, given that the committee of experts will be abolished in October.
  Mr. Milburn: I shall first deal with the common agricultural policy, and then I shall set out our record on winning the battle against fraud. I shall give a long list of achievements in that regard.
  The negotiations in Europe on reform of the CAP produced the most radical reform in the policy's entire history. We wanted to go further, and we shall continue to press for that. I hope that Conservative Members will support the Government in that aim. We all know that the CAP is rotten and does not give a good deal for British taxpayers and consumers. The hon. Gentleman should not negate the achievements that we have managed to win, which have resulted in massive improvements in the CAP and a £65 gain for every consumer in this country. I hope that the hon. Gentleman welcomes that.
  Let me make it perfectly clear that the UK Government take the issue of fraud extremely seriously. The current level of fraud is unacceptable. There should be zero tolerance of fraud wherever it occurs, whether it be in the European Union's budget or elsewhere. Taxpayers should be protected from fraud, and from those who perpetrate it. People who help expose it, such as Mr. Van Buitenen, deserve our congratulations.
  That is all self-evident, or should be. The Government know that real actions rather than tough words are needed if we are successfully to prevent fraud. That is why we are taking a leading role in Europe in the establishment of a fraud prevention office, which will be strong and effective in fighting fraud.
  Mr. William Cash: Will the Chief Secretary give way?
  Mr. Milburn: I must deal with this point first. It consumed much of the shadow Chancellor's speech, and I want to reply in detail.
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor set out the key requirements for a fraud prevention office at January's ECOFIN meeting. His proposals were warmly welcomed by fellow member states. As a result of the initiative that this Government took—that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor took—the next ECOFIN meeting, at the end of this month, will, I hope, agree to the establishment of an office with a strong independent director, with statutory protection from dismissal, and appointed only after consultation with both the Council and the Parliament.
  The director will be debarred from taking or seeking instruction from any Government or Community institution. The office will be able to open investigations on its own initiative. It will have access to buildings and documents, and it will be able to draw up reports, including recommendations for follow-up. The director will report regularly to the Council and the Parliament, and so will be able to alert those bodies if the office's reports are not being acted on. There will also be a supervisory committee, whose members will be appointed by common accord between the Commission, the Council
  1088
  and the Parliament, and which will give the director advice and support. If that is not independent, I do not know what is.
  Mr. David Davis rose—
  Mr. Cash rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I will give way first to the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis); then I will give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash).
  Mr. Davis: Let me ask the Chief Secretary a simple practical question, which arose when my Committee went to Brussels. It seems to be being proposed that the head of the fraud prevention office should be up for reappointment after five years, for a potential two terms, which strikes me as a weakness in terms of the maintaining of his independence. Has the Chief Secretary considered that?
  Mr. Milburn: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I have the greatest respect for the Public Accounts Committee—not least because I used to have the pleasure of serving on it—and I listen carefully to what he has to say about this issue. I can tell him that the director can be appointed only after full and proper consultation with both the Council and the Parliament. This is not purely a Commission appointment. I hope that that will help to reassure the right hon. Gentleman and his fellow Committee members about the integrity and independence of the office.
  Mr. Cash: Does the Chief Secretary agree with the assessment of the Economic Secretary, who has said:
  "An independent institution"—
  of the kind that the Chief Secretary has described—
  "would have less understanding of how the Commission functions and would be likely to encounter barriers in obtaining information about possible fraud—it would not have access to 'inside information"'.
  Does the Chief Secretary not regard that as a bit thick?
  Mr. Milburn: This is an important and interesting question. I think that there are advantages in the location of the director and the office. Let me draw an analogy, in order to reassure Opposition Members.
  No hon. Member claims that the Comptroller and Auditor General is not independent, although he is responsible for auditing the procedures and accounts of the House, and although he is an official of the House.
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Milburn: No one claims that the CAG is not independent—unless the shadow Chancellor is about to produce a revelation.
  Mr. Maude rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I will give way to the shadow Chancellor in a moment. Let me finish my analogy first.

  1089
  In similar vein, the director and the office will be independent of the Commission, although they will be located within the body of the Commission, with all the safeguards that I have described.
  Mr. Maude: The right hon. Gentleman is making precisely the wrong point in terms of his case. The Comptroller and Auditor General is accountable to the House of Commons—to Parliament—not to the Government. The Government's proposal, to which the right hon. Gentleman says ECOFIN is about to agree, is that the fraud prevention office will be based in the Commission, staffed by Commission officials. It will therefore not be independent. Indeed, the Economic Secretary's words, quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), suggest that the Government accept that it will not be independent in the way that we think it should be.
  Mr. Milburn: The right hon. Gentleman continues to make those allegations. I have tried to set out in detail the various guarantees of independence that we have negotiated in proposing that new protection for taxpayers in Europe. I do not believe for a moment that I will satisfy the right hon. Gentleman because I suspect that, again, there is a triumph of ideology over the facts in the Conservative party.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend accept that it would take a number of years to make the new fraud office institutionally independent owing to the requirement to change the treaty? The impact of that, alongside the impact of the office being outside the Commission, would be discontinuity of investigation and more fraud. The current proposal for the statutory independence of the director, along with the other changes that have been described, is the optimal course.
  Mr. Milburn: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for those comments. He, too, is a member of the Public Accounts Committee.
  Mr. Howard Flight rose—
  Mr. Charles Wardle rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I will give way in a moment or two. May I deal with one intervention at a time? Then I must make some progress.
  I take precisely the points that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) has made. I think that the position that we have reached, which I hope will be endorsed by ECOFIN, will get the balance right. Conservative Members are rightly agitated about the level of fraud in Europe. They want something done about it now, yet they rail against a measure that will allow us
  1090
  to do precisely that while maintaining the integrity and independence of those who will be charged with investigating fraud.
  Mr. Flight rose—
  Mr. Wardle rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I cannot remember which hon. Member was first, but I give way to the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). I will then make some progress.
  Mr. Flight: Transparency of information is crucial in stopping fraud. Where within the proposal is the mechanism for asking searching questions, as happens under our constitution? It is all very well having an auditor—we have an auditor already—but if one cannot get to the truth from outside, there is scope for continuing corruption.
  Mr. Milburn: The hon. Gentleman has either not been listening or is determined not to listen to what I have said on the issue. The director of the office of fraud prevention will have all the powers that he wants. He or she will have the powers to demand documents, to enter buildings, to summon witnesses and to report independently. He or she will be accountable more widely than just to the European Commission, which is what the hon. Gentleman is so concerned about. On all those tests, the criterion of independence that the hon. Gentleman rightly seeks is satisfied.
  In my and the Government's view, the changes are radical and will make a real difference in tackling fraud.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
  Mr. Milburn: As it is my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Campbell-Savours: I am sorry to interrupt my right hon. Friend.
  I have sitting been through these debates for 15 years and they are very interesting. I presume that the director of the new office will produce an annual report. Will that annual report be presented to the House of Commons? Will it be presented at the same time as the report of the European Court of Auditors? Will we have an opportunity to debate the contents of the director's report?
  Mr. Milburn: That is a good question. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the answer?"] Amazingly, I do not know all the answers to all the questions, but I am happy to listen to what my hon. Friend has suggested. I am happy to listen to the Public Accounts Committee's views on the issue. I assure my hon. Friend that, when the director and fraud office undertake their work, they will report not just to the Commission but to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament. The question that my hon. Friend asks about reporting to the Westminster Parliament is important. We shall explore it, if that is helpful.
  Dr. Vincent Cable: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No. I will make some progress because many Members want to speak in the debate and it is right that they should have an opportunity to do so.

  1091
  The publication of the report of the independent experts—and the subsequent resignation, rightly, of the Commission and the President—provides the opportunity for a more radical overhaul still of the style of Europe's institutions. The report of the committee of wise men was damning, revealing complacency, a lack of accountability and nepotism. It revealed, as the Prime Minister said, systemic failings in the Commission which had been tolerated for too long.
  That brings me to an important issue. Before the Conservative party gets too high and mighty about the problem of fraud in Europe, it is worth remembering that it was in power and in government for 18 years. The Conservatives had the chance to act and failed to do so because, on Europe, they were weak, divided and isolated. All the tough words from the shadow Chancellor and in the motion count for precisely nothing because, in opposition as in government, the Conservatives remain weak, divided and isolated on the question of Europe.
  Let us not forget that the man responsible for overseeing the chaos in the Commission, Jacques Santer, was the choice of the then Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major). Indeed, Mr. Santer was the choice of the Conservative party. When he was a Treasury Minister, the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory)—I note that he is not here today—said:
  "we are happy with Mr. Santer and we wish him well. He shows every sign, based on his record, of running an efficient and effective Commission."
  Mr. Cash: He was wrong.
  Mr. Milburn: There were one or two exceptions, as always—but the party that now condemns Mr. Santer was responsible for putting him there in the first place.
  This Government are getting on with the process of reform and modernisation. We have proposed rootand-branch changes to improve the Commission's financial management, accountability and transparency. We now look to Mr. Prodi to drive the reform process forward.
  Our reform proposals build on the success that we have achieved to date in tackling fraud. The shadow Chancellor alleged that we have not achieved much. I have a long list which I will run through for his benefit and that of the House. During our presidency, we strengthened anti-fraud operations in Europe. For the first time, European Finance Ministers dealt with fraud in a concerted way. For the very first time, member states reported to ECOFIN on their responses to the Court of Auditors report as it affected their countries. That is a welcome development which we want to continue.
  We have used the Agenda 2000 negotiations to push for more effective, better-managed expenditure, with tighter EU spending limits than ever before. On structural funds, the Government have supported the simplification to reduce irregularities and to improve project management. On the common agricultural policy, we have strongly supported moves away from market intervention in favour of direct support for farmers where that is necessary for social or environmental reasons. Each and every one of these reforms will help encourage sounder financial management. That is what the Conservative party appears, at least, to be so concerned about.
  1092
  This Government have been delivering in the war on fraud in Europe. Nobody pretends it is easy—it is not. It will be a long and hard battle, but we are determined to protect the interests of UK taxpayers.
  Mr. Andrew Tyrie: The Minister made it clear a moment ago that he felt that it was quite right that the Commission, which had performed appallingly, should go. Do the Government support the fact that, several months later, the members of the Commission are still in their offices?
  Mr. Milburn: The work of the Commission continues, and it is important that we have somebody who can take decisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it would be sensible this time round if we actually got the right people to do the job. It will take some time to secure the best candidates, as I am sure we will. Since the hon. Gentleman is so keen on transparency and accountability, I hope that he will recognise that it is important that the European Parliament has its say about the appointment of the new Commissioners. It is also important that Mr. Prodi, as the new President of the Commission, has a hand in shaping a team that will help drive forward the modernisation and reform programme that we all want in Europe.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No, I will not give way for a moment. I have given way on umpteen occasions and I really must make progress.
  The contrast with the record of the Conservative party when it was in Government could not be clearer. The Conservatives stood out against the introduction of qualified majority voting in the area of fraud prevention. To pretend, as the shadow Chancellor has, that fraud in Europe has somehow only just been invented flies in the face of the facts.
  The annual statement of assurance by the European Court of Auditors shows that the level of substantive errors, including fraud, on EU payment transactions rose from 4 per cent. in 1994 to 5.4 per cent. in 1996. According to press briefings, it fell to 5.1 per cent. in 1997. Nobody pretends that such a level is in any way acceptable, but the figures give the lie to the claim sometimes made by the Conservative party, that the problem is not being tackled.
  The shadow Chancellor alleged that spending on specific anti-fraud measures in the 1999 EC budget is falling. In fact, spending on those measures is about 4 million euros higher than in the 1997 budget, which was agreed when the Conservatives were in power. The Labour Government are putting our money where our mouth is on tackling fraud in Europe.
  The Tories failed to tackle the problem of fraud when they were in government and their party is still failing to take a clear and concerted stand on the issue in Europe. Here I come to the question asked by the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh), and to the shadow Chancellor's allegations about the events leading to the resignation of the Commission and the President.
  It is worth reminding the House of the real sequence of events. In early January, it was the leader of the European parliamentary Labour party, Alan Donnelly, who first

  1093
  proposed setting up an independent group of experts to make comprehensive improvements in financial management and accountability. It was Edward McMillan-Scott, the Leader of the Conservative MEPs, who refused Mr. Donnelly's invitation to take a cross-party approach to investigating fraud allegations in the European Commission.
  When the European Parliament voted later in January to set up a committee of experts—the so-called committee of wise men—to investigate fraud and mismanagement, of the 17 Conservative MEPs, three abstained on the issue and 12 voted against.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Milburn: No. The hon. Lady had her chance and she blew it.
  What is more, after many months of detailed work by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, Conservative MEPs voted against a Members' statute with detailed rules on MEPs' pay and conditions. Only this month, they voted against a cut in MEPs' salaries and against MEPs having to provide receipts for expenses. The record of the Tory party on fraud in Europe, either in government or in opposition, does not stand up to scrutiny. The party is isolated in Europe, talking tough but failing to act in Britain's national interest. On fraud, as in so many other areas, the party says one thing to the people of Britain and does another thing in Europe.
  Miss McIntosh: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have a serious matter to raise. I put a question to the Minister, to which he was kind enough to listen. It was a very specific question, and I am worried that the House is being misled on the point. Pauline Green tabled a motion for resolution, calling for the resignation of all the Commissioners and—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. That is not a point of order for the Chair. It is a matter for debate.
  Mr. Milburn: The Leader of the Opposition, perhaps in recognition of the chaos in the Conservative party on these issues, has called for what he describes as a mix-and-match approach to European policy. Mix-and-match it certainly is. Here in the Westminster Parliament the British Conservative party rails against fraud, yet in the European Parliament the Conservative party votes against taking action on fraud.
  Mr. Love: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way to me, and I hope that the House will not engage in the low politics that the Opposition spokesman adopted earlier, especially his refusal to allow others to respond to his comments. I want to draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the manifesto of the European People's party, which says:
  "EU citizenship should be further developed as an expression of a sense of belonging to the Union. The European Union needs a constitution."
  Does that contradict the policy of the British Conservative party?
  Mr. Milburn: I am sure that the Opposition will be interested to hear what their colleagues in the European
  1094
  Parliament have signed up to. Perhaps it is worth reminding them that five Tory MEPs sit on the executive committee of the European People's party that drew up the manifesto. Two Tory MEPs are vice-presidents of that grouping, and one is its chief whip, so they can hardly disclaim the manifesto on which it will fight the European elections.
  Today's debate is revealing. Nobody pretends that fraud in Europe is not an important issue. It is. But there are a host of other important issues in Europe that the Conservative party would prefer to avoid. It cannot debate the single European currency, it cannot debate social reform in Europe and it cannot debate economic policy in Europe—because the Tory party is split from top to bottom on Europe. It says one thing in Europe and another in Britain. It cannot agree on fighting fraud, it cannot agree on the single currency, and it cannot even agree on taxation policy.
  The Conservative party in Britain is so extreme that it cannot even agree with its own European MEPs. It is no longer a party that engages with Europe but a party that opposes Europe. Such a party cannot deliver the goods for Britain in Europe, and all the tough talk from the Opposition Benches—
  Mr. St. Aubyn rose—
  Mr. Milburn: I am winding up now.
  All the tough talk cannot disguise the fact that the Conservative party is weak and isolated, whereas the Government are strong and engaged. The Conservatives have no credibility on fraud or any other European issue. All their double-talk about cleaning up Europe fools nobody. The Tories cannot agree about waging the war on fraud because they are too busy waging war on each other. It is this party and this Government who are heading the fight against fraud in Europe. It is this Government who are now playing a leading role in Europe, and it is the Labour party that is shaping a new Europe that will benefit Britain and its people. I urge my hon. Friends to reject the Opposition motion and back the amendment.
  5.8 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable (Twickenham): The motion invites us to condemn fraud and calls for stronger action against it. I am happy to support that, so far as it goes, whatever the original motives behind its being brought before the House. The fundamental issue at stake, which concerns many of us who are broadly in support of the European project—I think that that includes many Conservative Members, as well as Members from my party and the Labour party—is the fact that fraud is not merely undesirable in itself, but undermines the legitimacy of Europe.
  We therefore demand that action against fraud be taken not only at the level of the lowest common denominator of European Governments and at the average level of enforcement, but that best practice should be followed. The Chief Secretary rightly used the phrase "zero

  1095
  tolerance". That is exactly the philosophy that should inspire action against fraud whether in the Commission or in the Parliament, and we support it.
  Mr. Christopher Fraser: It is ironic that the hon. Gentleman claims that his party thinks highly of Europe, but he is the only representative from his party present for this debate.
  Dr. Cable: I expect that my colleagues are happy for me to carry the banner on their behalf. We strongly support a firm policy on fraud, but it should be put in context. Those of us who sit on European Standing Committee B see the work of the auditors, and I am always struck by the use of the phrase "fraud and irregularities" to describe malpractice in Europe. Some 90 per cent. of the cases that the Court of Auditors uncovers are irregularities—incorrect form filling and failure to follow proper procedure—and do not involve criminal fraud. Irregularities are of course unacceptable and financial procedures must be tightened up, but there is a big distinction between that and fraud. The headline figures for fraud and irregularities are frequently used to exaggerate the extent to which fraud exists in the European Union.
  Much of the fraud in European budgetary activities takes place in member states. It is useful to compare the behaviour of individual member states with the behaviour of Commission institutions. Before the debate, I looked at the Customs and Excise figures on criminal fraud in the British system. Our estimates are that around 5 per cent.—or £2 billion a year—of the total domestic excise budget is subject to fraud, which is a similar figure to that for European budgets, especially on the revenue side. Therefore, there is nothing specifically European about fraud. The Conservatives are presumably aware of that which is why they have proposed cutting cigarette duty—one of the main sources of fraud.
  Mr. Richard Page: This country has an effective value-for-money unit within the National Audit Office. It is not only fraud that is pulling the European Union down, but the fact that money is not spent as effectively as possible to achieve its objectives. We should pay great attention to both aspects.
  Dr. Cable: That is an excellent point. One of the issues on which my colleagues are campaigning in the election is that the role of the Court of Auditors should be enlarged to cover fraud and irregularities and value for money, in the same way as our Comptroller and Auditor General or district auditors. That is a helpful suggestion and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has made it.
  The level of fraud is important, but so is the trend. Some of the examples mentioned by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) were rather antique. Mr. Marin' s exploits should of course be brought to light, but the example cited took place in 1987 or 1988. The trend in fraud figures is more relevant today. The trend recorded by the Commission through its investigations in the "Fight Against Fraud" report, which is published every year, showed last year a decline of 13 per cent. in fraud and irregularities on the agricultural budget, and a
  1096
  50 per cent. decline in fraud in relation to structural funds. Many of the actions being taken are beginning to bear fruit.
  Miss McIntosh: The hon. Gentleman mentioned a Commissioner by name. Does his party support the Conservative proposal to name and shame individual Commissioners, such as Commissioner Mann and Commissioner Cresson, and to give the European Parliament the power to sack individual Commissioners? The Government are not minded to support that, but will the Liberal Democrats do so?
  Dr. Cable: I thought that those Commissioners had already been named and shamed, and fired. It is not entirely clear what additional value would be gained from that proposal.
  I wish to suggest what action should be taken, and I believe that we should build on proposals already made. One relates to the Court of Auditors, which performs an important role and should be enlarged. The key area is the independent fraud office, and we welcome its strengthening. I believe that it is now called OLAF, rather than UCLAF. The Chief Secretary listed many additional powers that OLAF will have, and that is welcome. It will be a more genuinely investigative agency.
  I have one or two questions about OLAF that I hope the Minister will answer later. Will it have the power of criminal arrest? Can people suspected of fraud be arrested by OLAF? That is an important step, because it does not currently have those powers and is shackled by the lack of them.
  Mr. Wardle: I can answer that question. OLAF does not have that power. It simply has the power to present a case to the prosecuting authority in the country concerned.
  Dr. Cable: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer, but its implications are perhaps uncomfortable for some of his hon. Friends. If the independent fraud office is strengthened in the manner proposed—and in the manner many of us would like to see—it would be a considerable extension of supra-national authority to a European institution. The power to arrest in the hands of a European institution, even one with such unexceptional objectives as the avoidance of fraud, would be a considerable constitutional change. We would welcome it, but I doubt whether all Conservative Members have fully assimilated the implications.
  Fraud is prevented not only by institutions but by the underlying policies. The point has already been made that because half of European spending originates in the agricultural budget, many of the problems are associated with agricultural reform. The Conservatives in government and this Government have argued for agricultural liberalisations. The Liberal Democrats regret that this year we settled for a weak compromise that achieved little on dairy farming and made small cuts in cereal prices. We are making slow progress in moving European agriculture to world prices and eliminating extensive subsidies, but there is a broad consensus about the need to do so.
  I suggest that the Government should campaign in Europe to eliminate agricultural support for tobacco. Fraud is endemic in that area, but there is no justification

  1097
  on economic—let alone health—grounds to subsidise that crop. The Government could usefully make policy innovations in that area.
  There are specific problems associated with the workings of the Commission, at both Commissioner and official level. My colleagues in the European Parliament acquitted themselves well on that issue, and people from all parties have acted honourably in calling those responsible to account. I am delighted that tough action was taken and that the Commissioners have been asked to leave office. However, how do we ensure in the long term that the Commission works as the servant of the European public instead of being self-serving as it has recently been? The problem lies not so much with the Commissioners as with the European Commission officials, many of whom are appointed on the basis of connection with member state Governments and have a poor standard of public service. There is widespread abuse of expenses, but the officials are protected by Belgian trade unions, which operate restrictive practices that are unacceptable. The implications of reform go further than many people have yet accepted, and I am not sure whether all Conservative Members would be comfortable with the suggestion that the long-term solution is the creation of a professional international civil service that is chosen by competitive selection. That would require a high standard of professional honesty, such as obtains in our own civil service, which specifically precludes national Government interference in appointments and promotions. It would be a radical step forward. Officials would be accountable, through the Commissioners, to the European Parliament.
  I hope that the Government are committed to that idea as it would greatly strengthen the credibility of the Commission and the Parliament vis a vis the Council of Ministers. We have long supported in principle evolution towards that position, although I am not sure that all the implications have been fully accepted by those who complain about the lax standards in the Commission.
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: Would it not be equally effective and a great deal better if the disparity of emolument between European and domestic civil servants were greatly minimised and if the career pattern of national civil servants included a period in the European bureaucracy that was seen as a means of securing advancement rather than, as is frequently the case at present, a backwater to which we can dispatch the type of civil servant who so worries the hon. Gentleman?
  Dr. Cable: That is a perfectly valid point. Specific aspects of how the European Commission pays its staff—particularly expatriate allowances—seem incompatible with my idea of a proper European civil service recruited in much the same way that the staff of the World bank, whose approach to their jobs is much more professional, are recruited.
  In addition to problems with the Commission, the Parliament is a wasteful institution. Points have been made about a particular Member of the European Parliament, and if he is guilty of malpractice, he should be dealt with appropriately. However, that case involves rather petty sums while rather large sums are wasted by the Parliament, primarily as a result of its operating on three sites. I hope that the Government will make it clear
  1098
  that rationalisation of the Parliament's operations should be a major strategic matter, which could save an estimated £100 million a year.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that all the Commissioners who resigned in March should have ceased to hold office immediately and that none of them should be reappointed beyond his or her existing term? On the conduct of the Parliament, does he agree that it is wholly unsatisfactory that there is no record in the House of Commons Library of the declarations of interests of Members of the European Parliament? Does he agree that it should be possible to obtain a copy of the register of interests from the Library?
  Dr. Cable: The latter point seems perfectly sensible. When it comes to the appointment of Commissioners, however, we should recognise that some of them acquitted themselves honourably and well, including Sir Leon Brittan and Mr. Kinnock. Whatever people's political standpoint, we should not tar them all with the same brush. Some selectivity should apply.
  I endorse the thrust of the motion as it wishes to be tough on fraud, but I accept that considerable action has been taken, particularly in the Commission. I welcome the creation of a much tougher fraud office. I regret the fact that it is not fully independent, but it is a considerable advance. However, we will continue to press our own argument. If the European Commission and Parliament is to be much tougher on fraud, we logically require a genuine strengthening of European institutions.
  5.24 pm
  Mr. Gerry Steinberg: As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I visited Brussels and Luxembourg in April to look into fraud in the European Union and what was being done about it. The visit was prompted by the National Audit Office's report, "Audit of the General Budget of the European Union for 1997 and Related Developments", and by the whistleblowing of Paul Van Buitenen, an EU official, who, incidentally, ranks as fraudulent not only those on whom he blew the whistle, but everyone else connected with the EU.
  To examine fraud in the EU, one must start with what the EU does. In 1997, the total budget was about £54 billion, spent under three basic headings—the common agricultural policy, structural funds and directly managed expenditure, including aid to countries in central and eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union and budget compensation to the newest member states. The United Kingdom is the third largest contributor, paying about £1.3 billion, so our visit was thought appropriate. There is clearly a huge problem.
  CAP accounts for 50 per cent. of the Budget and the NAO found errors in CAP payments amounting to around one sixth of the total. Farmers overdeclared areas eligible for subsidy for cereals and set-aside. The errors were exacerbated by generous subsidy and ineffective checks by the paying agencies. Although the overpayments may be relatively small, it would be an understatement to say that the global sum was quite big. In fact, it was huge.
  The NAO also detected errors in structural funds payments, which account for about one third of the EU budget. Aid is distributed to member states for operational programmes that can last up to about six years. Often,

  1099
  member states declared expenditure ineligible for funding. The Commission's programme closure procedures did not detect ineligible expenditures.
  About £8.9 billion was spent on external aid, but much of it does not go where it is supposed to. Only 82 per cent. of aid intended for central and eastern European countries was paid out, and only 64 per cent. of that meant for southern Mediterranean countries was paid. During 1998, the Commission uncovered suspected fraud in humanitarian aid. The ECHO affair, as it was called, involved aid to Yugoslavia and the great lakes region of Africa. Since 1992, £420 million has gone missing from that project.
  In 1998, the PAC reported waste, error and fraud in EU expenditure programmes. Frankly, matters are no better a year later. Four examples of the most appalling cases of fraud are contained in the NAO report.
  The first deals with cigarette smuggling from Montenegro. The report states:
  "One of the main routes used by crime syndicates for trafficking cigarettes was through the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. The cigarettes are loaded onto speedboats declared to be bound for Italy and are offloaded on the Adriatic Coast as contraband. The sole purpose of this is to divert them to the European Union black market. The Commission estimates that this activity results in a loss to the Community General Budget of some … £410 million".
  The second example relates to the fraudulent import of olive oil. The report states:
  "Olive oil claimed to be in transit for Israel and Turkey was in fact unloaded in the Community through an ingenious subterfuge. Two ships sailed from France with cargoes of olive oil and sunflower oil. The ships docked in Italy and unloaded the olive oil, but claimed that it was sunflower oil so that the lower level of duty was payable on it. To cover up the fraud, the perpetrators pretended to sell the sunflower oil in exchange for olive oil, even to the extent of driving around empty lorries to justify purchases of fuel. As a result of this fraud, some 5.1 million ECU (£3.4 million) of customs duties were evaded and some … £1.2 million … aid was claimed without entitlement."
  The third case related to tourism. In 1990, the European year of tourism was launched. By 1999, 76 bodies or individuals were subject to criminal proceedings or additional inquiries in member states and £3.5 million had been fraudulently paid out.
  The last fraud that needs to be mentioned is the Leonardo programme, a four-year youth training programme with a budget of about £450 million, headed by Commissioner Edith Cresson of France. Favouritism and irregularities were rife. All the cases that I have mentioned substantiate the view that there is large-scale organised crime across national borders.
  Miss McIntosh: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the tourism fraud was exposed by the leader of the Conservatives in the European Parliament, Mr. McMillan-Scott? That shows the seriousness that Conservatives attach to fraud.
  Mr. Steinberg: I do not for one moment dispute that. I do not attempt to make political points.
  The Public Accounts Committee went to Brussels and Luxembourg to see the problems of fraud in the EU. The situation is deplorable and something needs to be done about it.
  Mr. Gapes: I do not seek to minimise the terrible things to which my hon. Friend refers, but is it not a fact
  1100
  that about 85 per cent. of the EU budget is controlled not by EU institutions but by national member states? One of the problems with which we are dealing is something over which EU institutions do not have control. It is a problem of transfers between one member state and another, for example, as regards the tobacco scams and other scams to which my hon. Friend has referred.
  Mr. Steinberg: My hon. Friend is partly right and partly wrong. There is tremendous irregularity and fraud within the Commission. I agree that a great deal of responsibility lies with the member states, but we cannot blame just one section of the EU. The whole thing seems corrupt. I believe that corruption and fraud are much more prevalent across the EU than in the UK. The standards of probity in public affairs in the UK are higher than in most other western European countries. The report of the National Audit Office refers to places such as Greece, Spain, Italy and Portugal. I do not mean to be disrespectful to those countries, but their record is appalling.
  Financial arrangements in the European Union lend themselves to misappropriation and misuse of funds. The structure of the EU is bureaucratic rather than democratic. There appears to be little control over those who participate in corruption and fraud and little effort or capacity to get rid of them. It appears from the examples that I have given that about 10 per cent. of the EU budget is misappropriated and not spent on the purpose for which it was designated. That mis-spend amounts to about £5 billion a year. That is an incredible amount of money.
  With great respect to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), I got the impression from his speech that he was complacent. We heard the same arguments from him as I heard from the European Court of Auditors. The auditors seemed to say, "There is misappropriation and one would expect that to happen with such a huge budget." I do not think that one can say that. The Commission should have high standards.
  The recent disclosures by Van Buitenen were already well known before he blew the whistle. It was clear what was going on and he happened to bring it to the fore. Everyone knew what was going on. He showed that the standards of the Commissioners were anything but proper, and collectively they had to resign. The Commissioners ought to have been setting high standards, but they were not. Examples of nepotism and manipulation of funds emerged.
  On our visit to Brussels and Luxembourg, we met representatives of the Commission, the EU anti-fraud organisations and the committee of independent experts set up by the European Parliament to examine the way in which the Commission detects and deals with fraud. The anti-fraud organisation, known as UCLAF, has an atrocious record and was clearly unable to do an effective job. It has now been replaced by OLAF. I was little impressed, bearing in mind the seriousness of the situation. The only thing that was apparent was complacency.
  We met the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament. Although it recognised the problems and played its part in triggering the resignation of the Commissioners, the fact is that it knew for years that fraud and waste were rampant, yet it tolerated the situation. Can you imagine, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the Public Accounts Committee tolerating such a situation? I cannot, but that seems to be the way things are.

  1101
  We had a meeting with the European Court of Auditors. That filled me with horror. Its members were apparently so complacent, and I told them so. One of the most disgraceful aspects of EU administration is not only that large sums of money in budgets cannot be properly accounted for but that the auditing and signing-off of EU accounts often runs years into arrears as a result of lax accounting systems, some of which are seemingly riddled with fraud. We all know that it is impossible to run any organisation efficiently without accurate, up-to-date accounts.
  It seems to me that the problem with the EU Court of Auditors is the same as in so much of the rest of the EU. Those able and willing to set high standards are dragged down by those who are much more easy going. One amazing statement made at our meeting with the auditors was that fraud was a price worth paying for the Union. I may have misunderstood that because I was dropping off to sleep, but I do not think so. Well, they may think that, but I disagree with them.
  After our visit to the EU, the Committee was unanimous in its conclusions. There need to be significant and urgent improvements in the financial culture governing European spending. These issues are central to public confidence and fundamental to the democratic legitimacy of Europe. The Commission must define more clearly who is accountable to whom and for what.
  We found that the current arrangements for investigating and prosecuting cases of abuse were inadequate. Rapid action is required to reform the procedures for identifying and handling cases of suspected fraud within the Commission and other EU institutions. That should include a strong, independent head of fraud investigations with statutory protection from dismissal.
  The National Audit Office report concludes that it is important that the Commission and member states keep up the pressure on effective implementation of the sound and efficient Management 2000 initiative, which simplifies schemes so that they can be easily and effectively managed and so that the risk of fraud can be reduced. The NAO also concludes that effective action must be taken to pursue and repress fraud across the EU budget. Better arrangements are needed for combating fraud and corruption involving EU institutions.
  I intended to sit down and say no more at this stage, which would probably delight everyone, but after listening to the Opposition, I should like to add an extra item. The approach that Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen have taken to the debate is so sad. They have attempted to make EU fraud a party political issue. It is an important issue. The Tory record in government was hopeless. All the cases of fraud that I have mentioned started in the late 1980s and early 1990s, when the previous Government were in power. It is important that this debate has taken place, but why do the Opposition always shoot themselves in the foot? It is plain daft to try to lay the blame on the Government and Labour Members of the European Parliament for allowing fraudulent activities to go on in the EU. The activities have been going on for years, and went on all through the time of Tory government.
  1102
  I did not intend to ascribe blame, but after hearing the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, I will. If any blame is to be ascribed, I suggest that 18 years of Tory government in which nothing was done speaks for itself.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Charles Wardle: I am bound to say that until the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) came to his extra points, I agreed with almost everything he had to say. He and I both serve on the Public Accounts Committee and there is broad agreement about what has gone wrong. He and I can debate vigorously many political issues all day long, but until he came to his last item I endorsed his remarks this afternoon. When he came to his final and quickly added last point, and as he looked at the Government Whip and thought that he should score some political points, he was wrong, in that he failed to notice that the Chief Secretary seemed to have swallowed, hook, line and sinker the idea that OLAF will do a more effective job than UCLAF does now. I understand the Government's having agreed to the proposals for the amendment in the regulations that will deliver OLAF and wishing to say that all will be put right, but I believe that the Chief Secretary is absolutely wrong on that.
  As the hon. Member for City of Durham said, the Public Accounts Committee visited Brussels and Luxembourg last month. Several of the Committee members either were in their place or are now. I wish to make a couple of comments about the visit to place in context my remarks about the anti-fraud effort.
  The Committee's object in its visit was to examine how financial control and accountability of EU funds could be improved within the Commission and in member states. In Brussels, the Committee took evidence from the Commission, UCLAF, the Commission's anti-fraud unit, the budgetary control committee of the European Parliament, Mr. Van Buitenen—the whistleblower—and the committee of independent experts. In Luxembourg, it took evidence from the European Court of Auditors.
  Although the Committee's report of its foray into the heart of Euroland will not be published until after next month's European elections, I formed the clear impression—my Committee colleagues who are present in the Chamber can either confirm or deny this—that the Committee was quickly united across party lines in its criticism of the complacency, arrogance, self-interest, lack of even the most rudimentary management discipline, absence of financial controls and failure to tackle fraud that was clearly evident wherever we went.
  In a press release agreed by the Committee, there was a call for significant and urgent improvement in the financial culture governing European spending, for better controls to protect the interests of the European taxpayer and for an accounting system based on robust independent and expert procedures. The Committee registered its dismay that proposals to reform UCLAF—this is where I disagree with the Chief Secretary—in the form of the new OLAF fell well short of delivering a genuinely independent anti-fraud unit.
  Given the limited time for the debate, I shall resist the temptation to regale the House with the full extent of the financial shambles and the self-serving bureaucratic intrigue that masquerades as the government-in-waiting for Europe. I shall concentrate instead on the inadequacy of the attempts to protect the Community budget from fraud.

  1103
  There is little doubt but that fraud and financial irregularity are rife throughout the EU spending programme. There is fraud at national level in member states, as the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) was allowing—for example, in the common agricultural policy. However, some of the most spectacular rip-offs have taken place under the nose of the Commission, and these were the ones highlighted by Mr. Van Buitenen.
  As we have heard, the Leonardo youth training programme, worth £450 million, has been riddled with mismanagement, and blatant favouritism has been shown to certain contractors. The Commission's tourism unit, which has already been alluded to, has been defrauded of at least £3.5 million. The Med programme of economic assistance in the southern member states has been hijacked by a network of firms which has run rings round Commission officials, at huge cost to the European taxpayer. The humanitarian aid office, ECHO, cannot account for £420 million from last year's budget alone. These are only some of the horror stories.
  Pitted against corruption is UCLAF, the anti-fraud unit, which operates from within the Commission's central secretariat. That location is a handicap in itself because the Commission is staffed with appointees long on horse-trading skills but short on management instincts. This means that the Commission is an establishment in which transparency and individual accountability are literally foreign concepts. That makes it unsurprising that UCLAF was doomed to failure from its inception.
  UCLAF is not, as some people suppose, an internal audit service. Members of the PAC will appreciate that. It may act on audit data produced by the European Court of Auditors, which itself is not allowed to investigate suspected cases of fraud. For some reason best known to the bureaucrats, UCLAF is not allowed to pursue active fraud investigations either. It is merely authorised to assess the financial sums at risk and then draw up cases for submission to public prosecutors in the member states.
  In the unlikely event that UCLAF identifies a case for prosecution within the Commission itself, under whose roof it sits, it is supposed to draw that suspected fraud to the attention of the Belgian prosecutors. In other words, UCLAF is not a fraud-busting unit but a co-ordinator of allegations of fraud for the benefit of national prosecutors in member states.
  Inevitably this cumbersome and unwieldy procedure has failed to produce results or to deter fraud, and it has already been widely condemned. The Court of Auditors has complained that UCLAF has no standard system for opening, monitoring and concluding procedures. The court says that UCLAF lacks operational procedures for storing and monitoring information, cannot manage its case load effectively and causes long, needless delays.
  UCLAF's procedures for dealing with internal discipline and corruption are unclear and incomplete as well. The Court of Auditors has accused it of what it delicately describes as "exaggerated hesitation" before lifting the immunity of staff suspected of fraud. That is because it is under the Commission's roof, of course. Meanwhile, the committee of independent experts has said that UCLAF's remit within the Commission is less clear than it should be and claims that UCLAF appears to be in competition with the internal audit function. The UCLAF staff lack professional skills and often slow down
  1104
  procedures so that the audit trail goes dead. In short, the entire UCLAF operation is a farce. The fraudsters thrive and the taxpayer loses out.
  To remedy this sorry state of affairs, at the end of last year the Commission, the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament drew up a proposed regulation for a new fraud prevention office—son of UCLAF, as it were—to be called OLAF, an acronym with a Nordic ring of financial rectitude and authority. This seemingly worthwhile initiative quickly became bogged down in utter confusion when the Council of Ministers resisted the very sensible idea that OLAF should be a distinct legal entity, separate from the Commission, with extra powers of investigation within member states.
  After much wheeling and dealing, and to nobody's surprise, OLAF is to stay under the Commission's umbrella, but regulations will be amended to give its new director greater responsibility for the recruitment and promotion of staff and the power to ask for oral information from employees of the Community institutions.
  The new director is to report regularly to the Parliament and he will be monitored by an independent external committee. In practice, however, the EU staff regulations, which have for years throttled any attempt to promote outstandingly talented officials, are so prohibitive that OLAF will inherit and be required to keep most of the old UCLAF personnel, in spite of their known lack of professional qualifications. The new director will not be independent at all. He will still be in thrall to the Commission and will have nothing like the clout which national audit offices enjoy in, for example, the United Kingdom—most especially, in Holland or in the Scandinavian member states.
  So in spite of the courage of the whistleblower, the condemnation of the Commission by the independent committee of experts and the grand theatrical gesture—
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wardle: I shall not for the moment. I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman will have much to say, but time is short and I have nearly come to a conclusion. He always does have a lot to say, and it is always of interest.
  In spite of the grand theatrical gesture of the Commission's mass resignation and the fight against fraud, that which is being proposed leaves the EU toothless in its anti-fraud effort. It is all talk and no action. The will to improve accountability and transparency simply does not exist, and the inevitable consequence will be that corruption will increase.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will allow me a moment longer. For those of us of a sceptical nature, none of this will be surprising. The sceptics might agree with me that the United Kingdom should insist on a properly functioning single market, tried and tested over a suitable period, before the Euro-zealots try to rush headlong into experiments with an unworkable single currency, and into economic and monetary union as a prelude to their real goal of a federal state.
  It is essential that the scandal of financial malpractice and fraud in Brussels be adequately addressed. That is why my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition's cautious, step-by-step approach to further integration in

  1105
  the European Union is absolutely right, and why the Government's timidity in dealing with OLAF, which is not an effective successor to UCLAF, is so disappointing.
  Euro-enthusiasts of an uncritical disposition ignore the failure of anti-fraud measures at their peril. If the difficulties of checking fraud seem formidable now, they will become far worse if they are not resolved before the EU goes in for more enlargement and yet further extension of treaty competence. With respect to EU fraud, a stitch in time might save nine, but those in Brussels have hidden the needle and lost the thread.
  5.51 pm
  Mr. Alan Campbell: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to the debate. The Chamber reminds me of a Public Accounts Committee meeting, but it is the stronger for that.
  Tackling fraud in the European Union is an important matter. It is too important to be kicked around by the Opposition during a European election campaign. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg).
  I, too, am a member of the Public Accounts Committee and took part in the visit to Brussels and Luxembourg last month. I do not want to pre-empt the report that will be produced for the House, but I shall make a few observations.
  I wonder how many of my colleagues recently received, as I did, a letter appealing to me to support the Conservative party in the forthcoming European election. The letter does not state which Conservative party, but it sets out one of the planks of the Conservatives' campaign, which we heard from the shadow Chancellor this afternoon. It suggests "doing less better" in Europe as one way of tackling fraud. That is an interesting phrase, "doing less better"—presumably there is a comma in it somewhere. It smacks of one of those focus groups which, we understand, are having an increasing influence on Conservative party policy.
  For Conservatives to aim to do less, but better, and at the same time to cut the resources paid to Europe, raises some interesting questions. Does "doing less better" mean avoiding or scrapping EU undertakings where fraud is a problem? Given that fraud is a major problem in the common agricultural policy, does it mean scrapping parts of the CAP for British farmers? If so, they should be told about that.
  If "doing less better" means that, because there has been fraud in the tourism programme, we should walk away from it, the people of the constituency that I represent should be told. We benefit from £640,000 of European help for tourism in my area. If there is fraud in the ECHO programme, as we have been told, does that mean a block on further humanitarian aid to countries such as Yugoslavia? We need to know.
  A much more productive approach would be to make progress on developing a system of proper audit and accountability across Europe. That would require co-operation between member states, as well as leadership, rather than shouting from the sidelines. Listening to some of the Opposition spokesmen this afternoon, one would be led to believe that fraud never occurred during the 18 years
  1106
  in which they were in power, or until Van Buitenen blew his whistle. However, the evidence of fraud in the EU was well known.
  In the tourism programme since 1989, more than 70 individuals and organisations have been implicated in wrongdoing, yet it took two years to get rid of the head of the unit, and the director general eventually went in October 1996 only on condition that he was allowed to retire
  "in the interests of the service".
  Nepotism, misuse of funds and mismanagement of the programme were taking place, yet at the end of it all, the leader of the Tory MEPs said:
  "I know that what has been going on for years has now been exposed."
  The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) says that he played a part in exposing the fraud, and good on him, but the Tories cannot have it both ways. They cannot take credit when fraud is exposed in Europe, and deny that there was fraud there while they were in government.
  Even after that, rather shamefully, Tory and Liberal MEPs failed to back Labour MEPs, as we have heard, in their efforts to set up the committee of independent experts. Progress has been made only because certain Governments, particularly our own, have been willing to take the lead and grasp the nettle.
  I am trying to adopt a positive approach. Assuming that we accept that Britain's future lies in the European Union—at least half of the Conservative party accepts that—and if we acknowledge that the present Government will not last for ever, we should seek common ground, not only in the House, but with our partners in Europe. We must seize the opportunity for root-and-branch reform.
  There is common ground, despite the impression given by the shadow Chancellor, and there should be common cause. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) said, members of the Public Accounts Committee were united by their view of the complacency that characterised the Commission and parts of the Parliament. That complacency helps to explain the failure to act to root out fraud earlier.
  However, the complacency is not universal. I did not detect complacency among the committee of independent experts or among the growing group who are proponents of what might be called a Danish-Dutch-British model of accountability and right of access in the EU. We need to build on that consensus.
  Common ground is emerging on the need to develop a new and modern European accounting and audit culture which improves procedures across the member states where 85 per cent. of the budget it spent. There is also common ground on the view that the 15 per cent. of the budget that is spent by the Commission should also be properly accounted for. The Commission cannot shrug its shoulders and say that there are more important matters, such as enlargement, to worry about. I hope that both sides of the debate can unite behind the approach that I have outlined.
  Mr. David Davis: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the first minute of his speech. As the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), our colleague

  1107
  on the Public Accounts Committee, has joined us, I want to put a question to him that is important in the context of the debate.
  All of us who went to Brussels and Luxembourg were struck by the need for dramatic changes—the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) just referred to the Danish-Dutch-British model of accountability. Earlier the hon. Member for Croydon, Central raised as a psychological barrier the need for a treaty change. The Prime Minister has argued that we need root-and-branch reform. Treaty change is not as difficult as it is sometimes portrayed. It is often used as a barrier when it is not one. There have been intergovernmental conferences that have decided on such matters in one day. Does the hon. Gentleman believe, as I do, that we should go for radical reform, or for an interim measure?
  Mr. Campbell: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) will want to make his own case. I am not sure whether the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) expects me to answer that question. The issue is where we start from in this debate: whether we can agree as to what can be achieved and whether we can engage in debate constructively and positively. I think that we share common ground as to how radical that reform would need to be.
  I want to make one final point about the Commissioners. In future, they cannot hide behind the idea of collective responsibility. We require a clearer understanding of who is responsible for what in the Commission and to whom people should be responsible. If there is shared concern and common ground, that begs the question, which has been asked—at least by Labour Members—as to why the previous Government failed to act sooner. Change will be extremely difficult, but not impossible. There would be much less positive influences for change if a future Government were shouting from the sidelines. Some of the necessary changes will sit uncomfortably with some of the stated aims of cutting back on the roles and resources of European institutions.
  I was most interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), as I, too, want to speak about employment practices in the EU. There seems to be an employment culture that encourages temporary employment and short-termism—even, as the Committee found, among posts in UCLAF itself. Although good and trusted people may be employed under temporary contracts, such contracts can often lead to delays in making appointments. That leads to the setting up of ad hoc arrangements, which in turn lead to accusations of wrongdoing. That employment culture lends itself to nepotism and, expensively, to an over-reliance on consultants and experts.
  The European Court of Auditors is aware of that problem, but does not have the power to recommend that institutions should take on more staff, even if, by doing so, European taxpayers would be given greater value for money. In any case, the Court of Auditors is itself constrained by an annual budget that is £10 million less than that of this country's National Audit Office. We were told by the shadow Chancellor that that was one of the legacies of the previous Government.
  We require serious debate about resources and how they are used, and about the role of institutions such as the European Court of Auditors. It will not do to try to
  1108
  transfer a particular national model—even our excellent British model. We need to develop a new, European model of audit and accountability, even if those words may be alien to some Members of the House. Tackling fraud relies on constructive engagement in Europe; it cannot be achieved from a position of isolation. This is a serious issue; it is worth much more than to be used as a weapon to beat an anti-European drum. It requires direction and leadership in Europe; I have seen no evidence of that from the Leader of the Opposition, in terms either of Europe or of his own party.
  6.3 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: In a rare and delicate fashion, I want to raise the debate above the party political level and move it into a more open and nationalistic mode. If any Member of the House were to go out into the highways and byways of Westminster to ask the average British citizen what he or she thought about the financial control of Europe, or what that person thought about the way in which Europe looked after taxpayers' money, there would be, first, a snort of derision, followed by a reply that could probably not be repeated in this House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Unparliamentary."] As my colleagues advise me, the answer would be unparliamentary.
  Whatever view one takes of Europe—whether one is for or against integration, or for or against the euro—it boils down to the fact that all of us in the Chamber share a unity of desire to see better accountability of taxpayers' money, so that it is more effectively spent in the European Union. I have no doubt that many of the reservations that are expressed as to the size of the EU budget and the size of the British contribution to that budget are influenced by the thought that, at present, that money is not being well spent.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell), who gave us a trailer for the Conservative party' s European manifesto. That manifesto argues for a reduction in contributions, something that I can support. The pressure for efficiency will become more important, especially as the EU enlarges following the admission of central and eastern European states. That will mean that even larger sums will be involved and, unless there is change, there will be an even greater opportunity for larger sums to be mis-spent and mishandled. With efficiency gains, we can have the penny and the bun. We can still achieve the same objectives, but with lower contributions.
  For that reason, as a Member of the Public Accounts Committee—three quarters of whose Members are in the Chamber—I supported the suggestion in our debate earlier this year that we should have an away day to Brussels and Luxembourg so that we could see exactly how the financial controls inside the Commission were implemented. Bluntly, I found a worrying lack of direct accountability, a lack of clear lines of responsibility and a lack of the use of the effective accounting and auditing mechanisms that we take for granted in the UK.
  There is a divide between what happens in the UK and what happens in Brussels. The European Parliament is flabby. It must take a firm grip of the situation and ensure that the European Commission has more effective direct management of expenditure, with particular reference to its external aid programmes. At present, it is impossible

  1109
  to tell how fully the Commission has been able to meet programme objectives and how external aid programmes have been operated to ensure that they do not suffer from fraud. We need the implementation and control of schemes that are not susceptible to fraud; at present, the way in which those schemes are set up leaves them wide open to fraud. That is an example of all the problems that are coming from Europe.
  I could spend the next half hour going through all the scams that have been running in EU operations during the past few years. I fully accept that many of those scams took place under the previous Conservative Administration. However, that does not mean that we should stop considering them now. We must try to make improvements and move on from the arguments advanced by the Conservative Government at the time of the Maastricht treaty.
  I stagger with disbelief at how some of those scams could have gone through. One example is the beef export refund scheme. That scheme carried an inherent risk because the rate of refund for different countries outside the EU varied. Our National Audit Office found that we sent 5 million kg of beef to Mauritius, where there are 1 million people. Surprise, surprise—one of the highest amounts of support was paid for that import.
  More recently, in relation to fishing vessels, EU funds were used as incentives for people to fish outside European waters—an objective that we all support—but what did we find? In 90 per cent. of cases, the vessels subsidised were either inactive—sunk—or those people were already fishing outside the EU. That 90 per cent. represented a slight shortfall on the programme objectives. Those who accompanied me on the away day will know what a sacrifice I make by not mentioning the cochineal beetle scam—that was a joy and a wonder to behold.
  My worry is that the case of the whistleblower is not a one-off. We must remember that the whistleblower was not a civil servant acting on a whim, who took action on the spur of the moment. For month after month, he tried to persuade his superiors to take an interest in the concerns that he had raised and to take action. From what I gather, the reaction that he received was either direct hostility—that he would be fired if he continued—and threats of other consequences if he did not desist; or initial expressions of interest, only to be followed by the individuals whom he had approached saying that he should forget all about it.
  That typifies my concerns about the way in which the Commission operates, that it is far too incestuous and lacking in outside direct and clear accountability. The Commissioners do not appear to own their own directorates, by which I mean that they are far too involved in the creation of policy instead of in directing policy—the tail wags the dog. In turn, the Commissioner becomes more and more a creature of the directorate, rather than the driving force of policy creation. Unless Commissioners exhibit clear independence of thought in the near future, the EU will not drive forward progressively, but will remain locked in a stifling bureaucratic circle.
  We have witnessed the resignation of the Commissioners. Until that time, the investigative UCLAF unit was controlled by, and reported to, the Commission.
  1110
  I shall not repeat the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle). Although it might be hotly denied, I gained the impression that the careers of individuals within that unit were closely bound up with that of the Commission, so perhaps it would not have been a career-enhancing move for individuals in UCLAF to create too large a wave inside the Commission.
  There does not appear to have been an adequate Commission response to the concerns expressed by the Court of Auditors. The argument that the Commission was responsible for only 15 per cent. of expenditure, with 85 per cent. being spent by member states, is totally unacceptable. I am sure that the House believes that the Commission should accept responsibility when fraud occurs and be prepared to investigate it. The report of the committee of wise men has already been quoted, but their conclusions are worth repeating: they found a
  "growing reluctance among the members of the hierarchy to acknowledge their responsibility. It is becoming difficult to find anyone who has even the slightest sense of responsibility."
  That is a damning indictment of anyone in charge of a directorate of the European Commission.
  I know that the Commission has the ability to investigate expenditure, even though, during our visit, we heard that denied, not once, not twice, but three times. That is unacceptable. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle spoke of OLAF, son of UCLAF, and I wonder whether the new unit will be as fully independent as has been promised. I wonder whether it will be able to report fully to the Budgetary Control Committee of the European Parliament. I am not convinced that there will be established a strong enough mechanism to ensure that such concerns are properly and adequately investigated.
  I have already said that there needs to be stronger supervision by EU Commissioners of the programmes under their control, but with that has to come a clear-cut policy of prosecutions being pressed when fraud has occurred. Such matters must not be swept under the carpet and the sums lost pushed to one side—that would be unacceptable. The Court of Auditors operates fairly well, but there is no European organisation parallel to our National Audit Office that carries out value-for-money audits. That brings me to the question that I put to the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). There is no body or organisation that reports directly to the European Parliament to ensure that value for money has been obtained, and no equivalent of our Public Accounts Committee to investigate budgetary irregularities or weakness. Such improvements have to be installed as a matter of urgency, if the average member of the British population is to regain confidence in the European movement.
  6.14 pm
  Mr. Geraint Davies: The subject of our debate today is not the Public Accounts Committee visit to Brussels and Luxembourg, although I had the pleasure of participating in that, but a motion—a facile, self-indulgent motion from a party which for 18 years held a place at the Council of Ministers but consistently failed to act on reports received from the Court of Auditors and make any headway in implementing the changes the court proposed to tackle fraud and improve accountability. In sharp contrast, the Labour Government and the current Members of the European Parliament,

  1111
  especially Pauline Green, have acted in such a way that, for the first time, the European Parliament refused to accept the accounts for the 1996 European budget. A committee of wise men to look into fraud, accountability and good practice was set up, which ultimately resulted in the mass resignation of the entire Commission—a great blow struck by democracy against an administration, which has led to a programme of root-and-branch reform, which we shall see emerge at the ECOFIN meeting on 25 May.
  The Opposition's motion calls for the replacement of all the Commissioners, irrespective of their individual culpability. I suppose that is designed to ensure that there would be no operational continuity within the Commission—an outrageous and wrecking move. In addition, the shadow Chancellor has called for the complete institutional independence of the new fraud office, OLAF. Because a new institution would require a treaty change, which must be agreed by all member states, all current investigations would have to be suspended, perhaps for years. The result would be that fraud, instead of decreasing, would escalate out of all proportion. The Opposition motion forgets that the problems of today are linked to the isolationism of the previous Government, and ignores the fact that their proposals would plunge the Commission into chaos. Presumably, that is all part of the hidden agenda of Euro-scepticism, which led to the current Government having to sort out the BSE crisis by abandoning the isolationism and impotence that characterised the previous Government.
  That said, there are serious problems with budgetary control, nepotism and so on that I shall confront, instead of addressing the schoolboy motion standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition. The new Labour Government's agenda is one of transparency, accountability, good housekeeping and partnership in Europe. It is true that, in the overall budget of about £55 billion, there is roughly a 5 per cent. irregularity. That adds up to a lot of money, but it must be recognised that, in this country, when we break down accounts by different Departments, similar rates of irregularity are not unknown—indeed, the level of irregularity in the social security budget is often nearer 8 per cent. The National Audit Office would refuse that particular departmental budget, but accept all the other Departments' budgets overall. The lesson of that is that the budget of the European Commission should be broken down into spending by the Commission, and spending by member states. It might be that the Court of Auditors would say that the transport directorate was fine, but that the structural fund or the agricultural fund was not. We have to consider breaking down budgets and focusing on areas of weakness.
  On several occasions during the PAC's three-day visit, I heard well-worn anecdotes—often to do with sampling errors—explaining various irregularities. We were told that, because a road that was built did not receive an environmental audit, it was an irregularity and so formed part of the 5 per cent. financial irregularity. I was told that a 12-hectare field was measured at 13 hectares, and that that irregularity when multiplied from the sample resulted in a gross distortion of 5 per cent. Those are facile and ridiculous arguments: if sampling methodology is correct, such effects will not occur; and if sampling methodology is incorrect, it should be changed. I was shocked by the
  1112
  extent of the complacency with which educated people accepted such excuses for non-action on the part of the Commission.
  It is true that 95 per cent. of expenditure is carried out in member states, and that 98 per cent. of irregularities occur within member states. While not being complacent about the changes that must be made in the Commission, much of the problem lies with delivery on the ground. The Commission is playing its part by trying to sort out regular systems of accountability.
  We have a very good system in this place. The NAO audits all Government expenditure—putting to one side that which is audited by the Audit Commission—which then goes before the Public Accounts Committee which interviews the permanent secretary responsible for the expenditure. An equivalent system in Europe would involve the Court of Auditors examining all expenditure and bringing it before the Budgetary Control Committee, which would then interview the accounting officer, who should be the director-general of the Commission.
  In fact, no one accountable person appears before the Budgetary Control Committee. In Europe, there is an authorising officer for some expenditure. He goes to a financial officer who says, "It seems to be all right, so here's the money". No one knows who is accountable. That is one of the reasons why the Commission does not have the same systems of scrutiny that operate in Britain and in other north European countries. Discussions are continuing about the need to clarify who is accountable for what. I had the pleasure of conversing with Commissioner Monti last week about that subject, and the Commission wants to make such changes.
  The Court of Auditors, which conducts the audit, is located in Luxembourg and there is a 280 km round trip to travel to meetings of the Budgetary Control Committee. That committee considers reports for only 10 per cent. of its meetings. What is more, the reports that it considers have already been edited by the Commission using a method called the "contradictory process". If the Court of Auditors points out where the Commission has gone wrong, it will reply, "No, we are not wrong because of this, that and the other". The two bodies must then come to an agreement and there is a filtering of information. Members of the European Parliament, those who serve on the Budgetary Control Committee and the Commission across the road enjoy a cosy relationship. After all, the Court of Auditors—which is independent—is a long 280 km round trip away. We must consider that point.
  There is obviously fraud within and outside the Commission. The Naples example has been cited. It involved the discovery that 96 per cent. of applications for subsidy for olive oil processing in Naples were irregular and fraudulent. The problem is not that the Commission sent the money but whether justice was delivered via the local legal system. I assume—perhaps my view is prejudiced—that the mafia was behind those applications. If four applications out of 100 are successful, what will stop the mafia? I do not know. The point is that legal delivery systems on the ground must stop those illegal activities.
  On 25 May, a recommendation will be put before ECOFIN. I want the new OLAF body to have operational independence. The director should have statutory independence and be able to approach the European Court

  1113
  of Justice if his or her activities are blocked in any way. As the post would be institutionally independent, the director would have direct access to the Commission.
  The Commission wants a separate institution to be created. That would take years to establish and would not allow the same sort of access. At a time when the Commission is being investigated and we know that some Commissioners are culpable, we must smell a rat: who is urging the delays? The current proposals are good. The new body should have the power to investigate fraud not just in member states but in the Court of Auditors, the Commission, the economic and social committee and in the Council of Ministers. The granting of that sort of power will require a change in statute over time, obliging officials across the European Union to report to OLAF and co-operate with its investigations. As the institutions are autonomous, we would need to grant those powers via institutional agreements signed by the institutions. They would have to agree voluntarily to grant access to OLAF. I am sure that they would do so if the right pressure were applied.
  We cannot allow those involved in fraud to further their careers within the Commission. There is a danger of "rubbing shoulders". We need to evaluate and audit the nature of benefits and expenditure in those countries from which the Commissioners come. I am thinking specifically of the Commissioner who is responsible for trade with South America, whose country benefited from a disproportionate volume of trade with it. We must ask questions about that sort of occurrence. We should ask also about the nature of the cabinets, and the process whereby a Commissioner appoints several political advisers who, in many instances, determine who receives jobs in the European equivalent of the civil service: the directorates-general. Those political appointees are often given top-level civil service jobs which they are not equipped to handle. We seek efficiency, effectiveness, accountability and transparency in the working of the Commission.
  I believe that we should create a new post of vice-president of the Commission in charge of finance, personnel and administration. At present, that work is conducted by individual Commissioners and there are enormous differences in those operations. Romano Prodi has an opportunity to shake up the Commission and its institutions and to shake out fraud. I am sure that he has our undivided support—particularly that of Labour Members—in that endeavour.
  The future of Europe and of Britain in Europe does not involve carping and adopting the pathetic divided, isolationist approach that is characterised by the Opposition. We must initiate constructive engagement to ensure greater accountability, transparency and effectiveness for a new Europe in a new millennium where are children can live with pride.
  6.27 pm
  Mr. Andrew Rowe: It has been good to listen to a constructive and positive debate across the House. In the past, scrutiny of the European Union has been paralysed by political ambivalence. Those who support it have been reluctant to expose its failings in case it damaged their case and those who dislike the
  1114
  EU have believed that becoming involved in its workings somehow affords it unwarranted credibility. Therefore, the European Union has escaped proper scrutiny in this place.
  I begin from the position of wanting the European Union to work well. We must introduce effective financial controls—what is more, I see no reason why those controls should not apply also to Members of the European Parliament. The need for such controls is shown by our experience in this place. During my time in Parliament, I have witnessed the almost annual tightening of the controls governing our expenditure and I see no reason why we should not insist on a similar tightening for Members of the European Parliament. If they can award themselves expenses that are out of all proportion to their costs, their capacity to scrutinise the misuse of money within the Commission is gravely damaged. The temptation of any group of unaccountable men and women to spend other people's money lavishly on themselves is very great—we have only to look at the building rising above Westminster station to recognise that fact.
  It would have been appropriate if the Commissioners had departed when they resigned. Nothing would have sent a clearer signal that they felt accountable, and that is a serious missed opportunity. Of course continuity of decision making is useful, but I suspect that no great disaster would have occurred if the Commission had suffered an hiatus of a few weeks. Furthermore, the argument about fraud might have been advanced further if the European Parliament had had the power to demand the resignations of individual Commissioners.
  The Council of Ministers should take some responsibility for putting pressure on EU bureaucracy. The problem is that it never wants to take serious responsibility for carrying out the policies that it creates. Over the years, we have seen a lamentable picture in every EU country when Ministers return to their national Parliament to crow when they have got what they want and to whinge about unfairness when they have not. The result of such populist behaviour has been steadily to build up a view that the Council of Ministers cannot be blamed for anything that results from its decisions.
  In their reply to the report of the Select Committee on International Development on the EU development budget, the Government say:
  "The Government agrees that Council policy documents are rarely effectively, consistently or comprehensively translated into operation".
  If the Council of Ministers cannot ensure that its decisions are carried out effectively, I do not understand how we will get very far in dealing with even the limited matter of fraud.
  Much more decision making should be returned to national states. The Government support that, and say:
  "The Government agrees that the Commission should concentrate its intervention on areas where it has comparative advantage over bilateral donors."
  That is in relation to the development budget. Mr. Prodi states that he supports that belief, and says:
  "Only a few important things should be done in Brussels".
  If we consider the mess that is so frequently made of the European Union development budget, we realise that that happens because the EU has neither the personnel nor the skill to control fraud in its development programmes.

  1115
  It should change the structures so that a larger part of the budget is given back to the nation states or to allow individual nations to take the lead in delivering the programmes in particular countries.
  Philip Lowe, the director-general of Directorate-General VIII, pointed out, in evidence to the Select Committee, that the budgetary discipline, or lack of it, evident in the EU is far below the standard expected of its peers in
  "the normal budgetary mechanism which other parts of the Commission expect".
  In its reply, the Select Committee said:
  "We are not surprised to see such concerns emerging from a Community where there are huge discrepancies between political priorities and administrative capacity, over commitment of funds to programmes which cannot disburse them effectively, and serious delays in the payment of some accounts."
  The Government say:
  "The Government supports a policy of zero tolerance of fraud."
  They continue:
  "We also support measures to strengthen the fraud investigation capacity of the Commission."
  From what I heard in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), it sounds as if OLAF, son of UCLAF, will leave the fraudsters with the last "laf".
  There are serious defects in the European Union, particularly in its budgetary controls, but that is no reason to seek to destroy the EU any more than housing benefit or social security fraud in the United Kingdom is a reason to seek to destroy local and central Government. Member states, including the UK, seem to be slow to respond to fraud. I was a member of the Public Accounts Committee when we quizzed the Department responsible for disbursing funds in this country paid out under the CAP about CAP fraud. When we asked why no use was made of multinational investigating teams, we were told that although there were 700 staff, it would be impossible to train even a few of them in the necessary foreign language. If that failure of will is common to all member states, it is no wonder that farm fraud still accounts for nearly 1 per cent. of total agriculture expenditure.
  Other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall now sit down.
  6.34 pm
  Mr. Archie Norman: In the time that remains, I want to make the simple point that those on both sides of the House have recognised that fraud in the Commission's spending is a very serious problem. Only the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), the Liberal Democrat spokesman, tried to put the problem in proportion, and he was rather unsuccessful. The fraud is widespread.
  When fraud and misuse of funds within an organisation occur on that scale, they reveal not that the institution merely needs a better audit committee and a system to investigate fraud, but that it is sick within and that the problem is systemic and chronic, rather than symptomatic, and can be treated only by reform from within.
  There is good testimony that approximately 5 per cent. of the EU's total budget is fraudulently spent and that approximately 5 per cent. cannot be accounted for. It is believed that 10 per cent. of the total spending is
  1116
  mis-spent in its end use or subject to fraud. It is important to remember that 5 per cent. of the EU budget is spent on the administrative costs of the Commission alone and, according to simple arithmetic, approximately a further 5 per cent. is spent on the European Parliament. That means that approximately 20 per cent. of the total budget is not delivered to the end user but disappears in administrative cost or through misuse. In addition, as the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said, a large proportion of the budget is wasted through the CAP and, as a result, benefits no one very much.
  The problem is long-standing, and it has been pointed out several times that it predates this Government coming into power. In 1994, a House of Lords report stated that fraud in the Commission was prevalent on a monumental scale, reaching
  "into every sphere of Community activity."
  Its next remark, on a subject close to my heart, struck a chord with me:
  "If any of the big companies in the UK had their accounts qualified in this way the banks would call in their loans, the shareholders would evict the directors and a DTI inquiry would ensue".
  That would surely be correct in any culture or environment that we know of.
  Fraud starts at the top and stretches to the bottom. The culture of the EU is, at worst, one of nepotism and, at best, one of extravagance and a failure to count the pennies and look after people's money well. The Commission has displayed staggering complacency about fraud over the years. Herbert Bosch, the rapporteur on fraud to the Budgetary Control Committee, stated:
  "The Commission is not seriously interested in detecting fraud. It is more interested in covering it up".
  There we have the problem: there is an atmosphere and culture of indulgence throughout the Commission, which comes from within. Without fundamental reform, that will not be changed.
  It is no good Labour Members simply talking about the exact nature and proportions of the fraud—we can all trade points about that, although it is important—and the independence of the fraud investigative unit. That is like trying to catch the horse after it has bolted. The issue is how we change the culture from within and create better accountability and better transparency. That process must start with a new management system, a code of ethics and a new approach to the recruitment and operation of civil servants and officials within the Commission. There must be an end to formal and informal flag-marking of jobs.
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Norman: No, I do not have much time, and I want to make three or four more points.
  The second element of reform is transparent reporting, and the issue of such information must also be timely because accounts from the Commission come out disgracefully late and are of a standard that would not be acceptable in public institutions or companies in Britain.
  Thirdly, there must be a strengthened finance or budgetary commission within the EU. I am sure that the Financial Secretary will agree that the pre-eminence of the Treasury in the British governmental system is good

  1117
  for sound government and the use of funds. No such pre-eminence exists within the Commission. If the Commission is effectively to use funds and count pennies, it is vital that the role of the budgetary commission in following, in detail, the spending through to its end use is considerably strengthened.
  Finally, there must be a new atmosphere of intolerance and toughness at the top. That must start with the Commissioners, who need explicitly to be held to account for the effectiveness of the spending and any fraud that may result.
  In other words, EU fraud is not a problem for which we can graft on solutions from outside or a problem of co-operation or collaboration, but a question whether we are able to grasp the nettle fundamentally to change the culture and ethics of the Commission for ever and from within.
  6.39 pm
  Mr. John Whittingdale: This has been an important and, given the large number of members of the Public Accounts Committee who have spoken, a well informed debate. However, it is worth saying that it has been a long time coming. It is six months since Paul Van Buitenen revealed the scale of the fraud within the European Commission. It is two months since the report of the committee of independent experts, which led to the resignation of the entire Commission.
  Immediately following the report's publication, my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), the shadow Leader of the House, asked for a debate on the report and on the whole question of European fraud. He repeated that request the following week. However, only now—eight weeks later and in Opposition time—are we finally debating the matter. That is perhaps an indication of the importance that the Government attach to tackling European fraud.
  There has always been a problem with fraud and mismanagement in the European budget. The previous Government repeatedly grappled with that problem. Our task was not made easier by the fact that most member states did not have to pay anything into the European budget, and so appeared to show little interest in ensuring that it was properly spent, but, despite that, considerable progress was made.
  As a result of British pressure, the Court of Auditors was established as a full institution of the Community and its reports had to be followed up. British pressure forced the Commission to agree to produce an annual report on the fight against fraud for the Council of Ministers and led to the strengthening of the Court of Auditors and the financial controls exercised by the European Parliament under the Maastricht treaty.
  The most recent Court of Auditors report is unable to account for £3 billion of expenditure. Not all of that is necessarily due to fraud; maladministration, mismanagement and incompetence are undoubtedly also responsible. However, that figure represents almost half the amount that Britain contributed to the European budget in the year in question. It is money that British taxpayers worked hard to earn and to pay, and they are entitled to demand that action is taken.
  1118
  Unfortunately, little has been done in the past two years. Despite Ministers' claims that fighting fraud would be a key priority of the British presidency, virtually nothing was achieved. No mention was made of any concrete action in the relevant section of the presidency conclusions following the Cardiff summit. Since then, the Government have never once put fraud and mismanagement in the European Commission on the Council of Ministers agenda. The Chief Secretary talked about the Government's attitude being zero tolerance of fraud. We have seen zero action on fraud.
  Dr. Nick Palmer: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whittingdale: I will not, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me. I have only a short time in which to make my winding-up speech.
  In the 1999 preliminary draft budget, overall expenditure on preventing fraud was cut by 16 per cent. To take one sector, the draft budget line showed a reduction from 500,000 euros to 495,000 euros in expenditure on combating fraud in the textile sector. Meanwhile, restaurants and canteens received more than 1 million euros. But the real scandal relates to the fraud and mismanagement that is taking place in the Commission itself.
  I pay tribute to Conservative MEPs and, in particular, Edward McMillan-Scott, who has been campaigning on this issue for many years. The hon. Members for North Durham (Mr. Radice) and for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) referred to the scandal of what had been going on in the tourism office. Edward McMillan-Scott first drew attention to it in 1990, and in 1995, when he was fed up with the lack of action being taken, he called in the Belgian fraud squad to investigate.
  For a long time, Conservative MEPs' warnings were ignored. It was not until Commission official Mr. Paul Van Buitenen blew the whistle that something was finally done. However, when he first reported his findings to the Secretary-General of the Commission, he was told that he would be sacked if he passed his report on to the European Parliament. When he did so, he was immediately suspended.
  Although the Commission was prepared to cover up the evidence, the Parliament was not. Given that evidence, it is hardly surprising that the Parliament voted to refuse to approve the 1996 budget. The hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) seemed to suggest that Pauline Green and Labour MEPs were somehow responsible for that, but the vote was carried in the teeth of opposition from Labour MEPs.
  According to The Guardian, Labour MEPs were put under intense pressure by the Prime Minister to,
  "let the Commission off the hook".
  We know that the right hon. Gentleman wrote personally to Pauline Green to give her her orders, although he has refused to publish that letter.
  The German socialist spokesman on the budget committee resigned in disgust at the attempts of the British Labour group to protect the Commission.

  1119
  According to Pauline Green, the group even went so far as to table a motion of censure of the whole Commission and then say that it would vote against, to
  "demonstrate our confidence in the Commission".
  Mr. Geraint Davies: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Whittingdale: No, I have very little time in which to speak.
  When a vote was taken, all but two British Conservatives voted in favour of the motion and 53 British Labour MEPs voted against. No wonder Mr. Van Buitenen said that he was disappointed by the attitude of the socialist group and, in particular, Pauline Green. He said:
  "she seems to support the Commission; perhaps they have a higher agenda in the Euro or what".
  The report of the committee of independent experts, which was published last March, is a devastating document. It talks of fraud and corruption passing unnoticed at the level of Commissioners themselves and of loss of control by the political authorities over the administration that they are supposedly running. It also states that there is a heavy responsibility for the Commissioners individually and the Commission as a whole. Faced with such a damning indictment, the Commission had no alternative but to resign.
  Extraordinarily, eight weeks later, the Commissioners are all still at their desks and behaving as if nothing at all had happened. When they finally go, they will collect substantial pay-offs at public expense. Meanwhile, Mr. Van Buitenen has been moved into a new job in the personnel department. It is outrageous that certain individual Commissioners such as Edith Cresson were not instantly sacked in disgrace, and Conservative MEPs are quite right to refuse to co-operate with her in any way.
  Although most Commissioners are not personally guilty, the entire Commission is discredited. The only way to restore credibility is for them to leave their offices immediately and for no Commissioner to be reappointed beyond his term. The Commission should stop trying to extend its power ever wider and should concentrate on doing properly the things it should be doing. Part of the reason why fraud and mismanagement have been allowed to grow unchecked is that the Commission has closed its eyes to everything that does not further its aim of creating a federal state. Its only interest has been to spend more money, not to spend money more efficiently.
  Our view is that Europe needs to do less, but to do it better. That is why we have proposed a 10-point plan to root out fraud and maladministration, and why we want a genuinely independent and powerful anti-fraud office. As my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) made absolutely clear, what is on the table at the moment does not involve genuine independence.
  Conservative MEPs have been campaigning for such changes for many years. Labour MEPs, on the other hand, have seemed to be more interested in covering up fraud and protecting the Commission. That is perhaps less surprising when we look at their record of waste and abuse of public money. A few weeks ago, we learned how careful the leader of the socialist group is with public money when it was revealed that she had arranged that she could claim travel expenses for attending a wedding in Cyprus.
  1120
  Today, we have heard that former Labour leader Glyn Ford used his office expenses allowance to pay for his laundry, his decorating, his gardening and even his log cutting. According to his former assistant, his house became a hotel paid for by the Parliament, but because of the absurd electoral system introduced by the Government, he will probably be re-elected next month and his electors cannot even vote against him if they want to. If the Government are serious about cracking down on that kind of abuse, the Minister should make it clear now that Glyn Ford will not be a candidate at the elections next month.
  Fraud and mismanagement are endemic throughout the European budget and extend right to the heart of the Commission itself. Conservative MEPs have campaigned over many years to tackle the problem and we have produced a concrete programme of action to achieve that. The Government have done almost nothing, while their supporters in the European Parliament have done their best to sweep the problem under the carpet. I ask the House to support the motion.
  6.50 pm
  The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): As one normally says on these occasions—and it is true in this case—this has been a good debate with some good contributions from Labour Members. The speech by the hon. Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) was astonishing, because it fully demonstrated the collective amnesia of Conservative Members. I am grateful for the excellent contribution of the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells (Mr. Norman), because he reminded us that fraud has been going on in the European Union for a considerable time. What did the Conservative party do when it was in government? Very little indeed. I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells for giving me the opportunity publicly to thank him for his remarks on the Budget. He said that it was not a bad Budget for business. I always like to give thanks where thanks are due.
  The Government believe that there should be zero tolerance of fraud, which is why the Prime Minister has called for a root-and-branch reform of the Commission. We have put this matter at the top of our agenda. One of our key priorities is financial management reform to ensure better lines of responsibility and personal accountability at all levels and to improve transparency. That important point was raised by members of the Public Accounts Committee.
  Other key priorities are the modernisation of personnel policy to ensure a flexible, high-quality service, and the establishment of a management structure that will deliver an effective and flexible service, including in particular a wide review of the present structure of directorates-general and mechanisms for adjusting to changing priorities. None of those measures were taken by the Conservative party when it was in power. Improving contracting, project monitoring and evaluation procedures are other priorities.
  It is important that the initiative set out by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor at January's ECOFIN meeting has met with such approval. Hon. Members have spoken about the fraud prevention office, which my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary outlined. It will have a strong, independent head with statutory protection from

  1121
  dismissal, who will be appointed after consultation with the Council and the European Parliament. The head will be able to open investigations on his own initiative, will have access to buildings and documents, will be able to draw up reports containing recommendations for follow-up action, and will report regularly. That initiative has come from our Government. I expected to receive the congratulations of Conservative Members: I was sadly disappointed and let down when they were not offered.
  In the time left, I shall deal with some of the points raised. My hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) asked whether the fraud office's reports will be available for debate in Westminster. That is an important point, and the answer is yes. Reports from the fraud office to the Council and the European Parliament will form part of our parliamentary scrutiny process. All hon. Members know how vigorous that process is, and we are looking forward to that happening.
  The hon. Members for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) and for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) asked whether the fraud prevention office will be able to arrest fraudsters. Only national and judicial police authorities have such powers, but it is planned to give the fraud prevention office powers to investigate and to pass on the results of its investigations. That is analogous with our National Audit Office.
  My hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg) rightly gave some important examples, about which we share his concern. He also referred to structural funds. The United Kingdom has been concerned about that area, which is why we not only obtained a very good deal for the UK in the negotiations on structural funds but negotiated—especially during our presidency—procedures to deal with the funds. When I had the pleasure to be a Minister at the Department of Trade and Industry I took part in a conference organised in conjunction with the National Audit Office to examine this important area.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Campbell) made an important point about the need for a new culture of accountability. He is absolutely right, and we are determined to achieve that. I was also delighted to hear the contribution of the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, who reminded us of what the Prime Minister said.
  The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) spoke about the European Union, and I was a little disappointed in what he had to say. I should have thought that he would congratulate the Government on the excellent deal that we obtained for the United Kingdom in the Agenda 2000 negotiations. Once again, I feel let down by Conservative Members.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) made a measured speech. His analysis of the problem was good, and he made some sensible, practical suggestions for reform. We have been working with the Commission on phase 3 of the "sound and efficient management 2000" initiative, which has resulted in welcome reforms.
  The hon. Member for Tunbridge Wells referred to the development budget. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State shares his concerns and is monitoring the situation closely. The hon. Gentleman made a good joke
  1122
  or a bad joke, depending on one's preferences. I thought that it was not bad at all, so I must break ranks with my hon. Friends who said that it was.
  It is a bit rich for the Conservative party to initiate this debate. Let me remind Conservatives of what they have done. They initiated this debate, but what did their MEPs do? The Tory MEPs voted against producing receipts for MEPs' expenses. They voted against a wage cut for British MEPs. I know this will shock my hon. Friends, but I must tell them that Tory MEPs opposed the panel of fraud busters that forced the Commission to resign. I am sorry that Conservative Members are not taking this matter seriously, because this strikes me as an indictment of the record of Tory MEPs.
  In January last year, Edward McMillan-Scott, the leader of the Conservative party in Europe, refused Labour MEP Alan Donnelly's invitation to take a cross-party approach to investigating fraud allegations in the European Commission.
  Mr. Maude: This is a serious matter.
  Mrs. Roche: I agree, and it is a great pity that Tory MEPs did not take it seriously. I shall remind the right hon. Gentleman of a fact that his hon. Friends did not mention. Spending on specific anti-fraud measures in the 1999 budget is 4 million euros higher than in the 1997 budget, which was agreed in late-1996 and negotiated by the Conservatives.
  I am not surprised that there is a division between Conservative MPs and MEPs. After all, as Edward McMillan-Scott, their leader, said:
  "Neither I—nor other Parliamentarians—are bound by Shadow Cabinet responsibility."
  What an indictment. That shows a party that is split from top to bottom.
  Much more needs to be done. I can reassure the House that the Government will be working with the new Commission, and with its new President, to ensure that the root-and-branch reform outlined by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is achieved, and I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends will back the Government wholeheartedly in that endeavour.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 178, Noes 326.

  Division No. 185]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Brazier, Julian

  Amess, David

  Breed, Colin

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Burnett, John

  Baker, Norman

  Burns, Simon

  Ballard, Jackie

  Butterfill, John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Bercow, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Body, Sir Richard

  (NE Fife)

  Boswell, Tim

  Cash, William

  Bottomley, Peter Worthing W

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Brady, Graham

  Chidgey, David

  Brake, Tom

  Chope, Christopher

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Clappison, James

  1123

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Collins, Tim

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Colvin, Michael

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Malins, Humfrey

  Cotter, Brian

  Maples, John

  Gran, James

  Mates, Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Day, Stephen

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Duncan, Alan

  Moore, Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Evans, Nigel

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Faber, David

  Norman, Archie

  Fabricant, Michael

  Oaten, Mark

  Fallon, Michael

  Öpik, Lembit

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Ottaway, Richard

  Flight, Howard

  Page, Richard

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Paice, James

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Paterson, Owen

  Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

  Pickles, Eric

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Prior, David

  Fraser, Christopher

  Randall, John

  Gale, Roger

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Garnier, Edward

  Rendel, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gill, Christopher

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Gray, James

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Green, Damian

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Greenway, John

  Sanders, Adrian

  Grieve, Dominic

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Shepherd, Richard

  Hague, Rt Hon William

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

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Soames, Nicholas

  Hammond, Philip

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Hancock, Mike

  Spring, Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Harvey, Nick

  Streeter, Gary

  Hawkins, Nick

  Stunell, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Swayne, Desmond

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Syms, Robert

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Horam, John

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Townend, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Trend, Michael

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Tyler, Paul

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Viggers, Peter

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Walter, Robert

  Kennedy, Charles (Ross Skye)

  Wardle, Charles

  Key, Robert

  Waterson, Nigel

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Webb, Steve

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Wells, Bowen

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Whittingdale, John

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Lansley, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Leigh, Edward

  Willetts, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Willis, Phil

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Wilshire, David

  Lidington, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Yeo, Tim

  Livsey, Richard

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Loughton, Tim

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Sir David Madel and

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

  1124

  NOES

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Ainger, Nick

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Alexander, Douglas

  Darvill, Keith

  Allen, Graham

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Davidson, Ian

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Dawson, Hilton

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Barnes, Harry

  Denham, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Battle, John

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Bayley, Hugh

  Dowd, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Drew, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Edwards, Huw

  Benton, Joe

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Berry, Roger

  Ennis, Jeff

  Best, Harold

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Borrow, David

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gapes, Mike

  Brown, Rt Hon Gordon

  Gardiner, Barry

  (Dunfermline E)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Browne, Desmond

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burden, Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burgon, Colin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gunnell, John

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Hanson, David

  Cawsey, Ian

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chaytor, David

  Healey, John

  Clapham, Michael

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hill, Keith

  Clelland, David

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hoey, Kate

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Coleman, Iain

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Colman, Tony

  Hope, Phil

  Connarty, Michael

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Corbett, Robin

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cousins, Jim

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Cox, Tom

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hurst, Alan

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hutton, John

  Cummings, John

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Illsley, Eric

  (Copeland)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  1125

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Merron, Gillian

  Jamieson, David

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Miller, Andrew

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Moffatt, Laura

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Mullin, Chris

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Norris, Dan

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Kemp, Fraser

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Khabra, Piara S

  Olner, Bill

  Kidney, David

  O'Neill, Martin

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Pearson, Ian

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Pendry, Tom

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Pickthall, Colin

  Leslie, Christopher

  Pike, Peter L

  Levitt, Tom

  Plaskitt, James

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Pond, Chris

  Linton, Martin

  Pope, Greg

  Livingstone, Ken

  Pound, Stephen

  Love, Andrew

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  McCabe, Steve

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Primarolo, Dawn

  (Makerfield)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Macdonald, Calum

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McDonnell, John

  Rammell, Bill

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Rapson, Syd

  McIsaac, Shona

  Raynsford, Nick

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  MacShane, Denis

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McWalter, Tony

  Rooker, Jeff

  McWilliam, John

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Rowlands, Ted

  Mallaber, Judy

  Roy, Frank

  Mendelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Ruane, Chris

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Salter, Martin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Martlew, Eric

  Savidge, Malcolm

  1126

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Sheerman, Barry

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Tipping, Paddy

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Todd, Mark

  Singh, Marsha

  Touhig, Don

  Skinner, Dennis

  Trickett, Jon

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford)

  Truswell, Paul

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Vaz, Keith

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Soley, Clive

  Wareing, Robert N

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Watts, David

  Speller, John

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  (Swansea W)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stevenson, George

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Winnick, David

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Wise, Audrey

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wood, Mike

  Stott, Roger

  Worthington, Tony

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Stringer, Graham

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Mr. Kevin Hughes and

  (Dewsbury)

  Jane Kennedy.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the efforts of the Government to work with fellow Member States and European institutions to crack down on fraud against the EU budget; notes the real practical progress made in this regard by the Government during the United Kingdom Presidency of the EU; welcomes the Chancellor's initiative for a strong head of fraud investigations heading an independent fraud prevention office; welcomes the role played by Labour MEPs in securing the establishment of the Committee of Independent Experts; joins the Government in calling for recent events to be used as an opportunity for root and branch reform of the Commission; calls on Romano Prodi, following his recent nomination as President-elect of the European Commission, to place the fight against fraud at the top of the new Commission's agenda; and believes that the only way of reforming Europe is the Government's strong leadership and constructive engagement rather than the Opposition's weak leadership, division and isolationism.

  NHS Personnel
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I should advise the House that the Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  7.14 pm
  Miss Ann Widdecombe: I beg to move,
  That this House notes the proposal of Her Majesty's Government to raise the agreed working hours of junior doctors to 65 per week; notes also its failure to deliver to nurses the pay increases which were promised to be implemented in full from April 1999; notes further the anxiety and disappointment caused to consultants by its failure to implement the recommendations of the Pay Review Body; notes the concerns of Professions Allied to Medicine; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise that increased expectations followed by disappointment have profoundly damaged morale among loyal and hardworking NHS staff.
  I suspect that many doctors and many nurses may have been deceived into voting for the present Government at the last election. They were promised more recruitment, shorter hours, better pay, less pressure and shorter waiting lists. They have been cruelly disappointed because the reality is that, today, morale among all who work in our health service is at an all-time low. Labour has milked dry the efforts of our doctors and nurses.
  We all remember Labour's extravagant promises before the elections—empty pledges, unconcerned with where the new doctors and new nurses would come from, and with how to solve the problems of recruitment and retention. The hard-working majority in our health service expected those promises to be delivered. Their hopes were raised. They thought then, even if they know better now, that they could trust Labour to deliver. They did not believe that, once the Government had won their own not so hard-working majority, the magic wand would disappear and the only thing that would remain would be the glib quest for easy solutions and tomorrow's headlines.
  It is hard to blame those people for being deceived. Imagine being a young nurse three or four years ago and hearing an Opposition spokesman criticising the Government over nurse's pay, saying:
  "Flattening the pay of nurses and other staff is no way to run the Health Service."
  That Opposition spokesman was the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). Six months after the election, the right hon. Gentleman, by then the Minister of State, Department of Health was arguing:
  "Any settlement for nurses … at below the level of current inflation would not imply a real pay cut."
  If that is not Labour hypocrisy, if it is not all hype and no delivery, what is? How disillusioning for our nurses: they were promised so much and, within so little time, badly let down.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: Would my right hon. Friend be surprised to learn that it is not just nurses who feel betrayed by the Labour party and the Labour Government? Has she read the report in Hospital Doctor magazine, which says:
  "Eighty per cent. of specialist registrars are now planning to leave the national health service"?
  1128
  Is she surprised to learn that, in Staffordshire and the west midlands, people are becoming very disturbed by the huge influx of Egyptian and other consultants who do not speak adequate English, replacing English doctors who have left the NHS?
  Miss Widdecombe: I am not surprised, but extremely saddened. That is symptomatic of a situation that has been created by a Government who, in opposition, promised anything to anyone whenever they thought that it might curry cheap favour.
  I wonder, for example, what progress the Secretary of State for Health is making on Labour's pledge to set up pilot schemes under which savings from reduced staff turnover would be used to pay extra money to nurses who decide to stay longer in their jobs. For that matter, I wonder whether he even remembers it. I will not altogether blame him if he does not because he has a memory problem.
  The Secretary of State did not remember the Prime Minister's pledge to set up a task force on trolleys, so I admit that the chances of his recalling the random utterances of the right hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith) are probably non-existent. However, I do not think that the nurses have forgotten. They have not forgotten how Labour boasted of its plans to recruit thousands more nurses, although they probably did not expect the interviews to take place in Manila. I am certain that they have not forgotten the Secretary of State's wild boasts about this year's pay award.
  To be charitable, I suppose the Secretary of State finally believed that he had something to boast about. There had been all those promises of more pay for nurses before the election, all those Labour spokesmen calling the phasing of pay awards a "deception" and a "betrayal", only to find that, once in government, reality has a nasty habit of biting. It bites smug Labour spokesmen where it hurts.
  We all remember that one of the Government's first actions was to stage Labour's first pay award to nurses. The Secretary of State must finally have thought that things were turning out all right. Unfortunately, he allowed his sanctimony to get in the way of the facts.
  We welcomed the pay settlement in February, but we did so under the impression that it was going into nurses' pockets. I thought that that was the idea. However, we are now learning that trusts up and down the country are failing to give nurses their money. What is more, they are telling staff that they "have not received authorisation" to pass on the cash.
  Mr. Fabricant: The Secretary of State is laughing.
  Miss Widdecombe: Laughter is often a hysterical defence when things are going wrong.
  Mr. Andrew Lansley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, at Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency—where some 1,300 qualified nurses are employed—the pay award not only was not paid in April but, by reason of the Government's lateness in distributing the circular, will not be paid in May? It will not be paid, at best, until the end of June.
  Miss Widdecombe: That is a betrayal. What on earth is going on? Let us leave aside the fact that the Secretary

  1129
  of State had to raid his modernisation fund to foot the bill for the pay settlement, and then asked the trusts to stump up the rest. Let us leave aside the fact that only one in 15 nurses will receive the higher level of pay settlement. I suppose that I could be persuaded to leave aside the fact, verified by the House of Commons Library, that even after the remaining 14 out of 15 nurses have got their hands on some money—not in April or May, possibly in June—they will still be £53 worse off under this Government than at the time of the last election.
  It is a disgrace that the Secretary of State has allowed a pay award—for which he attempted to take so much personal credit, of which he boasted through every newspaper and media outlet that he could find and about which he swaggered in this House when he announced it—to disappear into some form of nether region for which no one seems to have any responsibility.
  It is no good, as the Secretary of State has done yet again, just to palm the blame off on to the trusts and to threaten sackings right, left and centre—like he did over waiting lists and the winter crisis, and like he still does over rationing, which he denies exists.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in the Guild trust, Preston, today, three non-executive directors were dismissed from their posts? Their crime was to whistleblow on the management of their own trust, which led to the suspension of the chief executive and the resignation of the chairman. Their reward was to be told either to resign or that they would be sacked. Today, they were sacked. What message does that send to non-executive directors up and down the country who may find out about mismanagement in their trusts? Will they be rewarded by the Secretary of State for Health with dismissal?
  Miss Widdecombe: It is ironic—perhaps it is not ironic; perhaps it is totally to be expected—that that is the action of a Secretary of State who, after the scandal at Bristol, said that whistleblowers would always be protected. He does not protect whistleblowers—he protects his own cronies and himself.
  I was talking about how the Secretary of State is always tempted, and always gives in to the temptation, to palm the blame off on to trusts, as he has done over the massive waiting list to get on to the waiting list—a list that has doubled to almost 500,000 since the Government came to power. He seems to treat our health service as if those in it were some sort of underfootmen. He has all the power and shouts the odds, but they have all the responsibility and are told to get out if they complain.
  Why does not the Secretary of State accept some responsibility for the situation that he has helped to create? Will he guarantee right now that any nurses who have not received their April pay settlement in full, as he promised they would, will be traced right away and fully compensated? While he is about that, perhaps he would like to apologise. I have to say that, with this Health Secretary, we are more likely to see him escaping over the top of the millennium dome than admitting that he has made a mistake. However, I hope that he is in an apologetic mood, because that is by no means the end of the problems that he has caused to morale in our health service.
  1130
  The recommendation of the independent pay review body was that a pool of some £50 million should be found as a means of compensating consultants for their work load. After the pay review body reported, the Government—who boasted that they were implementing the recommendations of the pay review body—did not implement that recommendation. In a panic when the motion was tabled, I gather that the Secretary of State had a meeting, and that he is trying to stave them off with vague promises—but, as yet, still no settlement.
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): As the £50 million is to be disbursed, according to the review body, not in this financial year but in the next financial year, how could we have implemented it this year?
  Miss Widdecombe: The Secretary of State could simply have said that he accepted that recommendation and would implement it. Had he done so, the consultants would not have been so upset, and they and the British Medical Association would not have been putting out statements saying that the Government had let them down. They would have had to say that the Government were acting in tune with the review body.
  The Secretary of State has a problem. It is not that the Opposition are saying these things—it is the health service personnel who are saying these things. It is they who are thoroughly disillusioned, fed up and demoralised by what the Government are doing. Is it surprising that a survey last year showed not only that morale in the health service was at an all-time low, but that only four in 100 health service employees saw a long-term future in their jobs?
  Nowhere is that more important than for our junior doctors. Our new deal for junior doctors was an enormous success. In 1991, six out of 10 junior doctors were still working more than 83 hours per week. By the time of the last election, two in 10 were working more than 56 hours a week. There was still work to do, and we said that. However, we had got those substantial results and we were moving in the right direction.
  This Government are moving in a different direction. They are not content with milking our doctors and nurses dry over the winter; they are not content with shipping in 1,000 overseas juniors to work unpaid in posts that would normally pay £30,000 a year. Now, the Government want our junior doctors to agree to work for 65 hours a week for the next 15 years.
  It is difficult to be surprised, given the record of the Government. After all, they are happy to use the tactics of fiddle and fudge. They conned the BBC into misleading the public and exaggerating basic junior doctors' pay by £10,000. Significantly, it was not the Government who apologised, but the BBC who had been misled.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when we were reducing the number of hours that junior doctors worked, providing more junior doctor posts and resources and improving the management of the use of junior doctors, it was done with Ministers very involved in the process on a regular basis—including, as I had, regular meetings with the leaders of junior doctors? Is not part of the

  1131
  disgrace now not just that the Government are reneging on those arrangements and trying to drive the hours up again, but that Ministers disdain to have the involvement with junior doctors which characterised our time in office and helped to produce the excellent results?
  Miss Widdecombe: Indeed, but this is a highly arrogant Government who dismiss the very people on whom they have to rely. We should not be surprised when this arrogant Government try to pass off an increase of nine hours a week for 15 years as a reduction in junior doctors' working hours. Perhaps the Secretary of State should try it himself. If he had to work hundreds of hours more, we might start to get some results in our health service, although on the evidence of the past two years, perhaps we should encourage him to take a long time off instead.
  Mr. John Bercow: My right hon. Friend referred to the way in which the Government misrepresented the position on the doctors' pay rise. Does she recall that that misrepresentation is based on the premise of junior doctors working not 56 hours a week, as the Government claim, but 72 hours a week? Does she fear that perhaps the Government have another agenda, for even longer hours, of which we have hitherto not been informed?
  Miss Widdecombe: There is no iniquity that I would not fear from the Government.
  The evidence is abundantly clear. We have the Brussels document. Despite his virtual denial in the House, the Secretary of State cannot deny that the UK has proposed that junior doctors' working time threshold should be raised to 65 hours a week. How did he get out of it? He told the House that he never proposed that to the EU Commission. He did not, because it was in fact proposed to the EU Council. That shows the weaselly depths to which the Government will stoop.
  If the Secretary of State had been at all concerned about junior doctors' working hours, Labour Members could have voted with us and with the Liberal Democrats last week in Committee to write the current limits into the Health Bill. If he has no problem with the current limits and does not intend to exceed them, what harm would there have been in writing them into the Bill?
  Let us consider the Brussels document, which the Secretary of State tried to deny; the 72 hours on which he calculated the "basic" rate of pay; and the refusal to write 56 hours into the Health Bill. Adding up those three, one need not have a very suspicious mind to work out what the agenda is likely to be.
  The Secretary of State never misses a chance to blame our doctors when a tragedy occurs but he is much less concerned with getting to the root of the problems. Take the massive manpower crisis in obstetrics. Hundreds of qualified doctors are fighting for a handful of consultant posts in that specialty, but the Health Bill lacks the detail needed to handle manpower planning issues.
  By 2001 there will be 500 obstetricians chasing only 50 consultant posts a year. Hospital Doctor magazine has campaigned for a solution to that problem, which could result in hundreds of doctors leaving the profession. My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Mr. Fabricant) said earlier that, according to one survey, 80 per cent.
  1132
  of specialist registrars in obstetrics plan to leave the health service as a result of the Government's incompetence.
  We can ill afford to lose those doctors, given that the 7,000 alleged extra doctors about whom the Secretary of State has boasted are actually the ones who were planned to come through medical school in any case and are not extra at all. Those doctors will have to be supplemented by yet more imports, yet the Government failed to support our amendments to the Health Bill, which would have allowed the Secretary of State to make regulations on manpower planning.
  Had the Secretary of State swallowed his pride—Which is considerable—and supported us, he could have had the powers to sort out the problems at source. Instead, he has told doctors that he will not back an NHS Executive consultant expansion plan; yet he still tells us that we will get more doctors.
  The problem is most forcefully put by Fiona Kew of the British Medical Association junior doctors committee. She says:
  "Babies and mothers die because there is not enough consultant input into their care. This is an ideal opportunity to use these specialists to improve the care of women in pregnancy… but the DoH refuse to provide more consultant posts."
  Instead, the Government's fudge—taking five years through a series of pilot programmes—makes it appear as though the Secretary of State is simply pulling the covers over his head and hoping that the problems will go away—a bit like a child hiding from a nasty monster—but they do not go away.
  All those problems have a huge impact on staff morale, yet the Government, who are directly responsible for increasing expectations then bringing them crashing down, seem unable or unwilling to act.
  Mr. David Hinchliffe: I have given the right hon. Lady prior notice of my question on at least four separate occasions in previous debates, but I have yet to get an answer. We are all aware of the shortages of doctors, consultants and nurses. The only policy that she has proposed in this Parliament for her vision of health has been to make more and more use of the private sector. We all know that the private sector recruits primarily from the health service. Her model would denude the health service of staff, who are already in short supply. What is her answer to that conundrum? I cannot make head or tail of the logic of her policy. She says that she is concerned about staff shortages, but her proposal would make the situation far, far worse.
  Miss Widdecombe: The hon. Gentleman cannot understand my policy because his own economics are those of the madhouse. In the public sector, the NHS bears the cost of training, recruitment, treatment, capital buildings, theatres, support staff and everything else. In the private sector, the NHS has contributed only the cost of training and all the rest is spent by outside sources. That is a big net addition that the NHS would otherwise have to find.
  If we found it feasible to recommend a substantial expansion of the use of private resources, I would have no difficulty at all in expecting the private sector to take

  1133
  some responsibility for training, and representatives of that sector have told me that they agree. I have never believed in a one-way flow.
  Mr. Hinchliffe: Will the right hon. Lady read the transcript of the Health Committee proceedings on the current inquiry into the regulation of private medicine and focus on the questions asked by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) and my follow-up questions? She will see that when the private sector is asked where it gets its staff, the answer, every time, is the national health service.
  Miss Widdecombe: Yes, and one can bet that some of those staff are the obstetricians whom the NHS has trained but cannot find posts for. Would the hon. Gentleman prefer those obstetricians to leave the health care profession altogether rather than taking their training into the private sector, which is bailing out the Government on waiting lists?
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Does my right hon. Friend think that one of the reasons why people go to work for the private sector may be that they get the pay increases that they are promised, while the Secretary of State promises increases but does not give them?
  Miss Widdecombe: It goes without saying that if the private sector ran itself as the Secretary of State runs the NHS, it would soon have no personnel at all. We have supported not only the doctors, nurses and consultants but the professions allied to medicine. Unlike the Secretary of State, we do not forget the contribution that they make. We have been supporting their campaign for better self-regulation through amendments in the Health Bill.
  It would be encouraging—although I do not expect to be encouraged—if the Secretary of State would acknowledge the responsible debate in another place on trying to get better protection for those professions. I ask him to go a little bit further—although, as I say, I expect no encouragement—and agree to our amendments that would ensure that professions allied to medicine were judged by their peers on issues such as discipline and education. We also want provision in the Health Bill for protection of title. If he would agree to those amendments, it would be a fitting acknowledgement of the dedication shown by those professions in the work that they do in our health service.
  While the Secretary of State is about it, he could go further and guarantee that no services provided by professions allied to medicine will be lost as a result of the creation of primary care trusts and the diversion of millions of pounds from patient care into extra bureaucracy and superannuation contributions. He will be aware that one of the great strengths of fundholding was the use that fundholding doctors made of professions allied to medicine in giving their patients an integrated health care service. He is nodding; he agrees. I am grateful for that.
  Will the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that demonstrably, not just in theory, some of those services have been lost as a result of the destruction of fundholding and the creation of patient care groups?
  Helen Jones: We would all accept that there is a need to regulate a number of professions
  1134
  working within the health service. Can the right hon. Lady explain why when in 1989 a report from the NHS management executive recommended a statutory system of regulation for operating department practitioners, who had sought regulation for many years, the Conservative Government did nothing about it?
  Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to go and look at the new clause that we have just tabled. I am sure that she has not yet caught up with it.
  Dr. Howard Stoate rose—
  Miss Widdecombe: I have given way generously, and now I want to make some progress. I may give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  One contribution that the Government are determined not to make is to reward NHS staff for working on the millennium new year's eve. What better opportunity could there be to demonstrate that the Government can still be bothered to care about the welfare of our doctors and nurses? Although the right hon. Gentleman may bear more than a passing resemblance to Father Christmas, to our doctors and nurses he behaves like Ebenezer Scrooge.
  The Secretary of State has ruled out paying doctors extra money over the millennium new year, and is trying to discourage trusts from making their own good-will payments. Doctors have estimated that for working on millennium night they will be paid £4.02 an hour. I suppose that that is a bit better than the minimum wage.
  To meet his ridiculous waiting list pledge, and to bail him out of a dreadful winter crisis, the right hon. Gentleman has drawn heavily on the bank of good will among health service workers, and that account is now slipping into the red. He has argued that trusts should show their appreciation on millennium night by providing transport and hot food. He has made much of his cleverly wrapped 50th birthday present to our health service, but it seems that his millennium gift to the hard-working staff is to be a limp sausage roll, a glass of flat beer and a taxi ride home.
  I am not saying, have never said, and would never say, that every last wish of every doctor or nurse must be, or even could be, met, but at the very least the right hon. Gentleman should stop exerting his power to prevent trusts from offering what they feel is right and decent to their loyal and hard-working staff. He often palms responsibility off on to trusts, so if they want to make that gesture, they believe that they can afford it and it is one of their priorities, they should be allowed to do so.
  Anything less would be a slap in the face, just like the slap in the face he has given to our doctors—fundholding doctors who have now been dragooned into collectives, losing flexibility and the services that meant so much to their patients. It would be like the slap in the face that he has given to our nurses, who were told first that their pay award would not be staged, but then that it was, and secondly that they would get all the money in April, but then that they would not get it until June at the earliest. Many of them are worse off than when the Government came to power. Fourteen out of 15 of them do not benefit from the higher levels of pay, and the so-called recruitment consists of importing staff, which may have a role to play, but which certainly will not solve all the problems.

  1135
  The Secretary of State has not only given staff a slap in the face, he has thrown a bath of icy cold water over them. They expected so much, and have been given so little by a Government who have consistently been more bothered about political control than patient care. The Government care only about the next day's headlines; they never finish the job. Where are the super-nurses? Does the House remember those? I do not think that even the nurses themselves remember them. A pledge was given but nothing was delivered. Concerning the trolley task force, too, a pledge was given but nothing was delivered.
  The Secretary of State makes pledges all the time, but he delivers nothing—except for junior doctors, whose conditions he is making worse. He is delivering longer hours, fiddled pay figures, longer waiting lists, third-world recruitment, more pressure, and a promise that if staff do not like it, there is always a new deal officer waiting to sign them up for another half-baked Labour scheme.
  Does the right hon. Gentleman remember how he had the gall to say, "Let those who are despairing get out of the health service, because I do not want them there." Now he is giving that message to the overwhelming majority of health service workers, who have been told to knuckle down, shut up, work harder, work longer, stop complaining, stop expecting and thank new Labour for the new NHS. The right hon. Gentleman has failed to deliver every promise, and every worker in our health service has been failed.
  Before I finish, I will let the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) intervene.
  Dr. Stoate: The right hon. Lady professes to be concerned about the plight of the professions allied to medicine. I certainly am, because I have worked with many dedicated and hard-working scientific officers, pharmacists, clinical psychologists, cytologists, phlebotomists and others. Can she tell me why, 15 years ago, the Conservative Government took that group out of the scope of the pay review body, thus allowing their pay to fall by 30 per cent. in real terms? That group of people are in such a parlous state now because of the actions of the previous Government.
  Miss Widdecombe: I believe that the hon. Gentleman is genuinely concerned about the professions allied to medicine. He made a distinguished speech on Second Reading—so distinguished that the Government made jolly sure that they did not put him on the Standing Committee on the Health Bill, because that speech was not 100 per cent. loyal. He, too, has been failed by the Government.
  The Government have failed the health service, as well as the doctors, the nurses, the professions allied to medicine and, above all, the patients—the British people, who were fooled by the Government saying before the election that there was nothing wrong with the health service apart from the fact that there was a Tory Government, and that they could put it all right.
  The Government have not put it all right. The health service is now worse than ever in terms of morale and what the funding is expected to cover, in terms of winter crises, the use of trolleys and just about everything else I could mention. They have given us not a better health service but a worse health service.
  1136
  The Secretary of State seems to think that that is funny. He either looks in another direction, like somebody following a Wimbledon tennis match, because he cannot face me, or he falls about with laughter, to hide the shame that any decent Secretary of State would feel in his position. I believe that come the next election, the Government's treatment of the health service will guarantee that they will not be in office for long.
  7.49 pm
  The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Frank Dobson): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  "recognises and applauds the massive contribution the staff make to providing the fairest and most efficient healthcare system in the world; regrets the shambles in the NHS that the Government inherited which was demoralising to staff and damaging to patients; welcomes the action the new Government has taken to make things better for staff and patients alike, including £21 billion extra for the NHS over the next three years, record capital investment in new buildings, equipment and facilities to enable the staff to provide top-quality care, the biggest real-terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years paid nationally in full, proposals for radical pay reform to give fairer rewards to staff who extend their roles, widen their skills and work in teams to care for patients, negotiations on a new consultants' contract to ensure rewards go to those who contribute most to the NHS, ambitious targets to improve the quality of the working lives of NHS staff, including tough action to crack down on violence and racism at work, the promotion of family-friendly employment policies and investment in training and continuing professional development; welcomes the Government's commitment to reducing junior doctors' hours in line with the draft European Working Time Directive vehemently opposed by the Conservative Party and carefully planned so as not to damage improvements in patient care; and accepts no lectures about conditions of service for NHS personnel from a Party that did more in Government to demoralise the staff than any other in living memory and which spends most of its time in Opposition running down the achievements of the NHS staff and saying the Health Service can no longer cope."
  The speech we have just heard, and this whole debate initiated by the Tories, is one of the biggest exercises in barefaced cheek that has been seen even in this Chamber. It does, however, provide us with an opportunity to remind people of the state of the national health service that we inherited, and the action we have been taking to put things right.
  The Tories left behind them a health service underfunded, understaffed and undermined, with a demoralised and undervalued work force. They had introduced an internal market, which set doctor against doctor and hospital against hospital, and led to a huge increase in bureaucracy and paperwork. For many staff, that internal market, together with the two-tier system that the Tories introduced, betrayed the principles that had led them to join the NHS and was contrary to their professional ethics.
  For three years running, the Tory Government failed to implement pay review body settlements nationally and in full. Tory Ministers had encouraged a situation in which many staff were routinely faced with short-term contracts, causing uncertainty for them and their families. Until they were forced by the courts, the Tory Government had denied employment rights to NHS staff transferred to outside contractors. Gagging clauses had become standard parts of staff contracts. Some NHS trusts had withdrawn union recognition. The Tory Government had stopped collecting data on NHS pay levels, so Ministers had no idea how many staff were on low pay. Institutionalised

  1137
  racism held back the careers of many black and Asian staff. No attention was paid to the growing incidence of assaults and abuse of people working in the health service.
  Many staff were expected to work in run down and sometimes dangerous premises. In April 1997, 16 per cent. of hospitals and other NHS buildings did not comply with fire and other regulations. By 1 May this year, that figure had been reduced to 5 per cent. Staff were frustrated by having to rely on increasingly unreliable equipment. The work force planning system was woefully inadequate, as we now know from the problems with obstetricians and gynaecologists.
  Most people working in the NHS were dissatisfied with a rigid pay system that inhibited career development. Rigid hours and working conditions were putting off ever more professionally trained staff, particularly those with family responsibilities. As a result there were shortages of nurses, midwives, therapists, pharmacists, laboratory staff, cyto screeners and in some specialties, doctors. The previous Government had done next to nothing about the problems that were building up. Year after year in speeches in the House and in evidence to the pay review body they denied that there were shortages of nurses, midwives or other staff.
  The Tory Government were not just in denial, they were busy making matters worse. They cut the number of nurses in training. Some 15,000 nurses started training in 1992-93. By 1994-95 that figure had been reduced to 10,600 and it never again rose much above 13,000. If the Tories had not cut the number of nurses in training in the 1990s, no fewer than 14,000 more nurses would be available for the NHS today.
  Since the election we have made a start on turning things round, but it is only a start. Things cannot be put right overnight. It takes three years to train a qualified nurse and six to train a doctor for registration. The average hospital doctor takes a further seven to eight years before becoming a consultant. We must take long-term action to make things better for the future and take whatever short-term action is available to us to deal with the situation left behind by the previous Government.
  Let me start with the nurses. Unlike the Tories, we do not deny that there is a shortage of nurses. Unlike the Tories, we are doing something about it. This year, for the first time in five years, the Government implemented the findings of the independent pay review body nationally, in full, without staging. In their motion, the Opposition have the brass neck to criticise us for the fact that not all staff received the full pay award in their April pay packets. That is a bit rich coming from the people who, in their last three years in government, did not put the full amount into staff pay packets at all and did not put even the staged increase in until shortly before Christmas.
  Paying the full amount nationally in one go has put a one-off strain on NHS finances this year because we are meeting the full cost of this year's settlement and the overhang from staging last year's settlement. All nurses got at least 4.7 per cent. Newly qualified nurses got 12 per cent. and 70,000 D grade nurses got 8.2 per cent. On top of that, for Greater London, which is the area with the greatest shortages, the London allowance was raised by 15.4 per cent.
  1138
  Those increases mean that two out of three nurses will earn more than £20,000 this year and that a newly qualified nurse will get more than £14,000—more than £17,000 in inner London. Virtually all those increases have either been paid in April salaries, or will be paid in May salaries next week backdated to 1 April. There is nothing new in that. It is entirely in line with usual practice in the NHS, following acceptance of the pay review body recommendations by representatives of the staff in the middle of March. Most employers have either already paid the increase, or have programmed their payroll computers to pay it with May salaries. I know of just one trust—Addenbrooke's—that is due to pay out in June. That, the trust explains, is because it is negotiating a local settlement to top up the national award.
  Like the representatives of the staff, we want to develop a new pay structure that removes the rigid grading ceilings that hold down the pay and hold back the careers of nurses and midwives. We are extending the role of nurses in line with what the profession wants. We shall introduce nurse consultants to enable highly qualified staff to continue nursing and teaching rather than going into management. The final decision on that has not yet been announced because we have been conducting highly detailed discussions with the profession about the best way to go about it. We have also found places for nurses on the boards of primary care groups. That is important for their professional development and they are making a great contribution and improving their management skills. Together with the professions, we are also addressing the many shortcomings of the system of nurse education and training introduced by the previous Government, which are widely acknowledged to have set back the national health service.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I should like to take the Secretary of State back to the payment of the new pay award. He made his announcement on 1 February. The agreement with the unions and staff was made in the middle of March. Why did the letter of authority not come out from the Department of Health until 8 April? That is given as the major reason why the trusts were unable to deliver the hugely heralded pay settlement in the April pay packets as everyone expected. Was it not important that people should be paid on time?
  Mr. Dobson: It is important that people should be paid on time. I have received no complaints from the Royal College of Nursing or any other body representing nurses about any delay, because the payments were authorised at about the same time as in previous years. It is no good the hon. Gentleman shaking his head—unless he has something wrong with him—because that is a fact.
  Following the pay announcement in February, we launched a major recruitment campaign. To date about 53,000 people have responded. More than 5,000 of them are qualified nurses who want to return to the NHS—and we expect them to do so—and 650 have already started work. Many of those nurses have taken advantage of the return to nursing courses which, under this Government, are being provided free by the NHS. All those measures will help to address the short-term problem. The response to the recruitment campaign shows that nursing is becoming more attractive, but there is a long way to go.

  1139
  We are introducing more family-friendly employment policies, the better to allow people working in the NHS to reconcile the demands of their jobs with their modern family responsibilities. We are giving people better opportunities to work the shifts that suit their needs, allowing them to take children to school in the morning or pick them up in the evening or to be around more during school holidays. That approach does not apply just to nurses and midwives. We want it to apply across the board. We must apply it to the people who are traditionally called junior doctors, particularly now that so many more medical students and junior doctors are women.
  For a woman, the years taken up as a medical student and a junior doctor coincide with what we usually regard as childbearing years. We need a system that makes it easier for a woman doctor to have a career and, if she chooses, to have babies and bring up children. Of course, these days, quite rightly, many men doctors want to be able to devote more time to their families. That is one reason why the Government are fully committed to further reducing the hours of junior doctors.
  The new deal that the previous Government reached with junior doctors was supposed to deliver better arrangements for accommodation and food and a maximum of 56 hours by 1996. Five years after it was agreed, when the Tories left office, the deal was not being delivered for about one in five junior doctors. We have improved matters. The figure has fallen to less than one in six. That is not all that we have done. Far from seeking to make matters worse for junior doctors, we have agreed with the British Medical Association a more rigorous definition of the terms of the new deal, which will be more difficult to deliver and may indeed make the figures appear worse.
  Miss Widdecombe: I have asked the following question of the Secretary of State before. I have also asked it of the Minister of State. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has asked it of the Prime Minister. We have had no answer. It is a terribly simple question, and I am sure that there is a terribly simple answer, for which we would be grateful.
  The question is: if the right hon. Gentleman is so concerned to reduce junior doctors' hours, why did the United Kingdom delegation propose to Brussels that the hours should be 65, not 56, for eight years, and 60 for seven years?
  Mr. Dobson: I shall answer that in the course of my speech—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer it now."] All right, then. Let me read it slowly; perhaps that will help.
  The European working time directive sets a maximum working week of 48 hours. The previous Government opposed the directive altogether. They fought its introduction tooth and nail, but, in their hapless way, they did not manage to stop it coming into law. At no stage did the previous Government try to achieve a reduction in junior doctors' hours to anything like 48, and it takes the biscuit that they should try to criticise us for doing so.
  Clearly, a 48-hour week for junior doctors cannot be delivered quickly, because of the time it takes to train doctors. We have been negotiating a Europe-wide arrangement that will give Britain enough time to be able to reach the 48-hour target while, in the meantime,
  1140
  permitting a limit on hours that the NHS can live with. Different EU countries have different health systems, different ways of training doctors and different definitions of being at work and being on call.
  We have sought to ensure that we have a European law that enables us to continue to reduce the hours, improve the working conditions of junior doctors and provide cover for NHS patients. I am confident we will achieve that. We have not sought to make British doctors work longer hours, and anyone who says that we have is a liar.
  Miss Widdecombe: I say, because I have seen the document, that a proposal is before the European Council that 65 hours should be the hours of junior doctors. If the Secretary of State is trying to get from 56 hours to 48, that is laudable and I hope that he succeeds. But I cannot understand how he gets from 56 to 48 via 65. Is he calling me a liar? I have seen the document. Can he give me a simple answer to a simple question? If he wants to reduce junior doctors' hours, why has he proposed a limit of 65 rather than the current 56?
  Mr. Dobson: As the right hon. Lady acknowledged in her own speech, 20 per cent. of our doctors work more than 56 hours. It would be ridiculous to propose a 56-hour limit in the Health Bill or in Europe at present because we know that we are not delivering that. The right hon. Lady continually misrepresents us—I shall put it no stronger than that. We intend no increase in any doctor's hours. The object of the exercise is to reduce the hours that British doctors work, ultimately to 48 hours in line with the European directive.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dobson: No, we have dealt with that point.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dobson: Yes, I will give way.
  Sir Brian Mawhinney: I have been trying to follow the Secretary of State's argument. In the United Kingdom, he talks about 56 hours. In Europe, he talks about 65 to make Europe feel more comfortable. He does not talk about 65 hours for 20 per cent., just about 65 hours. Will the Secretary of State stand up and call me a liar? I do not believe what he is trying to tell the House about the Government's policy on junior doctors.
  Mr. Dobson: What the right hon. Gentleman believes is a matter between him, his conscience and the truth.
  Unlike the Tory Government, we accepted and implemented the recommendations of the doctors and dentists' review body for this year, in full, without staging. That applied to the junior doctors, consultants and general practitioners. In the case of the consultants the review body recommended that from 2000-01, an extra £50 million should be made available to reward consultants for increases in work load, contribution to the NHS and intensity of work.
  The Government, as requested by the BMA, were already committed to renegotiating the contract for consultants. We have fed the review body's

  1141
  recommendation for next year into the renegotiations because they cover the same ground. The doctors' negotiators have stated that they are optimistic that joint proposals from the BMA and the Department of Health can be put to the review body this autumn for implementation in 2000. I share their optimism. A joint approach would clearly be better from every point of view.
  That takes me to the other groups covered by review body awards—some of the professions allied to medicine. This year, they received the biggest real terms pay increase in a decade, and for the first time in five years, it is to be paid nationally, in full and without staging. All staff covered have received 4.7 per cent. The starting pay for newly qualified professions allied to medicine has gone up by 8.7 per cent. All basic grade staff will receive at least 8.4 per cent., and some senior grades have received an increase of 7.7 per cent. Yet the Tory motion
  "notes the concerns of Professions Allied to Medicine".
  That falls short of qualifying even to be described as every assistance short of actual help.
  Let us compare this year's settlement with what the professions allied to medicine received under the last Tory settlement. The Labour settlement provides 8.7 per cent. for newly qualified professionals. The Tory settlement provided 3.3 per cent. The Labour settlement is paid in full from 1 April. The Tory settlement allowed 2 per cent. from April, and 1.3 per cent. from December. The Tories delivered far less in the past than they claim.
  Neither are the Tories promising anything better now. Only last month in a letter to one of her colleagues, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe)—or her research assistant, writing on her behalf—said:
  "We have had to be necessarily circumspect about commenting on pay awards, as our own fiscal policy in respect of public sector pay has not yet been finalised. The line we have taken, and I acknowledge that it is not entirely satisfactory runs something like:
  "'I would certainly not seek to justify or defend the X per cent. award offered to X by this Government."'
  That is about as far as the right hon. Lady's policy goes.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Dobson: I will carry on, if necessary. The letter continued:
  "It is worth noting that we excluded laboratory scientists from representation by a pay review body because, unlike some other `professions allied to medicine', laboratory scientists were not entirely dependent on the NHS for employment. The pay review body system was an acknowledgment of the 'monopoly' status of the NHS as an employer, and it was felt that the 'market place' would be a sufficient force to set levels of pay for laboratory workers, given their scope for employment elsewhere."
  Yet the right hon. Lady will not justify or defend the award offered by the Government.
  Miss Widdecombe: The right hon. Gentleman knows very well that we have welcomed the pay awards that the Government have announced, even if the Government have not delivered them. He will be aware that I would never make the irresponsible comments that people try to lead me into before any announcements are made.
  1142
  They encourage me to bargain with the Government and ask the Government to give large increases in advance of what is announced by the independent pay review body. Therefore, I have always advocated circumspection; but the right hon. Gentleman knows, because it is on the record in Hansard, that we have always welcomed the pay rises that he has announced. I will welcome them even more when they are delivered.
  Mr. Dobson: I would not like to be welcomed by the right hon. Lady. Her form of welcome is:
  "I would certainly not seek to justify or defend the … award offered by the Government."
  That is the sort of welcome that she gives in private correspondence.
  So the Tories may be concerned, but they are not sufficiently concerned to do anything. That is the truth about the charges that the Tories have levelled in this debate against the Government. We are not extending the hours of junior doctors. We are reducing them, and the Tories know it. We are paying the nurses their full pay increases with effect from 1 April, and the Tories know it. We have accepted the review body recommendations on consultants' pay for this year, and the Tories know it. The review body has just awarded the professions allied to medicine their best real-terms pay increase for 10 years, and the Tories know that too. So the Tory motion gets no marks for technical merit and, like every work of fiction, owes everything to artistic licence.
  The most revealing aspect of the Tory motion was what it left out. It did not refer to the offers that we have made of up to 6.9 per cent for some medical laboratory scientific officers—the ones whom the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald wants to rely on market forces. We offered them and trainee cyto-screeners that amount, and up to 11.2 per cent to qualified cyto-screeners. These are part of the continuing negotiations with non-pay review body staff which will be carried forward very soon with an improved pay offer.
  Nor did the Tory motion refer to all the welcome changes that the new Government have brought to the NHS, which are designed to be better not just for patients but for the staff. For a start, we are building new hospitals and modernising old ones. We have already started work on 15 major hospital building projects—part of the biggest building programme in the history of the NHS. This year, more than £100 million is being invested specifically in improving accident and emergency departments, to make them both better for patients and safer for staff. Another £;100 million from the lottery is being invested in new and better equipment to diagnose and treat cancer on top of the £350 million already earmarked for renewing unreliable hospital equipment this year.
  Nor did the Tories make mention of the action that they neglected to take to reduce assaults on and abuse of people working in the NHS. Since the general election we have given this a high priority. For the first time, we have conducted a national survey of the incidence of violence against NHS staff. We have set trusts tough targets for reducing violence. Accident and emergency departments are being equipped with closed-circuit television, layouts are being improved and staff are being equipped with alarms. Hospitals have been instructed to log all violent incidents and to prosecute any offenders. We will shortly

  1143
  publish new guidelines produced by officials from my Department, the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department designed to deter assaults and abuse and to make sure that the criminal justice system takes harsh action against any who do offend. Hospitals are now required by law to be involved in local crime and disorder partnerships.
  Staff who provide services in the community are also being helped by better security measures. These will improve the working lives of people in the NHS, and so will our commitment to get rid of short-term contracts. The routine use of short-term contracts left staff and their families in a state of insecurity. NHS employers have been told to end the practice of routinely offering short-term contracts and to use them only to provide cover for staff on maternity leave and other short-term factors. On top of that, we have made it clear to NHS employers that gagging clauses in staff contracts must become a thing of the past. Whistleblowers on the staff should have nothing to fear, provided of course that they tell the truth.
  Miss Widdecombe: So why sack them?
  Mr. Dobson: I cannot sack any NHS staff. That comment just displays the ignorance of Opposition Members.
  This Government are also taking action to end the institutionalised racism to be found in some parts of the NHS. We have changed the arrangements for allocating distinction and merit awards so that the proportion of black and Asian doctors getting awards has increased by 50 per cent. in the first year. We have almost doubled the percentage of black and Asian members of the boards of health authorities and trusts and we have been taking other measures to improve the situation for black and Asian staff.
  I do not pretend that the changes that we have set in train will put everything right as quickly as we would like, but we have made a start, both with immediate measures to deal with the staffing crisis that we inherited and with long-term changes designed to provide more and better qualified staff in five, seven, 10 or 12 years' time. Both are being carried out by this Government. Both should have been done by the Tory Government. But they were not and that is why any Tory criticism of what we are trying to do amounts, as I said at the beginning of my speech, to bare-faced cheek.
  8.17 pm
  Mr. Simon Hughes: We welcome the debate and the fact that the Conservative party has chosen this subject. It is our perception that there is extremely wide concern, distress and lack of morale in the health service. The last debate on these issues was the one that I initiated on 13 January, which was on the pay and conditions of nurses, midwives and health visitors—the first debate on that subject for 10 years. Although we might find technical reasons to differ with the motion tabled by the Conservatives, because the nature of the complaints seems valid to us, unusually, we did not table our own amendment. We thought that it was more important on this occasion to register that, in spite of the good things that the Government have done and their best intentions, so far they have not cured the fundamental problem of a health
  1144
  service in which huge number of workers do not believe that the Government are saving it or coming to their rescue.
  At the very beginning of the year, on several occasions, not least the winter flu outbreak, the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers came to the House and made a statement of support for the workers in the health service. On 11 January, the Secretary of State said:
  "First, on behalf of everybody in the country, I want to thank all the people working in the health service and local social services for the huge effort they have been putting in to ensure that everybody gets the treatment and care that is needed."
  We all agree with that. He continued:
  "Over the past few weeks, nurses doctors, midwives, health visitors, cleaners, kitchen staff, managers, porters, ambulance staff, laboratory scientists, therapists, pharmacists, telephonists, clerical, administrative and maintenance staff and social services staff have all performed wonders on our behalf …I thank them all. They have done us proud."—[Official Report, 11 January 1999; Vol. 323, c. 35-39.]
  I shall now read a letter dated 26 April from one of my constituents, who is a nurse. It reads:
  "Dear Simon Hughes,
  I am writing to tell you of my deep distress and anger at the way the nurses' pay rise has been treated by the NHS. I work for the Guy's and St. Thomas health trust and when I rang salaries to find out why the nurses had not been given their rise in April, I was first asked why I expected a pay-rise and secondly told we might get it in July if we were lucky. I then spoke to the personnel department at the … trust, who blamed the N.H.S. Executive for not sending out a letter of instruction to the trusts in time. They had managed to do this for the medical staff, who got their pay-rise when promised. This is typical. Nurses are the disregarded underclass of the N.H.S. Nobody gives a damn about us in real terms. All we get are well-meaning clichés and no action. The Labour Government promised that this pay award would not be staged or deferred, but that has obviously not happened. Labour boasts that 50,000 calls have been made to the back-to-nursing 'phone line. Nurses vote with their feet and leave the health service. No amount of cosmetic tinkering will reverse this unless pay and conditions improve. I know that you take a close interest in this health trust and feel sure you do not approve of this high-handed and arrogant approach to nurses' pay. I hope that you will be able to help us to get what was promised to us by the present Labour Government."
  I do not know the nurse who wrote that letter. To my knowledge, I have never met this nurse, although the nurse in question lives only a few hundred yards from my house. I have read out the nurse's words; they are not my words. They are from a nurse who feels that the Government have let down nurses. We say that, if that is what they feel, that is what we must believe. That is a view that is widely felt in the national health service.
  Mr. Dobson: The instructions to the national health service about doctors' pay were issued sooner than those about nurses' pay because there has to be agreement with the representatives of the staff and the doctors agreed considerably sooner than the Royal College of Nursing. One of the other reasons for the delay in producing the letters, so I am told, is that the text has to be agreed by all the unions with which we are in negotiations. As far as I know, everybody should be paid in May if payment has not been made in April.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to the Secretary of State. I know him well enough to know that, when he thinks that something has been done wrongly, he lets people know his views. If the NHS and the Government, who are

  1145
  accountable to the nation, thought that increased pay for nurses was important, he should have exclaimed to civil servants and managers of the NHS, as I have heard him exclaim to other people on other occasions, that that delayed payment was not acceptable. Indeed, it is not acceptable. Whatever the processes, it was not acceptable for the Government not to have given the instruction until after the beginning of the financial year. I hope that this never, ever, happens again.
  I first picked up this concern at Morriston hospital in Swansea during the last week in April, when nurses came to me. I did not ask them to raise the matter with me. They told me that they had just received their pay slips and that the pay increase did not feature in them. I made inquiries and I asked my assistant to phone every NHS region in England, one trust per region. I was told that no trust had paid the increase in April. My assistant phoned Bromley in London, Kettering in the south-east, Gloucestershire Royal NHS trust in the south and west, Allington in the eastern region, Wolverhampton health care in the west midlands, Barnsley in Trent, Blackpool Victoria in the north-west and Harrogate Healthcare. Not one had paid.[Interruption.] I do not know what the hon. Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) said. Most of those asked said that they hoped to pay this month.
  What does this do for morale? Nurses were told, "You are hugely valued. We think that you are important and you will get a big pay rise." Then there was nothing. That is not good enough. I let the case rest there. I look to the Secretary of State to ensure that that does not happen again. It is no good saying that we love nurses when we kick them in the teeth when it comes to their pay packet.
  Secondly, there is common ground in the House that we need to have a package of measures to make people want to come in to, stay in, or return to, the NHS in all the professions, but particularly nursing, which is the largest. I ask the Secretary of State to consider with his colleagues whether it is not time—this applies to other professions in the NHS and beyond—to examine ways in which we can assist better those who might consider coming into nursing and the other professions. For example, we used to offer bursary schemes to those in the armed services.
  There are ways in which we could give people extra funding in return for a commitment to stay. We could offer loyalty payments for those who do not disappear. There could also be packages that make it worth while to cover the cost of retraining—a matter that the Secretary of State and I have debated before—those who have left the health service but need to come back. Such packages would mean that people would not be out of pocket. There are some people who have to travel to courses to train before they are allowed back into the health service. Packages to pay for all this would give an incentive to return. In other words, there would be a premium to come back and make a commitment of three or five years to the NHS.
  If we have about 12,000 or 14,000 nursing shortages and if about 70,000 of the 140,000 qualified nurses are not in the NHS, we have enough people potentially, if they are willing to come back. Some have responded. The Government have taken initiatives to try to persuade them to respond, but there has been no financial incentive for them to do so. It would cost so little to provide one in
  1146
  terms of the total budget of the health service. The cost would be worth it for their sake and for the patients' sake. The return of those people would speed up treatment times. At the same time, the morale of the health service would improve because people would not be trying to cover jobs that are left vacant.
  Mr. Dobson: The offer of a bonus to someone who comes back into the NHS that is not offered to the folks who stay would harm morale, not improve it. Some football clubs have learned that to their cost.
  Mr. Hughes: I said specifically—the Secretary of State may not have heard me so I shall repeat it—that we should give loyalty bonuses to those who stay.
  We obviously share the view of the Secretary of State that family-friendly policies matter hugely. We say clearly to him that, as the review of nursing grades continues, we need to allow people to stay in nursing but continue to be upgraded in salary and career position, and continue to do some hands-on nursing so that it is not necessary to become a manager to be promoted. People will therefore feel able to remain with nursing. I think that the right hon. Gentleman espouses that view.
  Thirdly, we are keen, as I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is, to ensure that there is an opportunity for the nursing profession to become one in which people are much more involved collectively with all the other professions in decisions about its future.
  The week before I was at Morriston hospital, I was at the junior doctors' forum in Bath. Junior doctors too are not happy. It is often necessary to get three A grades at A-level to become a medical student. The places are very difficult to secure. On qualification a junior doctor works mighty hard. They work harder than most other students for their degrees, and for longer in many instances. They then have to do their training. They often do not know whether they will have another six months' work after the six months that they are in. There is a huge element of uncertainty during the first few years post-qualification.
  Many of the junior doctors said to me, "We also feel undervalued. We feel that it is not worth staying. We are concerned that we do not get proper supervision. We have cursory supervision from consultants, who literally look in and look out again. We now hear that the Government are trying to negotiate a maximum limit of 65 hours and not 56." For the first time, the Secretary of State, who was in the Chamber a moment ago, effectively admitted today that the Government—as I understand it, it was the Minister with responsibilities for public health who did the negotiating because she went to the Council of Public Health Ministers—were pushing for 65 hours. Why could the Government not have owned up? Why could they not have said that they pushed for 65 hours because they thought that they had to cover the fact that 20 per cent. of junior doctors were working more than 56 hours? Why have we had a month of obfuscation, denial, pretence and mealy-mouthed weasel words? Own up, Government. Be honest.
  When the Government get something wrong, they should say so. Out there, people did not believe them. The doctors did not believe the Government, and the Government let them down. There was an explanation, but the Government should come clean with the country if they cannot do as they wish. They should not try to fool people. People are not fooled, and their morale is undermined.

  1147
  The third issue is similar to the others. We are at risk of running desperately short of consultants. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who was previously a hospital doctor, knows more about that than I do. He has raised in the House and elsewhere not just the subject of the shortage of obstetricians and gynaecologists, to which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) also referred, but the fact that, in many of the career paths, there is a bottleneck. There is a nonsense system whereby people do not have the opportunity to progress up the career ladder and do the jobs that everyone is asking them to do.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) is on the Select Committee on Health, which produced a good report that makes it clear that our manpower planning is still nonsense. Our work force planning is not working. We are not managing to make sure that we have the necessary NHS staff at the time that we need them, in the right place and the right post.
  Dr. Harris: Does my hon. Friend agree that it seems bizarre that we plan centrally the number of medical students in the health service, we plan centrally the number of higher specialty trainees in the health service by region, but when it comes to consultants—the key end of the bottle that provides the service—there is no central planning? Trusts are left to do as they please, leading to the failure of consultant expansion, the poor quality that that causes, and the lost career opportunities for all those people in whom we have invested and for whom we have planned so carefully to bring them to consultant level.
  Mr. Hughes: My hon. Friend makes a point that I understand causes real concern. I ask the Government, as he has done, to change the system, which tries to plan the number of nurses and doctors that we need, but does not plan in a co-ordinated way the number of consultants that we need.
  Many of the trusts where there are senior consultants determine the number of consultant posts according to their own traditional patterns, sometimes to protect the interests of existing consultants—their jobs, hours and income—to the detriment of younger doctors who would help to relieve their burden and the burdens on the health service. That is not acceptable. It is old-fashioned and used to be called a Spanish practice. We need to say that, even if it applies to a minority of consultants and a minority of trusts. We should not allow self-interest to determine the number of posts at consultant grade in the health service.
  The fourth issue concerns general practitioners. We are facing the prospect of large numbers of GPs retiring and leaving. Some of those retiring were part of the bulge in the health service created by the number of people who took up general practice after the war, many of them from the new commonwealth and elsewhere. Some are retiring because of the pressures of the system and the paperwork, and others because of the fact that the new primary care group structure means that they will have less time to be GPs because they are required to perform a management role. I have recently met a considerable number of GPs who say that they will have nothing to do with primary care groups because they want to be doctors, not paper-pushers. They do not want to go to meetings; they want to get on with being doctors.
  Mr. Kevin Barron: We are improving the health service.
  Mr. Hughes: I respect the hon. Gentleman, but I have seen enough round the country to worry me greatly. That, added to the current pressures and the shortage of GPs, will be a serious problem in a few years. In some areas, we could be as short of GPs as we are currently short of dentists in the health service. If we do not anticipate that problem and take action, we will be in big trouble.
  Mr. Barron: My area has the highest patient:GP ratio in England and Wales. Under this Government, GPs in the health service are working to help us with those problems, instead of being the small independent contractors who held the service back for years.
  Mr. Hughes: Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the gaps in private general practice offering to work under contract for the health service had to be plugged by salaried GPs.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight asked me today whether I had seen the front page of GP General Practitioner this week. It is dated 21 May, so, unless I am mistaken, it still has not officially come out, but I happen to have a copy. The headline is "Salaried GP posts collapse". It quotes Dr. Roger Chapman as saying:
  "The £4 million was not enough and there is no new money."
  It seems that the proposal was to fill the gaps with salaried GPs, but the money is not there to do it. The initiative may have helped in the hon. Gentleman's area and in others, but it does not seem to have done what it was billed to do.
  With regard to professions allied to medicine and other workers not covered by the pay review bodies, there is no case now for pay review mechanisms not to cover everyone who works in the health service, including those who are currently excluded.
  I shall ask a couple of questions and end with a couple of propositions, as I know that others want to speak in the debate.
  Mr. Robert Syms: The MSF—Manufacturing, Science and Finance union—briefing paper from its lobby of Parliament asked whether this year's pay round had made matters better or worse for many of its staff. It states that the position is significantly worse, and that almost all the skilled and professional staff got 2.8 per cent. on basic pay, with nothing on leave and allowances, even though, since 1984, many of those categories have fallen back 30 per cent. in their pay.
  Mr. Hughes: The headquarters of the MSF are in my constituency. I am aware of the union's concerns, which the hon. Gentleman rightly raises. I am concerned not just about the people who belong to that union and the professions allied to medicine covered by the pay review bodies, but about the people outside that group—for example, ancillary workers in the health service, such as cleaners.
  I visited a hospital the other day in the south-east of England which, at the pay that it offers, cannot get the cleaners that it needs. That is in the county's principal general hospital. The reason is that the pay rate down the road at Tesco is twice as much. The hospital does not

  1149
  have the cleaners that it needs and it is worried about that, as there are clearly health and safety implications for a hospital more than for anywhere else.
  Neither the hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) nor I is being alarmist. We are simply reflecting what people are telling us as we go round the country about the desperate state of morale, pay and conditions in the health service.
  I shall put two questions to the Minister. I have heard the Secretary of State's evidence before the Select Committee about the number of nurses that we are short of. My first question, which I hope the Minister will answer at the end of the debate, is what was the total shortage of professional staff in the health service when the Government came to office in 1997 and what was it in April 1999? I believe that it has gone up over the past two years, if one adds the figures for doctors, GPs, nurses, dentists and so on.
  Secondly, what is the Government's target ratio of doctors to population, consultants to population, nurses to population and junior doctors to population? Many of the tables show that we are comparatively well off in the number of nurses, but we are badly off in the number of doctors, relative to the number of people in the United Kingdom. If that is the case, we must seriously address how to respond to the aspirations of all those young people who want to enter medicine and other health professions and become public servants in the health service, but for whom the system does not deliver.
  The Minister must also tell us what is to be done in respect of millennium pay for public sector workers. Liberal Democrats believe that there must be an acknowledgement of the duty that we may impose on those in the emergency services—including the health service—during the period of the millennium celebrations. The matter must be nationally agreed. It is nonsense to leave it to local pay bargaining, negotiation and pressure. That applies not only to the health service, but to the ambulance and other emergency and public services.
  Our urgent view is clear; I have stated it previously. The health service will not get out of its staffing hole unless it owns up to the need for a real-terms increase in funding—in terms of the gross domestic product. One could try to get people out of the health service—the route proposed by the Tories, from which we dissent—but, until a real increase is the accepted norm, we shall always struggle. I have never heard the Government make that commitment.
  What is needed is a package of specific measures, including financial ones—not merely warm words and glossy advertisements—to draw people into the professions and retain them. We need work force planning for all professionals and grades in the health service—not merely for some of them. It would be better for that to be based on cross-party debate and agreement, rather than on Government denials of a major crisis. It should not be left for opposition parties to bang on the door. We and the Tories may agree on few things and disagree on many things. We may have criticisms of their record in office. That is in the past. At present, there is a crisis in morale in almost all professions in the health service. The two-year mark that the Government have just passed has not changed that; if they do not act soon, things will get worse—not better.
  8.40 pm
  Mr. Alan Keen: We are debating the conditions of service in the national health service. I shall talk about a case that will have been going on for four years by September of this year—the Hillingdon hospital dispute. Before I do so, I note that the shadow Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), mentioned a commission on trolleys. Having listened to some of the contributions from Members on the Opposition Benches, it would not take long for a commission on who is off their trolley to arrive at its conclusions.
  I was also reminded that at the West Middlesex University hospital, which will be rebuilt as a result of the Government's policies, patients were shifted around the hospital, from ward to ward and from ward to operating theatre, on what we called milk floats. Under this Government, that hospital will be replaced by a modern, new building. The previous Government took £10 million from the sale of the South Middlesex hospital to rebuild the Chelsea and Westminster hospital. Originally, that money had been promised to the West Middlesex. We shall at last have a decent hospital in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ann Keen).
  In relation to the Hillingdon hospital dispute, I remind hon. Members of what the duties of domestic staff in the health service used to be. There was a member of the domestic staff on each ward. That person not only cleaned the ward, but was often the only visitor for many patients. Members of the domestic staff used to go shopping for patients. Several years ago, their jobs were changed dramatically when the cleaning of hospitals was put out to contract.
  Some of the women at the Hillingdon hospital have worked there for 30 years; at first, they worked directly for the NHS and then for the contract cleaners. That second system worked quite well until about four years ago last April when the Pall Mall company took over the contract. The company decided that it would be better—at least for its directors—if the pay of the domestic staff was reduced from about £3.50 to £2.50 an hour. Fifty-five mainly Asian women decided that, on principle, it was not acceptable to have their pay reduced by about 30 per cent. They came out on strike and have been on strike ever since. At one stage, they were the only people who believed that they could win. However, they were determined. They attended tribunals and maintained a picket line on every day of the year—including Christmas day, Boxing day and new year's day. I was on a token picket line with them on Christmas day last year.
  The multi-million pound Pall Mall company was the original guilty party; it was part of the Davis group and has since been taken over by Granada, which is a member of the Low Pay Commission. Of the original 55 strikers, about 18 are left. They attended the latest tribunal which was held last week between 12 and 14 May. Those people have won on every occasion that they attended a tribunal. They are ordinary women who had never been involved in disputes; they are the nicest and most reasonable strikers I have ever met during my long career of involvement in industrial disputes. All that the women wanted was their jobs back at a reasonable rate of pay. They pressed on and, as I said, they have won at every tribunal; however, the company they want to be their employer continues to

  1151
  refuse to take them back. At the final tribunal last week, at which Granada appealed against having to take the workers back, the company lost once again.
  I did not attend last week's tribunal, because I was on duty here, but I was astonished to hear of an admission made at that tribunal by Granada's senior manager of human resources—a man to whom I have spoken on several occasions when offering to try to bring the dispute to a happy conclusion, because I know the strikers so well. He appeared to me to be a reasonable and honourable man, but he admitted that it was he who had typed out a petition and forced people who were working at the hospital to sign it by threatening them with the loss of their jobs: the petition said that the signatories did not want the strikers back in any circumstances. He did that despite the fact that 220 doctors, nurses and ancillary workers had signed a petition saying that they would welcome the Hillingdon hospital strikers back.
  That is how matters now stand. It has been the most honourable dispute I have seen, involving the most honourable strikers that I have ever represented, and the previous Government should be ashamed that the situation could have reached such a level.
  I am speaking about industrial disputes because there has been criticism—even from Labour Members—of the current Government's proposals on changing the Employment Relations Bill; we felt that they did not go far enough. However, there have been three major disputes in west London alone that would have been rendered completely unnecessary by legislation introduced under the Labour Government. The Hillingdon hospital is one of those, because Pall Mall would not have been able to reduce pay from £3.50 an hour to £2.50 an hour under the National Minimum Wage Act 1998, so that four-year strike would never have happened. Let us think of how much suffering those women and their families have had to endure during that period.
  Another major dispute occurred in west London when Noon's refused to recognise the GMB, despite 70 per cent. and more of the work force voting for union membership. Noon's has now given in, because it knows that the Employment Relations Bill will force it to do so, but the suffering the dispute has inflicted need never have taken place. In my constituency, the Lufthansa Skychefs strike—although it is hardly a strike—would have been rendered unnecessary by the same legislation. During an industrial dispute, on being given notice of a series of one-day strikes, Lufthansa Skychefs sacked the strikers immediately. That happened on three occasions and now 300 people have been sacked. Those sackings would have been illegal under the Employment Relations Bill.
  The difference in the attitudes of the previous Government and the current Government is clear. Many hon. Members do not understand what workers have to face when they are forced into circumstances such as those which the workers at Hillingdon hospital have had to endure. We should all be ashamed that all those ordinary women have now had to go four years without work, and we should all wish them well now that the tribunal has finally awarded against Granada.
  8.49 pm
  Mrs. Marion Roe: My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has spoken eloquently about the
  1152
  enormous difficulties affecting NHS staff, and the appalling proposal to worsen conditions of service by increasing to 65 the hours that junior doctors will be expected to work. That the best medical care is provided by keen, alert and wide-awake young doctors, not by those who struggle to stay attentive as they are ground down by excessive hours of work, is recognised by the whole population—the whole population, that is, except for the Secretary of State for Health and his henchmen.
  The previous Conservative Government worked extremely hard to reduce progressively the hours worked by those highly valued medical men and women who are the core of tomorrow's health care system. Yet, at a stroke, the Secretary of State has thrown away all those hard-won improvements. He will not be able to deceive the public, who will see that the health service is not safe in his hands. Like the nurses who were robbed of their full pay rise and the consultants who are frustrated by the Government's failure to implement review body recommendations, doctors throughout the profession are suffering.
  I wish to address the conditions of service for doctors who provide primary care for our population. Since the inception of the health service, general practitioners have provided the bedrock of care for the population and have acted as the gatekeepers for access to secondary care. More than 90 per cent. of all medical care is provided in the primary sector. Since the election of the Labour Government, GPs have seen their conditions of service decline steadily. They have been dragooned into primary care groups—in many cases, against their will—and they have seen the enormous benefits of the fundholding system snatched away from them. The fruits of the fundholders' labours—the entrepreneurialism that led to the creation of innovative primary care centres—have been largely destroyed.
  The community clinics at GP surgeries, which were so valuable in improving the quality of care and providing effective and rapid local services, have been snatched away by a compulsory money-saving exercise by primary care group boards, which are constrained by debt that has resulted from inflexible and inappropriate financial instructions from the Department of Health to health authorities. Although primary care group boards currently enjoy a majority of GP members in most instances, they have the power to compel a practice or a doctor to follow board policy on pain of withholding practice finances.
  In addition, if doctors are seduced into primary care trusts, they will lose their majority, their authority, the control of their staff and their premises. The individualist, independent practitioners will end up as salaried doctors working to the guidelines and protocols set for them by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which is driven by rationing rather than by quality. Let there be no doubt: Professor Rawlins, the chairman of NICE, has made it clear that no product or treatment will be recommended if there is no money to fund its introduction.
  Mr. Philip Hammond: My hon. Friend spoke of doctors being seduced into primary care trusts. She may be interested to learn that,

  1153
  under the Health Bill as currently drafted, they will not need to be seduced: doctors can be forced into primary care trusts without their consent.
  Mrs. Roe: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for setting the record straight. I take his point: doctors can be forced into primary care trusts.
  Conditions of service will be desecrated by protocols that will prohibit the patient from receiving the best—which was a concept guarded carefully by the previous Conservative Government—and which will deliver the cheapest service. The concept of "never mind the quality, feel the width" was never more apparent.
  What about the GP who shows initiative? He risks a visit from the thought police of the Commission for Health Improvement, who are able to come into his practice, see and do whatever they like, say whatever they wish and charge him for the costs of the exercise. Conditions for GPs whose partners or colleagues are involved in PCG work have also deteriorated. Inadequately reimbursed for the costs of the locums that they need to employ, they will either be unable to fulfil their PCG roles properly, or will end up subsidising the Government's primary care hyperbole out of their own pockets.
  What about conditions for the poor patients who must tolerate those ill thought through ideas? How many sick people will be unable to see the doctor of their choice because he is away at the PCG doing administrative work? Half a million consultations—a number equivalent to the whole population of Sheffield—will be lost each month and patients will have to receive their care from locums, if they can be found.
  We should remember the Labour party's theme tune for the previous election. In my view, things have not got better; they have become more expensive, more bureaucratic and more confused; things have only got worse. Burdened with a new range of targets which must be met to enable them to claim the £60 million promised by the Government in recognition for hard work already undertaken, doctors' overall work load is rising inexorably. The demand for surgery attendances increases year on year. Expectations about quality improvements are for ever applied as GPs are required to embrace clinical governance, to prescribe more generic drugs and to improve their education.
  Doctors are having to contend with an increasingly litigious population that demands more and more from the finite resources that practices can offer. Legal claims against GPs rose by 15 per cent. last year alone. Ten years ago, a GP had a one in 500 risk of being sued in any year; now that risk is one in 35. Complaints are rising exponentially as GPs fail to meet patients' expectations generated by a Government with no vision and even less consideration. All those demands must be met by a profession that has a recruitment crisis and is starved of the funding for key developments, and what can all that do but destroy morale and suppress enthusiasm?
  We must recognise the deteriorating conditions under which GPs are being forced to work. We truly lament the decline in conditions of service that they are having to face, the loss of a service that was the envy of the world and the development of a system that will fragment
  1154
  primary care. All that will result in the provision of a rag-bag service in supermarkets and railway stations, and through NHS Direct, the value of which is highly questionable. The outcome will be the loss of consistency of care that has become a byword for the management of patients by United Kingdom GPs.
  We are prepared to stand as the champions of primary care and as advocates for the comprehensive services that GPs can now provide. GPs should be supported in their provision of services, with conditions that allow them the flexibility and freedom to provide the best services. The Government's actions have resulted in one fundamental change. The GP can no longer say, "I shall do my best for you." He can say only, "I shall do what they will let me do for you." That is a sad reflection on the Government's policy.
  I urge the Secretary of State to think again, to support rather than harangue, to encourage rather than discourage, to build rather than destroy and to restore the conditions of service for GPs to allow them to provide the care for which they are renowned.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. Kevin Barron: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said, in opening the debate, that he felt that the Opposition had what he called barefaced cheek in putting their motion on the Order Paper. I am not sure which Opposition motion has the most barefaced cheek—this one or the one that we debated a few months ago about national health service waiting lists, which rose considerably under the previous Government. The circumstances described in the motion and the problems in the NHS are those that we inherited in 1997.
  I am amazed that the motion has been tabled, but I am pleased that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) and his colleagues have put their names to it because I believe in a Government facing an Opposition, and I have been waiting a long time for such a development.
  I listened to both the opening speeches made from the Opposition Benches. The words "barefaced cheek" did not immediately spring to my mind, but the words "mealy mouthed" did. The Opposition did not attack nurses' pay, but they are now attacking the administration behind it. They say that—although the Government have agreed with the pay review body and agreed that the nurses can have the money straight away, at the beginning of the financial year—the trusts are not administering the pay rise properly and that they are the problem. [Interruption.] I wrote this down: the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said, among many other things, that the trusts are failing to give nurses the money.
  The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that he felt that people did not expect the Government to kick them in the teeth. If this year's nurses' pay award is a kick in the teeth, the nurses have been waiting many years for the Government to do that and to give justice where there has been no justice for a long time.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: I want to make sure that the hon. Gentleman and I understand each other. He knows that we welcome the fact that the pay award must be paid in

  1155
  one go and is not phased. That is clearly better than phasing an award, which his Government did last year, and the Tories the year before. The kick in the teeth—I do not blame the trusts at all—is that no increase was paid, although the Government said in the press release that the award would be paid in full in April. That was not the fault of the trusts—they were given permission too late to be able to do anything.
  Mr. Barron: The hon. Gentleman used the words in that way; let me tell the House some of the other words he used. He read out a letter from a nurse from his constituency who said that the Government had a high-handed approach to nurses pay. if they do, that is most welcome and something that we have been waiting for—it will achieve justice for many years to come.
  The hon. Gentleman talked about his travels around the national health service—he always gives us an update in these debates—and told us what people are saying. Some people might be saying what he says they are saying, but the question for him is whether he agrees with them that workers do not trust the Government or that there is widespread concern and distress in the NHS.
  The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald said that NHS personnel are thoroughly disillusioned, fed up and demoralised with the Government. If that is what the motion is based on, the Opposition ought to go back to the NHS to talk to people. I remember my postbag at the time when people really were fed up with the Government and demoralised by what they were doing. We regularly received letters from members of the NHS professions because of what the previous Government were doing to the NHS. I do not think that I have received two such letters since the Government took office two years ago, because we are doing the right things for the NHS.
  Let us run through what the nurses' pay award in February meant. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State rightly said that the nurses are to get their biggest real-terms pay rise for 10 years. For the first time in five years, the award is being paid nationally in full and with no staging. That is hardly kicking anybody in the teeth. Starting pay for newly qualified nurses will rise from £12,855 to £14,400, which is a 12 per cent. increase. There will be an 8.2 per cent. increase in basic pay for 70,000 grade D nurses. Other nursing grades are to get a 4.7 per cent. increase in basic pay, although inflation is running at about 2 or 2.5 per cent. I hardly think that that is an attack on nurses and people working in the NHS.
  More than 200,000 members of the Royal College of Nursing are working in the NHS and they are getting that type of benefit. For the first time in the history of the NHS, the starting pay for all newly qualified nurses will be more than £4,000 per annum. The inner-London allowance will increase from £1,910 to £2,205 from 1 April. The outer-London allowance will increase from £1,360 to £1,570. That means that starting pay in inner London for all newly qualified nurses will be £17,325, which is a marked increase on what they had in years immediately gone by.
  As well as that basic pay, nurses receive, on average, an extra 11 per cent. from the allowances, which means that an average grade D nurse on the minimum of the scale will get about £1,600 extra. That is hardly an attack on NHS personnel working in those different grades.
  1156
  The Opposition try to talk down these increases instead of congratulating the Government on bringing to the nursing profession the justice for which it has waited so long.
  The Opposition motion does not seem to be supported by the Royal College of Nursing, which recognises what the Government are doing. The royal college welcomes the debate and has sent hon. Members a briefing, which says:
  "The Government have taken some significant steps towards addressing the NHS nursing shortage, with the 12 per cent. increase in starting salary for junior nurses, the publication of NHS Human Resources Strategies for England, Scotland and Wales, and the launch of discussions on the Agenda for Change proposals to modernise the NHS pay system."
  I agree with the RCN on that. It goes on to say:
  "However, it is clear that many more changes are needed throughout the NHS before nursing becomes an attractive profession again. The RCN believes that pay is the single most important way in which nurses' morale can be boosted and nursing valued again. However, there are a number of other vital issues which the NHS must also address."
  Mr. Hammond: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the president of the Royal College of Nursing said that the 4.7 per cent. pay increase would do nothing to stem the flow of nurses out of the profession?
  Mr. Barron: She may have said that, but it is not in the brief. I have just read what it says. The RCN believes that pay is the single most important way in which to boost nurses' morale, but not the only way. I shall refer to the areas in which their morale has been battered over the years.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State referred to family-friendly employment policies. I mentioned GPs when I intervened on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey. The NHS is now able to employ general practitioners: they have had independent contractor status for the past 50 years. Fifty-eight per cent. of nurses have caring responsibilities for dependent children or dependent adults, yet only now after, all these years, is the NHS beginning to adopt flexible employment practices. It should have done that 50 years ago. We must ensure that we retain nurses who leave the service because of the pressures of the system.
  The RCN refers to career progression, which is another issue that my right hon. Friend addressed. The Government have some good proposals to develop the potential of nurses to help them to get on in the profession. We should not ignore that.
  My right hon. Friend also mentioned violence in accident and emergency departments, and threats to staff. About 12 months ago, the then Health Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), gave a speech about violence to NHS staff. It received some derogatory comments from people working in the NHS. In some areas, stress caused by the likelihood of attacks is a major factor affecting people's decision on whether to stay in their job. The Government are setting targets that health trusts must meet to get such violence out of the system and to make the workplace safe for NHS staff. We must ensure that they do not have the stresses that they have had in the past.
  I realise that in opposition we sometimes have to put awkward arguments that get thrown back in our faces. I sat on the Opposition Benches from 1983 until two

  1157
  years ago. The Opposition motion takes the biscuit when we consider how NHS staff were treated during that time. We are talking about a party that imposed an internal market on the national health service, and forced hospital staff to compete with colleagues in other hospitals—doctor against doctor, and, by extension, patient against patient. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) said that the end of fundholding was a great loss. I must tell her that, for most of the time that the system operated, the vast majority of patients were disadvantaged by fundholding, because the patients of fundholders were jumping hospital queues. There was no pain measurement; the measurement related to whether the Government had created what they did create—a two-tier health service meaning that those who were not served by a fundholding general practice might have to wait until the following financial year before getting into the local hospital, regardless of their pain. The Conservatives still try to defend what I have always considered to be an indefensible situation, but we all know what really happened.
  The staff did not like the two-tier health system, which forced them to keep new developments and better ways of treating patients secret so that hospitals would not undermine their competitive advantage over their neighbours. The Government want to ensure that we share the practice in the NHS. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence, and other organisations that are being set up, are about improving patient care. They are not about central diktats and telling clinicians what they should or should not do; they are about sharing the practice, so that all of us, as patients, get a better deal in the health service than we have in the past.
  Another aspect of morale in the NHS—it was mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State—concerns short-term contracts. If any one thing has lowered the morale of NHS personnel, since the early 1980s when the practice began in catering and cleaning, it is short-term contracts. NHS employees wanted to know that their jobs were there, and would be there for many years.
  What was done was done in two ways. First, there was the internal market, which acted in very marked ways; secondly, there was the question of the funding of the NHS. It was much better for trusts to employ people on short-term contracts, which meant that staff did not know whether their wages would be lower in the following year than they had been in the preceding year. They did not know whether central Government were prepared to continue to fund them, and whether they could continue to provide staff with what most of us would consider to be reasonable pay and conditions and reasonable longevity in terms of employment.
  Other things have created morale problems in the NHS over many years. A nursing recruitment crisis has been caused by years of training cuts and complacency, for instance. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State mentioned the thousands that we have lost in the last five years in terms of nurse training. It will be difficult to turn the corner, but we have begun to do so.
  Not once was my right hon. Friend challenged by Conservative Members on the reason for the present crisis in nursing. The hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) says that it is about the fact
  1158
  that nurses were given only a 4.7 per cent. pay increase this year, but that is bunkum, and the hon. Gentleman must know that it is bunkum—as would anyone who had talked to nurses about the fact that they have been batted from pillar to post, and have also had to deal with the additional work imposed on them by the internal market.
  There is also the problem of overseeing the spread of gagging clauses in staff contracts, forbidding staff from telling the truth about what is going on. That, too, causes problems of morale in the NHS; that is another corner that we must turn.
  The Opposition may be able to have a go at the Government on a number of counts, but I do not think that they can do so on the basis of the money that is coming into the NHS, or the way in which the Government are taking on the responsibility of getting rid of the morale problems that we inherited in May 1997. I know that the Opposition have to table motions such as this, but they should take advice now and again. This motion completely misses the mark, and some of its rhetoric will be seen by the NHS as being way off the mark.
  The Government will take a long time to put right the wrongs that have demoralised the health service, but the first two years have been good years, during which they have begun to make progress. I am sure that, in years to come, there is much more to come from the Government in putting right the wrongs that they inherited.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. Graham Brady: I shall try to keep my remarks brief because I have something to say and because I am aware that many of my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate, as do Labour Members.
  I want to talk about some of the reality of what is happening in the NHS—not the rosy view that we have heard from the Secretary of State for Health and from the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), but some of the truth. I shall discuss some of the things that are affecting my constituents and that are coming to light as time goes on.
  I refer not only to the fact that nurses in the Trafford Healthcare NHS trust did not receive their pay rise in April, as they had been promised. That is a matter of timing and perhaps is not that significant in overall terms. I am more concerned about what the implications of that are, what the reasoning behind it was and what it tells us about the true situation of the NHS under the Government's stewardship.
  I want to talk in particular, because it is a useful example to illustrate the position, about Altrincham general hospital. On 10 May, Trafford Healthcare NHS trust announced to the press that two of the three wards would be closed in July. The announcement was made four days after local elections in the borough of Trafford, which were closely fought, and in which the Labour party held on to its majority by just three seats. The trust chairman is a Trafford Labour councillor, yet the announcement was made four days after the local elections.
  The announcement was made without any consultation whatever with the public, or the community health council. It was made without any consultation even with

  1159
  the health authority. I find it impossible to believe that the decision was taken between Thursday 6 May, when the local elections took place, and Monday 10 May, when the announcement was made, so the inescapable conclusion is that the decision was made before the local elections, that it was suppressed and that no consultation could be undertaken because it was a politically sensitive issue.
  The result of the decision was announced in a blatant fashion just four days after local elections, without anyone in the local community having been consulted, or even told about it. The arrogant treatment of the community that I represent and the disregard for a well-respected, well-loved institution in my constituency are staggering. It is a picture of the way in which the NHS is being run under the Government markedly different from that which Labour Members have described.
  A few days ago, I asked the Department some questions. I have had confirmation that the regional executive knew something of the decision on 8 April—again, some confirmation of what is really going on in the borough of Trafford and in my constituency.
  The devastating thing—the implications of which go far wider than Altrincham general hospital—is the reason that was given for the closure of the wards by the chief executive of Trafford Healthcare NHS trust to the chief officer of the community health council on Monday 10 May, when the decision was announced. He said that the trust was left with no choice because the Government had not funded the nurses' pay award, which had forced it to make savings by closing wards.
  That is a different picture from that which the Secretary of State sought to give earlier. He sought to take credit for having given what he said was a generous pay award. It would have been generous if he had actually given it. In fact, he left the trust scratching around looking for ways to save money, to cut services and to remove wards. Reducing the wards from three to one has put the whole hospital under threat of closure. We have to ask how long it will be before that other ward is closed under the Government's stewardship. The whole reason for that is that the Government, who claim to be looking after the NHS and to be funding the nurses' pay award, are doing nothing of the sort. They are putting one figure in the press, and making sure that the vast majority of nurses are awarded a different figure, and not even on time. More scandalously, they are not providing the funds for it. That is resulting in the closure of wards, and it will result in the closure of many more across the country in the months and years to come. That is what Ministers must address.
  Ministers will have to start giving some real answers to people who are seeing the NHS suffer under their stewardship. They cannot carry on giving out platitudes and press releases which bear no relation to the truth. My constituents have seen what the Government think of the NHS—they see it as a public relations opportunity and they care nothing about providing services for people. That is what the Government will have to address.
  9.21 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: Opposition Members have spent a great deal of time talking about money and pay within the NHS. Of course, money is extremely important—it is almost certainly the most important issue affecting NHS staff. That is why I am so surprised that
  1160
  they should table the motion, particularly as they have made clear their opposition to the national minimum wage, which will give a number of NHS workers a good deal.
  The Conservatives also oppose the £21 billion extra that the Government have found for health—they called it reckless and irresponsible. Where do they think the money will come from to give nurses, doctors and others a decent pay settlement if not from our comprehensive spending review—which found the money in the first place, and which they opposed?
  The hon. Member for Poole (Mr. Syms) referred to a document from the Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union which shows how the wages for professions allied to medicine have been eroded over the past fifteen years. How can he be surprised? The Tory Government took those groups out of the pay review body and allowed their pay to be eroded by 30 per cent. over the past 15 years. In other words, Tory policies led to the problems in the NHS that we are trying so hard to put right. It strikes me as odd that the Conservatives should talk to us about money when we are trying to put more money into the pockets of health workers, while they are clearly opposed to that.
  During the 1980s, I was a junior doctor, and I was working for about £30 a week. For that, Iwas working, on average, 104 hours per week. The money that I was receiving was not time and a third for overtime, but one third of normal time. I was paid a flat rate for my first 40 hours. After that, I was paid one third of my normal wage. I was on call for that many hours a week with that little pay.
  The new deal for doctors has put that right to a large extent. Now, we see that just one in six doctors works more than 56 hours a week. However, it is not just about money or work. A third aspect, which Tory Members have clearly failed to take into account, is the amount of stress and anxiety experienced by junior doctors.
  It is one thing to be working 104 hours a week and to be earning £30 a week. It is quite another to face the stress and strain of being on call alone at night with three, four or five wards to look after, plus emergencies coming from casualty as well as a coronary care unit and GPs on the phone wanting advice and help.
  We certainly need more junior doctors in this country, and there is no way in which a responsible Government can put right the situation for junior doctors until we have trained more doctors. Until we put right the recruitment problem, we cannot reduce the hours. If we do not solve the problem, we would make the situation far more dangerous. The only way in which we can improve the lot of junior doctors is either to train more doctors—which we are doing—or to make the current doctors work even harder still to cover the gaps left by their colleagues who are taking a well-earned rest. Clearly, that would be an irresponsible move for any Government, which is why we have to phase in the reduction of junior doctors' hours over the next few years.
  Dr. Harris: I was taken aback by what the hon. Gentleman said about junior doctors. Does he agree that producing more junior doctors to share the work load is, in itself, harmful if insufficient new consultant posts are created? Does he feel that the Government should bring

  1161
  back a central or regional manpower planning policy to ensure that there is consultant expansion, and that trusts do not wriggle away in pursuit of the bottom line?
  Dr. Stoate: As a member of the Health Committee, the hon. Gentleman will know that we produced a report on staffing in the NHS. Of course it is important for the Government to take an overall view of work force planning, to ensure that the doctors of the future can help the health service, the trusts and the hospitals to provide a service that is so clearly needed.
  For some extraordinary reason, we have been told tonight that GP recruitment has fallen off only since the introduction of primary care groups. That is simply not the case. GP recruitment came to an absolute standstill with the introduction of the new contract for GPs in 1990. I clearly remember many of my colleagues retiring early because they could not face the rigours of the new contract imposed on them against their collective will. It forced them to carry out procedures that they knew would be bureaucratic and largely fruitless in improving patient care. They had to go through the hoops simply to meet a series of Government targets designed to make the health service look better than it was.
  A whole generation of young doctors was disillusioned and put off general practice, so when good practices wanted to recruit new staff they found it virtually impossible to do so. When I was training to be a GP, perhaps 50 or 60 candidates would apply for a good GP post, but that went down to four or five, some of whom were of such poor quality that they could not even be interviewed. That was clearly the fault of the previous Government, who imposed a regime on GPs that was unacceptable, unhealthy and clearly not in the patient's interests.
  The two-tier system, about which we have already heard tonight, forced doctor against doctor and put patients in an impossible position. I could recount story after story of the difficulties that it caused for me when hospitals would ring up and ask if I had a contract to refer patients, because they could not take them if I did not. That was an intolerable situation for GPs.
  Now we have primary care groups. It is extraordinary that Conservative Members should attack them as somehow divisive or difficult. To set at rest the mind of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), there is no compulsion for GPs to take part in primary care groups. They are members of the groups just as they were members of commissioning groups in the previous system, under which decisions were made on their behalf even if they never attended a meeting. The same applies to primary care groups: those who want to work with nurses, social workers and others can do so, but those who want to sit back and let the decisions be made for them are equally welcome to do that.
  GPs' pay has been mentioned. For nine of the 11 years of Lady Thatcher's Administration, the pay review body's recommendation was either not paid in full or staged, whereas the new Labour Government have paid the GPs' pay award in full and exactly according to the body's recommendation.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: There has been a tremendous emphasis on the medical and nursing staff.
  1162
  Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is also a danger looming in the way in which we are treating laboratory technicians, who are vital in an age of high-tech medicine? To tell them that they could get jobs elsewhere is to forget that they want to work in the health service, where they are needed.
  Dr. Stoate: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that contribution. I have already said that I think that the professions allied to medicine were treated shabbily under the previous Government. They deserve far more respect and a far better deal.
  I want to share with the House a report that I released to the press this evening with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), who co-chairs with me the all-party group on primary care and public health. We conducted an inquiry into the effectiveness or otherwise of the primary care groups. We invited outside groups to come and tell us what their experiences were, what they thought was happening in the primary care groups and what they wanted.
  I am sure that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight will contradict me if he does not agree, but I noted that the majority of the people who came to our sessions, representing all aspects of medicine, as well as patient groups, were broadly in support of primary care groups. They thought that they were the way forward, being more democratic and accountable, allowing patients to have proper access to uniform quality of care throughout the country, ending postcode rationing and a two-tier system and bringing transparency, openness, honesty and decency. The vast majority of the groups who gave evidence to us were wholly behind that principle. Of course there are difficulties and problems in some areas, and not all GPs, all social workers or all nurses are happy, but the vast majority clearly accept the principle that that is the right way forward.
  Obviously, as with any new system, there will be teething problems, and it will take some time for the primary care group to bed down and decide whether it wants to go for trust status or stay with PGC status.
  Dr. Peter Brand: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the one thing that will destabilise primary care groups and trusts is the continued development of an alternative primary care system through NHS Direct and walk-in clinics, without reference to local health improvement programmes? Should not the Government be a partner in the health improvement programmes that primary care groups are supposed to deliver?
  Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point about NHS Direct and drop-in centres. We shall have to see how those new institutions work in integrating health care. I hope that they will be able to integrate care with GP co-operatives and primary care groups to provide a seamless service. Clearly there are problems in the inner cities, especially with out-of-hours care, and NHS Direct has already proved its case as a worthy way of addressing some of those problems. Time will tell how it develops, and I am sure that the Government will closely monitor the pilot schemes and carefully evaluate the outcomes.
  Another aspect that we have not touched upon is the Government's programme of building new hospitals. The first private finance initiative hospital is to be built in

  1163
  Dartford. It is currently well on schedule and is due to be completed early next year. It will not only improve patient services and make care for Dartford and Gravesham patients far better, but dramatically improve conditions for staff.
  I used to work in the Joyce Green hospital and the West Hill hospital, both in Dartford, and both to be replaced by the new hospital. Both of them were seedy and rundown, built for a bygone age and entirely unsuited to modern medical care. They were inefficient, too, especially as the ward blocks were a long way apart.
  I used to cycle round those ward blocks if there was an emergency in one of the wards. I cycled down the ward, jumped off my bike and put it by the nurses' station in the middle of the ward, and applied cardiac massage to a patient. That was not all that long ago—at least, I like to think that it was not long ago; other hon. Members may have a different view.
  Those were rundown Victorian fever hospitals, built to look after TB patients. TB went away but the hospitals remained, and we are still living with that. Now, at long last, we are getting rid of that, and next year we shall move into a brand new state-of-the-art hospital.
  Of course, the private finance initiative has had its problems and its critics. The Select Committee on Health is investigating the subject now. The next generation of PFI hospitals will be based on the experience of the current generation, and I dare say that the Government will think hard about altering some of the contracting and pricing arrangements to ensure that the country gets better value for money from the next generation.
  We have taken a brave step. It took the Labour Government to take that step, and to change the law when we came into office so that PFI deals could go ahead, and the hospital that Dartford and Gravesham so sorely needed could be built, and will deliver the services on time for the people of Dartford.
  The doctors and nurses to whom I speak are pleased with the new facilities where they will work. They are overjoyed by the fact that they will work in modern conditions that will enable them to give an excellent service to the patients of our area.
  The Government have come up with many initiatives, and have found not only the money but the means to deliver good services, and also to improve staff conditions. I cannot think what the Opposition are whingeing about. We have a good Government, providing a good and improving national health service. The Secretary of State has said that he wants it to improve year on year.
  Mr. Robert Key: My constituents, too, are grateful for our splendid new hospital, but they know that their hospital was built under a Conservative Government. Does the hon. Gentleman suggest that his wonderful new hospital did not even see the drawing board until after the general election?
  Dr. Stoate: Although the Conservative Government thought up the idea, it took a Labour Government to change the law to allow it to happen. That is the difference. The Conservatives can come up with the ideas, but it takes a caring Labour Government to deliver on those ideas and turn them into reality. I am proud to be the Member of Parliament for the constituency that will have the first PFI hospital in the land.
  9.35 pm
  Mr. David Amess: I did not believe one word uttered by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) and I did not recognise the health service described by the Secretary of State. The health service is in crisis. Morale has never been so low. I blame three people: the leader of the Labour party, the leader of the Liberal party and the Secretary of State for Health.
  The leader of the Labour party gave an inept performance at the Dispatch Box today. He could have been Harry Enfield delivering the sermon of platitudes. Conservative Members are entitled to be angry. For 18 years, the Labour party tried every trick in the book to undermine the national health service. Labour Members built up people's expectations, saying that if they voted Labour on 1 May 1997, the new Government would save the national health service.
  I have received grubby little letters that have been sent to Conservative party members exhorting them to give money to the Labour party. They say:
  "In 1948, it was the Labour Party who created the NHS, giving the people of this country the care they deserved based on need, not their ability to pay. Now, in government again, we have found an extra £21 billion to begin to undo the damage content just to sit back and watch this once great service decline still further. …
  Do you want better hospitals with more beds and more nurses to care for the sick?"
  That rubbish has been torn up and thrown in the bin by every Conservative activist. It is a disgrace. The Labour party is peddling a lie about the £21 billion.
  The Liberals have about six useless pledges. I am sick of Liberals—
  Dr. Harris: Liberal Democrats.
  Mr. Amess: Okay. I am sick of the Liberal Democrats and their crocodile tears. They have made a grubby little deal to join up with the Scottish Labour party. They are sharing power in Scotland and in Southend. They also bear the blood of the national health service on their hands.
  The Secretary of State is primarily responsible for the lowest morale in the NHS in my life time. The so-called health service reforms are a shambles. All my hon. Friends in the Standing Committee considering the Health Bill on Tuesdays and Thursdays can see that the Government are making a mess. They cannot deal with the amendments that we are ably tabling. They are not accepting any of our arguments. The General Practitioner has said that "Chaos" reigns on the eve of reforms. The Government do not accept that there is rationing or that they fiddle the waiting list when they should be addressing waiting times.
  I have evidence of the chronic shortage of consultant radiologists. A letter from the clinical director of a local trust says:
  "there will inevitably be some delay in the reporting of Radiological examinations over the next few months. There will also be delays with ultrasound scanning, in particular inpatient work."
  Everyone understands how serious that it.
  This dreadful Government have misled the nurses, the doctors and everyone who works in the health service. I salute the women and men who work in Southend

  1165
  general hospital. They do a magnificent job in spite of this rotten Government, who have done everything that they can to undermine them. A few weeks ago I was walking round the hospital talking to a range of people employed there. Every one of them was dissatisfied with the Government. The Government led people to believe that voting Labour on 1 May 1997 would transform their lives and give them a better deal. In fact, hundreds, thousands, even millions of people have realised that the rotten Labour Government have broken promise after promise, letting the British people down when it comes to the health service.
  9.40 pm
  Mr. Philip Hammond: We have heard some excellent speeches from the Conservative Benches and some complacent speeches from Labour. Our national health service is a vast organisation. The 1 million people who work in it are its very essence. The way they are treated and the state of their morale are crucial to the quality that the NHS can deliver. That is why we tabled our motion.
  The sad fact is that, two years into a Labour Government, we have had two years of frustrated expectations, interference with clinical judgments, meddling from central Government and selective abuse by the Secretary of State. Morale in the health service is at an all-time low. The chairman of the British Medical Association's junior doctors committee has described relations between the medical profession and the Department of Health as being in a state of cold war. He went on to say that things are definitely getting worse.
  It is a fundamental principle of good personnel management that one does not raise expectations that one cannot meet. Labour's spin doctors did a great job on NHS staff before the general election, promising the earth. The not-so-subliminal message was "Vote Labour, and all your problems will be solved." Two years on, the day of reckoning has arrived. When the movie comes to be made of the first two years of the Labour Government, the title will be "Mind the Gap". There is a gap between what they promised in Opposition and what they are delivering in office, between what they say they are doing and what is really happening in our health service and elsewhere.
  Staff in the health service must live not only with their own disillusion. They are at the sharp end and have to deal with the general public from day to day, and they must live with the frustration and disillusion of their patients, people who heard the Government's rhetoric about huge and fictitious sums of money allegedly being pumped into the health service. Patients see the Secretary of State on television congratulating himself on his so-called achievements on waiting lists, and they struggle to reconcile that with the reality that they find—a struggling health service of endless delays, even for an out-patient consultation. Increasingly, they find explicit rationing of drugs and services.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) said that many people in the health service believed Labour's pre-election rhetoric. It is probably fair to say that the Government inherited a substantial fund of good will among NHS staff two years ago. That fund has been dissipated by the stresses placed
  1166
  on staff and the system by Labour's transparently political waiting list initiative, and by the persistent distortion of clinical priorities and interference with clinical judgments. Morale has been sapped by understaffing, reorganisation of the primary sector and the pressures of underfunding and winter crises.
  General practitioners, the linchpin of our primary care-led system, have had to fight the Government tooth and nail to secure their place in the new primary care groups. They had to ensure that they were properly remunerated for the time that they put into setting up and managing the groups. They had to protect their infrastructure budgets and to safeguard their status as independent contractors. Morale among GPs has never been lower. The 50-odd per cent. who were fundholders find themselves forced to withdraw services that they had previously been able to offer to their patients. They can no longer offer their patients the freedom and choice that they had become used to. No wonder there is a continuing recruitment crisis in general practice.
  In our hospitals, the situation is, if anything, worse. Junior doctors are incensed by what they see as the Government's treachery in seeking to renege on the new deal. Since its introduction by the previous Government in 1990, the new deal has seen a progressive reduction in junior doctors' working hours. In 1991, 58 per cent. of junior doctors were contracted to work more than 83 hours per week. By 1998, only 16 per cent. were contracted for more than 56 hours per week. That is not good enough, but it is a dramatic improvement.
  The discovery that the Government were secretly attempting to persuade Brussels to extend for another 15 years the derogation for junior doctors and to increase to 65 the number of hours per week that they can be forced to work has outraged the junior doctors and sent morale plummeting. The BMA has condemned the Government's negotiations with the EU as a
  "cynical attempt to renege on the New Deal".
  The BMA has expressed its outrage at the development and described it as "the height of hypocrisy." It has called the Government's actions
  "a sign of the utmost bad faith"
  which has led to "anger and disillusionment" among doctors.
  No one believes the Secretary of State's explanation because no one whose intentions are genuine argues for a 65-hour week when the current week is 56.
  Many junior hospital doctors already find themselves working inhumanely long hours for a master who appears intent on making them work longer hours still. Many people will have been outraged to learn that junior doctors are paid for their overtime work at 50 per cent. of their normal rate. That means that a junior doctor dealing with casualties and emergencies in the dead of night or at the weekend earns £4.02 per hour.
  Dr. Brand: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Hammond: I will not give way because I do not have enough time. Those junior doctors cannot even be sure that their pathway to freedom is clear. The problems of manpower planning and the restrictions on consultants' posts means that many junior doctors face a bleak future in their chosen specialties. As my right hon. Friend the

  1167
  Member for Maidstone and The Weald said, hundreds of fully qualified obstetricians will be thrown on the scrap heap in the next few years because they have been trained for a specialty for which no consultant vacancies exist, even though the need for such consultants clearly does.
  If junior doctors succeed in achieving a consultant's post, what lies in store for them? More problems, I am afraid, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Partly as a result of the improvement in junior doctors' hours under the previous Government, consultants now bear an ever greater workload. The Government have added the whole clinical governance agenda and its duty of quality to that load while simultaneously casting aspersions on the commitment of consultants to the NHS. The consultants are outraged. The chairman of the consultants committee said of industrial action:
  "Twelve months ago, I would have been surprised to find 80 per cent. of my colleagues supporting. I've noticed an attitude change in the last few months. … The profession are saying we've struggled to hold this service together for so long for little recognition. It can't go on."
  The chairman of the junior doctors committee added:
  "Doctors, both seniors and juniors, are fed up with being taken for granted by the Department of Health".
  The BMA chairman says:
  "We can't go on like this.… We have junior doctors becoming burnt out and disillusioned with medicine."
  Consultants are seeking to retire ever earlier as they find the burdens of on-call working unsustainable into their 60s. A crisis is looming. Junior doctors cannot see their career path before them as a result of inadequate planning and insufficient consultant posts. Consultants can no longer work at the intensity at which they are being asked to work, and the Government sit on their hands and do nothing. We have argued and the professions have argued that the Health Bill currently in Committee should include provisions for some form of manpower co-ordination so that these issues are addressed and doctors across the hospital service, both junior and senior, can see a way out of the current mess.
  The BMA says in its briefing for the debate that the reality is
  "lengthening hours of work for many doctors and/or increased intensity of work for others. This in turn contributes to a progressive decline in morale and motivation which itself militates against the productivity gains necessary to meet demand for medical services. In short, there is a vicious circle."
  But our health service does not run on doctors alone. Nurses and the professions allied to medicine make up the majority of the qualified staff.
  In opposition, the Labour party courted the nurses without shame. I do not have time to recount the history of how Labour has dumped the nurses since they came into office, but I repeat what the Royal College of Nursing said after the famous pay settlement for the nurses earlier this year. It was good news for nurses starting out in their careers—one nurse in 15. The RCN said of the award for the other 14 out of 15:
  "It will not solve the chronic staff shortage."
  In opposition, Labour cynically exploited the concerns of the health professions. It raised the stakes. In office, the Labour Government have shamelessly abandoned them and they must now reap the harvest of frustrated expectations, low morale, faltering recruitment and a haemorrhaging of experienced staff from the service.
  1168
  The Government will be judged by NHS staff, not on what they say, still less on what they said, but on the gap between the vision of the health service that they carefully painted in Opposition and the reality that they are now delivering. The Government cannot look backwards for ever. They are in charge now and they must address the looming crisis in NHS staffing. They must face the responsibility that they bear for first raising and then dashing expectations throughout the NHS, the consequent rock-bottom state of morale and the recruitment and retention problems that flow from it.
  9.50 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): First, I congratulate the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on being given the responsibility of replying to the debate. I had heard that we might hear from the Trappist hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan), who is clearly still maintaining his vow of silence, which he has enjoyed for some time.
  There have been some interesting contributions to the debate. Among other things, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) asked about staff shortages. He will know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State told the Select Committee that we would be carrying out an authoritative survey of staff shortages, and that is now under way. We will be reporting in due course.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Keen) spoke about the human cost under the previous Government of disregarding the commitment of people who work hard to provide our national health service. The hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe), in a speech which I think even she would recognise as faintly absurd, conjured an extraordinary picture of the Government's primary care reforms. Among many other things that I would like to put out, it is important to stress that there is no threat to independent contractor status from our proposals.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) set things straight on the Government record on nurses' pay and reminded us of the damage done by the previous Government with the introduction of the internal market, the two-tier system that that imposed on patients and the effect of short-term contracts on staff.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) spoke of local issues but underlined that he was talking about resources in the NHS. He, as did other Opposition Members, failed to explain how complaints about resources can be matched with their condemnation of our investment in the NHS as reckless and irresponsible. One wonders how they would be doing without it.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) spoke of the need to train more doctors and rightly stressed that we are increasing the number of training places for doctors. He also spoke rightly and far more accurately than others of the strength of support throughout the country for our primary care reforms and the commitment to working through those in place.
  I would not normally do this—
  Mr. Amess: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: No, I will not.

  1169
  The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand), in an intervention, made a point about access centres. I take the opportunity of stressing that we want to see these centres develop with the support of primary care groups. We recognise the importance of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raised.
  The hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) shouts at me, as he did every Tuesday and Thursday over the past three weeks during consideration of the Health Bill in Committee. He talked about shortages of consultant radiologists. I would point out that it takes 15 years to train such a consultant. That brings me to a rather central point—
  Mr. Amess: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: No. There is very limited time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The Minister is not going to give way.
  Mr. Denham: I wish to mention all the speakers in the debate, as is courteous. However, I need, too, to answer some of the points that have been made.
  If the Opposition's charge in their motion had been that we had not yet solved all the problems that we inherited from the Conservative Government, we would have had to say, "Yes, that is true."
  The Opposition's problem tonight is that they have tried to make the case that everything was fine until the last general election, and since then it has gone badly wrong. That claim has no credibility in the House, in the country or, most importantly, among the NHS staff whom we are discussing. There is no more important group of people for the House to discuss.
  Although I do not agree with the Opposition motion, I am happy that we are debating the topic. Those million people who change lives and save lives every day in every part of our country are of tremendous importance. There is not a single hon. Member whose family and constituents do not have reason to be grateful to them.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Amess: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: It is important that those who work in our national health service should be fairly rewarded, that their careers should develop, and that the NHS should make the best use of their skills and commitment.
  Let me deal with the Opposition motion. First, on junior doctors' hours, the motion is wrong. The Opposition know that it is wrong, and they know that no amount of repeating something that is wrong will make it right.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: We have no intention of increasing the hours of work of a single junior doctor in the United Kingdom. We are committed to implementing the new deal.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: We want to cut the hours of the 15 per cent. of junior doctors working more than an average
  1170
  of 56 hours per week. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] We are working to make sure that the conditions, the catering and the accommodation when they are on call are improved. We want to make sensible, practical progress to implement the working time directive—the very directive that the Conservatives opposed absolutely in principle. Like other countries, we need to be able to make it work without causing patients to suffer.
  Miss Widdecombe rose—
  Mr. Denham: The Opposition complain about nurses' pay. It is quite true that some did not receive the increase in their April pay packets. I regret that, although the notification to employers was the earliest for several years. We shall have to look into the matter and take into account in future years that an offer that was made on 10 February was not accepted until mid-March, and further work was still necessary.
  The increase will paid. I am not surprised that that was the worst that the Opposition could find to say in their motion about our treatment of nurses—nurses who this year have had the biggest real-terms increase for 10 years, paid nationally, in full, and not staged.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: There will be extra action to recognise the need to retain and recruit new nurses. All nurses will get at least 4.7 per cent. more; 70,000 nurses will get 8.2 per cent. more; two thirds of nurses will earn more than £20,000 this year. More than £50 million is to be invested to improve the training and recruitment of nurses.
  More than 50,000 people responded to the advertising campaign by telephone, and more than 650 qualified nurses are already back at work on the wards in our hospitals. Not only the nurses have benefited—the professions allied to medicine have had the biggest real-terms increase in 10 years.
  Miss Widdecombe: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Denham: We have made it clear to the consultants that as we discuss with them changes to the consultants' contract, we can consider the need to invest in changes that bring benefit to the NHS. All that is real progress, but it is not enough. For years under the previous Government, the NHS—
  Sir Peter Emery: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I beg to move, That the Question be now put—we do not want to listen to that.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I call the Minister.
  Mr. Denham: For years under the previous Government, the NHS was run as though people did not matter. The previous Government botched pay reform, so we have a mess of myriad jobs and grades over local and national contracts. They did not take effective action to protect staff from violence, racism or avoidable accidents at work.
  9.59 pm
  Mr. James Arbuthnot rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 167, Noes 339.

  Division No. 186]

  [10.2 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter ((E Surrey)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Amess, David

  Gray, James

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Green, Damian

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Greenway, John

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Grieve, Dominic

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Baker, Norman

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Ballard, Jackie

  Hammond, Philip

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Bercow, John

  Harvey, Nick

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Hawkins, Nick

  Body, Sir Richard

  Heald, Oliver

  Boswell, Tim

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brady, Graham

  Horam, John

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Brazier, Julian

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Breed, Colin

  Hunter, Andrew

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Burns, Simon

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  (NE Fife)

  Keetch, Paul

  Cash, William

  Key, Robert

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Chidgey, David

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Chope, Christopher

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Clappison, James

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Leigh, Edward

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Letwin, Oliver

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Collins, Tim

  Lidington, David

  Colvin, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Livsey, Richard

  Cotter, Brian

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Cran, James

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  & Howden)

  Mackay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Day, Stephen

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Duncan, Alan

  Malins, Humfrey

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Maples, John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Mates, Michael

  Evans, Nigel

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Faber, David

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Fabricant, Michael

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fallon, Michael

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Moss, Malcolm

  Flight, Howard

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Norman, Archie

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Oaten, Mark

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Öpik, Lembit

  Gale, Roger

  Ottaway, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Page, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Paice, James

  Gill, Christopher

  Paterson, Owen

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Pickles, Eric

  1172

  Prior, David

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Rendel, David

  Townend, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Tredinnick, David

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Trend, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tyler, Paul

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Ruffley, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Walter, Robert

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Wardle, Charles

  Sanders, Adrian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Webb, Steve

  Shepherd, Richard

  Wells, Bowen

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

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

  Whittingdale, John

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Willetts, David

  Spring, Richard

  Willis, Phil

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woodward, Shaun

  Swayne, Desmond

  Yeo, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Sir David Madel.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Cann, Jamie

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Casale, Roger

  Ainger, Nick

  Caton, Martin

  Alexander, Douglas

  Cawsay, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Chaytor, David

  Ashton, Joe

  Clapham, Michael

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Banks, Tony

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Barnes, Harry

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Barron, Kevin

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Battle, John

  Clelland, David

  Bayley, Hugh

  Clwyd, Ann

  Beard, Nigel

  Coaker, Vernon

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Coleman, Iain

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Colman, Tony

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Connarty, Michael

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Benton, Joe

  Corbett, Robin

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Berry, Roger

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Best, Harold

  Cousins, Jim

  Betts, Clive

  Cox, Tom

  Blackman, Liz

  Cranston, Ross

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cummings, John

  Boateng, Paul

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Borrow, David

  (Copeland)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Davidson, Ian

  Browne, Desmond

  Daives, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Burden, Richard

  Dawson, Hilton

  Burgon, Colin

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Denham, John

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Donohoe, Briah H

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Dowd, Jim

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Drew, David

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Campbell—Savours, Dale

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  1173

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Edwards, Huw

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Fisher, Mark

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Flynn, Paul

  Kumar, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Foulkes, George

  Leslie, Christopher

  Fyfe, Maria

  Levitt, Tom

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Linton, Martin

  Gerrard, Neil

  Livingstone, Ken

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lock, David

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Love, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McCabe, Steve

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  MaCafferty, Ms Chris

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Grocott, Bruce

  (Makerfield)

  Grogan, John

  Macdonald, Calum

  Gunnell, John

  McDonnell, John

  Hain, Peter

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mackinlay, Thomas

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McNulty, Tony

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  MacShane, Denis

  Healey, John

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWilliam, John

  Heppell, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hill, Keith

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Hinchliffe, David

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Hope, Phil

  Martlew, Eric

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Meale, Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Merron, Gillian

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Milburn Rt Hon Alan

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Miller, Andrew

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hurst, Alan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hutton, John

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Illsley, Eric

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Morris, Ms Estelle, (B'ham Yardley)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Mountford, Kali

  Jamieson, David

  Mullin, Chris

  Jenkins, Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pendry, Tom

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Pickthall, Colin

  1174

  Pike, Peter L

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Plaskitt, James

  Stevenson, George

  Pollard, Kerry

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Pond, Chris

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Pope, Greg

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Pound, Stephen

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Stott, Roger

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Stringer, Graham

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Stuart, Ms Gisels

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Quinn, Lawrie

  (Dewsbury)

  Radice, Giles

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Rammell, Bill

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rapson, Syd

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Raynsford, Nick

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Timms, Stephen

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Todd, Mark

  Rooker, Jeff

  Touhig, Don

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Trickett, Jon

  Rowlands, Ted

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Roy, Frank

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Ruane, Chris

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Vaz, Keith

  Salter, Martin

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wareing, Robert N

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Watts, David

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  William, Rt Hon Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  (Swansea W)

  Singh, Marsha

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Wilson, Brian

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Winnick, David

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Wise, Audrey

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wood, Mike

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Worthington, Tony

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Soley, Clive

  Wyatt, Derek

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Spellar, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mr. David Hanson.

  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 338, Noes 163.

  Division No. 187]

  [10.16 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Battle, John

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Ainger, Nick

  Beard, Nigel

  Alexander, Douglas

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Allen, Graham

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ashton, Joe

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Benton, Joe

  Banks, Tony

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Barnes, Harry

  Berry, Roger

  Barron, Kevin

  Best, Harold

  1175

  Betts, Clive

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Blackman, Liz

  Fisher, Mark

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Blizzard, Bob

  Flynn, Paul

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Boateng, Paul

  Foster, Michael J(Worcester)

  Borrow, David

  Foulkes, George

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Fyfe, Maria

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gapes, Mike

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Browne, Desmond

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burden, Richard

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burgon, Colin

  Godsiff, Roger

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Grogan, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Gunnell, John

  (NE Fife)

  Hain, Peter

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hall, Partick (Bedford)

  Casale, Roger

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Caton, Martin

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Cawsey, Ian

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Healey, John

  Chaytor, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heppell, John

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hill, Keith

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hoey, Kate

  Clelland, David

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hoon, Geoffrey

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hope, Phil

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Colman, Tony

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Corston, Ms Jean

  Hurst, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cox, Tom

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cranston, Ross

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

  Jamieson, David

  (Copeland)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Johnson, Miss Melanie

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Ms Jenny

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Denham, John

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dowd, Jim

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Drew, David

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Edwards, Huw

  Khabra, Piara S

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kidney, David

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  1176

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pound, Stephen

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Kingham, Ms Tess

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lawrence, Ms Jackie

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Levitt, Tom

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Quin, Lawrie

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Radice, Giles

  Linton, Martin

  Rammell, Bill

  Livingstone, Ken

  Rapson, Syd

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lock, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Love, Andrew

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  McCabe, Steve

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rooker, Jeff

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  (Makerfield)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Macdonald, Calum

  Roy, Frank

  McDonnell, John

  Ruane, Chris

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Ruddock, Joan

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Salter, Martin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McNulty, Tony

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacShane, Denis

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shaw, Jonarthan

  McWalter, Tony

  Sheerman, Bary

  McWilliam, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Simpson, Alan Nottingham S)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Singh, Marsha

  Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

  Skinner, Dennis

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Martlew, Eric

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meale, Alan

  Smith, John Glamorgan)

  Merron, Gillian

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Soley, Clive

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Miller, Andrew

  Spellar, John

  Moffatt, Laura

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stvenson, George

  Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Morley, Elliot

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Mountford, Kali

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Mullin, Chris

  Stott, Roger

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Norris, Dan

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  (Dewsbury)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, David, (NW Leics)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Temple—Morris, Peter

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Timms, Stephen

  Pearson, Ian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pendry, Tom

  Todd, Mark

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Touhig, Don

  Pickthall, Colin

  Trickett, Jon

  Pike, Peter L

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Plaskitt, James

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pond, Chris

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pope, Greg

  Vaz, Keith

  1177

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Wise, Audrey

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wood, Mike

  Watts, David

  Worthington, Tony

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Wyatt, Derek

  (Swansea W)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Mr. David Hanson and

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Amess, David

  Hammond, Philp

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Harvey, Nick

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Baker, Norman

  Heald, Oliver

  Ballard, Jackie

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Heathcoat—Amory, Rt Hon David

  Bercow, John

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Horam, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Boswell, Tim

  Hughes, simon (Southwark N)

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Brazier, Julian

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Keetch, Paul

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Key, Robert

  Burns, Simon

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

  Kirkbridge, Miss Julie

  (NE Fife)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Cash, William

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Lansley, Andrew

  (Chipping Barnet)

  Leigh, Edward

  Chidgey, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clappison, James

  Lidington, David

  Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Kensington)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Livsey, Richard

  Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Collins, Tim

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Colvin, Michael

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Cran, James

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  & Howden)

  Malins, Humfrey

  Day, Stephen

  Maples, John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Mates, Michael

  Duncan, Alan

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Evans, Nigel

  Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

  Faber, David

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fabricant, Michael

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fallon, Michael

  Norman, Archie

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Oaten, Mark

  Flight, Howard

  Öpik, Lembit

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ottaway, Richard

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Page, Richard

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Paice, James

  Gale, Roger

  Paterson, Owen

  Garnier, Edward

  Pickles, Eric

  Gibb, Nick

  Prior, David

  Gill, Christopher

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Rendel, David

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gray, James

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Green, Damian

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Greenway, John

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Grieve, Dominic

  Ruffley, David

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  1178

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tyler, Paul

  Sanders, Adrian

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Wardle, Charles

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

  Waterson, Nigel

  Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

  Webb, Steve

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Stunell, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Willetts, David

  Syms, Robert

  Willis, Phil

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Yeo, Tim

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Townend, John

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Tredinnick, David

  Mrs. Caroline Spelman and

  Trend, Michael

  Sir David Madel.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House recognises and applauds the massive contribution the staff make to providing the fairest and most efficient healthcare system in the world; regrets the shambles in the NHS that the Government inherited which was demoralising to staff and damaging to patients; welcomes the action the new Government has taken to make things better for staff and patients alike, including £21 billion extra for the NHS over the next three years, record capital investment in new buildings, equipment and facilities to enable the staff to provide top-quality care, the biggest real-terms pay rise for nurses for 10 years paid nationally in full, proposals for radical pay reform to give fairer rewards to staff who extend their roles, widen their skills and work in teams to care for patients, negotiations on a new consultants' contract to ensure rewards go to those who contribute most to the NHS, ambitious targets to improve the quality of the working lives of NHS staff, including tough action to crack down on violence and racism at work, the promotion of family-friendly employment policies and investment in training and continuing professional development; welcomes the Government's commitment to reducing junior doctors' hours in line with the draft European Working Time Directive vehemently opposed by the Conservative Party and carefully planned so as not to damage improvements in patient care; and accepts no lectures about conditions of service for NHS personnel from a Party that did more in Government to demoralise the staff than any other in living memory and which spends most of its time in Opposition running down the achievements of the NHS staff and saying the Health Service can no longer cope.

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

    SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
    That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 1999–2000 and the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 1999–2000 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Mr. Betts.]
    The House divided: Ayes 340, Noes 121.

    Division No. 188]

    [10.30 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Cousins, Jim

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Cox, Tom

    Ainger, Nick

    Cranston, Ross

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Allen, Graham

    Cummings, John

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

    Ashton, Joe

    (Copeland)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Baker, Norman

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Ballard, Jackie

    Davidson, Ian

    Barnes, Harry

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Barron, Kevin

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Battle, John

    Dawson, Hilton

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Beard, Nigel

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Donohoe, Briah H

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Dowd, Jim

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Drew, David

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Drown, David

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Benton, Joe

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Berry, Roger

    Ennis, Jeff

    Best, Harold

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Betts, Clive

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Blackman, Liz

    Fisher, Mark

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Blizzard, Bob

    Flynn, Paul

    Boateng, Paul

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Borrow, David

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Foulkes, George

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Gapes, Mike

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Gardiner, Barry

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Browne, Desmond

    Gerrard, Neil

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Burden, Richard

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Burgon, Colin

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Godsiff, Roger

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Gorden, Mrs Eileen

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Grogan, John

    (NE Fife)

    Gunnell, John

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Campbell—Savours, Dale

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Cann, Jamie

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Casale, Roger

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Harris, Dr Evan

    Chaytor, David

    Harvey, Nick

    Chidgey, David

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Clapham, Michael

    Healey, John

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Heppell, John

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Clelland, David

    Hill, Keith

    Clwyd, Ann

    Hinchliffe, David

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hoey, Kate

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Coleman, Iain

    Hope, Phil

    Colman, Tony

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Connarty, Michael

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Corbett, Robin

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    1180

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hurst, Alan

    Morgon, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hutton, John

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Illsley, Eric

    Mountford, Kali

    Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

    Mullin, Chris

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Norris, Dan

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Oaten, Mark

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    O'Hara, Eddie

    (Wolverhfon SW)

    Olner, Bill

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Öpik. Lembit

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Pearson, Ian

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Pendry, Tom

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Pickthall, Colin

    Kemp, Fraser

    Pike, Peter L

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Plaskitt, James

    Khabra, Piara S

    Pollard, Kerry

    Kidney, David

    Pond, Chris

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Pope, Greg

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Pound, Stephen

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Leslie, Christopher

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Levitt, Tom

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Radice, Giles

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Rammell, Bill

    Linton, Martin

    Rapson, Syd

    Livsey, Richard

    Raynsford, Nick

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Lock, David

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Love, Andrew

    Rendel, David

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try) NW)

    McCabe, Steve

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Rooker, Jeff

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Ross, Ernie, (Dundee W)

    (Makerfield)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Macdonald, Calum

    Roy, Frank

    McDonnell, John

    Ruane, Chris

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Ruddock, Joan

    McIsaac, Shona

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Salter, Martin

    McNulty, Tony

    Sanders, Adrian

    MacShane, Denis

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McWalter, Tony

    Sedegemore, Brain

    McWilliam, John

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Singh, Marsha

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Skinner, Denis

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Martlew, Eric

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

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

    Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)

    Soley, Clive

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    1181

    Spellar, John

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Tyler, Paul

    Stevenson, George

    Vaz, Keith

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Wareing, Robert N

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Watts, David

    Stott, Roger

    Webb, Steve

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Stringer, Graham

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    (Swansea W)

    Stunell, Andrew

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Willis, Phil

    (Dewsbury)

    Winnick, David

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Wise, Audrey

    Temple—Morris, Peter

    Wood, Mike

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Worthington, Tony

    Timms, Stephen

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Todd, Mark

    Wyatt, Derek

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Touhig, Don

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Trickett, Jon

    Mr. David Hanson and

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Mr. David Jamison.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Greenway, John

    Amess, David

    Grieve, Dominic

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Hammond, Philip

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Bercow, John

    Heald, Oliver

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Body, Sir Richard

    Horam, John

    Boswell, Tim

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Brady, Graham

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Brazier, Julian

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Key, Robert wantage)

    Burns, Simon

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Cash, William

    Kirkbridge, Miss Julie

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Laing, Mrs Elanor

    (Chipping Barnet)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Chope, Christopher

    Lansley, Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Leigh, Edward

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    Letwin, Oliver

    Collins, Tim

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Colvin, Michael

    Lidington, David

    Cran, James

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    & Howden)

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Day, Stephen

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Duncan, Alan

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Malins, Humfrey

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Maples, John

    Evans, Nigel

    Mates, Michael

    Faber, David

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Fabricant, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Fallon, Michael

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Flight, Howard

    Moss, Malcolm

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Norman, Archie

    Garnier, Edward

    Ottaway, Richard

    Gibb, Nick

    Paice, James

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Paterson, Owen

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Pickles, Eric

    Gray, James

    Prior, David

    Green, Damian

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    1182

    Robathan, Andrew

    Trend, Michael

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

    Viggers, Peter

    Ruffley, David

    Walter, Robert

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Waterson, Nigel

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Wells, Bowen

    Shepherd, Richard

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Whittingdale, John

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    Spring, Richard

    Willets, David

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Wilshire, David

    Swayne, Desmon

    Woodward, Shaun

    Syms, Robert

    Yeo, Tim

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Townend, John

    Sir David Michael and

    Tredinnick, David

    Mrs. Carolone Spelman.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: It may be for the convenience of the House if we take motions Nos. 5 to 12 together.
    Hon. Members: No!
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: There was no harm in asking.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF EMPLOYMENT
    That the draft Unfair Dismissal and Statement of Reasons for Dismissal (Variation of Qualifying Period) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
    The House divided: Ayes 330, Noes 112.

    Division No. 189]

    [10.43 pm

    AYES

    Abbott, Ms Diane

    Bradley, Keith (Withington)

    Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Ainger, Nick

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Alexander, Douglas

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Allen, Graham

    Browne, Desmond

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Ashton, Joe

    Burden, Richard

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Burgon, Colin

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Baker, Norman

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Ballard, Jackie

    Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

    Barnes, Harry

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Barron, Kevin

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies

    Beard, Nigel

    (NE Fife)

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Campbell—Savours, Dale

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Cann, Jamie

    Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

    Casale, Roger

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Chaytor, David

    Benton, Joe

    Chidgey, David

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Clapham, Michael

    Berry, Roger

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Best, Harold

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Betts, Clive

    Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

    Blackman, Liz

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Blizzard, Bob

    Clelland, David

    Boateng, Paul

    Clwyd, Ann

    Borrow, David

    Coaker, Vernon

    1183

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Coleman, Iain

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Colman, Tony

    Hurst, Alan

    Connarty, Michael

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Corbett, Robin

    Illsley, Eric

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

    Corston, Ms Jean

    Jackson, Helen Hillsborough)

    Cousins, Jim

    Jenkins, Brian

    Cox, Tom

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Cranston, Ross

    Johnson, Miss Melanie

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    (Welwyn Hatfield)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)

    Cummings, John

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack

    Jones, Ms Jenny

    (Copeland)

    (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selley Oak)

    Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Dawson, Hilton

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

    Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

    Keetch, Paul

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Dowd, Jim

    Kemp, Fraser

    Drew, David

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Drown, Ms Julia

    Khabra, Piara S

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kidney, David

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    King, Andy Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Ennis, Jeff

    King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

    Fearn, Ronnie

    Kingham, Ms Tess

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Fisher, Mark

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lawrence, Ms Jackie

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Foulkes, George

    Linton, Martin

    Gapes, Mike

    Livsey, Richard

    Gardiner, Barry

    Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Lock, David

    Gerrard, Neil

    Love, Andrew

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McCabe, Steve

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Godsiff, Roger

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    (Makerfield)

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Macdonald, Calum

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McDonnell, John

    Grocott, Bruce

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Grogan, John

    McIsaac, Shona

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McNulty, Tony

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    MacShane, Denis

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Harris, Dr Evan

    McWalter, Tony

    Harvey, Nick

    McWilliam,, John

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Healey, John

    Mallaber, Judy

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Heppell, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Hill, Keith

    Martlew, Eric

    Hinchliffe, David

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Hoey, Kate

    Meale, Alan

    Hood, Jimmy

    Merron, Gillian

    Hoon, Geoffrey

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld, Heeley)

    Hope, Phil

    Michie, Mrs Ray Argyll & Bute)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

    Miller, Andrew

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hoyle, Lindsay

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    1184

    Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Mountford, Kali

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mullin, Chris

    Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

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

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Soley, Clive

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Spellar, John

    Norris, Dan

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Stevenson, George

    Olner, Bill

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Stewart, Ian (Eccle)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Osborne, Ms Sandra

    Stott, Roger

    Palmer, Dr Nick

    Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

    Pearson, Ian

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Pendry, Tom

    Stringer, Graham

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pickthall, Colin

    Stunell, Andrew

    Pike, Peter L

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Plaskitt, James

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

    Pollard, Kerry

    (Dewsbury)

    Pond, Chris

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Pope, Greg

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pound, Stephen

    Temple—Morris, Peter

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Timms, Stephen

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Tipping, Paddy

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Todd Mark

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Touhig, Don

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Trickett, Jon

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Radice, Giles

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Rammell, Bill

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Rapson, Syd

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Tyler, Paul

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Vaz, Keith

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Rendel, David

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Watts, David

    Rooker, Jeff

    Webb, Steve

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Rowlands, Ted

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Roy, Frank

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan

    Ruane, Chris

    (Swansea W)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Willis, Phil

    Salter, Martin

    Winnick, David

    Sanders, Adrian

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Wise, Audrey

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Wood, Mike

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Worthington, Tony

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Singh, Marsha

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wyatt, Derek

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Smith, Miss Geraldine

    Mr. David Hanson and

    (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Mr. David Jamieson.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Brady, Graham

    Amess, David

    Brazier, Julian

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Burns, Simon

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cash, William

    Body, Sir Richard

    Chapman, Sir Sydney

    Boswell, Tim

    (Chipping, Barnet)

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Chope, Christopher

    Clappison, James

    Clifton—Brown, Geoffrey

    1185

    Collins, Tim

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Colvin, Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Cran, James

    Maples, John

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Mates, Michael

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    & Howden)

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Day, Stephen

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

    Norman, Archie

    Duncan, Alan

    Ottaway, Richard

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Paice, James

    Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

    Paterson, Owen

    Evans, Nigel

    Pickles, Eric

    Faber, David

    Prior, David

    Fabricant, Michael

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Fallon, Michael

    Robathan, Andrew

    Flight, Howard

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Ruffley, David

    Fox, Dr Liam

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Garnier, Edward

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Gibb, Nick

    Shepherd, Richard

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gray, James

    Spring, Richard

    Green, Damian

    Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

    Greenway, John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Grieve, Dominic

    Syms, Robert

    Hammond, Philip

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Hawkins, Nick

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Heald, Oliver

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Townend, John

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Tredinnick, David

    Hunter, Andrew

    Trend, Michael

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Viggers, Peter

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Walter, Robert

    Key, Robert

    Waterson, Nigel

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Wells, Bowen

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Whittingdale, John

    Lansley, Andrew

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Leigh, Edward

    Wilkinson, John

    Letwin, Oliver

    Willetts, David

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Wilshire, David

    Lidington, David

    Woodward, Shaun

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Tellers for the Noes:

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Sir David Madel and

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Mrs. Caroline Spelman.

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

    EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Framework Agreement for Trade and Cooperation between the European Community and its Member States and the Republic of Korea) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.
    That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Economic Partnership, Political Coordination and Cooperation Agreement between the European Community and its Member States and the United Mexican States) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.

    SOCIAL SECURITY
    That the draft Social Security and Child Support (Decisions and Appeals) (Amendment) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.
    That the draft Social Security Commissioners (Procedure) Regulations 1999, which were laid before this House on 21st April, be approved.

    LOCAL GOVERNMENT FINANCE
    That the Local Government Finance (England) Special Grant Report (No. 47) on rural bus subsidy grants for 1999–2000 (HC 407), which was laid before this House on 27th April, be approved.

    DEFENCE
    That the draft International Headquarters and Defence Organisations (Designation and Privileges) (Amendment) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.
    That the draft Visiting Forces and International Headquarters (Application of Law) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 15th April, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
    Question agreed to.

  PETITION

    Bicycle Bells
    10.57 pm
    Dr. Nick Palmer: Some 2,487 residents of Broxtowe and neighbouring constituencies
    request that the House of Commons urge the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions to introduce legislation to require cyclists to have a bell fitted on their bicycles and to use it when approaching pedestrians.
    To lie upon the Table.

Health Service (Forest of Dean)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]
10.58 pm
Mrs. Diana Organ: Patients in the Forest of Dean are facing cuts to community health services because of the funding position of Gloucestershire health authority, whose allocation of only a 3.8 per cent. increase—the second lowest in the country—and the pressure created by not having the pay award fully funded have resulted in it facing a deficit of £5.4 million.
If the health authority had received the English average growth allocation, it would have another £2 million and the Forest of Dean would not be facing cuts to its health services. The underlying national policy objective of securing fairness in the distribution across England is supported by the health authority and understood by the public, but makes the transition areas such as the Forest of Dean face cuts, so that budgets can be balanced. There are strong arguments why the area should not suffer in that way.
The Forest of Dean is a rural and industrial area with scattered centres of population. It suffers from low pay, faces rising unemployment and has some poor housing stock and poor transport. Access to any service is difficult. The area has pockets of real deprivation.
The population profile is skewed towards the elderly, with nearly 10 per cent. of the population over 75, and 18 per cent. over 65. The area has markedly poor public health, and, unlike other parts of Gloucestershire, it is not wealthy and healthy, a fact that health authority funding does not reflect. The Forest of Dean has the highest percentage of people with disabilities in the county, excluding those of pensionable age. In comparison with national averages, death rates are higher in certain areas, especially for women. So are rates for heart disease, respiratory diseases, cancer and even tuberculosis, a disease usually associated with inner city deprivation.
Ill health is an issue in the Forest of Dean. The report of the director of public health recommended that the poor health status of residents of Gloucester and the Forest of Dean should be acknowledged and taken into consideration by agencies when they allocate resources. Our rates of ill health are not reflected in our allocation of health service money.
I welcome the Government's determination to improve the public health of the nation and to close widening inequalities in health. We must recognise that public health is affected by many factors. The appointment of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health shows our determination, which was also set out clearly in the White Paper "Our Healthier Nation" and in the programmes of health improvement that are being put in place as a priority. That is real progress.
Set against that progress, we are able to spend only £600 per head in the Forest of Dean while the UK average is £750. The area has higher-than-average need and, as a rural area, has greater costs of health care delivery. Those difficulties of delivery are not recognised in the funding formula. Although we have sparsity problems, access problems and poor public health indicators, we have no health action zone, no sure start programme and no
1188
NHS Direct. The extra investment that those wonderful initiatives would bring would enhance the health service, improving access and tackling the problems of deprivation and public health. Instead, some patients face cuts to services, and those cuts will hit some of the most vulnerable—the elderly and the poor.
The proposed cuts are all to community health care services. Cuts in areas such as emergency services, cancer services, mental health, improvement to dentistry, improvement in coronary heart disease and reduction in waiting list times are unacceptable, particularly in the context of the Government's national strategy. To meet the deficit, we are beginning to dismantle our community services piece by piece. In the great scheme of things, that will save relatively little money, but it has a devastating impact on patients in rural areas. Rightly, it is highly unpopular.
The need to adjust quickly means that savings or cuts must be made not against a considered strategy but to balance the budget. We could face a process of expensive reviews and consultations about threatened cuts, which will raise anxiety among the population, but which, either on health grounds or for political reasons, will never be implemented. That would waste money that should be spent on delivery of front-line services.
The list of proposed cuts is extensive, and includes the axing of non-emergency patient transport, cuts to the chiropody service, axing a day hospital in a market town, cuts to health visitor services, cuts in GP prescription budgets and cuts to newly set up primary care groups.
Mr. David Drew: Would my hon. Friend comment further on the first item on her list of proposed cuts, which affects my constituents in the neighbouring constituency? Reducing services in more rural parts of Gloucestershire while also cutting transport means that people face a double dilemma-fewer services but an inability to reach the nearest hospital or health care centre.
Mrs. Organ: My hon. Friend is absolutely correct. The cut to transport in a rural area is a double whammy.
Mr. Alan Duncan: That's a Labour Government for you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. I must tell the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) that Adjournment debates allow Back-Bench Members to put their case to Ministers. Front-Bench spokesman should not interrupt them.
Mrs. Organ: Cuts will also be proposed to the joint finance funding available to voluntary organisations to fund local mental illness schemes. We recognise that mental health services are always underfunded.
There may be reductions in the number of GPs in the area as GPs who retire are not replaced. Yet hard-working GPs offer skills and real expertise to the local community hospitals. Thus, the services available to the local population in the community hospitals will be reduced. All those proposals are up for consideration, but some are in place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) has mentioned. One is in the transport service, a much-needed service predominantly for elderly people, for whom access to services is difficult and

1189
mobility a problem. The service is crucial to take patients to clinics as out-patients either to the district hospital in Gloucester or to the two local community hospitals—Lydney and district hospital and Dilke Memorial hospital. There is not an alternative public bus service. Distances are great and car ownership or access to a car among the elderly is low. The proposals will make access to health services even more difficult.
In addition, patients are on a limited and low income, so there will be a burdensome extra cost as the free service goes. The Forest Voluntary Action Forum is trying to cope and to meet the newly arisen need, but its volunteer driving scheme must make a charge of 15p a mile and sometimes the round trips are as much as 50 miles. The services were needed; 3,500 journeys were previously made within the forest. The cuts affect many people.
Emergency transport, of course, is protected, as is that for the mentally ill, the disabled and cancer patients, although that does not always seem to be the case, as the Forest Voluntary Action Forum has received numerous requests for transport from oncology patients. A relatively small saving with a massive impact on a vulnerable group is now going ahead.
Another proposed cut is to the chiropody service—both the clinics and the domiciliary service. Again, it is a service much used by the elderly and those with mobility difficulties or a disability. It really makes a difference. It helps to keep people mobile. There are waiting lists for it. It needs to be delivered in local clinics or people's homes, especially in a rural area with transport problems. At present, it is an excellent service. Why cut it, when it is so good? We should be extending it.
We recognise that the Forest of Dean is getting massive investment in other areas of health care and we welcome it. There is a £25 million project for a new building for accident and emergency services in the general district hospital in Gloucester, although it is certain that there will be cuts for some wards. Money has been provided to bring down waiting lists. We have an excellent record on waiting lists in Gloucestershire. We have some of the shortest times in the south-west, and rightly so. No one waits longer than the Government guidelines permit.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has permitted flexibility in using £1 million of the modernisation fund money to meet some of the most pressing service needs. Will Ministers consider whether further moneys from the fund could be released in the same way to stop the cuts to the community health services in the forest? Or, in order that the health authority can manage the transition from the current pattern of expenditure and services to something that can be planned strategically and is sustainable in the long term, will they consider the allocation of a short-term funding package similar to those recently granted to Cornwall of £2 million and to Worcestershire of £4.5 million? In that way, the public health of the forest could be improved and the elderly would not suffer the brunt of the cuts. We shall continue to improve, as we are determined to do, equitable access to health care for people in rural areas such as the Forest of Dean and other areas of Gloucestershire.
11.9 pm
The Minister for Public Health (Ms Tessa Jowell): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean (Mrs. Organ) on having secured this
1190
debate on a matter that is of such importance to her constituents and those of other hon. Friends who represent constituencies in Gloucestershire who are in the Chamber this evening.
I shall begin by setting out how the Department allocates money to the national health service to achieve a fair and equitable distribution of NHS resources between individual health authorities, and what we are doing to improve this system. That will help to explain why Gloucestershire health authority has received less of an increase in its funding than other health authorities, although it is important to emphasise that Gloucestershire received a real-terms increase of nearly 3 per cent. in its budget for this year. I shall also briefly address the means by which the health authority is balancing its finances. In addition, and importantly, I shall recognise some of the achievements of the health authority and highlight some of the investments in local health services to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend has made the centrepiece of her argument her concern about the adequacy of Gloucestershire health authority's financial allocation for the present financial year. I shall discuss the authority's finances shortly but I should like to say a few words about the way in which health authority money is currently allocated. The Department of Health uses a national weighted capitation formula as the basis for allocating hospital and community health services' revenue to individual health authorities. The underlying principle of the formula is to distribute resources as equitably as possible, based on the health care needs of the local population.
The national formula uses the most recently available population figures, which are then weighted, or adjusted, to take account of three factors. The first of those is an adjustment that is made based on the age structure of the population. The second is the health needs of the population, over and above those accounted for by age. The third is unavoidable variations in the local costs of delivering services.
As well as the size of the population, its age structure is important as levels of sickness and use of the health services obviously varies by age group. The very young and the elderly, who are not evenly distributed throughout the country, make more use of health services than the rest of the population. A wide range of health and socio-economic indicators associated with the need for health care are included in determining the second element of the weighted formula. Even when differences in the age structure are taken into account, populations of the same size and age distribution display different levels of morbidity.
Lastly, to be equitable, the formula must take account of the fact that the cost of providing health care is not the same everywhere due to the impact of local market forces on staff costs and the costs of land and buildings.
Weighted capitation targets are not fixed in time but are recalculated annually to determine each health authority's relative share of the overall resources that we are able to make available to the NHS. Changes to health authorities' targets are normally the result of routine updating to take advantage of the latest available data such as population figures, boundary changes or changes to the formula.
The weighted capitation formula is kept under constant review and last year we made four changes to it. The one that is of most relevance to the debate was the

1191
introduction of a geographical cost adjustment for emergency ambulance services. This arose from an exercise to examine the effects of rural sparsity on the cost of providing certain services. While a geographical cost difference was found for emergency ambulances, no such differences were found in the cost of, for example, providing accident and emergency services and patient transport services. It was recommended by the resource allocation group that we introduce an adjustment to reflect the costs of emergency ambulance services and we did so.
My hon. Friend has made it clear that she considers that the formula needs to be changed as she believes that it fails adequately to cover the costs of providing health care in rural areas. She is not alone in raising concerns about the current formula. She will be aware that on 10 November 1998 we announced a wide-ranging review of the formula used to make cash allocations to health authorities and primary care groups and trusts. The aim is to produce a new, fairer formula more suitable for the NHS of the future. The review will entail assessing the health care needs of rural populations and identifying any unavoidable extra costs associated with providing health services in rural areas. There can, of course, be no guarantee about the outcome of the review.
There will be a freeze on further changes to the existing formula to maximise stability and certainty for health authorities and primary care groups while allowing the wide-ranging review to take place. Other than routine data changes, the freeze will last until at least the financial year 2001–02.
The target figures derived from the weighted capitation formula are intended to provide a fair and equitable share of NHS resources for each health authority. Although Gloucestershire health authority's target allocation for 1999–2000 was just over £322 million, its actual allocation was £334.59 million. That means that the authority will receive more than £12.4 million, or 3.85 per cent. more than the weighted capitation formula would suggest was its fair share of the available NHS resources.
In order to ensure that all health authorities move closer towards receiving their fair share, authorities that receive less than their target allocation have received a higher increase than authorities that are above their target.
Gloucestershire health authority is currently in fifth place among health authorities that have exceeded their target. Consequently, in common with another 18 health authorities across the country, it has received the minimum growth of 2.9 per cent. in its financial allocation for this year. It is important to emphasise that despite the need to move the authority closer to its weighted capitation target, the health authority has received a £17 million cash increase for the present financial year.
Mr. Drew: A particular problem in Gloucestershire, which affects the Forest of Dean especially, is not just the total allocation, but the way in which it is distributed. The way in which Gloucestershire has divvied up the money among the various districts has been extremely unfair. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that and suggest how we could put matters right, given the difficulties within the total budget?
Ms Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I know how assiduous he has been in pursuing the case of his constituents, and the extent to
1192
which they are affected by the decisions of the health authority. Allocations are made to health authorities on the basis of the formula that I outlined. Health authorities can determine how the money is spent, according to their judgment of local need. It would be extremely unpopular if Ministers were to prescribe further the way in which allocations are spent locally. My hon. Friend will have to pursue the matter with the health authority. I know that he will do that vigorously.
I recognise that as a result of the financial allocation, the health authority needs to make substantial financial savings of £5.4 million to remain in financial balance. The authority has already made good progress towards achieving that target. It has been working closely with the local NHS trusts and primary care groups to ensure that the savings are achieved with as little impact on patient care as possible, although I appreciate that some of the decisions that have already been made were unpopular, as some of my hon. Friends have reflected.
My hon. Friend the Member for Forest of Dean raised, in particular, the changes that have already taken place to patient transport services, and those that are proposed for chiropody services. I entirely endorse her important point that chiropody services are an essential facility for many elderly people, enabling them to maintain their independence and their mobility. Not for one moment would I underestimate the importance of those services. However, having pursued those particular concerns with the health authority, I have been assured that all those people with a medical need for those services will continue to receive them and that the authority will continue to review the eligibility criteria for them. In addition, my hon. Friend was concerned about the impact that the savings announced last year to the health visiting budget would have on the elderly. However, I understand that the savings have already been made and were achieved without making a direct impact on patient care.
My hon. Friend has called for more money to be made available to the health authority, either as a special assistance grant or through allowing flexibility in the use of the modernisation fund. Following his meeting with my hon. Friend in March, my hon. Friend the Minister of State agreed to the flexible use of the modernisation fund money, and £1 million of the £2.7 million allocated to support the delivery of waiting list targets will be used to offset the costs of other essential developments. I am sure that my hon. Friend acknowledges and welcomes that flexibility and that she also welcomes the new developments in the delivery of health care locally that will be enabled by that money.
Before closing, I point out how important it is to recognise the achievements of the NHS in Gloucestershire—I am sure that all my hon. Friends who represent constituencies in the county would want to do that. Last year, we saw the highest-ever level of activity by the NHS in Gloucestershire. The latest available figures show that in the first nine months of the last financial year there were more than 85,000 finished consultant episodes; that represented a rise of more than 7.8 per cent. over the same period in the previous year. As a result of that increase, the number of patients from Gloucestershire waiting for an operation fell by more than 22.5 per cent. in the year since March 1998. There were

1193
slightly more than 8,000 patients waiting for an operation at the end of March; of those patients, only 40 had been waiting more than 12 months for treatment.
I pay tribute to the professionalism, dedication and effort of the NHS staff who have achieved that result. It is indeed a proud record. The health authority is confident that, despite the need to make financial savings, the waiting list position will improve further this year. The authority plans to deliver a 6 per cent. increase in out-patient activity and a 4 per cent. rise in elective in-patient activity in the current year, which will be supported by investment in several new consultant posts.
The health authority's financial position does not mean that all services are being cut back; the authority is continuing to invest in improving local services for my hon. Friend's constituents. For example, the number of local rheumatology clinics will increase this year from one to four a month, and a new back pain service was started in the Forest of Dean last year. I understand that that service is successful. Back pain is the single largest cause of absence from work, so the local economy will benefit from the health authority's efforts, not only to reduce absence from work as a result of back pain, but to improve rehabilitation and so allow people who had not previously seriously entertained the prospect of returning to work to do so.
The health authority is also committed to developing local mental health services in the forest in the coming year, and there will be substantial investment in the local health service facilities. The outline business case for the redevelopment of Lydney hospital was approved by the regional office in January. In primary care, the health authority has helped to finance new GP surgery
1194
premises in both Ruardean and Lydney, and has allocated £150,000 to improve primary care information technology.
Although I understand and entirely respect my hon. Friend's determination to press her case about this year's financial allocation to Gloucestershire health authority, it is important that everyone recognise how much the health authority has achieved and the extent to which, for several years, it has received a greater share of NHS resources than the existing formula would have determined it should receive. The authority will have to live within its means while it moves closer to its target allocation.
I should like to re-emphasise the health authority's achievements, especially those that have resulted from its working closely with social services, especially to ensure that elderly people do not remain unnecessarily long in hospital. My hon. Friend mentioned sure start, NHS Direct and health action zones, and I can tell her that further bids for sure start programmes will be invited later this year. I also know that a joint bid has been submitted for an NHS Direct programme to cover her constituency and those neighbouring it.
I hope that the position is clear. Tribute should be paid to those who have delivered improvements in health care to the people of Gloucestershire. I congratulate my hon. Friend again on having raising these issues in debate and urge her to continue to represent the interests of her constituents with her usual assiduity. However, I assure her that the Government are determined that a fair and equitable distribution of resources will benefit people throughout the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Eleven o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what reports he has received from the manufacturers of Eurofighter concerning production delays; and if he will make a statement. [82524]

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

  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 19 May 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about reports he has received from Eurofighter manufacturers concerning production delays. The matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Contracts for the production of the first tranche of 148 Eurofighter aircraft, including 55 for the Royal Air Force, were signed in September 1998. Since then industry has not submitted any reports concerning delays to the contracted production schedule. Prior to contract signature, however, industry advised that to maintain the delivery schedule it would be necessary to introduce lower functionality in early aircraft, with a series of increments leading to the full standard. Nations identified functionality standards that would satisfy the initial training requirement, and these were reflected in the contract. The availability of such aircraft will allow conversion training of pilots to go ahead as planned. All aircraft will be upgraded to the final standard within the agreed prices.

  Ministerial Meetings (US)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many meetings he held with members and officials of the US Administration during his visit to the United States of America on 16 to 18 April; with whom he held the meetings and at what locations. [84314]

  Mr. George Robertson
  During my visit to the US from 16 to 18 April 1999 my only formal meeting was with Mr. William Cohen, the US Secretary for Defence. This meeting took place in the Marriott Hotel, Portland, Maine, on the morning of Saturday 17 April.

  Scalp EG Missile
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of the Scalp EG missile is being built in the UK; and what agreements have been made on the United Kingdom's share of the work. [84516]

  Mr. Spellar
  This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  344
  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Mike Hancock, dated 19 May 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence which asked what percentage of the Scalp EG missile is being built in the UK; and what agreements have been made on the United Kingdom's share of the work. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Scalp EG is being procured by the French government for its own armed forces; it is essentially the same weapon as Storm Shadow, which we are procuring for the UK's forces, although there are certain unique requirements specific to each country. National procurements are being pursued under separate contracts: the UK's contract for Storm Shadow was placed with Matra BAe Dynamics UK Ltd in February 1997 and the French government's contract for Scalp EG was placed with Matra BAe Dynamics France S.A. in December 1997. The two parts of Matra BAe Dynamics act as separate prime contractors and hold the individual Storm Shadow and Scalp EG contracts for their respective national governments.
  Although a Memorandum of Understanding exists between the UK and France covering co-operation in and co-ordination on technical matters of these missile programmes, this does not allow UK access to details of the French Industries' commercial arrangements and commitments. I am therefore unable to provide the information you seek.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many personnel are based at the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency in Colchester; and how many staff have agreed to be transferred to Caversfield. [84648]

  Mr. Doug Henderson
  There are 148 personnel currently based at the Defence Clothing and Textiles Agency's site at Colchester. A staff preference exercise is currently being conducted which, when completed, will indicate the number of staff who wish to transfer to Caversfield.

  Operation Allied Force
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received concerning the use of depleted uranium weapons in operation Allied Force against Yugoslavia. [84624]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I have received a number of representations concerning the use of depleted uranium munitions in operation Allied Force from Members of Parliament, including from my hon. Friend himself, and from some members of the public.

  Chinook Helicopters
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if cockpit voice recorders will be fitted to the first six RAF Chinook helicopters by 30 June as set out in his answer of 16 November 1998,Official Report, columns 325–26. [84703]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.
  345
  Letter from Robert Walmsley to Mr. Robert Key, dated 19 May 1999:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the fitting of cockpit voice recorders to RAF Chinook helicopters. The matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  Unfortunately, continuing technical difficulties associated with the development of the Health and Usage Monitoring System (HUMS), of which the cockpit voice recorders form an integral part, and with the integration of this equipment onto the Chinook Mkt/2a helicopters, have resulted in further slippage to the programme of which you were advised previously The difficulties have been addressed jointly by Smiths Industries, the prime contractor, and the Defence Procurement Agency. The project has passed key major milestones this year, including Design Acceptance and ground testing, and flight trials will commence shortly. We now plan on having the first six helicopters fitted by late November this year. The plan to fit the remainder of the Chinook fleet by the end of 2000, remains as previously advised.

  Army Units (Germany)
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the withdrawal of British army units from Germany. [84972]

  Mr. George Robertson
  I stressed in the Strategic Defence Review that the forward basing of ground forces in Germany would remain a key aspect of British defence policy. I (UK) Armoured Division, with its three brigades, will continue to be stationed in Germany, together with United Kingdom Support Command (Germany) and the Headquarters of the Allied Command Europe Rapid Reaction Corps (ARRC) with its signals brigades. But the withdrawal of some units to the United Kingdom will mean that we have a reduced requirement for barracks accommodation and can plan to return to the German authorities at least one Army barracks. The Army has now concluded its studies of its barracks requirement, and I am in a position to give a clearer indication of the likely impact, and timescale, of these moves, which are, to an extent, dependent on the timescale within which refurbished accommodation becomes available in the United Kingdom.

  The process of withdrawal will be phased and we do not expect the full withdrawal of the about 2,500 British troops that I announced to be completed until 2005 at the earliest. However, barracks are now available in the UK to accommodate 1St Royal Tank Regiment, currently located at Paderborn.

  The plan is therefore to withdraw this unit by August of this year. To make best use of the barracks vacated in Germany, and to meet our operational requirements more effectively, we intend to move 35 Engineer Regiment, currently based in Hameln, to Paderborn. Internal moves within Hameln will be initiated, which will enable the eventual handback of Bindon Barracks to the Federal authorities by 2002.

  Our plans for the later phases of the withdrawal are much less certain at the moment and many details have yet to be worked out. Our current assumptions are that there will be two further phases, the first involving the surrender of a barracks in Osnabruck following the withdrawal of an armoured regiment from there. We do not expect this second phase to commence before the year 2001, or to be complete until some time after that.
  346
  The third and final phase will involve the withdrawal of an armoured regiment from 7th Armoured Brigade which is based in Hohne. In this case, it is expected that there will be a regrouping of units of the 7th Armoured Brigade with the result that the requirement for Trenchard Barracks, Celle, will cease, although some married quarters are likely to be retained. This last phase is unlikely to take place before the year 2005.

  Finally, I should say that these withdrawal plans are predicated on our current level of operational commitments in the Balkans, and that a change in the situation there may affect our basing plans.

  Media Relations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) civil servants and (b) special advisers involved in media relations were employed within his Department at I May (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999. [84192]

  Mr. George Robertson
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: Detailed information on the numbers of permanent civil servants employed in Departmental Press Offices during the financial years 1997–98 and 1998–99 was provided in a memorandum dated 16 June 1998 to the Select Committee on Public Administration and published in its report on The Government Information and Communication Service (HC770) in July 1998. A copy is in the Library of the House. The number of civil servants, excluding administrative support staff, permanently employed in the MOD Press Office on media relations work on 1 May 1999 was 10. In addition three military officers were assigned to the MOD Press Office.

  The two Special Advisers in this Department have ad hoc contact with the media but neither is specifically employed in media relations.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Attorney-General what measures he is taking to improve the(a) speed and (b) effectiveness of the Crown Prosecution Service. [84324]

  The Attorney-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service has been piloting a number of initiatives to reduce delay as part of the inter-agency Reducing Delays Initiative. The pilots were completed at the end of March of 1999 and are now being evaluated. The evaluation report is expected in July 1999 and Ministers will then take final decisions on national implementation of the initiatives. The CPS is also continuing to make good progress in implementing the Glidewell Report, which made a number of recommendations aimed at improving the effectiveness of the Service. From April 1999, the CPS has been reorganised into 42 geographical Areas, each headed by a new Chief Crown Prosecutor. This re-organisation, announced when the Government first took office, represents a significant step towards improving the effectiveness of the CPS.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  EU Culture Ministers Meeting
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will list the issues which he (i) plans to raise and (ii) expects other states to raise at the Culture Ministers meeting on 18 and 19 May. [84677]

  Mr. Alan Howarth
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: I will be attending the informal meeting of EU Ministers responsible for cultural and audiovisual issues taking place in Weimar on 18 and 19 May.

  The main issues which will be raised at that meeting are the Culture 2000 programme, culture and employment, European identity and history, self-regulation of the media at the European level, and the results of the consultations on the European Commission green paper on convergence.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the need for amendments to the(a) national minimum wage and (b) working time legislation on the basis of experience since their implementation. [84342]

  Mr. Byers
  The national minimum wage has been in operation for almost seven weeks and so it is too early to make a considered assessment of whether any major amendments might be required in the light of experience. However, the Government propose to make an amendment to the National Minimum Wage Act 1998 to exempt members of Intentional Communities (religious and spiritual residential organisations) following the Low Pay Commission's report. The amendment will be introduced through the Employment Relations Bill which is currently before Parliament. Adjustments to implementation procedures may also be made as necessary.

  With regard to the Working Time Directive, we will issue guidance that will address the questions that have been most frequently asked since the regulations came into force.

  Electronic Commerce
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he plans to publish a draft bill on electronic commerce. [84341]

  Mr. Byers
  As Her Majesty announced in Her Gracious Speech on the opening of Parliament, the Government intend to introduce legislation on electronic commerce during the current session.

  Milk Market
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he expects to publish the report of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission into the milk market; and if he will make a statement. [84122]
  348
  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 14 May 1999]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 6 May 1999, Official Report, columns 1069–70, to the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath).

  Electricity Meters
  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many households in the UK use coin-operated meters for electricity. [84661]

  Mr. Battle
  The latest Office of Electricity Regulation statistics (for the last quarter of 1998) show that there were 661 coin meters in use in Scotland, England and Wales. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to provide the right hon. Member with the relevant figures for Northern Ireland, and to place a copy of her response in the Library of the House.

  EU Research Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the agenda for the EU Research Council on 20 May. [84676]

  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: The agenda for the formal session of EU Research Council on 20 May consists of:

  1. Approval of the adoption of decisions concerning the association of applicant countries (CCEE and Cyprus) with the Fifth Framework Programme for European Research and Technological Development.

  2. Consideration of a draft Council Resolution on "Women and Science: Mobilising women to enrich European research".

  3. Any Other Business:

  (a) the Commission will provide information on the competitiveness of European enterprises in the face of globalisation, with regard to action to be taken on its Communication.

  (b) the Presidency will provide information on scientific and technical co-operation with the Mediterranean partner countries.

  (c) the Commission will provide information on decommissioning of the Joint Research Centre's obsolete nuclear facilities.

  There will also be an informal afternoon session at which the Presidency aims to stimulate a wide-ranging debate on the future of European research. Ministers will be joined by seven representatives of industry and academia who will speak briefly on key issues in European research.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Public Records (EEC Entry Negotiations)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is the restricted marking classification of his Department's internal history of the negotiations on United Kingdom entry to the European Economic Community. [83398]

  Ms Quin
  The text referred to is the "Report on the Negotiations for entry into the European Economic Community" written in 1972 by Sir Con O'Neill. The text
  349
  was classified as Confidential. This report is expected to be published later this year, ahead of its scheduled release in 2003 under the 30 year rule.

  EU Defence Policy Document
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a copy of the document presented to the General Affairs Council of the European Union by the Presidency concerning a future European Defence Policy and capability, in co-operation with NATO; what discussion there has been in Council of the proposals; and what consultation Her Majesty's Government propose to hold. [84315]

  Ms Quin
  The German Presidency are in the course of preparing a report on European defence, which will be submitted to European Union Heads of Government at the Cologne European Council, after discussion at the General Affairs Council. A copy of the final version will be placed in the Library once it is available.

  EU Russia Co-operation Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the agenda for the meeting of Co-operation Council with Russia on 18 May. [84699]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: The provisional agenda for the EU/Russia Co-operation Council on 17 May was as follows:

  1. Opening statements

  2. Adoption of the agenda

  3. Approval of the minutes of the first Co-operation Council

  4. Common EU Strategy towards Russia

  5. Russian Strategy of development of relations with EU

  6. Common foreign and security policy according to Amsterdam Treaty; prospects of further development of EU/Russia political dialogue

  7. Developing EU/Russia relations in the framework of the Partnership and Co-operation Agreement

  8. International issues of mutual concern

  9. Refocussing TACIS programme and member states' bilateral assistance programmes

  10. Other business

  11. Closing statements.

  European Economic Area Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will publish the agenda for the EEA Council of 18 May. [84697]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: The agenda for the 11th EEA Council on 18 May was as follows:

  1. Adoption of the agenda

  2. Approval of the minutes of the 8th and 9th and 10th meetings of the EEA Council

  3. Progress Report by the EEA Joint Committee

  4. Resolutions adopted by the EEA Joint Parliamentary Committee at its meeting on 16 March 1999

  5. Assessment of the overall functioning of the EEA Agreement

  6. Resolutions adopted by the EEA Consultative Committee at its meeting on 11 March 1999

  7. Enlargement of the European Union and the EEA

  350

  8. Review of developments of European integration and regional issues

  9. EEA Financial Mechanism

  10. Adoption of the conclusions of the EEA Council

  11. Other business.

  Kurdish Self-determination
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy in relation to Kurdish self-determination. [84428]

  Ms Quin
  We fully respect the territorial integrity of all the regional states with sizeable kurdish populations (ie Turkey, Iraq, Iran and Syria).

  With relation to Turkey, we have repeatedly urged the Turkish Government to address the social and economic problems of south-east Turkey, in order to bring an end to conflict in the region. We believe that, by addressing the aspirations of the local population, including the Kurdish population, the Turkish authorities can bring about a peaceful resolution of the conflict.

  In Iraq, we are committed to supporting peace and stability in northern Iraq, and are one of the co-sponsors of the Kurdish reconciliation process there. We wish to see autonomy (not independence) for the Iraqi Kurds. The Kurds have made clear that this is what they want.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Genetically Modified Foods
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he has responded to the Local Government Association statement on genetically modified foods. [75496]

  Mr. Meacher
  Yes, I have responded to the Local Government Association statement on genetically modified foods and a copy has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the organisations represented on the Scientific Steering Group for the field-scale evaluations of the ecological effects of genetically modified crops. [83259]

  Mr. Meacher
  The precise membership of the scientific steering committee has not yet been finalised. However, it will be made up of independent scientific experts with experience in a range of appropriate disciplines, including invertebrate and plant ecology, statistical analysis, pesticide use, agronomy, conservation and an expert from English Nature. The membership of the steering committee should be confirmed shortly and it is hoped that it will hold its first meeting in early June.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many regional development agencies have changed their name in the past five years. [84493]
  351
  Mr. Meale
  Six of the Regional Development Agencies have changed their names. The names of each of the Regional Development Agencies are provided in the table.

  Region

  Name of the Regional Development Agency

  North East

  One North East

  North West

  North West Development Agency

  Yorkshire and Humber

  Yorkshire Forward

  West Midlands

  Advantage West Midlands

  East Midlands

  East Midlands Development Agency

  East of England

  East of England Development Agency

  South East

  South East England Development Agency

  South West

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  Lorna Fitzsimons
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to designate regional chambers for the purposes of regional development agencies; and if he will make a statement. [84973]

  Mr. Prescott
  I am pleased to announce that we have today issued:a direction to the East Midlands Development Agency designating the East Midlands Regional Assembly as its regional chamber;
  a direction to the North West Development Agency designating the North West Regional Assembly as its regional chamber and;
  a direction to Advantage West Midlands designating the West Midlands Regional Chamber as its regional chamber.

  Section 8 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 provides that, if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that there is a body which is representative of those in the RDA's area with an interest in its work, and that body is suitable to be given the role of regional chamber for the RDA, he may designate it.

  RDAs must take full account of regional interests. Regional chambers will provide a mechanism through which RDAs can take account of regional views and account for their activities. Ministers expect that each RDA will have regard to the chamber's view in preparing it strategy, consult the chamber on its corporate plan and give an account of its performance to the chamber.

  I am currently considering applications for designation from bodies in other regions.

  Mr. Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is the total cost, including consultancy fees, for changing its name to each regional development agency which has done so in the past five years. [84492]

  Mr. Meale
  Section 26 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 provides for a change of name of the agency from that specified under Section 1 of the Act. The change of name is a matter for the Boards. I understand that, where consultants were involved, it was part of their wider consideration of corporate image and communications strategy for the Regional Development Agency and the cost associated with the name change were not separately identified.

  Stop Fuming Campaign
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much his Department has spent on the Stop Fuming campaign; and if he will make a statement. [84405]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Stop Fuming campaign run by the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders encourages car owners to undertake regular exhaust emission checks. Last year, the campaign linked with the messages being disseminated through my Department's "are you doing your bit?" campaign. My Department produced a leaflet at a cost of £366 to ensure that our messages were jointly reinforced. The SMMT distributed that through their members. We understand the SMMT are planning further campaign activity this autumn.

  Transport (Wheelchair Access)
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will introduce legislation to prevent the surcharging of wheelchair-using passengers on the cost of loading and unloading wheelchairs onto aircraft. [84407]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  We have no current plans to introduce legislation, but if the hon. Member wishes to write to me about particular instances of surcharging, 1 will be glad to consider them.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what provision has been made for access for wheelchair users to(a) the London Underground and (b) the Jubilee Line; and if he will make a statement. [84406]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The existing London Underground network has approximately 40 stations with step free access.

  The Government are very keen to improve access to the transport system in London. However, full accessibility cannot happen overnight, especially on London Underground where most of the stations are old and not designed with access for mobility impaired people in mind.

  London Transport is developing a scheme to improve access to a core network of 68 Underground stations. This will be taken forward under the Public Private Partnership for the Underground.

  The Jubilee line extension will be fully accessible and will enable wheelchair users to travel from mainline stations to Waterloo, Stratford and London Bridge stations to the Millennium Exhibition at North Greenwich.

  Freight Facilities Grant
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many grants have been(a) applied for and (b) awarded for coastal shipping routes under the terms of the expansion of the freight facilities grant. [84322]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  None. Extension of the current Freight Facilities Grant scheme will require primary legislation, for which Parliamentary time has not yet been available.

  Alternative Fuels
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what efforts the Government are making to advise the British transportation industry on(a) the availability and (b) the applicability of alternative fuels [83985]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 May 1999]: The Government are keen to provide more information and advice on the environmental merits of different fuel and vehicle technologies, to enable fleet operators and private motorists to select cleaner, more fuel-efficient vehicles. Detailed advice on the availability and applicability of alternative fuels is already provided by the Energy Savings Trust's Powershift programme, which is funded by my Department. The Cleaner Vehicles Task Force intends to provide further information later this year about the merits of alternative fuel and vehicle technologies which are likely to emerge over the next decade. Several trade and commercial organisations also provided information on the availability of different alternative fuels.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what requirements his Department(a) has set down and (b) proposes to set down for local authorities for the purchasing of motor vehicles in respect of the use of alternative fuels. [83986]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  [holding answer 17 May 1999]: My Department is actively considering setting targets for the proportion of low emission vehicles that local authorities should try to achieve in their fleets.

  Local authorities are not currently required to purchase alternatively fuelled vehicles. They are, however, obliged to review and assess air quality in their areas. Where they conclude that the objectives set out in the National Air Quality Strategy will not be achieved, they must designate air quality management areas and put in place action plans to improve air quality. One measure that local authorities could include in such action plans is to reduce emissions from their own fleets through the use of alternative fuels or cleaner conventionally fuelled vehicles.

  Ear Protectors
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it a duty on employers to ensure that ear protectors are worn by persons operating pneumatic drills; and if he will make a statement. [84627]

  Mr. Meale
  Persons who operate pneumatic drills are already covered by the provision of the Noise at Work Regulations 1989 which require employers to reduce the risk of damage to hearing from exposure to noise and to take specific actions, including providing suitable ear protectors to employees at specified levels of daily personal noise exposure.

  Channel Tunnel Rail Link
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the construction cost of(a) phase one and (b) phase two of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link. [84512]
  354
  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The estimated construction cost of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link (in January 1997 prices) is £1.67 billion for phase one and £2.5 billion for phase two.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how the level of Government guarantee funding for(a) phase one and (b) phase two of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was determined; and if he will make a statement. [84513]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The Government's participation in the Channel Tunnel Rail Link was assessed using a model of London and Continental Railway's future finances. £3.75 billion of Government backed debt was guaranteed with first element (£2.65 billion) raised in February this year to ensure funding is available for both the financing and construction of Section 1 and to cover forecast losses on Eurostar. The remaining £1.10 billion will help fund section 2.

  A130
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what alternative options were appraised using the New Approach to Appraisal before the decision to authorise the A130 PH road in Essex; and if he will place in the Library copies of the appraisal summary tables for the scheme and the other options which were appraised. [84427]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Essex County Council's A130 Bypass PFI project was appraised using the New Approach to Appraisal (NATA). NATA requires the problems with the existing road to be stated together with the options which have been considered for addressing them. Essex County Council did consider smaller scale local schemes but concluded they would not provide the regeneration, environmental and safety benefits that the new A130 Bypass will provide. All options were considered at the 1992 Public Inquiry which found in favour of the A130 Bypass route. Given these circumstances, an appraisal summary table was produced only for the A130 Bypass, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Railway Stations
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the railway stations expected to open in 1999. [84423]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  Rai1track tell me that the following railway stations are expected to open in 1999:

  West Ham

  Braintree Freeport Beauly

  Dunfermline Queen Margarets

  West Brompton

  Luton Parkway

  Horwich Parkway.

  Assaults (Railways)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many attacks on individuals occurred (i) on trains and (ii) at
  355
  stations during (a) the last year for which figures are available, (b) 1990 and (c) 1995 broken down by train operating company responsibility. [84424]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  The number of attacks on individuals for the years 1990–91, 1995–96 and 1998–99 are provided in the first table. These figures include crimes of violence against a person, sexual assaults and robberies. The British Transport Police do not hold these data broken down by train operating company or whether the crimes were on or off-train, but a previous search carried out in 1997–98 does show the percentages of on/off-train crime and these are shown in the second table.

  Year

  National Rail

  London Underground

  Totals

  1990–91

  2,852

  1,646

  4,498

  1995–96

  3,336

  1,269

  4,605

  1998–99

  3,141

  1,164

  4,305

  Percentage

  Year

  On-train

  Off-train

  1997–98

  National Rail

  37.8

  62.2

  London Underground

  50.6

  49.4

  Total

  41.6

  58.4

  Train Operating Companies
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make it his policy not to agree to franchise extensions for train operating companies where such proposals involve the closure of(a) stations and (b) lines. [84425]

  Ms Glenda Jackson
  At the Rail Summit on 25 February 1999, we made it clear that renegotiations must deliver substantial passenger benefits and value for the taxpayer; and we set out a number of criteria that will have to be satisfied. The closure of stations and lines does not figure in these criteria and is subject to an extensive statutory procedure under the Railways Act 1993.

  Rough Sleepers
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people are sleeping rough in England. [85035]

  Ms Armstrong
  We estimate that, as at June 1998, there were 1,850 people sleeping rough in England on any single night, including 621 in Greater London.

  These figures are the first detailed estimate of rough sleeping in England. They have been calculated on a basis agreed with the voluntary sector, using local authority data from local street counts and estimates provided by local authorities. Full details are given in the table, which includes the results of street counts in every area which has made such a count and (where no count has been made) all estimates above the lowest estimate band of 0–10. Numbers are shown in descending size order, by count and then estimate.
  356
  The most robust information available is provided by local single night street counts. In 1996 DETR issued guidance to all local authorities on how to undertake street counts, based on a standard methodology developed in conjunction with Shelter and other voluntary groups. As well as encouraging all authorities to consider the need for counts, the Department has actively pursued this approach in all areas where information suggests there may be a significant number of rough sleepers (ie at least 10 on any single night). As a result of DETR and voluntary sector efforts, counts have been undertaken in 93 local authorities across England since 1996; another 4 authorities undertook counts in 1995 before the guidance was issued. Further information on rough sleeping in other areas is available from the estimates of the number of people sleeping rough on a single night supplied by local authorities annually since 1996 as part of my Department's Housing Investment Programme (HIP); the most recent figures available relate to June 1998.

  The methodology for producing a national estimate of numbers sleeping rough involves aggregating figures for individual local authority districts to generate a total for England. Wherever street counts have been conducted these data are used, and they are supplemented by figures derived from local authority HIP estimates in all other areas. As HIP estimates are provided within bands rather than as single figures (eg 0 to 10, 11 to 20 etc), these are converted into a single figure by assuming that the lowest point within the band is the most representative figure; this assumption is justified by clear DETR experience that local authorities almost invariably overestimate the scale of rough sleeping in their district until they undertake a street count,

  The national estimate of 1,850 thus arrived at provides the best possible indication currently available of the scale of rough sleeping. However, the accuracy of the estimate is reliant on the quality of the information reported to DETR by individual local authorities. The Department will continue to seek to improve the quality of information on rough sleeping by encouraging all local authorities to estimate the numbers of rough sleepers in their area; by investigating any claims by local agencies that they have evidence of a local problem that does not show up in the HIP estimates; and by encouraging areas where there is a known rough sleeping problem to undertake street counts at appropriate intervals as shown, depending on the size of the counted local rough sleeping population:

  (a) Areas with substantial numbers of rough sleepers (20 or more)—At least two street counts a year;

  (b) Areas with significant numbers (between 10 and 19)—At least one street count a year;

  (c) Areas with low numbers (under 10) or no rough sleepers—Local authorities to report estimates through the HIP returns, and DETR to ensure that street counts are undertaken in some areas to spot check the validity of estimates, especially in areas which had previously recorded a significant problem.

  This approach should provide the basis for discerning trends in the numbers of rough sleepers over time, and thus for measuring the success of action to tackle the problem of rough sleeping. However, DETR will, in conjunction with the voluntary sector, continue to

  357
  encourage the 32 local authorities who have estimated a significant local rough sleeping population but not yet undertaken a street count to undertake a count to generate more robust information on the scale of the local problem and to improve the quality of the national estimate. DETR will also encourage the 69 local authorities who have neither carried out a count nor provided a HIP estimate to produce better information on the numbers of people sleeping rough in their area.

  Estimate of the number of people sleeping rough in England in descending order of size—June 1998

  Street count

  June 1998 estimate

  Local authority district

  County

  Region

  1998 HIP estimate

  Date

  Number

  Source

  Number

  Street Counts

  Westminster

  Inner London

  L

  51+

  June 1998

  237

  Count

  237

  Camden

  Inner London

  L

  51+

  June 1998

  59

  Count

  59

  Birmingham

  West Midlands

  WM

  51+

  November 1997

  56

  Count

  56

  Brighton and Hove

  East Sussex

  SE

  51+

  June 1996

  44

  Count

  44

  Bournemouth

  Dorset

  SW

  41-50

  August 1997

  44

  Count

  44

  Bristol

  Avon

  SW

  41-50

  June 1998

  42

  Count

  42

  City of London

  Inner London

  L

  41-50

  June 1998

  41

  Count

  41

  Oxford

  Oxfordshire

  SE

  41-50

  July 1996

  39

  Count

  39

  Tower Hamlets

  Inner London

  L

  51+

  June 1998

  31

  Count

  31

  Manchester

  Greater Manchester

  NW

  51+

  July 1996

  31

  Count

  31

  Cambridge

  Cambridgeshire

  E

  31-40

  July 1997

  30

  Count

  30

  Brent

  Outer London

  L

  21-30

  October 1997

  29

  Count

  29

  Exeter

  Devon

  SW

  41-50

  July 1997

  27

  Count

  27

  Croydon

  Outer London

  L

  21-30

  October 1997

  25

  Count

  25

  Ealing

  Outer London

  L

  41-50

  July 1996

  24

  Count

  24

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Inner London

  L

  21-30

  April 1998

  23

  Count

  23

  Southampton

  Hampshire

  SE

  21-30

  June 1998

  22

  Count

  22

  Portsmouth

  Hampshire

  SE

  11-20

  October 1997

  21

  Count

  21

  Leicester

  Leicestershire

  EM

  21-30

  June 1996

  20

  Count

  20

  Lambeth

  Inner London

  L

  11-20

  April 1998

  20

  Count

  20

  Hounslow

  Outer London

  L

  No estimate

  April 1998

  20

  Count

  20

  Worcester

  Hereford and Worcester

  WM

  11-20

  1995

  20

  Count

  20

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Staffordshire

  WM

  21-30

  November 1997

  20

  Count

  20

  Norwich

  Norfolk

  E

  21-30

  October 1997

  19

  Count

  19

  Liverpool

  Merseyside

  NW

  11-20

  March 1998

  17

  Count

  17

  Penwith

  Cornwall

  SW

  11-20

  April 1998

  17

  Count

  17

  Swindon

  Wiltshire

  SW

  11-20

  December 1997

  17

  Count

  17

  Gloucester

  Gloucestershire

  SW

  11-20

  November 1997

  16

  Count

  16

  Blackpool

  Lancashire

  NW

  11-20

  July 1997

  15

  Count

  15

  Sheffield

  South Yorkshire

  YH

  21-30

  April 1997

  15

  Count

  15

  Nottingham

  Nottinghamshire

  EM

  41-50

  July 1996

  14

  Count

  14

  Northampton

  Northamptonshire

  EM

  11-20

  September 1997

  13

  Count

  13

  Great Yarmouth

  Norfolk

  E

  11-20

  November 1997

  13

  Count

  13

  Islington

  Inner London

  L

  11-20

  November 1997

  13

  Count

  13

  Reading

  Berkshire

  SE

  11-20

  November 1997

  13

  Count

  13

  Fareham

  Hampshire

  SE

  11-20

  February 1998

  13

  Count

  13

  Plymouth

  Devon

  SW

  11-20

  October 1997

  13

  Count

  13

  Richmond upon Thames

  Outer London

  L

  31-40

  July 1996

  12

  Count

  12

  Bury

  Greater Manchester

  NW

  11-20

  January 1998

  12

  Count

  12

  Slough

  Berkshire

  SE

  11-20

  December 1997

  12

  Count

  12

  Bath and North East Somerset

  Avon

  SW

  11-20

  July 1996

  12

  Count

  12

  York

  North Yorkshire

  YH

  11-20

  March 1998

  12

  Count

  12

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Inner London

  L

  21-30

  April 1998

  11

  Count

  11

  Canterbury

  Kent

  SE

  11-20

  June 1996

  11

  Count

  11

  Restormel

  Cornwall

  SW

  11-20

  March 1998

  10

  Count

  10

  Mid Devon

  Devon

  SW

  0-10

  October 1997

  9

  Count

  9

  Haringey

  Inner London

  L

  41-50

  February 1998

  8

  Count

  8

  Guildford

  Surrey

  SE

  11-20

  November 1997

  8

  Count

  8

  Doncaster

  South Yorkshire

  YH

  11-20

  September 1998

  8

  Count

  8

  Leeds

  West Yorkshire

  YH

  11-20

  October 1997

  8

  Count

  8

  Wakefield

  West Yorkshire

  YH

  0-10

  February 1996

  8

  Count

  8

  Ipswich

  Suffolk

  E

  0-10

  December 1997

  7

  Count

  7

  Woking

  Surrey

  SE

  11-20

  October 1997

  7

  Count

  7

  East Hertfordshire

  Hertfordshire

  E

  21-30

  March 1998

  6

  Count

  6

  Hackney

  Inner London

  L

  0-10

  November 1997

  6

  Count

  6

  Waltham Forest

  Outer London

  L

  21-30

  December 1997

  6

  Count

  6

  Wyre

  Lancashire

  NW

  0-10

  September 1997

  6

  Count

  6

  Luton

  Bedfordshire

  E

  0-10

  December 1997

  5

  Count

  5

  358
  We will in future publish estimates of the total number of people sleeping rough in England twice a year, showing the position each June and December. To help put this information in context, we will also monitor the number of new rough sleepers coming onto the streets over time, and record the achievements of Government-funded activity in terms of work by voluntary sector agencies to prevent rough sleeping and help people to move off the streets.
  359

  Estimate of the number of people sleeping rough in England in descending order of size—June 1998

  Street count

  June 1998 estimate

  Local authority district

  County

  Region

  1998 HIP estimate

  Date

  Number

  Source

  Number

  Basingstoke and Deane

  Hampshire

  SE

  0-10

  February 1998

  5

  Count

  5

  Worthing

  West Sussex

  SE

  0-10

  October 1997

  5

  Count

  5

  Poole

  Dorset

  SW

  0-10

  October 1997

  4

  Count

  4

  St. Albans

  Hertfordshire

  E

  0-10

  June 1998

  3

  Count

  3

  Oldham

  Greater Manchester

  NW

  0-10

  July 1995

  3

  Count

  3

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Berkshire

  SE

  0-10

  November 1997

  3

  Count

  3

  Shepway

  Kent

  SE

  0-10

  July 1996

  3

  Count

  3

  Caradon

  Cornwall

  SW

  0-10

  April 1998

  3

  Count

  3

  Carrick

  Cornwall

  SW

  0-10

  April 1998

  3

  Count

  3

  Kerrier

  Cornwall

  SW

  0-10

  March 1998

  3

  Count

  3

  Weymouth and Portland

  Dorset

  SW

  0-10

  May 1997

  3

  Count

  3

  Warwick

  Warwickshire

  WM

  0-10

  September 1997

  3

  Count

  3

  Derby

  Derbyshire

  EM

  0-10

  October 1997

  2

  Count

  2

  Peterborough

  Cambridgeshire

  E

  0-10

  June 1997

  2

  Count

  2

  Barnet

  Outer London

  L

  21-30

  July 1996

  2

  Count

  2

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Tyne and Wear

  NE

  0-10

  March 1998

  2

  Count

  2

  Wycombe

  Buckinghamshire

  SE

  0-10

  November 1997

  2

  Count

  2

  Bradford

  West Yorkshire

  YH

  11-20

  September 1997

  2

  Count

  2

  Mid Bedfordshire

  Bedfordshire

  E

  0-10

  December 1997

  1

  Count

  1

  Bromley

  Outer London

  L

  0-10

  October 1996

  1

  Count

  1

  South Tyneside

  Tyne and Wear

  NE

  0-10

  June 1998

  1

  Count

  1

  Tameside

  Greater Manchester

  NW

  0-10

  February 1998

  1

  Count

  1

  North Somerset

  Avon

  SW

  11-20

  December 1997

  1

  Count

  1

  Cheltenham

  Gloucestershire

  SW

  0-10

  December 1997

  1

  Count

  1

  Taunton Deane

  Somerset

  SW

  0-10

  May 1997

  1

  Count

  1

  Harrogate

  North Yorkshire

  YH

  0-10

  March 1998

  1

  Count

  1

  Colchester

  Essex

  E

  0-10

  December 1997

  0

  Count

  0

  Southend-on-Sea

  Essex

  E

  0-10

  1996

  0

  Count

  0

  Harrow

  Outer London

  L

  0-10

  November 1995

  0

  Count

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  Outer London

  L

  0-10

  November 1997

  0

  Count

  0

  Sunderland

  Tyne and Wear

  NE

  0-10

  February 1998

  0

  Count

  0

  Burnley

  Lancashire

  NW

  0-10

  October 1997

  0

  Count

  0

  Reigate and Banstead

  Surrey

  SE

  0-10

  September 1995

  0

  Count

  0

  North Cornwall

  Cornwall

  SW

  0-10

  March 1998

  0

  Count

  0

  Redditch

  Hereford and Worcester

  WM

  0-10

  March 1998

  0

  Count

  0

  Newcastle-under-Lyme

  Staffordshire

  WM

  0-10

  November 1997

  0

  Count

  0

  Kingston upon Hull

  Humberside

  YH

  0-10

  November 1997

  0

  Count

  0

  Hambleton

  North Yorkshire

  YH

  0-10

  June 1997

  0

  Count

  0

  Barnsley

  South Yorkshire

  YH

  0-10

  May 1998

  0

  Count

  0

  Sub total from street counts

  1,378

  HIP estimates

  Southwark

  Inner London

  L

  31-40

  —

  —

  Estimate

  31

  Torbay

  Devon

  SW

  31-40

  —

  —

  Estimate

  31

  East Lindsey

  Lincolnshire

  EM

  21-30

  —

  —

  Estimate

  21

  Mansfield

  Nottinghamshire

  EM

  21-30

  —

  —

  Estimate

  21

  North Hertfordshire

  Hertfordshire

  E

  21-30

  —

  —

  Estimate

  21

  Chester

  Cheshire

  NW

  21-30

  —

  —

  Estimate

  21

  Lancaster

  Lancashire

  NW

  21-30

  —

  —

  Estimate

  21

  Sefton

  Merseyside

  NW

  21-30

  —

  —

  Estimate

  21

  Maidstone

  Kent

  SE

  21-30

  —

  —

  Estimate

  21

  Epsom and Ewell

  Surrey

  SE

  21-30

  —

  —

  Estimate

  21

  Bedford

  Bedfordshire

  E

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Castle Point

  Essex

  E

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Uttlesford

  Essex

  E

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Newham

  Inner London

  L

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Greenwich

  Outer London

  L

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Tynedale

  Northumberland

  NE

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Bolton

  Greater Manchester

  NW

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Wigan

  Greater Manchester

  NW

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  St. Helens

  Merseyside

  NW

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Newbury

  Berkshire

  SE

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Aylesbury Vale

  Buckinghamshire

  SE

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Milton Keynes

  Buckinghamshire

  SE

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Eastbourne

  East Sussex

  SE

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Rother

  East Sussex

  SE

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  Kent

  SE

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Elmbridge

  Surrey

  SE

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Runnymede

  Surrey

  SE

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Horsham

  West Sussex

  SE

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  360 361

  Estimate of the number of people sleeping rough in England in descending order of size—June 1998

  Street count

  June 1998 estimate

  Local authority district

  County

  Region

  1998 HIP estimate

  Date

  Number

  Source

  Number

  West Dorset

  Dorset

  SW

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Sedgemoor

  Somerset

  SW

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Salisbury

  Wiltshire

  SW

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Rotherham

  South Yorkshire

  YH

  11-20

  —

  —

  Estimate

  11

  Subtotal from HIP estimates

  472

  England total

  1,850

  Note:

  A zero estimate has been included for all other local authorities, including 156 which provided a HIP estimate of 0–10, and 69 which did not make a HIP estimate

  Planning
  Ms Corston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he proposes to issue new guidance to local authorities on the training of councillors involved in planning decisions. [85053]

  Mr. Caborn
  In partnership with the Local Government Association, the Improvement and Development Agency and the Royal Town Planning Institute, I have today issued a leaflet to all councillors in England, giving guidance on the training which they should be undertaking in planning issues. Planning is a crucial local authority function involving the consideration and balancing of complex issues. It has a central and positive role to play in delivering services to local communities. However, it can also raise sensitive propriety issues. It is vital, therefore, that those carrying out this important task are properly equipped to do so.

  The proposed syllabus identifies the key topics on which training should be given. We have also emphasised the importance of councillors being given a continuing programme of planning training to keep their knowledge up to date. The leaflet is being issued as part of my Modernising Planning Initiative to help improve the effectiveness of local authority planning services. It is also intended to help councils implement the recommendation of the Third Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life (Cm 3702–1) that
  "All members of an authority's planning committee (or equivalent) should receive training in the planning system … ".

  We have, however, gone further than this. All elected members will have contact with planning and we have therefore given guidance on the training needs of all councillors depending on their particular role.

  Copies of the leaflet have been placed in the House Libraries.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq
  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the Government's policy on supervision of aid to Iraq; and what steps the Government have taken at the United Nations to pursue its policy. [84411]
  362
  Clare Short
  The UN oil-for-food programme is the largest source of humanitarian assistance for the Iraqi people. It was established in 1996 under UN Security Council Resolution 986, and is implemented largely by the Government of Iraq under the supervision of the UN Office of Iraq Programme (OIP). It is much less effective than it could be if the Government of Iraq wished to provide effective humanitarian assistance to the people of Iraq. The UK maintains regular contact with the OIP to monitor progress on the oil-for-food programme. We have proposed a number of practical improvements to the programme, many of which have already been accepted by the UN Humanitarian Panel. We have included our proposals in a draft Resolution, which is now before the Security Council for its consideration.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will estimate the amount of international aid dispatched to Iraq in the last five years; and if she will make a statement on the method of its distribution. [84412]

  Clare Short
  From 1993–1997, (the last years for which figures are available) international donors (bilateral and multilateral) provided an estimated £918 million in humanitarian assistance to Iraq. This figure does not include the UN oil-for-food programme, which provides the majority of humanitarian supplies to Iraq, and is funded through the sale of Iraqi oil. International donors usually distribute their aid through UN organisations, such as UNICEF and FAO, the European Commission Humanitarian Organisation (ECHO), and the International Committee of the Red Cross, and Non-Governmental Organisations such as CARE International, and Premiere Urgence. The Iraqi authorities permit only seven NGOs to operate in Baghdad-controlled Iraq.

  Mr. Fitzpatrick
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the impact of United Nations sanctions on people in Iraq. [84410]

  Clare Short
  There has been a marked decline in living standards in Iraq since the Gulf War. The economy has stagnated, public health and education services have declined and infrastructure (water and sanitation, electricity) has seriously deteriorated. Food and medicines have always been exempted from sanctions, but it was only in 1996 that the Government of Iraq agreed to implement the oil-for-food programme. This has provided invaluable humanitarian relief, but has been less effective than it could be because the Government of Iraq have
  363
  not implemented the programme effectively. The UK is currently working to achieve an improvement in the operation of the programme.

  Montserrat
  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans her Department has to provide assistance for information technology in schools in Montserrat; and if she will make a statement. [84364]

  Clare Short
  The three year public sector investment programme, agreed with the Government of Montserrat (GoM) as part of the Country Policy Plan signed in January this year, includes a project to rehabilitate existing school facilities. The actual detail of this project is still being prepared by the GoM. I will write to the right hon. Member when their plans are finalised.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Montserrat about the cost and constructing time of the new Government headquarters temporary buildings; and if she will make a statement. [84361]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The original concept for the new Government Headquarters (GHQ) had been for a basic, only temporary, facility. This was planned in the belief that the Government of Montserrat (GoM) would be able to re-establish itself in Plymouth. However, the subsequent escalation of volcanic activity meant that this would not be possible, at least in the foreseeable future. Therefore, the GHQ needed to be constructed in a more permanent fashion and with more extensive facilities than originally envisaged—thus increasing the cost. An audit, earlier this year, found that most of the increases in cost were unavoidable. I wrote on 15 March to the Chairman of the International Development Committee about the audit and copied my letter and the report to the Library of the House. I will send copies to the right hon. Gentleman. My officials have had on-going discussions with the GoM to ensure that the additional work is completed in the shortest possible time, commensurate with keeping the increased costs to a minimum.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much money her Department has spent on consultancy work in connection with Montserrat in each of the last two years; and how much has been budgeted for the current year. [84363]

  Clare Short
  We spent approximately £2.7 million on consultants from the Montserrat programme in 1997/98 and £1.8 million in 1998/99. We have budgeted £1.8 million for the current year.

  Sir Alastair Goodlad
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with the Government of Montserrat about mortgages on properties in the exclusion zone; and if she will make a statement. [84362]

  Clare Short
  We have agreed that the Government of Montserrat can reschedule mortgage payments owed to them on properties in the exclusion zone, on a case by case basis, reflecting the ability of each borrower to meet the repayment schedule.

  Glaucoma
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the incidence of glaucoma in developing countries; what assessment she has made of the cost of treating the condition; and if she will make a statement. [84628]

  Clare Short
  No estimate for glaucoma incidence alone is available, and as treatments for the condition vary widely there is no reliable cost estimate per case. The World Health Organisation (WHO) estimates that glaucoma, cataracts and trachoma account for more than 70 per cent. of the 36 million cases of blindness in the world. Nine out of ten of these cases are in the developing world. We have committed £400,000 to the WHO's Social Change and Mental Health work under which "Vision 2020—the Right to Sight" initiative falls, and which aims to eliminate avoidable blindness by the year 2020.

  Women (Higher Education)
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support Her Majesty's Government provide to encourage access by women to higher education in developing countries. [84430]

  Clare Short
  We make clear in our White Paper in November 1997 that we are strongly committed to the international goals of universal primary education by 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary education by 2005. Our education programme focuses on these priorities. They reflect strong international evidence that investment in the education of girls is the single, most effective way to reduce poverty. The Department for International Development (DFID) is committed to supporting governments who give priority to the education of girls within their education systems.

  Clearly, as more countries achieve universal primary education there will be greater demand for secondary and higher education. We will work with governments to help find ways to meet this demand. We provide support at higher education level through scholarship schemes and academic links. Our academic links programme has earmarked funds to encourage participation by women and all links are organised to ensure that they are properly represented.

  Our support for the Commonwealth of Learning's efforts to develop ways of delivering education through distance and open learning systems will also facilitate increasing access by women in developing countries to higher education.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Rate Collection Agency
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what performance targets have been set for the Rate Collection Agency in 1999–2000. [84929]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  For 1999–2000, the following performance targets have been set for the RCA.
  365
  Collection and Recovery of Rates
  To collect 97.55 per cent. of the gross domestic collectable rate, (excluding late assessments) by 31 March 2000.
  To collect 98.80 per cent. of the gross non-domestic collectable rate (excluding late assessments) by 31 March 2000.
  To achieve a reduction of I per cent. in the real value of the unit costs of collecting rates per hereditament.
  To generate refunds to 98 per cent of ratepayers to entitled within
  14 days of credits being identified.

  Housing Benefit Administration
  To process by 31 March 1999, 96 per cent. of applications for the incoming year received from Housing Benefit recipients before 15 March 2000.
  To achieve a reduction of 1 per cent. in the real value of unit costs or processing Housing Benefit cases.
  To assess 97 per cent. of Housing Benefit claims free of error.

  Child Support Agency
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when she plans to publish details of the targets for the Child Support Agency; and if she will make a statement. [84930]

  Mr. McFall
  The Child Support Agency will publish its 1999–2000 Strategic and Business Plan today. Copies will be placed in the Library.

  The targets that I have set for the Child Support Agency for 1999–2000 are set out:
  Case Compliance, to measure the proportion of cases where the non resident parents are paying child maintenance, a value of 74 per cent.
  Cash Compliance, to measure the proportion of the total amount of child maintenance which is due for payment that is actually being paid, a value of 72 per cent.
  Accuracy, 80 per cent. value accuracy of all cases checked.
  Minimum Service Standards.
  clear 68 per cent. of new Maintenance Assessments in 20 weeks;
  97 per cent. of payment to be made to PWC within 10 working days;
  88 per cent. of review assessments to be made within 12 weeks; reply to 90 per cent. of letters within 10 working days;
  see 97 per cent. of clients within 10 minutes of appointment; acknowledge 90 per cent. of complaints within 2 working days; send a full reply within 10 working days in 75 per cent. cases; 80 per cent. of callers answered first time by Client Help Lines; 90 per cent. of customers surveyed on quality call backs (following contact with National Enquiry Line, Client Help Lines and Face-to-Face) to be at least satisfied with the service they have received, and
  to reduce the number of complaints received compared to current caseload to less than 0.28 per cent.

  The targets in the Business Plan present the Agency with a challenging but attainable objective which should lead to improvements both in customer service and in the maintenance flowing between parents.

TREASURY

  EU Withholding Tax
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date the current proposal for the introduction of a European-wide withholding tax was first raised at a meeting of a Council of Ministers. [84575]
  366
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: The Commission's current proposal for a Directive was made on 20 May 1998, following a period of discussions initiated by the Commission at the Verona informal ECOFIN in April 1996. It is a revised version of an earlier draft Directive which was originally published in 1989 and still on the table when this Government came into office.

  Share Fishermen
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rules for payment are planned for the introduction of Working Families Tax Credit to share fishermen who may have intermittent work periods due to(a) vessel breakdown, (b) lack of quota and (c) adverse weather. [83633]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Share fishermen will be entitled to apply for Working Families Tax Credit and will be subject to the same rules as those applying to workers with a pattern of intermittent work. WFTC will be awarded for a fixed 26 week period and once the award commences it will not be affected by changes to income during that period.

  Invest to Save Initiative
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress is being made on the Government's Invest to Save Initiative. [83653]

  Mr. Milburn
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Ms Lawrence) on 13 January 1999,Official Report, columns 193–95 This lists the projects which were allocated resources from the Invest to Save Budget following the first bidding round.

  Guidance has now been issued for a second bidding round, which will provide funding for new projects from 2000. Bids are invited from all public sector bodies and expressions of interest should be submitted to the Treasury by 31 May 1999.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Census Returns
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Minister of State, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list(a) the linear metres of storage space occupied by each of the pre-1992 decennial census returns for England and Wales, (b) the actual costs, at current prices, of micro-filming each of the pre-1901 census returns and (c) the average micro-film cost per linear metre, at current prices. [84494]

  Mr. Vaz
  (a) The space in linear metres occupied by each of the pre-1922 decennial census returns for England and Wales is as follows:

  1841: 101

  1851: 164

  1861: 146

  1871: 146

  1881: 140

  367

  1891: 173

  1901: 122

  1911: 1,924

  1921: 1,375.

  (b) It would not be possible to calculate the cost of micro-filming each of the pre-1901 census returns without examining them in detail, which would incur disproportionate cost.

  (c) It would not be possible to calculate the average micro-film cost per linear metre without examining them in detail, which would incur disproportionate cost.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Child Benefit (Shrewsbury and Atcham)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many families have received the increase in child benefit for the eldest child in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency; and if he will make a statement. [83922]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of the Child Benefit is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency, Peter Mathison. I have asked him to reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 18 May 1999 The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked Peter Mathison to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many families have received the increase in child benefit for the eldest child in the Shrewsbury and Atcham constituency. As Mr. Mathison is away from the office on leave, I am replying.
  Unfortunately the information to identify families, by region, who are receiving Child Benefit is not readily available. These figures could only be obtained at disproportionate cost.
  I would like to take this opportunity to explain the current rates of Child Benefit in force from April 1999. They are £14.40 for the eldest child and £9.60 for each subsequent child. The increase for the eldest child includes the extra £2.50 a week announced in the March 1998 budget, in addition to the April 1999 increase. This is an overall increase of £3.25 for a family with two children.
  I am sorry that I could not be of more help on this occasion but I am glad to have had the opportunity to comment.

  Share Fishermen
  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what rules for payment of Jobseeker's Allowance apply to share fishermen who are temporarily out of work by reason of(a) vessel breakdown (b) lack of quota and (c) adverse weather. [83632]

  Angela Eagle
  In order to receive contribution-based Jobseeker's Allowance a share fisherman must show that he has not failed to take up a reasonable opportunity of employment as a share fisherman. If he satisfies this condition, Jobseeker's Allowance may be paid. Examples of where this condition would count as satisfied include where the whole fleet has been unable to put to sea because of bad weather, if a share fisherman has fished his quota, or if he is undertaking necessary repairs to his boat.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if agreement has been reached on a standard earnings form for use by the Benefits 368
  Agency/Inland Revenue when calculating entitlement to Jobseeker's Allowance/Working Families Tax Credit by share fishermen. [83634]

  Angela Eagle
  A new form to collect earnings information from share fishermen is currently under development. The form has been developed in consultation with organisations representing the interests of share fishermen. The intention is that the form should be trialled in a few areas before it is used nationally.

  Working Families Tax Credit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will establish arrangements to enable share fishermen to confirm details of Jobseeker's Allowance claims in place of making fresh claims on condition that the repeat Jobseeker's Allowance claim is made within 12 weeks of the original application. [83635]

  Angela Eagle
  From June, share fishermen claiming Jobseeker's Allowance will be able to use a shorter claim form where there is a break of six weeks or less between claims.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what work is being undertaken in the course of the current pilot schemes examining the introduction of the single work-focused gateway to the special circumstances of share fishermen. [83636]

  Angela Eagle
  The unique position of share fishermen in the benefit system will continue in the single work-focused gateway pilots. Share fishermen who go through the single work-focused gateway will be given the same help and support as other claimants in their efforts to find work.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will make an official visit to Exmouth to meet representatives of the fishing industry to discuss the operation of Jobseeker's Allowance and Working Families Tax Credit to claims made by share fishermen. [83637]

  Angela Eagle
  It would be helpful if, in the first instance, the hon. Member would ask local representatives from the fishing industry to write to me setting out any issues that they would like to raise about claims for Jobseeker's Allowance from share fishermen.

  Working Families Tax Credit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Support System
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his current estimate of the cost of providing(a) accommodation, (b) support for essential living needs and (c) expenses incurred in connection with (i) a claim for asylum and (ii) an appeal made in relation to it for each asylum seeker receiving support under his proposed asylum support system. [83956]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We are not yet in a position to estimate the cost of providing accommodation. We shall shortly be setting up arrangements for the supply of
  369
  accommodation by local authorities, housing associations and the private sector. The accommodation will be furnished and will be supplied with essential equipment and utensils. Council tax and utility charges will be paid separately. The proposed levels of support for other essential living needs and expenses incurred in connection with a claim for asylum or appeal were set out in the Information Document published on 22 March.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of establishing the administrative machinery for the proposed Home Office asylum support system. [83960]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The consultants KPMG were engaged in February to consider the size and administrative costs of the administrative machinery for the new Asylum Support Directorate. Their report is being assessed. Administrative costs will cover not only the staff and other resources for the Asylum Support Directorate, but also grants to the voluntary sector for their contribution to the new arrangements.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many applications for asylum were (i) received and (ii) determined in(a) February, (b) March and (c) April; [83953]

  (2) what proportion of asylum applications made (a) before 1 July 1993 and (b)between 1 July 1993 and 31 December 1995 have resulted in the granting of leave to remain under the asylum backlog procedures; [83952]

  (3) how many asylum applications were outstanding in (a) each of the last six months for which figures are available and (b) May 1997. [83949]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  It is not possible to reply to these Questions within the normal period because of the volume of Questions to be answered on immigration and asylum statistics.

  I will write to the hon. Member shortly.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what level of clothing allowance he plans to make available to(a) adult and (b) child asylum seekers, whose application has not been processed within six months; and if he will make a statement. [84041]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  None. The vouchers and cash which will be given to asylum seekers are designed to meet the cost of essential living needs, including clothing, which are not being provided in kind, such as utilities. However, we are contributing to consider carefully the representations made in the Special Standing Committee on the Immigration and Asylum Bill and elsewhere.

  Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many telephone lines there are for the public switchboard at Lunar House; how many telephone calls were received on average each day in the last 12 months; and how many staff man the telephone lines between 9 am and 5 pm. [84102]
  370
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  There are currently 30 lines open into the Immigration and Nationality Enquiry Bureau (INEB).

  The average number of calls into the INEB each day for the five months from 7 December (the date on which the new system went live) was 41,462. Figures are not available for the seven preceding months, when the old system operated.

  During the month of April, an average of 35 staff each day were logged in to the telephone system and were available to answer telephone calls. The average number of staff in post in the INEB as a whole during April was 73. This figure includes managers and staff engaged in answering written inquiries.

  Kosovar Asylum Seekers
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what account will be taken of the confiscation from Kosovar Albanians of documents issued by the former Yugoslav authorities when deciding what penalties to apply to(a) Kosovar Albanians seeking asylum in the UK and (b) carriers who transport Kosovar Albanians to the UK; [84216]

  (2) what penalties may be applied to Kosovar Albanians seeking asylum in the UK if they arrive (a) without proper documents and (b) clandestinely. [84215]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government, in line with other European Union member states, are committed to a policy of protecting Kosovar refugees in the Balkan region as far as possible. Where this is not possible, and in response to United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) requests, the United Kingdom has agreed to the evacuation to this country of refugees. No account is taken of whether evacuees under this programme have documents, and liability under the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 has been waived for these specific flights.

  Kosovans who arrive in this country by their own means will be able to apply for asylum in the normal way. The general policy is to grant refugee status if there is no doubt as to nationality. A person entering clandestinely has committed an offence under section 24 of the Immigration Acts and asylum applications from undocumented applicants may be certified under the provisions of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993. But sanction under either provision would only apply if an asylum application were refused. Carriers who bring undocumented passengers to the United Kingdom other than under the agreed UNHCR evacuation programme are liable to a charge under the Carriers' Liability Act. But where such a person is subsequently recognised as a refugee under the 1951 Convention, it is our normal policy to waive the charge or to refund it if it has been paid.

  Prison Service (Absences)
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for new measures to reduce levels of sickness absence in the Prison Service(a) in the short-term and (b) in the long-term. [84390]
  371
  Mr. George Howarth
  The Secretary of State has approved the proposal by the Director General of the Prison Service to set a new Key Performance Indicator (KPI) for reducing sickness absence within the Prison Service as part of the Annual Business Plan of the Service. This requires the Service not to exceed an average of 12.5 working days lost due to sickness in 1999–2000. This target takes account of an expected increase in recorded levels of sick absence due to improved recording practice.

  The Prison Service have also published a new attendance strategy containing measures designed to reduce sickness absence within the Service by 20 per cent. by 2001 and by 30 per cent. by 2003 in line with targets set by the Cabinet Office in their inter-departmental strategy for reducing sickness absence across the public sector.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his estimate of the annual cost to his Department of sickness absence in the Prison Service in each of the last five years; [84389]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the reasons for changes in levels of sickness absence in the Prison Service over the past five years; [84414]

  (3) what assessment his Department has made of levels of sickness absence in the Prison Service in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [84415]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The National Audit Office published a comprehensive report on managing sickness absence in the Prison Service on 30 April 1999.

  This report analysed sickness absence data from the Home Office payroll system and concluded that Prison Service employees took, on average, 12.6 working days sickness absence in 1997–98 and similar rates in the previous three years. The report estimated that the salary and related cost of sickness absence in the Prison Service were between £56 and £62 million per year over this period.

  No verified data are yet available for 1998–99.

  Public Safety Radio Communications Project
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will make it his policy to provide to police authorities funding towards the cost of the implementation of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project from the proceeds of any sale of existing radio frequencies; [84490]

  (2) what plans he has to provide capital funding support to police authorities towards the cost of implementing the Public Safety Radio Communications Project; [84489]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the commercial value of the radio frequencies currently used by the Police Service and which will become surplus on the implementation of the Public Safety Radio Communications Project. [84488]

  Mr. Boateng
  The radio spectrum currently used by the police service is not the property of the Home Office. The current plan is that when the Public Safety Radio Communications Project (PSRCP) is fully implemented 372
  and the police service has migrated to the new spectrum allocated for this, the existing spectrum will be surrendered to the national pool. It will be for the Department of Trade and Industry to decide on its future use.

  Under the Government's spending plans, capital funding for the police is set to remain at £144 million for 3 years until 2001–02. This provides stability after 4 successive years of cuts. The Government have also relaxed the rules on the use of capital receipts from the sale of assets. Police authorities now have freedom to use all proceeds from sales for capital investment.

  The scope for additional funding for PSRCP is under consideration.

  Education Classes (Prisons)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many education classes were provided each week at each of the London prisons in the last 12 months. [84398]

  Mr. George Howarth
  Information on the numbers of education classes which were provided each week at each of the London prisons in the last 12 months is not held centrally. This information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  The average number of weekly classes for the 12 months period ending February 1999 for each of the London establishments was:

  Prison

  Number

  Belmarsh

  89

  Brixton

  85

  Downview

  47

  Feltham Young Offender Institution

  130

  Highdown

  90

  Holloway

  88

  Latchmere

  4

  Pentonville

  77

  Wandsworth

  38

  Wormwood Scrubs

  63

  Elderly Prisoners
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) male and (b) female prisoners in England and Wales are over the age of (i) 90 years, (ii) 80 years and (c) 70 years. [84399]

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

  Population of prisoners1 aged (i) over 70 years, (ii) over 80 years and (iii) over 90 years in prisons in England and Wales on 30 April 19992 by sex

  Aged

  Males

  Females

  Over 70 years

  122

  3

  Over 80 years

  11

  —

  Over 90 years

  —

  —

  Total

  133

  3

  1Remand and sentenced prisoners

  2Provisional figures

  Sexual Abuse (Compensation)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what was the(a) largest and (b) smallest amount paid in compensation to victims of sexual abuse and how many payments above £100,000 were made in each of the last three years for which information is available. [84339]

  Mr. Boateng
  Data are readily available only for claims received on or after 1 April 1996 under the tariff-based criminal injuries compensation scheme effective from that date which, unlike the former common law damages based scheme it superseded, is supported by a comprehensive computer system. The data on cases involving sexual abuse are as follows:

  £

  Largest award

  Smallest award

  1996–97

  27,500

  1,000

  1997–98

  27,500

  500

  1998–99

  22,500

  750

  In those three years the numbers of cases where Payments exceeded £100,000 were 139,115 and 130 respectively. Most such payments were in respect of claims made under the common law damages based scheme effective for claims submitted up to and including 31 March 1996. It is not possible to ascertain readily whether any of these concern sexual abuse cases.

  Arson
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for tackling arson; and if he will make a statement. [84882]

  Mr. George Howarth
  As part of the Government's commitment to delivering safer communities, the Home Office is publishing today the outcome of a study undertaken to review arrangements for tackling arson. Copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report, "Safer Communities—Towards Effective Arson Control", was commissioned because of concern that the number of arson fires had grown considerably in recent years while prosecutions and cautions for the offence had fallen. The outcome of the study has shown that although some local examples of good practice exist, much more needs to be done to tackle deliberately started fires. I want this report to mark the first step in the process to rectify that situation.

  The report makes 22 recommendations for putting in place more effective arson control arrangements. A great deal of emphasis in the study is placed on greater liaison and co-operation, so I want to hear the views of all those who can contribute to tackling arson. We will therefore be consulting a wide range of interested parties over the next few months on how to take these proposals forward.

  Trial Committals
  Mr. Efford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to change the procedure for determining the mode of trial in either-way cases; and if he will make a statement. [84884]
  374
  Mr. Straw
  The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, and more recently the Narey Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System, recommended that defendants should not be able to choose to be tried by a jury in either-way cases which magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear.

  Having considered this recommendation and the responses to the consultation paper I issued last year on election for trial, I am announcing today that I will be bringing forward legislation when parliamentary time allows to abolish the ability of defendants to elect for jury trial in either-way cases (where the cases are triable either on indictment at the Crown Court or summarily at the magistrates' court).

  The Government readily acknowledge that jury trial is preferable for certain sorts of either-way case. The question is whether it should be available at the choice of the defendant, or restricted to cases which objectively warrant it. In the same way that defendants do not have a choice of which magistrate, or which judge and jury, hears their case, we believe that defendants should not be able to choose a criminal justice jurisdiction where their case is tried. England and Wales is almost alone in allowing defendants a choice of court. In most jurisdictions, it is a matter for the court. In Scotland, it is at the election of the prosecution.

  The majority of cases in which the defendant elects for Crown Court trial result eventually in guilty pleas, but only after greater inconvenience and worry to victims and witnesses, and at considerable extra cost. This Government's proposals will end the practice that many rightly regard as a manipulation of the criminal justice system by defendants demanding Crown Court trial for no good reason other than to delay proceedings.

  But there will be safeguards. In determining where the case should be tried, magistrates' will be required to have regard not only to any defence representations, but also to such factors as the gravity of the offence, the complexity of the case and the effect of conviction (as legislation already requires) and the likely sentence on the defendants livelihood and reputation. Defendants will also be given an interlocutory right of appeal to the Crown Court against the Magistrates' decision on mode of trial.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a focus group consultative arrangement on the issue of national identity cards. [83663]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We have no present plans to establish a focus group; but we are continuing to consider the issues involved in identity cards.

HEALTH

  Audiology Services
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will set out his Department's expenditure on(a) NHS audiology services and (b) the NHS provision of hearing aids for (i) adults and (ii) children, for each of the last five years; [84302]
  375
  (2) how much his Department plans to spend on (a) NHS audiology services and (b) the provision of hearing aids by the NHS for (i) adults and (ii) children, in the current year. [84303]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not collect figures nationally for expenditure on National Health Service audiology services or of the cost of providing hearing aids. However, around half a million hearing aids per year are purchased from the NHS Supplies Authority at a cost of £16 million. In addition audiology departments also purchase some hearing aids from commercial suppliers.

  Learning Disabilities
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for a White Paper on guidance and funding for people with learning disabilities; and if he will make a statement. [84247]

  Mr. Hutton
  Our White Paper "Modernising Social Services", published in November 1998, set out our strategy for the development of social services for all client groups including people with learning disabilities. They will also benefit from wider developments such as the proposals in our National Health Service White Paper and Public Health Green Paper, and developments elsewhere in Government. We have recently completed a review of learning disability hospital reprovisioning plans and a survey of 21 local authorities and their matching health authorities. The Department has also recently received comments from academic experts on the draft report of an evaluation of the cost and outcomes of different types of residential provision for people with learning disabilities. We will shortly be considering what, if any, further action needs to be taken in the light of this work and of the advice we receive from the Learning Disability Advisory Group set up last November.

  Cancer
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice and guidance is disseminated by his Department to the public on which lifestyle changes can improve their chances of avoiding cancer. [84236]

  Ms Jowell
  The Department provides advice to the public, in leaflets and through health education campaigns, on a number of lifestyle changes that can improve the chances of avoiding cancer. The areas covered include smoking, diet and nutrition, alcohol, physical activity, sexual behaviour and excessive sun exposure.

  The health strategy Green Paper "Our Healthier Nation" proposed a national contract on cancer that specified action that can be taken at national, local and individual level to reduce the incidence of cancer. The contract reiterated advice on lifestyle changes. The corresponding White Paper will be published later this year.

  The Department also provides funding for promotional material used within the United Kingdom for the "Europe Against Cancer" programme. A different cancer-related theme is chosen each year. The theme for 1998 was "Cancer in Men", and this year's theme is "Smoking Cessation in Young People Aged 16–19 Years".
  376
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce a national screening programme for bowel cancer; and if he will make a statement. [84244]

  Mr. Hutton
  The National Screening Committee, which advises United Kingdom Health Ministers about policy on screening, has recommended that evaluative pilots for bowel cancer screening be established to provide information about the public acceptability, feasibility and service implications of a national screening programme.

  On 2 March, the Government announced the two pilot sites in Coventry and Warwickshire and Tayside, Grampian and Fife, which will start later this year and run for two years. The data from the pilots will inform decisions about whether to introduce a national bowel cancer screening programme.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has to improve survival rates for cancer patients; and if he will make a statement. [84245]

  Mr. Hutton
  The work programme for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has yet to be agreed.

  There are several health topics in which NICE is currently being invited to take an interest and a number of new and existing health technologies will be considered for the NICE' s work programme.

  Donor Register
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the annual running costs are of the donor register; [84306]

  (2) what the cost was of setting up the donor register; [84307]

  (3) how many transplants have been carried out from patients on the donor register (a) in the last 12 months and (b) in total. [84308]

  Mr. Hutton
  Expenditure in 1998–99 for the running costs of the donor register amounted to £197,118. The first year cost of setting up the donor register was £298,294. The number of transplants carried out from people registered on the Organ Donor Register were(a) from May 1998 to April 1999, 186 solid organs and 218 corneas and (b) since the register started in 1994 486 solid organs and 679 corneas.

PRIME MINISTER

  Kosovar Refugees
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on places in Northern Ireland for Kosovo refugees. [83687]

  The Prime Minister
  The Refugee Council and its partner agencies are working closely with the Home Office and local government associations to identify sites for further reception centres across the United Kingdom. We are looking at parts of the United Kingdom, and hope that places will be found in Northern Ireland.

  Engagements
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 May. [83682]

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 19 May. [84328]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I will have further such meetings later today.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  New Deal (Interviews)
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how often trainees on the New Deal for 18 to 24-year-olds are required to attend an interview with their personal adviser. [84396]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The number and frequency of interviews given to young people vary according to their individual needs and the stage they are at in the New Deal. The majority of young people are interviewed fortnightly during the New Deal Gateway.

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for schools in the Devon Local Education Authority the change in the average size of classes, taught by one teacher, between January 1998 and January 1999 for pupils in(a) nursery classes, (b) Key Stage Two and (c) secondary schools. [84645]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information on class sizes for individual schools is not published centrally. The available information for Devon Local Education Authority area is shown in the following table.

  New Deal for schools—Phase 3 Table of allocations as a percentage of total bids

  Local Education Authority

  NDS 3 bid (£)

  NDS 3 allocation (£)

  NDS 3 allocation as a percentage of bid (%)

  Barking & Dagenham

  21,097,222

  1,921,000

  9.11

  Barnet

  5,967,682

  1,388,500

  23.27

  Barnsley

  7,639,233

  1,062,000

  13.90

  Bath & North East Somerset

  5,290,678

  940,201

  17.77

  Bedfordshire

  4,698,729

  1,835,676

  39.07

  Bexley Council

  3,228,916

  786,908

  24.37

  Birmingham

  16,760,924

  6,909,845

  41.23

  Blackburn With Darwen

  7,818,980

  1,467,030

  18,76

  Blackpool1

  8,346,200

  750,000

  8.99

  Bolton

  17,725,984

  3,309,915

  18.67

  Bournemouth

  5,859,788

  1,073,200

  18.31

  Bracknell Forest

  6,106,617

  450,528

  7.38

  Bradford

  27,026,971

  20,000,000

  74.00

  Brent

  13,313,899

  1,361,904

  10.23

  Brighton & Hove

  4,638,498

  866,933

  18.69

  Bromley

  3,357,485

  780,616

  23.25

  378
  The Government have pledged to reduce infant class sizes to 30 or below by September 2001 at the latest, and we are on course to meet that pledge.

  Average class size of one teacher classes—Devon local authority area

  11998

  11999

  Nursery classes

  27.0

  25.6

  Key Stage One

  26.8

  24.8

  Key Stage Two

  29.3

  28.9

  Overall Primary

  28.0

  26.7

  Secondary

  21.7

  21.9

  1January each year

  New Deal (Schools)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much money is currently being held in reserve by his Department under the New Deal for schools (phase 3) following the allocation of awards to local education authorities; and if he will make a statement on his policy towards the use of this money. [84558]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Following the NDS3 announcement of grant allocations on 30 March, a total of £12,269,810 is currently being held in reserve.

  The reserve represents a combination of provisional commitment of grant still to be distributed to those Authorities which did not receive a complete allocation on 30 March; and grant earmarked for specific projects which are awaiting decisions on Statutory Proposals or, as in the case of Public Private Partnership projects, Central Government approval.

  There is no unallocated Reserve. It is not envisaged that much, if any, allocated or reserved grant will be returned to the Department for re-allocation during the year.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list in respect of each local education authority in England,(a) the amount bid for under the New Deal for Schools (phase 3), (b) the amount awarded by his Department and (c) the amount awarded expressed as a percentage of the bid. [84556]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is shown on the following table:
  379

  New Deal for schools—Phase 3 Table of allocations as a percentage of total bids

  Local Education Authority

  NDS 3 bid (£)

  NDS 3 allocation (£)

  NDS 3 allocation as a percentage of bid (%)

  Buckinghamshire

  13,138,480

  1,622,015

  12.35

  Bury

  2,081,550

  952,150

  45.74

  Calderdale

  3,241,146

  1,700,000

  52.45

  Cambridgeshire

  24,241,315

  2,366,864

  9.76

  Camden

  5,044,598

  760,560

  15.08

  Cheshire

  10,402,292

  4,330,679

  41.63

  City of Bristol

  7,445,973

  2,026,000

  27.21

  City of London

  0

  0

  0.00

  City of Nottingham

  19,920,230

  1,807,790

  9.08

  City of York

  5,751,458

  1,725,721

  30.00

  Cornwall

  11,075,669

  2,802,680

  25.30

  Coventry

  11,103,475

  1,912,613

  17.23

  Croydon

  17,079,880

  1,517,525

  8.88

  Cumbria

  3,115,942

  2,685,863

  86.20

  Darlington

  5,506,754

  770,131

  13.99

  Derby City

  5,727,180

  1,183,455

  20.66

  Derbyshire

  11,834,372

  5,083,510

  42.96

  Devon

  12,146,776

  5,803,864

  47.78

  Doncaster

  9,250,567

  2,290,710

  24.76

  Dorset

  18,231,100

  2,051,000

  11.25

  Dudley

  30,513,213

  2,092,506

  6.86

  Durham

  7,535,852

  3,252,769

  43.16

  Ealing

  5,265,197

  1,313,866

  24.95

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  15,186,328

  2,448,585

  16.12

  East Sussex

  5,271,311

  1,663,000

  31.55

  Enfield

  8,124,930

  1,915,000

  23.57

  Essex

  12,771,860

  6,237,505

  48.84

  Gateshead

  8,683,450

  962,150

  11.08

  Gloucestershire

  9,744,874

  3,704,923

  38.02

  Greenwich

  23,149,769

  2,541,919

  10.98

  Hackney

  6,017,504

  1,067,004

  17.73

  Halton

  4,481,894

  1,831,385

  40.86

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  7,601,901

  1,385,000

  18.22

  Hampshire

  20,070,199

  3,503,346

  17.46

  Haringey

  7,861,247

  1,386,572

  17.64

  Harrow

  7,419,442

  1,232,994

  16.62

  Hartlepool

  2,822,244

  1,308,763

  46.37

  Havering

  5,225,870

  996,781

  19.07

  Herefordshire

  7,664,268

  1,296,426

  16.92

  Hertfordshire

  21,453,011

  5,333,255

  24.86

  Hillingdon

  4,683,851

  1,172,399

  25.03

  Hounslow

  9,946,717

  1,408,320

  14.16

  Isle of Wight

  4,486,077

  841,608

  18.76

  Isles of Scilly

  57,596

  0

  0.00

  Islington

  7,795,865

  950,369

  12.19

  Kensington & Chelsea

  1,108,330

  275,940

  24.90

  Kent

  34,099,163

  3,268,823

  9.59

  Kingston upon Hull

  10,099,179

  2,961,720

  29.33

  Kingston upon Thames

  4,350,254

  1,116,813

  25.67

  Kirklees

  5,379,495

  2,551,628

  47.43

  Knowsley

  5,601,137

  1,337,492

  23.88

  Lambeth

  13,909,082

  500,000

  3.59

  Lancashire

  13,350,490

  7,538,334

  56.46

  Leeds

  14,943,428

  4,111,768

  27.52

  Leicester City

  9,961,677

  2,483,624

  24.93

  Leicestershire

  14,221,370

  2,862,282

  20.13

  Lewisham

  26,779,014

  2,593,530

  9.68

  Lincolnshire

  8,359,932

  2,434,449

  29.12

  Liverpool

  19,410,197

  2,738,470

  14.11

  Luton

  5,589,822

  691,219

  12.37

  Manchester

  13,567,400

  2,056,000

  15.15

  Medway

  4,641,936

  1,441,310

  31.05

  Merton

  7,562,704

  1,317,351

  17.42

  Middlesbrough

  3,444,881

  1,253,516

  36.39

  Milton Keynes

  2,182,980

  849,603

  38.92

  North East Lincolnshire

  8,129,485

  1,599,906

  19.68

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  8,922,816

  6,318,200

  70.81

  Newham

  6,435,236

  3,031,137

  47.10

  Norfolk

  29,633,848

  3,742,938

  12.63

  North Lincolnshire

  11,603,862

  1,211,130

  10.44

  380 381

  New Deal for schools—Phase 3 Table of allocations as a percentage of total bids

  Local Education Authority

  NDS 3 bid (£)

  NDS 3 allocation (£)

  NDS 3 allocation as a percentage of bid (%)

  North Somerset

  4,301,910

  1,318,137

  30.64

  North Tyneside

  3,626,255

  1,363,628

  37.60

  North Yorkshire

  56,602,284

  3,617,957

  6.39

  Northamptonshire

  10,538,379

  2,589,700

  24.57

  Northumberland

  14,313,550

  1,908,000

  13.33

  Nottinghamshire

  22,630,536

  4,968,555

  21.96

  Oldham

  9,455,699

  3,344,291

  35.37

  Oxfordshire

  12,100,128

  2,891,106

  23.89

  Peterborough

  9,126,958

  619,172

  6.78

  Plymouth

  3,768,519

  2,148,485

  57.01

  Poole

  2,415,718

  678,575

  28.09

  Portsmouth

  10,017,757

  1,052,828

  10.51

  Reading

  2,792,418

  558,283

  19.99

  Redbridge

  3,766,960

  1,190,752

  31.61

  Redcar and Cleveland Borough Council

  11,510,296

  7,700,000

  66.90

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,163,900

  524,500

  24.24

  Rochdale

  3,297,824

  1,111,051

  33.69

  Rotherham1

  20,888,008

  0

  0.00

  Rutland

  4,779,155

  0

  0.00

  Salford Mbc

  7,643,480

  1,877,469

  24.56

  Sandwell

  12,807,740

  2,526,743

  19.73

  Sefton

  20,032,123

  1,862,285

  9.30

  Sheffield

  14,328,791

  6,395,901

  44.64

  Shropshire

  7,615,357

  1,196,337

  15.71

  Slough

  6,554,768

  644,483

  9.83

  Solihull

  5,317,434

  1,526,584

  28.71

  Somerset

  8,253,903

  2,849,615

  34.52

  South Gloucestershire Council

  6,039,642

  1,843,487

  30.52

  South Tyneside

  5,032,435

  1,269,536

  25.23

  Southampton

  7,542,431

  1,631,319

  21.63

  Southend on Sea

  2,007,530

  595,061

  29.64

  Southwark

  17,905,223

  5,319,676

  29.71

  St. Helens

  4,890.400

  1,962,400

  40.13

  Staffordshire

  14,550,466

  5,521,253

  37.95

  Stockport

  8,274,324

  1,190,439

  14.39

  Stockton on Tees

  8,006,946

  1,373,903

  17.16

  Stoke on Trent

  3,362,269

  1,752,602

  52.13

  Suffolk

  4,457,500

  2,937,500

  65.90

  Sunderland1

  19,476,714

  0

  0.00

  Surrey

  7,547,268

  3,363,155

  44.56

  Sutton

  2,268,003

  563,530

  24.85

  Swindon

  4,117,373

  2,799,000

  67.98

  Tameside

  6,262,009

  1,871,932

  29.89

  Telford & Wrekin

  5,861,218

  1,800,856

  30.72

  Thurrock

  1,613,942

  587,600

  36.41

  Torbay Council

  2,755,011

  1,521,183

  55.22

  Tower Hamlets

  5,110,392

  2,446,151

  47.87

  Trafford

  13,948,425

  1,223,323

  8.77

  Wakefield Mdc

  8,364,798

  2,381,983

  28.48

  Walsall

  11,112,860

  1,497,097

  13.47

  Waltham Forest

  7,148,533

  1,361,183

  19.04

  Wandsworth

  3,148,794

  1,015,500

  32.25

  Warrington

  8,748,072

  1,500,211

  17.15

  Warwickshire

  13,110,827

  1,949,349

  14.87

  West Berkshire

  2,716,697

  587,950

  21.64

  West Sussex

  6,818,827

  3,598,889

  52.78

  Westminster

  8,209,792

  651,632

  7.94

  Wigan

  8,755,708

  3,797,167

  43.37

  Wiltshire

  10,664,442

  1,586,726

  14.88

  Windsor & Maidenhead

  3,780,690

  524,137

  13.86

  Wirral

  14,537,717

  2,714,800

  8.00

  Wokingham

  9,297,570

  744,000

  8.00

  Wolverhampton

  5,636,120

  1,975,486

  35.05

  Worcestershire

  11,690,306

  2,390,990

  20.45

  Grand Total

  1,457,758,871

  317,528,785

  21.78

  1Indicates that a final allocation is still to be agreed with the Authority

  382

  Special Schools
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the changes made by his Department since 2 May 1997 to the rules on allocating capital approvals for special school re-organisation projects. [84557]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  There have been no changes. Proposals to alter, establish or discontinue special schools are subject to a statutory process, and we give priority within available capital resources to projects to implement approved proposals. The Department is currently considering responses to a recent consultation paper on its Schools Capital Strategy.

  Labour and Social Affairs Council
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will publish the agenda for the Labour and Social Affairs Council of 25 May. [84685]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The agenda is as follows:

  1. (poss.) Approval of the list of 'A' items

  2. Draft Directive concerning employee involvement within the European Company Statute1 (Legal base: to be determined) Political agreement

  3. Working Time Directive

  (a) Proposal for a Council Directive amending Council Directive 93/104/EC of 23 November 1993 concerning certain aspects of the organisation of working time to cover sectors and activities excluded from that Directive1 (Legal base: Article 118A/Article 137 EC Treaty (new)) Political agreement

  (b) Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the Agreement on the organisation of working time of seafarers concluded by the European Community Shipowners' Association (ECSA) and the Federation of Transport Workers' Union in the European Union (FST)1 (Legal base: Agreement on social policy, Article 4, para 2/Article 139, para 2 EC Treaty (new)) Political agreement

  (c) Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the enforcement of seafarers' hours of work on board ships using Community ports1 (Legal base: Article 84, para 2/Article 80, para 2 EC Treaty (new) Political agreement

  4. Amended proposal for a Council Directive on the minimum health and safety requirements regarding the exposure of workers to the risks arising from physical agents (Legal base: Article 118A/Article 137 EC Treaty (new)) Progress report

  5. European Employment Pact:

  (a) Presidency draft for a European Employment Pact

  (b) Presidency memorandum "Youth and Europe—Our Future"

  (c) Presidency draft for a Council resolution on equal employment opportunities for people with disabilities' Adoption

  (d) Commission contributions: draft recommendation concerning the Board Economic Guidelines of Member States and the Community Communication "Community Policy in favour of Employment" (Article 127 of the Treaty)

  (e) Commission Communication "Modernising the organisation of work" Commission information

  384

  (f)Proposal for a Council Directive concerning the framework agreement on temporary work concluded by the UNICE, CEEP and ETUC1 (Legal base: Article 139, para 2 EC Treaty (new)) Political agreement

  6. Other business:

  Draft Council Directive on minimum requirements for improving the health and safety protection of workers potentially at risk from explosive atmospheres (15th individual directive within the meaning of Article 16, para 1 of Directive 89/391/EEC)

  Presidency information

  1Points on which a vote may be taken.

  The morning session will begin at 10.30 am, with lunch at 1 pm. The afternoon session begins at 3.30 pm with item 5, followed by further discussion on the European Employment Pact in joint session with ECOFIN from 5.30 pm.

  Teacher Training Agency
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the report of the Prior Options Quinquennial Review of the Teacher Training Agency announced on 3 February will be published. [84971]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The Report of the Prior Options Quinquennial Review of the Teacher Training Agency (TTA) is published today.

  The Report concludes that there is no case at present for abolition or privatisation of the TTA. There will continue to be a need for the core functions of the TTA. But the TTA's responsibilities should be redrawn to take account of the General Teaching Councils (GTCs) and the leadership college, and the need to bring some elements of the Green Paper agenda closer to the Department for Education and Employment (DfEE).

  The Report argues that the TTA's current remit is too wide, and that the Agency should concentrate substantially on the two priorities it had when it was established in 1994 (teacher supply and recruitment and initial teacher training). Both areas present key challenges and the TTA will need to devote all of its efforts to meeting the Government's policy objectives in these areas.

  Ensuring that there are enough high quality candidates to meet the future needs of schools is crucial to the achievement of the Government's standards agenda. The Report recommends that tackling teacher supply and recruitment should be the TTA's top priority in the next phase of its work. The profile of this work will be significantly boosted, including through the employment of in-house marketing expertise and by taking over the Recruitment Strategy Managers' programme from the Department.

  Increasing both the rigour and the flexibility of initial teacher training provision remains vital in order to ensure that each new generation of teachers is properly prepared. The Government wish to build on the start the TTA has made on some elements of the ITT agenda set out in the Green Paper. ITT funding and quality remains core business for the TTA. And it should continue with advisory and developmental work in the area of induction.
  385
  Following the formation of the GTCs and the leadership college, my Department will need to provide a coherent and strategic view across teaching issues. A clear division of roles and responsibilities is also needed between the TTA and the GTCs.

  Headship/leadership functions should become the responsibility of the National College for School Leadership in due course, with the DfEE taking lead responsibility for work on headship training as a transitional measure.

  The GTC for England should have an advisory role across the piece, but no funding functions at this stage.

  My Department will now take the lead in policy development to establish a coherent and strategic programme for continuing professional development. The TTA will retain operational responsibility for the NOF-funded ICT training programme.

  My Department will continue to take a strategic overview of research, and the TTA will continue to support the Government's drive for a research-based profession. But the TTA will commission research only in areas within its responsibilities. The GTC and the leadership college will maintain research capability reflecting their responsibilities.

  The composition of the TTA Board will need to be changed to reflect the renewed emphasis on teacher recruitment, in particular, and the need for more of an operational rather than policy focus. Teachers need to by more strongly represented.

  I have agreed with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales that any final decisions about future arrangements in Wales should be delayed until the National Assembly for Wales is fully established and ready to consider the issue. The TTA Unit in Wales might be placed in the Welsh Office Education Department now.

  School meal arrangements in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England January each year

  Hertfordshire

  Staffordshire

  Staffordshire

  Stoke

  Percentage of Pupils taking Free meals

  Percentage of Pupils Known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage of Pupils taking free meals

  Percentage of Pupils Known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage of Pupils taking free meals

  Percentage of Pupils Known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage of Pupils taking free meals

  Percentage of Pupils Known to be eligible for free meals

  Maintained nursery and Primary schools

  1988

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1989

  6

  1—

  11

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1990

  6

  1—

  11

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1991

  7

  1

  12

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1992

  9

  1—

  15

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1993

  11

  14

  17

  20

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1994

  12

  16

  17

  20

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1995

  12

  14

  17

  19

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1996

  12

  14

  17

  19

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1997

  10

  13

  16

  19

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1998

  9

  11

  2—

  2—

  11

  14

  24

  28

  Maintained secondary schools

  1988

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1989

  4

  1—

  6

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1990

  3

  1—

  5

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1991

  4

  1—

  6

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1992

  6

  1—

  7

  1—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1993

  7

  9

  8

  13

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1994

  8

  10

  9

  13

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  386
  Teacher recruitment in Wales, which is not part of the Unit's responsibility, is currently handled as part of an integrated England and Wales programme by the TTA in London. To minimise disruption, this should remain the case until decisions can be taken by the National Assembly for Wales. Similarly, no change is proposed for the responsibility of the Higher Education Funding Council for Wales' for funding and accreditation of initial teacher training.

  These conclusions take account of a substantial consultation exercise. In broad terms, the TTA are commended by consultees for their work on developing the link between funding and quality, improving standards in teacher training provision, promotion of teaching as a profession, and for implementing the Leadership Programme for Serving Heads. General criticism is expressed in the Report in relation to some aspects of the TTA's funding and accreditation approach, and over the failure to meet the Department's supply and recruitment targets because of continuing under-recruitment by some ITT providers. There were also some general concerns about the TTA's effectiveness, management and organisation, and how it relates to its partners and stakeholders.

  I have today written to Clive Booth, TTA Chair, to inform him that I have accepted the Report's recommendations in full.

  Copies of the Report will be placed in the Library.

  School Meals
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what proportion of school children in(a) Staffordshire and (b) Hertfordshire (i) received and (ii) were eligible to receive free school dinners in each of the last 10 years. [84329]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information is shown in the following table.
  387

  School meal arrangements in maintained nursery, primary and secondary schools in England January each year

  Hertfordshire

  Staffordshire

  Staffordshire

  Stoke

  Percentage of Pupils taking free meals

  Percentage of Pupils Known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage of Pupils taking free meals

  Percentage of Pupils Known to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage of Pupils taking free meals

  Percentage of pupils to be eligible for free meals

  Percentage of Pupils taking free meals

  Percentage of pupils known to be eligible for free meals

  1995

  8

  10

  9

  14

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1996

  8

  10

  9

  14

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1997

  7

  9

  9

  13

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  1998

  6

  9

  2—

  2—

  7

  10

  14

  24

  1Not available

  2 Not applicable

  Notes:

  1. Before Local Government re-organisation of April 1998

  2. After Local Government re-organisation of April 1998

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much was spent by(a) Staffordshire County Council and (b) Hertfordshire County Council on subsidising school meals in each of the last 10 years. [84330]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The following table shows how much was spent subsidising school meals in the last six years by(a) Staffordshire County Council (b) Hertfordshire County Council. Information for earlier years is not available.

  £

  Year

  Staffordshire

  Hertfordshire

  1993–94

  6,086,600

  4,676,000

  1994–95

  5,329,800

  4,793,000

  1995–96

  4,297,000

  3,989,000

  1996–97

  6,504,000

  2,298,000

  1997–98

  4,072,900

  2,295,000

  1998–99

  4,500,100

  2,552,000

  Disability Discrimination Act 1995
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the implications for owners and occupiers of listed buildings used for trading purposes of the decision to implement fully the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; what the total cost to business will be and over what timescale; and if he will make a statement.[84426]

  Ms Hodge
  When fully implemented, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 will require service providers to make adjustments, where reasonable, so that their services are accessible to disabled people. These requirements are being introduced in two phases. They will apply to service providers in listed buildings.

  From 1 October, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to change practices, policies or procedures which make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service; to provide auxiliary aids or services which would make it easier for, or enable, disabled people to use a service; and to provide the service by a reasonable alternative method where a physical feature makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use the service. From 2004, service providers will have to take reasonable steps to
  388
  remove, alter, or provide reasonable means of avoiding physical features that make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use a service.

  Planning Policy Guidance Note (PPG 15) issued by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions makes it clear that
  "it is important in principle that disabled people should have dignified easy access to and within historic buildings",
  and that with a proper approach
  "it should normally be possible to plan suitable access for disabled people without compromising a building's special interest".

  English Heritage's booklet "Easy Access to Historic Properties" is designed to help those who own, manage, or are professionally concerned with historic properties to strike a balance between conservation and access.

  The Disability Discrimination Act, in common with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Race Relations Act cannot require anything to be done that would contravene another piece of legislation. Where a service provider must get statutory consent to a particular alteration, including listed building or scheduled monument consent, and that consent is not given, the Disability Discrimination Act will not have been contravened. However, a service provider would still need to take whatever other steps under the Act were reasonable to provide the service.

  At the end of June, we shall be publishing a new Code of Practice which explains the duties coming into force in October as well as the current rights under the Disability Discrimination Act, and which gives examples of good practice. In due course, a public consultation exercise will be held in respect of a revised Code explaining the duties which are due to come into force in 2004.

  The Government's assessment of the costs, and benefits, of implementing the later rights in Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act are contained in the Regulatory Impact Assessment, copies of which are in the Library. It is also available on the disability website: www.disability.gov.uk.

  Drugs
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on co-ordinating initiatives on drugs in schools. [83651]
  389
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department is committed to delivering the education strands of the Government's 10 year UK anti-drugs strategy, and has issued guidance to schools and the youth service on the effective delivery of drug education. In particular, it offers teachers and headteachers advice on some key areas in the delivery of drug education, encouraging them to take note of best practice and develop their own detailed programmes and policies of drug education which take account of their own pupils' needs and of local circumstances. A copy of the guidance, entitled "Protecting Young People; Good practice in drug education in schools and the youth service" is in the Library.

  The DfEE is making support for drug education available to local education authorities, to assist primary and secondary schools and the youth service to deliver effective drug education. Support is available, through the Standards Fund programme, for the next three years, starting in 1999–2000. £7.5 million is available each year, following the Comprehensive Spending Review.

SCOTLAND

  Inward Investment
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the work he has done to secure(a) Korean and (b) Japanese inward investment into the United Kingdom. [81101]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 16 April 1999]: Locate in Scotland promotes Scotland's advantages as a business location, working in partnership with the Local Enterprise Companies, Highlands and Islands Enterprise and other bodies in both the public and private sectors. Scotland has attracted strong flows of inward investment in recent years, and inward investment projects from Korea and Japan over the last 5 years have involved 30 projects with planned investment of over £3.2 billion and over 5,000 new/safeguarded jobs.

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

  Advertising Campaigns
  Mr. Wallace
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the amounts the Government have spent on(a) opinion polling, (b) focus groups and (c) advertising in Scotland or related to Scottish Office responsibilities since it came to office. [80051]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 13 April 1999]: The details are:

  (a) Nil

  (b)£ 145,000

  (c) £6,074,600.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Swinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the current level of assessed parental income above which a student becomes eligible for (i) full and (ii) part payment of tuition fees; what plans he has to increase these threshold levels in line with inflation; what estimate he has of the number of students who will 390
  become eligible for paying in full or in part their tuition fee if the threshold is not increased in line with inflation; and if he will make a statement. [82656]

  Dr. Reid
  [holding answer 29 April 1999]: For academic session 1998–99 parents with a residual income (gross income less certain allowable deductions) greater than £27,000 are expected to contribute the full amount towards their children's tuition fees. Parents whose residual income is between £16,945 and £27,000 are expected to make some contribution towards tuition fees, based on a sliding scale. Parents with a residual income of less than £16,944 make no contribution.

  In line with previous practice relating to maintenance grants, the income threshold levels have been increased for academic session 1999–2000 by reference to the Retail Prices Index. The increase of 2.5 per cent. was announced on 15 February 1999, Official Report, column 464.

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

  School Funding
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the current level of per capita funding for students is in the Borders Region(a) in primary schools, (b) in secondary schools up to the age of 16 years and (c) for those aged between 16 and 18 years. [84174]

  Mr. Macdonald
  Per pupil expenditure by Scottish Borders Council in 1996–97, the latest financial year for which information is available, was £1,896 in primary schools, and £3,039 in secondary schools. The figures, which are derived from local authority financial returns, do not include the cost of home to school transport, school meals, education authority central administration costs and loan charges. The returns do not identify expenditure according to the age of pupils.

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

  Census Returns
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland which of the decennial population returns for Scotland have been closed to public inspection for(a) 100 years, (b) 80 years or (c) permanently. [84495]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The 1841–91 census returns are open to the public. The 1901 and later census returns are closed for 100 years. No census returns are kept closed for 80 years, nor are any closed permanently.

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

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list(a) the linear metres of storage space occupied by each of the pre-1992 decennial census returns for Scotland, (b) the actual costs, at current prices, of microfilming each of the pre-1901 census returns and (c) the average microfilm cost per linear metre, at current prices.[84496]

  Mr. Macdonald
  The 1841–91 census returns for Scotland which are open to the public occupy approximately the following amounts of shelving in accommodation belonging to the Registrar General for
  391
  Scotland. For more details of the storage space occupied by the 1901 and later censuses, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) on 13 May 1999, Official Report, column 191.

  Linear metres

  1841 Census

  1278

  47

  1851 Census

  2176

  26.9

  1861 Census

  21,328

  35.9

  1871 Census

  21,392

  26.9

  1881 Census

  21,080

  26.9

  1891 Census

  21,480

  39.2

  All open censuses

  —

  202.8

  All closed censuses

  —

  6,025.8

  All censuses

  —

  6,228.6

  1 Boxes

  2 Volumes

  The open censuses have all been microfilmed and there are no plans to refilm. Information on the actual costs of filming—which took place over a period of years starting in the 1950s—cannot now be assembled.

  As a very approximate guide, the estimated cost at 1999 prices of microfilming paper volumes of census returns such as would take up one linear metre of shelving might be of the order of £400 to £500.

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

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will publish the text of the(a) non-statutory assurances of confidentiality and (b) 100-year extended closure given by the Registrar General on the householders' forms for the 20th century censuses of population for Scotland. [84497]

  Mr. Macdonald
  (a) The text appearing on the various census returns is as follows:

  1901

  The Return is required for carrying out the provisions of the Census Act. The contents of the Schedules will be treated as confidential; they will be published in General Abstracts only, and strict care will be taken that the Returns are not used for the gratification of curiosity, or for other purposes than those of the Census.

  1911

  The contents of the Schedule will be treated as strictly confidential.

  1921

  Strictly Confidential (marked at top of Householder's Schedule).

  1931

  Strictly Confidential (marked at top of Householder's Schedule).

  1951

  The contents of the schedule are strictly confidential.

  1961

  The contents of the schedule are strictly confidential.

  1966

  The information you give on the form will be treated as confidential and used only for compiling statistics. No information about named individuals will be passed by the Census Office to any other Government Department or any other authority. If anyone employed on the census improperly discloses information you provide, he will be liable to prosecution.
  392
  Where information is supplied to you—for example by a visitor or anyone not belonging to the family—you must not disclose or use it for any purpose other than filling in this form. (If you do, you will be liable to a fine of up to £10. There is also a penalty of up to £10 for refusing to fill in the form or refusing to give you information to enable you to fill it in, or for giving false information).

  1971

  The information you give on the form will be treated as Confidential and used only for compiling statistics. No information about named individuals will be passed by the Census Office to any other Government Department or any other authority or person. If anyone employed in taking the census improperly discloses information you provide, he will be liable to prosecution. Similarly you must not disclose information which anyone (for example, a visitor or boarder) gives you to enable you to complete the form.

  1981

  The form is used only for compiling statistics and when you have completed it in accordance with the instructions it will be treated as Confidential and no information about named individuals will be passed by the Census Office to any other Government Department or any other authority or person. If anyone employed in taking the census improperly discloses information you provide, he will be liable to prosecution. Similarly you must not disclose information which anyone (for example, a visitor or boarder) gives you to enable you to complete the form.

  1991

  Your answers will be treated in strict confidence and used only to produce statistics. Names and addresses will not be put into the computer; only the postcode will be entered. The forms will be kept securely within my Office and treated as confidential for 100 years.

  Anyone using or disclosing Census information improperly will be liable to prosecution. For example, it would be improper for you to pass on to someone else information which you had been given in confidence by a visitor to enable you to complete the Census form.

  (b) The interpretation of strict confidentiality as requiring lengthy closure of the census returns was not printed on the census forms themselves before 1991, but is part of the Registrar General's policy agreed in 1974 by the then Secretary of State for Scotland and announced in Parliament (Hansard, Official Report Vol 874, no. 46, Written Answer cols 272–3). This confirmed that Scottish census returns for 1901 or later years would not be made available until 100 years after the census to which they relate, and that only in exceptional circumstances could closed census returns be accessed. These public access provisions were affirmed by the present Government in the White Paper "The 2001 Census of Population" (Cm. 4253), published on 4 March 1999. The closure period is intended to safeguard the confidentiality of the personal information collected in the census, and successive Governments have honoured an undertaking that the information would remain confidential. Protection of the credibility of the undertaking is crucial to maintaining the quality of the information collected.

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

  Genetically Modified Salmon
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland, pursuant to his answer of 20 April 1999, Official Report, column 525, for what reason the three-year land-based trial project involving genetically modified salmon has been terminated early. [84185]
  393
  Mr. Macdonald
  [holding answer 18 May 1999]: The trial project was terminated early by the company involved for commercial reasons.

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

WALES

  NHS Waiting Lists
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on NHS waiting lists for(a) hip replacements, (b) cataract operations and (c) breast screening for each health authority in Wales for 1996, 1997 and 1998. [84511]

  Mr. Jon Owen Jones
  Waiting lists for hip replacements and cataract operations are not held centrally. Aggregate figures are available for the numbers of people who had been waiting over 18 months for in-patient or day case admission for the following group of operations — hip and knee replacements and cataract removals. The numbers of patients waiting for an operation in this group at 31 December 1996, 1997 and 1998 are given in the following table.

  Number of patients waiting over 18 months for hip and knee replacement and cataract removal operations

  Health Authority

  31 December1996

  31 December1997

  31 December1998

  Gwent

  5

  4

  42

  Bro Taf

  0

  12

  249

  Dyfed Powys

  0

  78

  36

  North Wales

  2

  4

  14

  Morgannwg

  0

  16

  12

  All Welsh health authorities

  7

  114

  353

  Bro Taf Health Authority, in particular, is concerned about, and is addressing, the problems of long waiters. Additional measures are being taken to increase capacity at the new UHW and Llandough NHS Trust and to offer patients treatment in other local hospitals.

  There are no waiting lists for breast screening services which are provided by Breast Test Wales on a rolling three yearly invitation to well women aged 50 to 64 and by self-appointment for well women aged 65 and over. Following the transfer of functions, this will be a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  Agriculture Secretary
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what representations he has received from the Farmers'

  Year

  Number of cases where overgrazing confirmed after Stage 2 assessment

  Location of confirmed cases

  1994

  3

  Crosby Ravensworth (Cumbria), Long Mynd (Shropshire) and Ingleborough (North Yorkshire)

  1995

  1

  Birkbeck (Cumbria)

  1996

  3

  Reeth Low Moor, Kearton Pasture (both North Yorkshire) and Clee Hills (Shropshire)

  1997

  4

  Brackenber (Cumbria), Newton Fell (Lancashire), Heath Mynd (Shropshire) and Matley Moor (Derbyshire)

  1998

  4

  Askham/Helton, Barton (both Cumbria), Ugborough and Harford (both Devon)

  394
  Union of Wales and the NFU about the appointment of the Agriculture Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales. [84737]

  Mr. Michael
  I have received no such representations.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Integrated Administration and Control System Map
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many map errors were discovered when performing IACS map checks; and what was the net potential loss to his Department if the errors had not been corrected. [73292]

  Mr. Rooker
  Map checks only form a small component of the total number of detailed validation checks on Area Aid Applications carried out under IACS, and it is not possible to separate out exactly how many officials were involved. Map checks have been carried out on all 2,174,843 parcels entered on IACS Area Aid Applications in England between 1995 and 1998, and discrepancies in field numbers and areas have been discovered in 352,941 of these. However, some 73 per cent. of the discrepancies found were of a clerical nature which would have had no effect on any claims made. No separate information is available on the savings resulting from map checks in terms of the adjustment made to the value of claims, but they do not as a rule have a major impact. On the other hand, if the checks had not been carried out there would have been significant risk of disallowance of exchequer expenditure for reimbursement out of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund. It is not possible to quantify the net potential loss involved as it is the responsibility of the Commission to decide the amount of disallowance for each individual case. The amount is calculated by determining the risk (real or potential) to Community funds.

  Overgrazing
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the number and location of incidents where overgrazing was confirmed by the Ministry in each year between 1990 and 1998. [83479]

  Mr. Rooker
  No cases of overgrazing were confirmed between 1990 and 1993. The following table gives the information requested for the period from 1994 to 1998. It does not cover work on the separate but related issue of environmental damage caused by the use of unsuitable methods to provide supplementary feed to livestock. Reports of suspected overgrazing are investigated by the Farming and Rural Conservation Agency on behalf of the Ministry using a two-stage assessment process.
  395
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many incidents of overgrazing were(a) reported and (b) investigated by the Ministry in each year between 1990 and 1998. [83480]

  Mr. Rooker
  The material requested is not readily available and could be provided quickly only at disproportionate cost. The Ministry is, however, taking steps to collate this information and I will write to my hon. Friend in due course with a full reply.

  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many hill livestock compensatory allowance and sheep annual premium payments were withheld or reduced as a result of overgrazing by recipients in each year between 1990 and 1998. [83476]

  Mr. Rooker
  There have been no cases where payments of Hill Livestock Compensatory Allowance or Sheep Annual Premium have been withheld because of overgrazing. In cases where overgrazing is confirmed, subsidy payments are reduced or withheld only if the producers concerned do not take appropriate steps to address the problem. So far it has not been necessary to apply these sanctions.

  Non-genetically Modified Soya Beans
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what reports his Department has received concerning the efforts of the state Government of Rio Grande do Sol to guarantee non-genetically modified soya bean production throughout their state; and what plans his Department has to give assistance. [84503]

  Mr. Rooker
  My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary and I met the Secretary of Agriculture for the Brazilian State of Rio Grande do Sol on 13 May 1999 at his request to hear about the ability of his State to supply non-GM soya to UK customers.

  We offered to add details of Brazilian companies to the MAFF list of non-GM soya suppliers published on the Department's website, so that those who wished to purchase such material can be aware of this source.

  Flax
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what support his Department is giving to the growing of flax as a substitute fibre for glass fibre panels in motor vehicles. [84321]

  Mr. Rooker
  The technical feasibility of using flax in motor vehicle panels was demonstrated in research funded by the Ministry to assess the industrial potential of fibres from UK grown crops. The use of crop derived raw materials is promoted at workshops, seminars and agricultural shows, and through the dedicated Website of the Ministry's Alternative Crops Unit.

  Animal Slaughter (Inspection Charges)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans the Government have to contribute towards the new charges for veterinary inspection on the slaughter of animals; and if he will make a statement. [84565]
  396
  Mr. Rooker
  The Government have no plans to contribute towards the costs of those hygiene/welfare inspections conducted at licensed fresh meat premises in accordance with harmonised EU meat hygiene rules. We are obliged by EU law to recover the costs of such inspections from the industry and are not permitted to subsidise such costs. However, the Government's study of the impact of all proposed charges in the slaughtering sector, announced on 21 April, will also look at EU legislation and the way in which inspections are carried out so as to ensure that, when charges are set, they are as low as possible consistent with maintaining public safety and honouring our obligations under EU law.

  In the meantime, the Government are bearing the cost of enforcement of specified risk material controls for a further year. Nevertheless, we remain of the view that recovering these costs from the industry is right in principle.

CABINET OFFICE Access to Information

  Access to Information
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what discussions he has had with the Home Department on changes to the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [83652]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department intends to publish the draft Freedom of Information Bill shortly. In the interim, he has no plans to amend the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Public Appointments
  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to extend the range of public appointments covered by the Public Appointments Commissioner. [83654]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The Government extended the remit of the Commissioner for Public Appointments last autumn. I have no plans to extend the Commissioner's remit further.

  Public Sector Ombudsmen
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the progress of the review of public sector Ombudsmen in England. [83656]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Wide consultation has now started. Views have been invited from those representing the public, government and others with an interest in the work of the Ombudsmen. The review is working with the Select Committee on Public Administration to canvass Members' views.

  Biotechnology
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his oral answer of 21 April 1999, Official Report, column 896 on biotechnology, if he will make a statement on the research sponsored by the Government into cross-pollination from genetically modified crops.[83657]
  397
  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The Government are currently funding studies into cross-pollination between oilseed rape and other species. The results of the work will be made available once the research is completed.

  Anti-drugs Co-ordinator
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on the work of the UK Anti-drugs Co-ordinator. [83658]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  The UK Anti-drugs Co-ordinator's first report and national plan will be published shortly.

  Modernising Government
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what measures he plans to put in place to ensure that targets for the use of new technology announced in the Modernising Government White Paper are directed towards collecting views from the public on the quality of public services. [83659]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Finding out what people want and expect from public services is an important part of the Government's approach to Modernising Government. Through research on electronic service delivery and from the People's Panel, we have begun that process. We will work closely with the public services in central and local government to ensure that services are developed in accordance with what citizens want.

  Better Regulation Task Force
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many meetings he has had with the Chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force this year. [83660]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My right hon. Friend had five meetings with the Chairman of the Better Regulation Task Force.

  One-stop Shops
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to support one-stop shops for access to both local and national government services. [83661]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The "Modernising Government" White Paper, launched on 30 March, contains a number of initiatives to encourage joint working between central and local government, including one-stop shops. There will be a drive to eliminate obstacles to joined-up working, including a more co-ordinated approach to property management, and a second round of the Invest to Save Budget to fund new projects that involve partnership working.

  Civil Servants (Ethnic Minorities)
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress he has made in recruiting and retaining black and Asian civil servants in higher grades. [83662]
  398
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  Black and Asian Civil Servants make up 5.7 per cent. of the Civil Service overall and 1.6 per cent. of the Senior Civil Service. The Government are committed to redressing under-representation in the higher grades and we are actively working to recruit and retain ethnic minorities at all levels in the Civil Service.

  We have recently launched with Civil Service Trade Unions, a joint Charter to address under-representation of ethnic minorities at senior levels.

  We have also set targets that by the year 2004–05, 3.2 per cent. of the Senior Civil Service will be from ethnic minority backgrounds.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the total budget of all Departments for Special Advisers(a) in the current year and (b) in 1996–97. [83664]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  The pay bill for Special Advisers in 1999–2000 is estimated at £3.9 million. In 1996–97, when the Government employed 38 Advisers against the current 69, the pay bill was £1.8 million.

  Red Boxes
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans he has to promote the use of electronic red boxes for ministers. [83665]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) on 16 March 1999,Official Report, column 651.

  Public Funds
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what progress he has made in investigating the case for a code of conduct on the use of public funds for the purpose of opinion research. [83666]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  My officials are looking at ways of bringing together the various existing sources of advice and expertise on Government public opinion research, in consultation with colleagues in other departments.

  Government Buildings, Marsham Street
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what proportion of the office space at the old Department of the Environment buildings at Marsham street is empty; and for how long such space has been empty. [83667]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  2 Marsham Street has been completely empty since 30 April 1998. Vacation occurred progressively over the previous two years as the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions relocated to new accommodation.

  Drug Misuse
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what forecast he has made of the date by which there will be a reduction in illegal drug use. [83668]

  Dr. Jack Cunningham
  Details will be published shortly in the Co-ordinator's first annual report and national plan.

  Annual Report
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what independent auditing he plans of the Government's annual report. [83655]

  Mr. Kilfoyle
  This year's Annual Report will be prepared in the same way as last year's, as set out in my reply to the hon. Gentleman on 13 January 1999,Official Report, columns 226–27.

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

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Irvine of Lairg): My Lords, before the Business begins I take the opportunity to inform the House that I am to make an official visit to Rome where I will have meetings with members of the Italian Government and judiciary and will deliver a lecture at the Academia de Lyncei on Monday, 24th May, when the House will sit. Accordingly, I trust the House will grant me leave of absence.

Iraq: UN Reports on Disarmament Obligations
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have yet received the report of the panel set up by the United Nations to consider Iraq's programme for developing weapons of mass destruction; and, if so, what are the report's conclusions; and what is their response.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I have arranged for copies of the reports by the three UN panels set up in January this year to be placed in the Library of the House. The disarmament report explicitly recognises that Iraq has not met its disarmament obligations and that important questions remain to be answered. This is a vindication of UNSCOM's position and of our own.
We believe that the Security Council should now move quickly to translate into action the work of all three UN panels. We and the Netherlands have circulated a draft resolution on which negotiations continue.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Does she agree that in the absence of any inspection on the ground for a good many months now it is quite possible that President Saddam Hussein is turning his attention to rebuilding his stocks of weapons of mass destruction? If that happened, that would be a serious matter. Is the noble Baroness aware that I believe she will have the support of Parliament for every effort that the Government make to ensure that this important situation is not overlooked and to ensure that the Security Council proceeds as fast as possible to a satisfactory decision?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course it is important that there is monitoring on the
292
ground, but that is not to say that alternative means of monitoring do not exist. I am sure that the House would not expect me to go into detail on those points but I assure the noble Lord that we are keeping an eye on what is happening. He is quite right that Iraq could regenerate chemical weapons within months and biological weapons within weeks. It could build more Scud missiles from scratch within a year and could begin to develop nuclear missiles. It is for that reason that the UN panel has stressed the importance of ensuring that there is a body that has the rights to monitor on the ground, a body which would have all UNSCOM's powers, its rights and responsibilities, but would also offer a fresh start and an opportunity for the remaining disarmament questions to be cleared up quickly.
I thank the noble Lord for his assurance that the Government will have the support of the House in pursuing this objective and we hope very much to gain maximum support from our colleagues in the United Nations in endeavouring to get agreement on the draft resolution that we and the Netherlands have put forward.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, since hostile military intrusion into the airspace of any country is not likely to make it more amenable to international inspection of its military programmes, can the noble Baroness remind the House—because all this has dropped out of sight in the press—how frequent have been the Anglo-American air patrols over northern and southern Iraq and how frequently they have bombed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the no-fly zones were established in April 1991 in the north of Iraq and in August 1992 in the south of Iraq. I remind the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, that the coalition initiative was in support of the UNSCR 688 to end the brutal Iraqi repression of the Kurds and the Shias. They are justified under international law in response to a situation of overwhelming humanitarian necessity. UK and US aircraft have continued to enforce the no-fly zones as usual. When specifically threatened allied aircraft have responded as in the past in self-defence in a proportionate manner. If it were not for the threats to our aircraft, they would not have to retaliate in that way. We are, of course, concerned about any casualties that may result therefrom, but I stress to the noble Lord that our primary concern must be the safety of our air crews in carrying out their essential task which was sanctioned under international law.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, have the Government a settled view of the report of the humanitarian panel which suggested that sanctions might be eased and private investment allowed in Baghdad for oil exports?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the humanitarian panel notes that around 275 million dollars worth of medicines and medical supplies are still languishing in warehouses and awaiting distribution by the Iraqi Government. It recommends that the Government of Iraq do their utmost to ensure the timely

293
distribution of humanitarian goods, in particular medical supplies, and clear the existing unjustifiable bottlenecks in warehouses at the moment.
Our resolution reflects our commitment to help the Iraqi people as much as possible and picks up most of the recommendations from the humanitarian panel. If implemented, it will bring an additional 470 million dollars into the oil for food programmes over a six-month period. I hope that that information gives the noble Lord not only an assurance about what the panel said but about the Government's reaction in our draft UNSCR.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, what progress has been made in setting up the new UN Commission on Investigation, Inspection and Monitoring, as recommended by the report of the UN panel, in order to continue UNSCOM's efforts to answer outstanding disarmament questions through a reinforced monitoring and verification system?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the report specifically endorses the intrusive inspection regimes provided for in earlier resolutions; it advocates a reinforced monitoring regime integrating the disarmament and monitoring functions; and it recognises that this will in some ways be more not less intrusive than the previous regime. It also provides a larger and better resourced organisation, reflecting the fact that Iraqi intransigence has made it necessary to introduce a more intrusive regime. The reports are under discussion at the moment. Not only have the United Kingdom and the Netherlands put forward a draft UNSCR but at least one other draft is being discussed at the moment. We very much hope that, through the discussions I have outlined to your Lordships, agreement can be reached on the setting up of the new body and the way in which it will operate.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, as the only way the regime can be brought down is from within, how much information is being beamed down so that the inhabitants of Iraq know what is going on and know, for example, about the medical supplies in the warehouses?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as the noble Lord rightly implies, getting information into Iraq is not an easy matter; it is an extremely repressive regime. We do all that we can to ensure that straight news reporting gets into Iraq as part of our efforts to ensure that there is a voice of opposition there. We have regular meetings at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office with representatives of the Iraqi opposition. The most recent meeting was on 2nd February with my late right honourable friend Mr. Derek Fatchett. The meetings have focused on key areas where we are looking to work with the opposition, including ways of articulating to the Iraqi people that there is an alternative if they choose one.

Scientific Advisory Committees: Membership
2.44 p.m.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley Earl Baldwin of Bewdley asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on the background of members appointed to expert scientific advisory committees.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, all appointments made by Ministers are governed by the overriding principle of selection based on merit. More specifically, the Chief Scientific Adviser's Guidelines on the Use of Scientific Advice in Policy Making require scientific advisory committees to include a wide range of scientific opinion of the highest calibre; the Nolan guidance makes clear the conduct of integrity and openness expected of committee members; and where scientific advisory committees are defined as advisory non-departmental public bodies, the Commissioner for Public Appointments' guidance applies.
Earl Baldwin of Bewdley: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Is he aware that from previous questions I have established that there is a preponderance of links with industry among these key committees, in some cases amounting to more than 80 per cent of their membership? Will he ensure that his ministerial colleagues—notably in MAFF, health and the environment—are alive to the need to recruit from a wider culture of scientists and lay people?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope I have made clear that the main consideration is to select people solely on the basis of merit and to include on these committees all the scientific disciplines needed to take decisions. We certainly try to achieve a balance of both people with commercial interests and those who have no interests to declare. The main principle is selection on merit. I was glad to see that the recent report of the House of Commons Select Committee on the scientific advisory system took the view that the integrity of scientists is not automatically compromised by an association with industry and that the barring of such scientists would deprive the Government of some of the best scientific advice available.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the Minister referred to the House of Commons Select Committee report. Does he agree with another of its conclusions, namely, that serious thought needs to be given by the Government to establishing clear guidelines on disclosure of interests for members of advisory committees, backed by active policies of annual disclosure, clear and transparent policies for review of disclosures and clear criteria for decisions on whether interests are material? Will the Minister commit to that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, yes, all of those points are considered. If there are details which need to be clarified, then we should clarify them. Most

295
of the bodies have very clear registers of interests which cover most of the points. To the extent that they do not, I shall look into the matter.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, is the noble aware that the veterinary products committee recently set up a working party to look into recombinant bovine somatotrophin? Two members of the committee have interests in Monsanto which manufactures that product. Bearing in mind the recent fiasco with the first Pinochet judgment in your Lordships' House, does the Minister regard those two particular members of the panel as independent?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the general principles are very clear. In circumstances where a matter is being considered which has a direct financial implication for a company, then, in accordance with the Nolan principles, such persons are required to stand aside on that particular issue. I am sure that that will happen in this case.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that some of the best scientific brains are employed by industry and that enormous investment is made by industry in scientific research? Does he therefore agree that the fact that people are involved with industry should not automatically debar them? I have first-hand experience of taking market research right through what are termed near markets and applied research. That can only be of benefit as regards membership of these panels.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I reiterate the point that the main consideration is to select people for these committees on the basis that they have the best scientific expertise to consider the questions that arise. We certainly do not exclude people on the basis that they have contacts in industry. The noble Baroness is right to point out that some of the best brains in these areas inevitably have contact with industry, whether through consulting, making speeches or other concerns. In the extremely wise words of my noble friend Lord Peston in a previous debate, if every time any leading scientist or engineer is appointed to an advisory committee scurrilous remarks about his or her integrity are made, in the end only second-rate people will be willing to work, and that would not serve this country well.
Lord McNair: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the difficulty of getting research done, particularly in alternative health fields, has an effect on the standing of the people who might subsequently be appropriate for appointment to such panels? There is, as it were, a bottleneck. Does the Minister further agree that, as soon as research is done into some of the alternative health issues, people who have the necessary status will emerge?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there is always a difficulty with areas that are not considered to fall within the basis of current scientific criteria. In those
296
circumstances difficulties arise. The most important consideration is simply that there is transparency, and that scientific advice of this nature is brought into the public arena so that there is effectively peer review and people can say whether or not proper scientific criteria have been applied.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, will the noble Lord confirm the Government's adherence to the age-old democratic parliamentary position that experts should be on tap, never on top?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, these are advisory committees; they are asked to advise on specific technical questions. In many cases, Ministers will accept the findings because they relate to a technical question. However, the ultimate decision is always the ministerial one.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, does the Minister accept the need for wide public support and understanding of the work of these committees? With that in mind, are scientists with impeccable credentials who are trustees and advisers to charities considered for appointment to them?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I repeat that appointment is on the basis of merit. Some of our most distinguished scientists work for charitable organisations and would be considered alongside other people.

Russian Federation: EU Food Aid
2.53 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the arrangements for the distribution of food aid by the European Union to the Russian Federation and that the aid is reaching those for whom it is intended.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the Government are satisfied that the European Commission has set up workable arrangements to ensure that EU food aid is implemented effectively and reaches those for whom it is intended.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. However, does he recognise the widespread fear that much of the food aid that goes to Russia can be found on the way to the black market, in the hands of the Mafia, who then invest the money in western countries, and in some cases the EU itself? Will my noble friend outline the systems that are in operation to ensure that that does not happen? Is food aid really the best way to bring Russian agriculture into a recovery phase, or does it help to undermine the efforts of farmers in Russia, particularly small peasant farmers?
Lord Carter: My Lords, the issue of fraud was discussed by the Agriculture Council as recently as

297
Monday. The Commission is not aware of any diversion of food or of other fraud, but will investigate substantiated reports.
On the question of oversight, the Commission has appointed an agency comprising two commercial companies to control the movement of goods from the European Union to the Russian border. The agency will work with the member states' intervention agencies. The Russian authorities will take charge of the goods once they reach the Russian border. In addition, the EU has appointed an independent monitor, comprising three companies, to report on distribution.
Regarding food production, UK development assistance to Russia is operated through the Know-how Fund. That tackles the constraints on food production rather than the production itself. Areas where the UK provides assistance include: land ownership; development of marketing strategies; third party arbitration mechanisms to resolve disputes relating to land ownership; and technical advice on processing.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, is the noble Lord satisfied that there is a proper transport system for distributing the food aid, bearing in mind that many of Russia's problems are caused by its lack of a proper transport system?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I repeat that the European Commission has set up an independent monitor. About 50 per cent of the food aid has started to flow; the rest should be delivered by September. It is up to the independent agency to report to the Commission if there are problems.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, has the EU been in touch with the prison service in Russia over the question of food for prisoners, since poor quality prison diets have in recent years been a significant contributory cause of tuberculosis?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving advance notice of this important question. The Memorandum of Understanding between the European Union and the Russian Government specifies that in exceptional cases, by decision of the Russian Government, the products may be distributed free of charge to the most vulnerable sectors of the population. It is not absolutely clear whether that extends to prisons. As a result of the noble Lord's question, urgent inquiries are being made by officials. I shall write to the noble Lord and place a copy of the letter in the Library.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, how much bilateral aid is Britain sending to Russia this year? Secondly, what proportion of European aid is supplied by Britain?
Lord Carter: My Lords, at the meeting of the Agriculture Council in December, the council unanimously agreed a food aid programme for the Russian Federation. Supplies consist of: 1 million tonnes of wheat; half a million tonnes of rye; 50,000 tonnes of
298
rice; 150,000 tonnes of beef; 100,000 tonnes of pork; and 50,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder. Supplies are being drawn from intervention stocks, except for the pigmeat, which is being sourced on the open market—without any obvious effect on the UK pig price at present. The food is being supplied in five tranches. Half has been mobilised and is on its way; the intention is that the rest will be delivered by September. As to the UK proportion, we have offered 30,000 tonnes of skimmed milk powder; so far, 6,000 tonnes have been supplied.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, when will the independent unit to which the noble Lord referred begin its work? What is its brief in regard to monitoring the food getting through to people in that country? Perhaps the noble Lord will confirm my understanding that the delay is not at the EU end but at the Russian end, and that therefore the new independent unit is of vital importance.
Lord Carter: My Lords, on the question of delay, the food programme was suspended on 4th February this year because of questions raised by both Russia and the EU about quality, health, transport and origin. There were also technical difficulties within the EU in relation to receipt of the initial tender bids for delivery of the food aid to Russian ports. We have learnt a great deal following the problems in 1991 and 1992. It is significant that there is now an independent agency comprising two companies reporting on the movement of goods from the European Union to the Russian border, and an independent monitor comprising three companies—one British, one Dutch and one Danish—all of whom have the job of reporting to the Commission. On the question of the date, I do not know. I will write to the noble Baroness.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Americans have over 300 officials on the ground in Russia to make sure that their aid gets through to the people for whom it is intended, whereas the European Union appears to have only a handful? In view of the huge tonnages and figures that the noble Lord has given for this aid, how can he convince the House that it would not be better to send all our aid on a bilateral basis rather than most of it through the well known incompetence and fraud of the European Commission?
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am aware of the noble Lord's interest. I think that he has delivered himself into my hands. The US is providing 3 million tonnes of food compared with the figures that I have given. The US has 300 people there and 300 people are involved in the programme on the EU side, including Commission staff but mainly the commercial agencies appointed to control the flow of food from the EU to the Russian border and the independent monitor appointed to report on distribution in Russia. We are providing the same number of staff for the aid that I described as the Americans.

The West Lothian Question
3 p.m.
Lord Monson Lord Monson asked Her Majesty's Government:
How, following the first elections to the Scottish Parliament, they plan to answer the West Lothian question.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scottish Office (Lord Sewel): My Lords, the Government's position on the so-called West Lothian question was clearly stated during debates on the Scotland Act and has not been changed by the elections which took place on 6th May. We believe that the further development of regional government in England, where there is a demand for it, an adjustment to the number of Members representing Scottish seats in another place and the development of Westminster procedures, as is presently being considered by the Procedure Committee in another place, provide between them as much of an Answer as the Question requires.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that ingenious reply. Does he agree that although the English appear to be acquiescent right now, once they start to realise how disadvantaged they will be under the new dispensation compared with the Scots they will rapidly, and justifiably, begin to become extremely resentful? Would not the simplest solution be to establish a convention whereby Scottish Members of the Westminster Parliament automatically abstain from voting on purely English domestic matters, as was proposed, most recently, by Sir Teddy Taylor in the other place eight days ago?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the point which was made during one of the debates on the Scotland Act was that during the period of the Stormont government this Parliament did not seem to be too concerned about the East. Antrim question. Therefore, the idea that a new constitutional anomaly is being introduced is totally without foundation. This Parliament has proved that it can handle constitutional innovation in a way that protects its integrity.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, how can the noble Lord possibly justify a situation in which the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have an absolute say over the local government settlement in England but none whatever over his own constituents in Dunfermline? How can he also justify that the newly-appointed Minister of Transport will dictate, policy on the development of roads in England but will have no say whatever over her own constituents in Scotland?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, very easily. With reference to my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer and Mrs Helen Liddell, the noble Lord
300
must recognise that we are the Government of the United Kingdom and will use the talents of the UK to best effect to ensure that the best people are doing the right jobs.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: My Lords, is it not a reflection of the native abilities of the Scots that they now have six seats in the Cabinet in addition to running their own affairs in Scotland?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, that may well be the case, but what happens to Scottish Office Ministers is a matter of some concern.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, have the Government considered what appears to be the least unsatisfactory solution, which is a combination of what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said about Scottish Members not voting on matters that do not apply to Scotland and a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster? Are the Government relieved that proposals for an English parliament are unlikely to find favour as the muddles and squabbles in the present devolved Parliament in Edinburgh are observed over the coming years?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, the noble Lord has an ability to foresee the future that I do not pretend to have. We made clear at the time of the debates on the Scotland Bill that an inevitable consequence of devolution in Scotland would be a proper adjustment to Scottish representation in the other place. That seems to me to be a fair and reasonable way forward. There are other considerations at work: the deliberations of the Procedure Committee of another place and how best our Parliament can adjust to the reality of devolution. What I hope to see in Scotland is a way forward that is based on recognising the diversity of the United Kingdom and getting parties to work together in the common interests of Scotland and the United Kingdom.
Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an assurance that the West Lothian question does not apply to Wales?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, on the basis of geography at the very least, yes.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister accept that the best answer to the West Lothian question is devolution within England so that the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not decide every detail of local authority expenditure? Can we look forward to home rule for Yorkshire in the Government's future legislative programme?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, I refer the noble Lord to my original Answer, in which I drew attention to the Government's commitment to the further development of regional government in England, where there is a demand for it. I believe that that is one of the ways

301
in which we can achieve a more symmetrical form of devolution within the United Kingdom, and it is to be welcomed.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, is it not a fact that some Members of your Lordships' House have stood for and been elected to the Scottish Parliament and, therefore, they will be able to consider matters relating to Scotland? Is it not also a fact that those Members, including the Speaker of the Scottish Parliament, can come to England, enter your Lordships' House, join in all the hurdy-gurdy of party politics and take part in English matters? The Minister seems to find all these matters peculiarly easy. That is a simplicity which some of us do not quite follow. Will he admit that, at least in schoolboy language, it is unfair?
Lord Sewel: My Lords, not at all. It is true that this House provided the presiding officers for the three territorial assemblies and parliaments, and I rejoice in that. I believe that if Members of this House who are also members of these territorial parliaments decide to make a contribution to the deliberations of this House we should listen very carefully to what they say.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, before we—
Noble Lords: Order!

Business
3.10 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, after the first debate today my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn will, with the leave of the House, repeat in the form of a Statement an Answer to a Private Notice Question in another place on the Government's proposals to restrict trials by jury.

Business of the House: Procedure
Lord Waddington: My Lords, I apologise for jumping the gun. I was not quite sure how I should raise this matter with the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. Yesterday afternoon, after Questions, the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, put a question about the Government's policy with regard to the Weatherill amendment which brought forth a somewhat choleric response from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I should very much like guidance from the noble Baroness the Lord Privy Seal. What happened seemed to me to be straining the few rules of order we have. I am wondering whether it would be at all desirable if the practice were to develop of individual noble Lords getting up after Question Time and raising matters of their choosing.
I may have a suspicious mind, but what makes the matter particularly extraordinary is that it seemed contrived. The noble Lord raised the question and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor gave his
302
rather intemperate reply. But although it was intemperate, he read very carefully from a script which he had in front of him.
It was a most extraordinary event, not least because the House of Lords Bill was on the Order Paper, and if any question was to be raised as to the Government's attitude towards the Weatherill amendment, the obvious time to raise it was when the business on the House of Lords Bill commenced.
I respectfully submit that it would be undesirable if this practice were to develop. It would be a good thing to stop it now, if only to save the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor from himself.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, after a direct charge and that vicious attack, from which I am still recovering, I should like to say that the sequence of events was very simple. Yesterday morning I discussed with my two fellow signatories to the Weatherill amendment my concern at the way in which the business was being conducted in this place and how it was developing into an endlessly repetitive conversation to which there was no foreseeable end. They tended to share that view.
I made no contact whatever with anyone else until about half-past one or a quarter to two when it struck me that out of courtesy I should inform the Government Chief Whip. He was at lunch, as Chief Whips usually are between 12 and three o'clock, and I then spoke to his private secretary. I said that I intended to stand up after Questions and ask a member of the Government to comment on the progress of Monday's business. He said that he would convey the message. I heard nothing more until he approached me at about twenty past two to tell me that the Lord Chancellor would be responding. I asked what the Lord Chancellor was going to say, and he said, "That is not for me to discuss with you".
When the exchange took place, I did not know what the Lord Chancellor was going to say and he most certainly did not know what I was going to say.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is this not a pathetic situation which should never be allowed to arise again?
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I have no wish for this situation to arise again. There were circumstances on Monday night that noble Lords on all sides were concerned about. This led to a rising of the temperature which the Government had no wish to contribute to. The noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition laughs, but that led to the circumstances of yesterday afternoon when other people not involved in the usual channels felt justifiably concerned, as the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, has expressed, about the progress of business. The noble Lord, Lord Marsh, asked a question which, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, points out, was within our extremely relaxed rules. I am among those noble Lords who feel that those rules should he considerably tightened, and that is something that perhaps we shall move towards in a reformed House.

Business of the House: Debates this Day
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Lord Gladwyn set down for today shall be limited to three-and-a-half hours and that in the name of the Earl of Iveagh to one-and-a-half hours. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Access to the Countryside
3.16 p.m.
Lord Gladwynrose to call attention to the issues raised by public demand for access to the countryside, in the light of the Government's Statement of 8th March (HL Deb, cols. 40–42); and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, a new chapter in the long history of public demand for access to the countryside was opened with the Government Statement of 8th March. This statement was triggered by Gordon Prentice's Private Member's Bill on the Right to Roam, which was debated at Second Reading in another place on 26th March. It is therefore appropriate that your Lordships' House should have this opportunity to debate the subject. In raising it I have no interest to declare. I am not a landowner, nor have I held a position of authority in any of the interested organisations; but I am the author of several books about counties in southern England, of which three are guides to long-distance walking trails, and I therefore consider myself to be an informed observer. I look forward to the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles.
The Government intend to introduce primary legislation to permit access on foot to all open countryside in England and Wales that is defined as mountain, moor, heath, downland and common land, which represents about 10 per cent of the land mass. It is to be regretted that the aim of providing greater freedom for people to explore the open countryside, which was stated in the Labour Party manifesto, could not have been achieved by means of voluntary agreements. But it is also perfectly understandable that the Government should have decided to establish, in clarity and in permanence, the right to roam that had been the intention of the 1949 Act.
On the basis of the figures in the Government's own appraisal document, it seems that although most of our open countryside is currently available for access by one means or another, about a third is not, amounting to some half a million hectares. In the highly sensitive Peak District National Park over half the open land remains closed, if that is not a contradiction in terms.
Understandably, many landowners feel deeply aggrieved about the element of compulsion. Had the present voluntary arrangements continued, they could have stood to benefit from incentive payments for loss of amenity, even if access enforcement orders had been served on them. Now they will get nothing, and will
304
incur additional costs. The government's appraisal is that such costs will be only slight on the greater part of land that is defined as being of low visitor pressure.
Where there is high visitor pressure, however, this loss of amenity becomes more significant. The figures may be disputed, and the one group which will certainly have a field day is the lawyers. The central issue of the law relating to property may go all the way up to the Court of Human Rights.
The "right to roam" is an emotive phrase, implying an indiscriminate intrusion. But the Government, as explained in its Framework for Action, intends to mitigate it with important restrictions and an emphasis on responsibilities as well as rights, with codes of practice. To lay the groundwork for the proposed legislation, the new Countryside Agency is charged with the supervision of accurate mapping and with the establishment of access forums of the type already set up in Wales and Scotland. Much will depend on the composition of these local forums, whose remit will cover the entire countryside in their area. The Countryside Agency, which is already engaged in setting up the English National Forum, is determined that its membership should be quite small and well balanced between conflicting interests.
The broad intent of the government Statement raises a host of unresolved questions, and the Country Landowners' Association has already compiled a list of 150. There are questions of definition, for example: what will be the minimum area qualifying as "open land"? How will open land be recognised by those without maps? What about the adjacent enclosed land through which many walkers will seek to pass? What is meant by "extensive grazing"? Access is to be confined to walkers seeking open-air recreation; but what kinds of sport or recreation might that include? Will occupiers' liability insurances incur higher premiums?
There are questions about the effect on wildlife and vegetation. What limitations will be imposed on numbers, on special events and on noise in order to preserve the wildness and tranquillity that are prescribed in the 1995 Act? How much will the public stick to paths or wander across the rough ground? The right of access will not just be roaming in the gloaming; it will be all through the night. So what about camping and rough living? Dogs are to be kept on leads, but how long is an extension lead? How closely will access be monitored?
Then there is the question of closures. Apart from the statutory 28 days, further closures may be imposed for conservation, health or safety or else conceded by the access forums for reasons of land management. Will that standard 28 days be equally sufficient in very varied circumstances? How long will it take to arrange a special closure? How costly will it be for the landowner to implement the closure? How will the closure be recognised by the public?
The Government's Statement also envisages extending the right to roam over other areas of countryside. As well as woodlands and coastal areas, those might include inland water and waterbanks. Rights of access may extend to other users beyond the mere

305
pedestrian. That introduces an element of uncertainty altogether greater than the provisions for the open countryside, which have at least been outlined.
Uncertainties such as these persist also in Scotland where the new Parliament is expected to bring in its own Bill in the near future, foreshadowed by the ministerial statement of February. Here the access policy is likely to be even more liberal than in England, with a general presumption of access to land and water everywhere, subject to safeguards and restraints.
With access established as of right, the need to manage and control it will be all the greater. In addition to decisions made by the local forums about what happens on the ground, much can be done by limiting the number of users by means of traffic management, especially at the honeypots of the national parks and the National Trust. Speed limits, calming methods, road hierarchies, cycle lanes and restrictions on car parks will all help. But what will be of far greater effect—and I should like to see far more—would be the closure of sections of road to visiting private motor vehicles, as has been done already in two valleys of the Peak District. Above all, remote areas should be kept remote.
I turn now to the remainder of our countryside, the great majority of it, all enclosed in one way or another, mostly very beautiful although downright unsightly in parts. Here the issues about access relate to our unparalleled network of rights of way, those gossamer webs which were once vital arteries, in the days when the now empty countryside was full of working people. The Countryside Commission, as it still was, early this year issued its report entitled Rights of Way in the 21st Century and now the Government, in conformity with their 8th March Statement, are to produce a consultation paper.
What does the commission's report say? It criticises local authorities for not doing enough to secure their networks; and it recommends changes to the law so as to make it easier for landowners to obtain reasonable diversions, as well as for the authorities to remove obstructions. It also wants to call a halt to the interminable challenging of the legal status of rights of way by means of a ten-year time limit. I find all those recommendations entirely desirable. The costs of even the most trivial adjustments to the network are ridiculously high. Those recommendations of the Countryside Commission will require substantial additional funding—£150 million has been suggested. That is in addition to the extra funding needed for monitoring and "wardening" the new right to roam on open country.
The great majority of rights of way are footpaths, for walkers only. Naturally, those near or within conurbations are used more than those in remote parishes. Most people take a walk just to keep fit or walk the dog, rather than to explore the countryside, and they want to do so without getting into a car. That simple therapeutic action is now actively encouraged by the medical profession, thus affirming Sir George Trevelyan's brief but splendid sentence in his Essay on Walking:
306
"I have two doctors, my left leg and my right".
But there, on the fringes of towns, is where the tension is greatest, where many footpaths have been eliminated by urban spread and where landowners suffer most from inconsiderate behaviour. Those patches of undeveloped rough ground, on which teenagers used to let off steam, have mostly gone. Perhaps replacements should be acquired.
On bridleways, walkers are joined by horse riders and cyclists. Horse riders understandably feel they have a raw deal. Country lanes in south-east England are hazardous enough for walkers who can sometimes feel as though they have strayed on to the Cresta Run. But for riders, they are positively lethal, as accident statistics show all too well. So horse riders are doing all they can to establish bridleway status wherever possible, especially so as to join up fragmented routes and to secure permissive trails with landowners, even if that involves payment.
Cyclists are the newcomers to the scene, thanks to the development of the mountain bike. In fact, they represent the strongest surge in demand for access to the countryside. The South Downs Way now seems to be dominated by them. Inconsiderate cyclists can be very alarming to walkers and horse riders, but all three should learn to respect each other for their physical energy. It is good that Sustrans is making use of new countryside trails, such as disused railway lines and canal towpaths, as part of its system. However—and I say this not just because I am a walker—the Government are surely correct in prohibiting both cyclists and horse riders from the open countryside, because of the damage they inevitable cause to the fragile habitat.
On byways open to all traffic, the muscular users are joined by the mechanical ones. The pressure from drivers of four-wheel drive vehicles to get onto those green lanes is intense. The issue has come to a head in respect of as yet unclassified rights of way—known as RUPPs—and the commission proposes to grasp the nettle and force their redesignation, to the dismay of the defenders of quiet enjoyment.
Access to the lowland countryside is not confined to rights to way, of course. It exists among many voluntary agreements and schemes in agricultural land and woodland, notably in Forestry Commission properties. It exists in local authority country parks and village greens. Then there are the countryside properties of the National Trust and English Nature. There are the parklands of great houses. I suppose one might almost say that it exists in the tens of thousands of golf courses, even if only to a manicured countryside.
Altogether, the British countryside is there to be explored in all its wonderful variety. In that regard, I award the palm to the present American ambassador, Philip Lader, who, since his appointment, has walked every yard of a rough route of 1,000 miles from Land's End to John O'Groats, putting up at bed and breakfasts.
The great question now is: when will the Government introduce their Bill? The danger of postponement is that uncertainty will increase aggravation. Users will assume that they can wander indiscriminately, and some

307
landowners may renounce existing agreements. Restraint and understanding are required on both sides. I believe that will prevail.
Despite much-publicised spats and confrontations, there is a remarkable lack of conflict in the 3 billion day visits made annually to the countryside. The Ramblers' Association and the National Farmers Union are in sensible dialogue. The differences between urban and non-urban living are diminishing all the time. I do not believe in the simplistic town versus country social divide. Thanks to TV and educative programmes, the message of the countryside that it is not a theme park but a working environment, is increasingly understood. People appreciate that it depends on profitable agriculture if it is not to deteriorate into a monotonous wilderness, and that private shooting rights have helped to preserve our precious habitat and wildlife. But, in return for subsidies, they demand access.
My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, as the president of the Cresta Run, perhaps I may assure him that it is virtually impossible for a pedestrian to stray on to it.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Grantchester: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating this debate on access. It is clearly time to consider the practical implications of the access Statement last March. I declare an interest. I am a land-owning dairy farmer in Cheshire.
Everyone is agreed on the need for more access in general. Opinions vary on how we are to achieve it. I support the thrust of the proposal for a statutory right of access to mountain, moor, heath and down. That will provide a stepped change in the amount of countryside permanently available for people to explore and will create the opportunity to increase the quality and diversity of areas where walkers can enjoy the countryside. It will not be dependent on voluntary agreements comprising a diversity of access arrangements often combined with poor publicity which only cause confusion to the walker at best or the likelihood of increasing resentment.
Voluntary access arrangements can extend the areas made available through statutory right to include lowland areas and forests and even some agricultural land around towns. But they cannot be relied upon to provide a consistent framework. Indeed, the amount of areas could decrease rather than increase should some unfortunate access experience, a change of landowner or simply a timed end of agreement lead to a withdrawal of access. I urge the Country Landowners' Association arid other interested bodies to continue their dialogue arid to work with the Countryside Agency to provide voluntary access to further areas in addition to the statutory areas. The management of access is vital, and the input of landowners and local communities will be invaluable. Proper account of the sensitivity of the environment to withstand the pressures of the volume of
308
walkers, of the needs of land management to maintain quality, and of the conflicting demands of users of the countryside can only be undertaken at local level.
Public demand needs to be better assessed and made more aware of existing provision. For example, in the Countryside Commission's national survey in 1994, only 42 per cent of rights of way were signposted. Local post offices and notice boards could easily display footpaths and access areas. The quality of access can initially be easily improved where rights of way are not clearly defined, publicised or maintained. This will highlight the need to structure the network better and to modernise the legislation to allow flexibility through alterations and modifications to the rigidity of the footpath legislation. In the Minister's Statement of 8th March, the undertaking was given,
"to strengthen and develop the rights of way network". —[Official Report, 8/3/99; col. 41.]
Can my noble friend the Minister assure the House today that provision will be included to more easily re-route, delete, create and link up existing rights of way? Under whose responsibility will this be undertaken? What will be the criteria against which alterations will be judged? Where there is a dispute. how will it be decided? Can the Minister confirm that there is a role here for the proposed local access forums to advise on the rights of way network?
The practicalities of the statutory access provision will ensure that the forums will be crucial throughout the countryside. The need for consistency within the national framework will necessitate policy guidance against which provision can be assessed as well as a code of practice for landowners and the walking public to follow. How will local bodies be able to qualify a statutory right, as management of access and land clearly entails a qualification?
The key to the success of this measure is land management, and although access does not include access to agricultural land in its strict sense it will clearly impact on the livestock sector, mostly the sheep farmer and to a lesser extent beef farmers in the uplands. Agriculture is in a state of crisis at the moment, suffering falls in income throughout all sections of the industry of the order of 25 to 30 per cent. Will my noble friend the Minister recognise today that management of access will have costs? Will he undertake an assessment of the impact on the upland livestock farmer who will have no means of meeting these costs?
There must also be recognition that here is an opportunity for rural areas to develop services. The Minister's Statement made clear that provision of access will be free to the user. Nevertheless, a key ingredient will be how to deliver value. I am reminded that if something is free, it is of no value. I should like to think that as policy develops on the practicalities of access arrangements, it must be borne in mind that access provision has to be of value not only to the walkers, but also to the provider, or nothing much will be improved. As it is to be free to the walker, the management costs can be recognised in various ways. First, there are already pilot schemes on countryside stewardship.

309
Within this and the agri-environment measures in general, there must be included an access provision with grants.
I understand that this is already the case in Wales under the Tir Gofal scheme. The targeting of access elements of agri-environment schemes can contribute to the gradual development of rural areas away from production support of the common agricultural policy. Secondly, there is the opportunity of the New Opportunities Fund of the National Lottery perhaps to defray much of the costs of provision of information or even the provision of additional routes.
Furthermore, access provision must become integrated with local strategy plans on tourism. Although not producing income to the access provider in itself, the quality provision of leisure walks will help economic activities in predominately agricultural areas under severe economic hardship at the moment.
Access is not a threat to rural areas. It provides an opportunity to integrate leisure pursuits within a working countryside where costs must be recognised. I trust access measures will receive the full encouragement of this House.
3.35 p.m.
Viscount Eccles: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for introducing this debate and for providing me with the opportunity to speak in your Lordships' House for the first time.
Much of my walking experience has been in North Yorkshire, although I do stray into Durham from time to time. Home is in Moulton, a village which lies between the Dales and the North York Moors. Both have national parks and there is much other attractive walking country all around. Access is a subject of great interest to anyone who regularly walks.
The Government's Framework for Action, published in March, outlines an approach to access using the definitions "developed land" and "agricultural land" in contrast to "land extensively grazed" and "open countryside". One issue which arises may be illustrated by a walk in Swaledale, which is to be found on the Yorkshire Dales North map. Here I acknowledge with thanks the excellence of the Ordnance Survey mapping. Its maps are of vital assistance to walkers.
The walk begins in the centre of Reeth, where the parking of cars is well organised. After a spell in the village, the route takes you more than half a mile through 14 allotments with dry stone walls, which are easily damaged. There are angled slits in the walls which allow human legs to pass but not a sheep's shoulders. Thereafter, you reach the steeper open slopes of Calver Hill and, beyond, High Reeth Moor. It seems logical that the Countryside Agency and the national park would decide that Reeth was developed and the allotments, agricultural. Here, as now, we would continue to keep to the footpath.
Marking the point at which walkers reached open countryside would not be too difficult on the four footpaths out of Reeth to the west towards Calver Hill. But on the way back, bowling down the hill, avoiding
310
the disused tips and pits, the shafts and the quarry, not to mention the shaking holes, walkers could reach the agricultural land boundary at any point on a three-mile perimeter, with bonus points to those who had a map. Presumably there would be frequent signs with perhaps "Please rejoin the rights of way system", although a somewhat more controlling message might be expected.
In Swaledale there are some 15 villages of substance and many other scattered pockets of agricultural land close to dwellings. The surroundings of each would need to be studied and the map would need to be modified. The mapping, the deliberations of the relevant authorities and the local forums, and the appeals procedures seem likely to be very time-consuming.
To illustrate the issue further, I would tell your Lordships that we also walk near Marske-in-Swaledale and here sometimes meet a Dales farmer's wife who makes it plain that walkers are not her favourite people and that she dislikes their cars even more. She also forcibly points out that the farming life in her dale is difficult. Many would agree.
I move on to a quick plea for dogs. Framework for Action says that legislation will specify that dogs should be on leads. If enacted, that would frustrate both dogs and owners. Many dogs, with their inbuilt equivalent of four-wheel drive, go several times as far as their owners, and the owners take their dogs to get them well exercised and satisfactorily tired. It is certain that the great majority of Yorkshire dog owners respect both nesting birds and lambing sheep. Their dogs are well trained; if not, they are left at home.
Upland walkers in Yorkshire already have a fine range of country to choose from. One set of the many guide books describes 90 Dales walks. They include the coast-to-coast route, the Pennine Way and the Cleveland Way. However, walkers in the agricultural lowlands would certainly be helped by a strengthening of the rights-of-way system, as foreshadowed in the framework. Many footpaths were naturally established to take walkers straight from A to B and not necessarily to provide a satisfying round trip. Maintenance and strengthening of the system are already a responsibility of local authorities. They have a difficult task.
I know of one set of exchanges concerning the correct alignment of 200 yards of a path which 50 years ago was in the middle of a drovers' road, now abandoned. The matter is unresolved after three years of discussion and correspondence involving more than 10 parties. It is no isolated example.
No doubt in the search to improve access the manner in which existing legislation works will be carefully taken into account. After all, rights of way, with their long and detailed history, give rise to strongly held and conflicting opinions, and a satisfactory balance is difficult to find. Therefore, the eventual proposals to legislate for greater access will generate much interest and discussion. But I suppose there may be some doubt as to whether I will here to comment upon them.
3.42 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, it is my very pleasant duty to congratulate on behalf of all your Lordships the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on his maiden speech. I was a great admirer of his father, his predecessor, who wrote an extremely good book called Half-Way to Faith which I have on my bookshelves and react from time to time. In my view, he was a very great man, and I am delighted to welcome his son to his place in this House. Indeed, the quality of the speech we have heard, which contributed greatly to your Lordships' debate this afternoon, particularly through its detailed knowledge of the situation and of the subject we are talking about, almost persuades me that there is a virtue in hereditary peerages—almost.
The noble Viscount's experience as chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanical Gardens, Kew, is something that he will be able to bring to bear in your Lordships' House in dealing with the kind of subject that we have before us today. I hope we shall have the chance to listen to him many times more before he leaves the House in one way or another.
I would also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for having initiated this debate. He gave us a wide-ranging summary of the various situations and provided a great deal of thought and material for the rest of the debate. My only complaint is that, unlike the noble Viscount, he was to a certain extent taken away from what he might have told us from his personal experience. Your Lordships will know that the noble Lord is a noted walker himself, a noted leader of walks throughout the countryside and a noted writer about walks and walking. It was from that background that he was able to introduce the debate.
There is a general principle that almost everyone accepts, although landowners from time to time tend slightly to forget it, that individuals are not the owners of land. They hold it as stewards under the Queen, who holds it as steward under God. The rights of individual landowners are severely limited by the rights that those superior landlords hold on behalf of the community. In a way, the land of this country belongs to the people of this country. The Government are to be congratulated on their attempt to put some of that principle into practice.
The right to roam is a principle, and a very good principle. But, like all principles, it needs some limitation. It is subject to the need to protect the legitimate interests of the land's occupants, among whom I include not only the stewards who hold it as landlords and the farmers who farm it, but also the wildlife that actually occupies it.
It would probably be a very good idea if whatever legislation is finally introduced has a timescale that takes into consideration the nesting and breeding seasons of the wildlife and the life of the farmed animals in the areas dealt with, because much of what we are talking about is land where sheep graze, and where we must hope sheep may continue safely to graze.
One point which has not been seriously raised has been brought to my attention by the Small Farms' Association: the need for dogs not just to be kept on leads but to be healthy when they are taken into the
312
countryside. If dogs are not correctly wormed on a regular basis, and if tapeworms are picked up by a sheep, they can cause cysts within its body, and the sheep can die. If tapeworms are found within the carcass of the animal once slaughtered, the carcass is condemned. In either case the farmers are the losers, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Grantchester, pointed out, the farmers at the present time can in no way afford to be losers.
The Government have taken on a very complicated and difficult issue. We must ask them today about their timetable. Adam Nicolson commented in the Sunday Telegraph, not for the first time, on the right to roam proposals and on the absence of any timetable. He said:
"When is any of this going to become law? Nobody knows. There will now be a long and incredibly elaborate exercise in mapping the boundaries of the new open ground. No one knows how long that will take, or even how it is going to be done. Once—if—they have managed to identify what is open access country and what isn't, there is a nearly insuperable communication problem. National Dark authorities, which are going to carry much of the brunt of this, are already viewing the prospect with despair".
As one of the vice-presidents of the Council for National Parks, I hope that real support will be given to the national parks authorities in their important work.
It is impossible to come up with easy solutions to these problems. Indeed, that is really the point of this debate, which is important as it tries to expose at least some of the questions that need to be asked. I hope that we shall have some interim answers from the Government.
3.50 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Carlisle: My Lords, I am happy to add my congratulations to those that have been paid to the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on his maiden speech, and again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for his magisterial survey of the issues confronting the House and the Government in preparing such legislation.
I should like to put in a word on behalf of the working tenant farmer, but to do so against the background of that Statement of vision of 8th March, which stated that there are glorious parts of our heritage which should be the delight of the many rather than the preserve of the few. It is towards the fulfilment of that vision that I hope that the Government will continue to work.
I do not have a personal interest to declare in the sense that I am not a tenant farmer, but I live in the historic house of the Bishops of Carlisle which is set in the middle of an estate of 25 tenanted farms, so I am regularly in touch with the tenant farming fraternity and have considerable contacts with those on the hills and fells of the Lake District.
Tenant farmers working on the high ground have a living to earn. They are among the hardest working, but the least well financially recompensed of that very hard-pressed sector of society. They are already the often unacknowledged, unpaid wardens of some of our areas of outstanding natural beauty. We owe it to them to take their concerns seriously. I am grateful to Mr. Peter Allen, the chairman of the Less Favoured Areas Committee of the National Farmers Union, for

313
some information on the subject, although I hasten to add that I approached him and that he did not in any sense lobby me.
Perhaps I may cite the example of a tenant farm on the fells above Ullswater where there happens to be a camping site. The area will therefore receive between 150,000 and 200,000 visitors each year. If only 1 per cent of that number causes any kind of problem or damage, that will present considerable difficulties for the tenant farmer and be at his personal cost. It is the tenant farmer who repairs the walls while on the fells shepherding. The damage is usually incidental and is not necessarily deliberate. People tend to go the shortest route from A to B, and if that goes over a wall which is already beginning to crumble, gradually the wall will come down. The tenant farmer frequently encounters the taking off of gates, usually for fun and just occasionally for firewood when the barbecue season is upon the camping fraternity.
It is difficult, if not impossible, for people who think that they are walking through open country and long grass to realise that they are helping to destroy the fell farmer's winter hay. Such points need to be borne carefully in mind. Uninstructed and unwary walkers can also easily subject themselves to danger. They may see an apparently contented herd of cows grazing on the high fell, but if they do not know that the herd is newly calved, with the calves at foot, perhaps hidden by the long grass, the walkers may be in serious danger of physical damage. It is the farmer who has to solve all such problems—and at his own personal cost.
Should access, therefore, be statutory or voluntary? I do not want to disturb the distant memories of those of your Lordships who struggled with Latin at school. Nevertheless, noble Lords may remember that there are three ways in Latin of asking a question, two of which concern us now. One way is to use the word that anticipates the answer "yes" and the other is to use the word that anticipates the answer "no". So, should access be statutory or voluntary? I have no doubt that the Ramblers' Association would use the word anticipating the answer "yes" and I would be very surprised if the Country Landowners' Association did not at least start to phrase the question with the word anticipating the answer "no". In the current climate of openness and personal liberty, I am inclined to think that the answer should be "yes". I hope that the Government will press ahead, but there need to be important provisions and safeguards.
I have already referred to some of the experiences that may await the unwary walker. There needs to be a serious programme to make readily available detailed information, not to say education, about those aspects of life in the countryside which town-dwellers cannot be assumed to know. Without such a programme, there are problems and dangers.
I wonder whether we should abandon the phrase "the right to roam". It has a wonderful feeling of liberty about it, but sadly it is the sort of liberty that leads to irresponsibility. Perhaps we could use a term such as
314
"agreed access" because that would at least signal partnership between landowners, farmers and those who wish to experience the freedom of the hills.
Various references have been made to the cost of all this, but we must also provide a time-scale for monitoring the effectiveness of whatever legislation is put in place. Without that, we shall continue not to know its effect or effectiveness. Getting this right will take much persistent hard work. We may need to provide for deliverable sanctions so that the unwilling can be assisted on their passage towards willingness.
I should like an assurance from the Minister that a serious attempt will be made to take account of the proper interests of those who are tenant farmers on the hills and who work so hard in ways which we so readily fail to appreciate.
3.57 p.m.
Earl Peel: My Lords, I too congratulate my noble friend Lord Eccles on his excellent maiden speech. I found it quite moving to hear him describe hills of Swaledale, which are very close to the area from which I travelled down here this morning. Indeed, his description made me wonder why I bothered! I did so for a very good reason: this is an extremely important debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating it. I must apologise most profusely to the House. I shall have to leave before the winding-up speeches because I have a long-standing engagement in Newcastle which I sincerely hope that I can make. I shall read carefully in Hansard what the Minister has to say.
As a member of the Country Landowners' Association and an estate owner in Swaledale, I declare an interest. I am also a member of the Moorland Association and, as such, I have been involved in the access argument for something like 20 years now.
Therefore, perhaps it is not altogether surprising that I am very concerned about the Government's proposals. I say that for three basic reasons. First, in ideological terms, I regard the proposals as one of the most savage attacks on basic property rights that has ever been seen in this country. Secondly, despite wide consultation, the Government appear to have ignored virtually all the evidence received from the vast majority of organisations which were consulted. Thirdly—in some ways this is perhaps the most important reason—what is on the table at the moment is a recipe for confusion, conflict—we do not want that under any circumstances—and a lawyer's paradise. In other words, those are the very best ingredients for the very worst legislation.
I have no doubt from my own experience that the majority of walkers respect the countryside and its traditional management and do not want to compromise its well-being. Furthermore, I do not believe that the majority of walkers actually want open access and the right to roam. The CLA evidence certainly substantiates that view. However, there are always exceptions. Unfortunately, I had an encounter last weekend with a lady who had a pair of Dobermann pinschers rampaging around the moor at perhaps the most vulnerable time of

315
the year. When I asked her what she was doing, she said, "I have the right to roam. I have the right to go where I want". I said, "You have not as yet". Is that an indication of the taste of things to come?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Earl Peel: My Lords, I have no doubt that the Government's response will be that there will be a duty of care incumbent on walkers which will form part of the legislation. Everyone knows that realistically the message will get through only to those who want to hear the message. At the moment, English Nature and national parks authorities' signs, asking people to keep to paths and to keep their dogs on leads, are very often torn up and discarded.
I am not against access—far from it. I have long argued that there are considerable opportunities to expand people's enjoyment of the countryside through extending the footpath system. That is why we were so disappointed, like so many others, in particular the CLA and the Moorland Association, when the Government abandoned the voluntary approach which was leading to some worthwhile progress. I believe that so much goodwill has been lost.
Most of the uplands of England and Wales will be covered by the Government's legislation. Where I live, the red grouse has long been a symbol of good habitat management and local employment. So many areas managed for that game bird have been designated as SSSIs and SPAs, which I believe is a testament to the management system. In my view, it is imperative that access must not allow the economic dynamo that has driven the conservation and wellbeing of the heather moorland for so long to be compromised.
That vulnerable and internationally important habitat relies on the shooting interest and still supports considerable numbers of other ground-nesting birds which are in major decline in other parts of the United Kingdom. Of course, I refer to birds like the golden plover, the green plover, the curlew and the snipe. I believe that to allow such species to come under any further threats would be nothing short of environmental vandalism.
With speculation about the possible closure orders at certain times of the year, I urge the Government to make a full commitment, as soon as possible, that there will be no access other than on footpaths, at least during the nesting, fledging and mating season, if, for no other reason, than to comply with their international obligations. Furthermore, I support, without any question, the fact that dogs must be kept on leads at all times, not just from a wildlife point of view, but also from a sheep point of view.
I agree with the words spoken by the right reverend Prelate about hill farmers. At the moment their position is perilous. The seven tenant farmers on my estate feel as strongly as I do about the proposals that the Government have put forward on the right to roam.
We all have a stake in the countryside, but that cannot give everyone on this small island of ours the right to decide what to do there and when. Management
316
decisions based on experience and local knowledge must be allowed to prevail. That means managing people along with the land itself. It is no good the Government bringing in new rules to give so-called benefits to the public only to leave those on the ground with the task of picking up the costs and the responsibilities of making the system work. The occupiers' liability has not, as yet, been addressed, but that is also of enormous importance.
I am particularly concerned that once on the statute book there will be no compromise in future. What happens when access becomes an intolerable burden on landscapes, as indeed is happening in certain areas already, when restrictions will undoubtedly be necessary? I suspect that there will be a fudge. For that reason I have always supported the voluntary approach, with its built-in flexibility, relying as we have done for so long on the precautionary principle.
Noble Lords spoke in your Lordships' House as long ago as 1981, when I made my maiden speech, on this subject. How can I forget the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford. The Sandford principles became an integral part of the way in which we considered that land should be managed in this country. It is a tragedy that this legislation appears to propose abandoning that principle.
I ask the Government to consider carefully the consequences of their actions. I say that purely as someone who has a great love of the countryside. I want people to enjoy the countryside, but I want them to do that in a way that does not compromise the countryside and does not lead to conflict between town and country, something that we should avoid at all costs.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Gladwyn for initiating this debate. It is an important topic. He speaks with a background of considerable practical knowledge and experience.
I believe that this is the first occasion on which we have discussed the subject since the Government's White Paper, Framework for Action, published on 8th March, nearly two months ago. In my view, the announcement gave rise to a huge amount of hype and uninformed comment. I believe that the CLA overreacted in one direction and the Ramblers' Association in the other. It is not surprising, therefore, that there was considerable public misunderstanding of what was being proposed. The White Paper referred only to so-called open countryside, which I believe is an Ordnance Survey definition, a cartographic classification, defined loosely as mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land, and it did riot apply to ordinary farmland. It applied only to access on foot, and for much of that land there was already, particularly in the national parks, pretty good access. So it is not surprising that the public and, to some extent, farmers and landowners have overreacted.
Moreover, some recreational organisations. such as the British Mountaineering Council, make a point of maintaining good relationships with landowners. They

317
regret slogans such as "right to roam", which says nothing about duties and responsibilities. It is a nice slogan but we should have checks and balances.
I propose to speak mainly about the management of access, about the problems and issues of open space recreation. Currently, I am a patron of the British Mountaineering Council, and like the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, I am a vice-president of the Council for National Parks. From 1991 to 1996 I was chairman of the National Trust, which I suppose is the biggest "supplier"—if that is the correct word—of access in England and Wales. It has 600,000 acres, not all of which is open space land and about 600 miles of coastline.
In effect, acquiring open space landscape and making it available for the benefit of the nation is a statutory purpose of the trust, so we take access management very seriously. A few years ago we set up a working party to review our access policies and arrangements. The report of that working party is really a handbook on access management, written by people who know what they are talking about. Incidentally, the new chairman of the Countryside Agency, Ewen Cameron, was a member of that working party, as was the chairman of the Open Spaces Society.
The report enunciated two principles: first, if serious conflict arises between access and conservation, conservation needs should prevail. Secondly, the trust will ensure that our countryside will retain those characteristics which ensure the widest range of experience and will enable people to enjoy access to its properties. I want to suggest to the Minister that those principles, or something along those lines, should be enshrined as the main purpose of the proposed legislation.
Conflict between recreational access and conservation is only one form of conflict. Conflicts also arise between different kinds of recreation. The trust has listed over 40 different sorts of open space use. The Government do not have the same problem, as they are limiting the proposals to access on foot. That limitation in itself raises issues, although I am inclined to think that the Government are right. Equally, one can think of a list of foot-based activities—my noble friend Lord Gladwyn hinted at some of these—for example, angling, orienteering, fell-running, parapenting and, pre-eminently, climbing.
I can see a considerable danger of the legislation tying itself in knots and getting into a muddle in trying to define what we mean by "access on foot". I wonder how the Government will tackle this issue. After all, one activity in one place, or at one time of the year, may be acceptable but not so at another place or another time of year; for example, when does walking become scrambling and scrambling become mountaineering? Those activities form part of a continuum whose character changes with place, season and person. I could expand on that at some length.
I should like to touch briefly on three other issues in my remaining couple of minutes. The first is the need to protect from over-use areas that are valued for their
318
remoteness and wildness. That is particularly important to mountaineers. Secondly, and related to the first, is the problem of serious physical damage being caused in popular areas by foot erosion. Footpaths need to be repaired and new paths created. But who pays for that? The National Trust now spends around £750,000 a year on such matters from its budget. But what will the landowner do?
The third point relates to the important issue of occupier's liability, which has already been touched on. The White Paper refers to ministerial discussions on whether liability should be reduced more generally for recreational users. Can the Minister tell us where those discussions have reached?
The Government have decided to legislate. We must make it work, and there is a huge amount of work to be done in preparation, not least all the mapping and the detailed administrative arrangements. Then there is the ongoing work. All my experience tells me that local access forums will be the key—that is the experience of both the trust and the BMC. They will have a difficult and complicated job to do.
I conclude by saying that I do not believe that the countryside will be overrun by the anorak brigade any more than it is already. In the event, ramblers and landowners will behave like grown-ups and we will all enjoy our countryside.
4.11 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, I join in the commendation of the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn. He provides the House with a useful opportunity for debate. It is also an opportunity for a third Yorkshire Peer to take part, not counting the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle who is extremely familiar with my area from the days when he was very much our leading Anglican.
I see the Government's approach as one with a good pedigree. It is a manifestation of the commitment to the environment and the countryside demonstrated by the government of 1945—a government who also did a great deal for the farmers. From that time we have seen an enormous increase of interest in conservation with a proliferation of bodies and organisations committed to our natural heritage and conservation to the point that membership of all those organisations must dwarf that of the political parties. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds may actually have more members than all the political parties in Britain put together.
Interest in these matters is enormous. But the Government may already have helped the voluntary movement to which reference has already been made. While many farmers in my area are friends of mine, there are a few who were not very good at being helpful to the voluntary movement. I used to go round with my deer-hound and wolfhound to open blocked footpaths. The deer-hound would jump over, but the wolfhound would not jump and went straight through. We frequently cleared footpaths by that approach.
That does not mean that I am not appreciative of the work of a number of farmers and landowners in serving the cause of conservation. I understand what has

319
happened since 1945 when there were few cars. There is a great deal more mobility, nuisance, injury and damage today; and there is a great deal of anxiety. Like the noble Earl, Lord Peel, I am involved with the Yorkshire Wildlife Trust. I have been a member for 40 years and a patron for a long time. I hope that the Government will pay clear attention to the trust's submission, which I am sure will be echoed by many other conservation bodies in Britain.
The trust has 78 nature reserves. Inherently a nature reserve cannot be open to unfettered public access. A number of noble Lords, on our all-party visit to Kew last week, will have heard the director speak about the lady's slipper orchid. The lady's slipper orchid featured in the Bill I took through Parliament in 1975 when there was one single surviving plant. It had to be treated with absolute security. If we have complete, unfettered licence to roam, someone could put a hobnail boot on it. It is in a better state now but it is not yet so secure that the veil of confidentiality can be relieved. I made it quite clear at that time that I did not wish to know where it was. I still do not know where it is and I do not want anyone else to know until there is a proliferation of the plant.
In my area I estimate that the skylark population has dropped by around 90 per cent. I can see three pairs from my study window. I believe they are breeding. I was therefore less than pleased last weekend when off-the-road motorcyclists were cavorting up and down the area where one of the pairs have their nest. I would rather see skylarks than off-the-road motorcycles.
The litter problem is growing enormously in country as well as in town. Only last week I took a number of photographs of litter within 1.5 miles of my home and within one mile of a very good dumping site. I sent them to the local media, the chief constable and the chief executive of my local authority as an illustration of the scale of the problem.
There is also the problem of people who believe that access to the countryside does not include any commitment to responsibility or common sense. A man was about to shoot birds on a lake for which I have some care at the side of my home. He seemed to believe that the Government's White Paper will allow him to do just what he likes; that is, to shoot what he likes, when he likes. He went away somewhat puzzled. The Government will have to make clear that access is for walkers, not shooters, coursers, motorcycles or off-the-road motor vehicles.
There is responsibility and ignorance, but there is also danger. I put a great deal of effort into promoting the economic and environmental recovery of my area. We received substantial sums of money and the local authority dedicated great energy to transforming our environment. We have a big lake where there was once a colliery. People decided to take motor boats to the lake across an area of newly planted shrubs and trees causing thousands of pounds in damage. Children are attracted to the lake. I took the number of one of the vehicles concerned and offered to be a witness in court. I warned that there was a great deal of danger. A boy drowned the following week. There are risks in access where there is no common sense.
320
I want to see people enjoy our countryside; it is a great source of inspiration in English literature, poetry, music and art. We have seen too much of it destroyed in recent years, often in an eagerness to produce food at all costs. Thousands of miles of hedgerow were taken up for that reason. In recent years it has become set-aside. We must ensure that our countryside remains worth seeing. We must ensure that it is also enjoyed, but enjoyed with an attitude of common sense and wisdom.
4.18 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lord Gladwyn for introducing this debate and for his excellent speech, in which he asked a number of pertinent questions. I differed from him only when he said he thought the conflict between the urban and non-urban populations was less than it was before. I remember when I read agriculture at university many years ago being told that one of the difficulties was the conflict between the urban and rural dwellers. It was said that that must be lessened. But I feel that that gulf has widened, which is a great pity.
I should declare an interest in so far as I am involved with agriculture and have been involved with land and land management in various ways during a large part of my life.
I hope that this will not be regarded as provocative, but it is quite nice to have a break from the House of Lords Bill and all the issues that we have been discussing over the past few days. Indeed, if we were to remove those who are speaking from the Front Benches, it is interesting to note that of the 23 speakers who are taking part in today's debate 17 are hereditary Peers. I just mention that as an interesting statistic and noble Lords can make of it what they wish.
I agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle that the "right to roam" is a controversial expression. We ought to find something else which is less controversial. It is controversial because it is a right. Once you give people rights, you impose obligations upon others. That is a matter which has not been considered nearly enough. Any one who holds any part of the countryside in this country has a great privilege. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who said that the countryside belongs to the people. With the greatest respect to him, I think that that is a whole lot of old rubbish; indeed, it belongs to the individual owners. That does not mean to say that others should not have the advantage of it and indeed access to it. But to say that it belongs to the people is simply not true. Sometimes it belongs to a smallholder, sometimes to a landowner, sometimes to a person who just has a house in a garden, sometimes to a company and sometimes a trust. So all those different owners enjoy a certain privilege. However, they also enjoy a great responsibility. I agree that people ought to be encouraged to use and enjoy the countryside for all the reasons which the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, gave so eloquently.
We all take pride in the countryside. It is a cause of pride because it has been managed. However, as the right reverend Prelate has reminded us, it is also

321
people's workplace. I was impressed by what he said about the problems of fell farmers—for example, when people find a broken wall, they crawl over it and it has to be replaced. If they find a broken gate, it, too, has to be replaced. All those costs have to fall upon someone and I just do not think that the Government have thought enough about it.
It has been said that 80 per cent of the people who answered the consultation document were in favour of the right to roam. But if you sent out a consultation document which asked, "Would you like a free bottle of champagne?", I should think you would get quite a substantial answer in one way. The fact is that if that document had asked, "Are you in favour of people trampling over nesting birds?", a different response might have been received.
The access to the countryside has to be managed. People do not walk in a straight line. Dogs will be let off the lead and they will sniff out birds and worry sheep. Moreover, people will want to brew up a cup of tea and, inadvertently, set fire to a place. Indeed, what happens when people camp at night? Who will see them off? What right has that person to do so? These people may well say, "We have now been given a right", and the response could be, "Yes, you have a right to roam but you must not go over that particular area because it is a site of special scientific interest". Those people may reply that they did not know that, so who will explain it to them?
Whose responsibility is it to look after such places? Is it to be the responsibility of the landlord? Further, what happens if he has to take out greater liability insurance? What happens if someone falls down a hole on someone else's land? Who will pay for that? These are matters of great concern. I agree with my noble friend Lord Peel that it would have been far better had this been done on a voluntary rather than a statutory basis.
There are many interests involved in the countryside, especially in the uplands, and so on. There is agriculture, tending the countryside and the protection of birds, nesting birds and wildlife, together with the lambing of sheep as well as the shooters, the horse riders, the walkers and everyone else. If all this is to be opened up, it must be controlled. If you are going to control it, you must consider how you will do so. Indeed, rules, laws and regulations will have to be made and there will also have to be administration. It may perhaps be necessary to have wardens and car parks—heaven knows! The fact is that this does invite another huge array of bureaucracy. That is what worries me.
I have just suffered a momentary lapse of memory, as happens frequently to some people, but I now recall that it is the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, who is to respond to the debate. He will be replying for the department in which I once had the responsibility of being an ornament. There is one great thing about that department: it has an in-built dynamo to interfere. As I believe I said only the other day, following the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, on hedgerows, that is not a reflection on the civil servants. However, when Ministers say, "Let's have a right to roam", it must
322
be controlled. But how will you control it? The answer is that there will be endless laws and regulations—indeed, 15 pages of regulations were introduced covering hedgerows—so heaven knows how many regulations will come out on the right to roam. What will it cost, and who will pay for it? Is it really right when all this should be done in a voluntary way? There are an enormous number of unanswered questions here, many of which go far deeper than giving people what seems to be a very nice right to roam.
4.26 p.m.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, I must first thank my noble friend, and neighbour, Lord Gladwyn, for his excellent choice of a subject for one of our Wednesday debates. He introduced the topic in his usual clear and level-headed way. This is extremely timely: we have today an opportunity to give some considered reactions to the important government Statement of 8th March, and to seek answers to some particular matters arising from it. Indeed, I suspect that our proceedings this afternoon resemble a sort of Second Reading debate without the text of the Bill—or is it to be Bills, in the plural?—which the Government have promised. I trust that some of the points raised may be useful to the Government in preparing the text of the legislation.
I join other speakers in asking whether the Minister can tell us more about the timing of this legislation. Noble Lords may recall that the Statement said that legislation will be introduced, "as parliamentary time allows", an expression which sometimes turns out to mean the Greek Kalends. I am sure that that is not the Government's intention, but any decoding of the expression which the Minister can give us would be very welcome.
I should explain briefly my personal position. I do not own land but am an enthusiastic walker over hill and dale, which I have practised from childhood and still continue with some zest. I have walked extensively in this country, and in the other nations where I have lived. It is clear to me from this experience that the access which we already enjoy in this country to "open countryside" compares very favourably with that available in foreign countries, few of which have a system of rights of way, or common land, as we know and enjoy them here.
France does have an ambitious and extensive network of long distance footpaths, called, I think, Les Grandes Routes, which I have walked on in Provence and recently seen in Corsica. I have also walked on the Appalachian trail and in the Rockies in the United States and elsewhere. The conclusion I draw is that no one abroad has anything comparable with our rights of way which are a national treasure, to be maintained and nourished for use by everyone.
It is not clear to me from careful study of the Statement just what it is that the Government propose to do with our rights of way. Perhaps they do not yet know themselves. As I see it, the need here is for an increase in resources rather than any fundamental change. The biggest threat to our footpaths just now is the explosion in the number of mountain bikes and

323
four-wheel drive recreational vehicles. It would surely be a mistake to change the law so as to permit the more extensive use of green lanes by these powerful, noisy and destructive monsters. It is absurd to create a general right to open a lane to motor traffic, because it might once have been used by a pony trap or horse and cart earlier on this century. That is the kind of decision which is actually being taken at present. Per contra: there is a case for reclassifying the RUPPs as bridleways by statute, to afford them greater protection. In general, reclassification should be for the benefit of the non-motorised user, a point upon which I heartily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath.
I also greatly welcome the recognition that access to the open countryside should be for quiet enjoyment. That is a matter which we have debated in recent years and constitutes a welcome change of heart by the Government. I see from the Statement that there is a commitment to make some improvement to the rights of way system. I am sure that its prime need is to have more resources than have lately been available. It is, I think, generally understood that for this purpose local authorities have tiny budgets which are manifestly inadequate. Increasing these resources should be the first priority in this whole subject as it would enable the system to operate more effectively. There is little or no cash to hand at present to mend stiles or to spend modestly on signage. Let it be modest, please: our village has lately sprouted a forest of smart metal signs with arrows decorously picked out in white paint to indicate the direction to be taken. That is quite unnecessary for anyone with a map, particularly as these lanes do not go anywhere in particular. Yet there is little or no officer time available to arrange visits to those who may be privily obstructing a registered right of way.
I also suggest to the Minister that this question of rights of way is cardinal to the whole question of access to the open countryside because many of these areas will not necessarily have road access or other means of access. Therefore it may be necessary to identify particular rights of way to enable the walker to reach these places. I am particularly intrigued to learn of the proposed local access forums which will have an advisory role in assessing these matters. Can the Minister explain how these appointments are to be made and who will choose the members? Will the selection be in the hands of the elected authority and not, I trust, in the gift of the regional development agency?
I conclude with this simple observation. The Government are now committed to introducing a Bill which will fundamentally alter the concept of land ownership. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, made a number of valid points in that connection. I greatly hope that the change can be undertaken without reducing the sense of responsibility which most owners of land in this country have felt about their property. The best of these people have indeed acted as stewards for life, and it is important to maintain, and not to diminish, that sense of responsibility as these measures are devised and take effect.
4.32 p.m.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I too declare an interest as the owner of land in Suffolk. I find myself very much in agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, as regards the privilege of owning land. I was interested to note the slight distinction that I felt was made between my noble friend Lord Ferrer; and the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, on that point. I regard the privilege as equalled only by the obligation one has. In my case there are not many things I want to achieve in this world more than to leave my own little cabbage patch more attractive than I found it. I believe passionately in that because I believe passionately in the protection of rural England. It is because I !relieve: in that protection that I believe the more people from urban areas visit the countryside, the more powerful will be the lobby to protect the countryside from undue or insensitive development.
I do not totally agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that the division between town and country is getting greater, because all the figures show that more and more people visit the countryside. I shall return to that point in a moment. The most beautiful areas should be open to public access. Much was achieved after the war with the Acts that designated national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty, heritage coasts and so on. In my view, that was one of the two great achievements of the Attlee government, the other being the establishment of the National Health Service.
In more recent years we owe a particular debt to the National Trust, especially for its Enterprise Neptune scheme. The National Trust now owns about 600 miles of the 900 miles of coastline that it originally targeted to achieve conservation and access. Without that we might well have the kind of denial of access that is. for example, to be seen on some parts of the coast of the south of France. We are particularly fortunate in access to our coast.
The biggest problem is to get people to visit many of these areas. I believe that the access that is already available is arguably one of the great under-used assets of this country. I refer to five areas that I know well. I have been lucky enough to walk in certain parts of the Suffolk AONB with the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, to whom we owe a debt for giving us the opportunity to discuss these matters in this debate. The Lake District National Park is the most heavily used national park, but if one ventures away from the roads one can at almost any time of year soon enjoy deep solitude. On a number of occasions I have been fortunate enough to walk in Yorkshire with my noble friend Lord Eccles, who spoke with the authority of someone who uses the countryside in that part of the world. One can walk in that area in the height of summer and see practically no one. That is remarkable. I refer to one of the most obviously visited counties; Hampshire. I have walked with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, in various parts of Hampshire, including the New Forest and the Isle of Wight. Again, even in the height of summer it is possible to enjoy solitude and the beauty of the countryside.

325
I refer finally to Cornwall, which has arguably the most beautiful heritage coast in our land, both on the north and south coasts. For 10 years now I have visited Cornwall every other year and I have walked there fairly strenuously for about five hours a day. Only three weeks ago on a bright Saturday sandwiched between a wet Friday and a wet Sunday my wife and I walked with friends in Cornwall for some six hours on part of the south coast of Cornwall near Fowey. During the whole of that walk I believe we passed about 35 people. We walked on the National Trust coastal path. Therefore I believe that at present there is a great deal of public access to land which is not fully used.
There have been conflicts with regard to access. It has become a difficult issue which is deeply rooted in history. The current conflicts are caused sometimes by the arrogance of a few landowners. Sometimes that arrogance is deliberate but sometimes they are just thoughtless. The closure of a footpath can be an act of thoughtlessness or of arrogance. I would like to see bodies such as the CLA and the NFU take tough action against their members who behave in that way because they bring great disrepute to the landowning fraternity.
One can also encounter aggression among ramblers. I think that things have moved on, but I remember that some years ago Mr. Alan Mattingley, who was then the chief officer of the Ramblers' Association, wrote an article in the Tribune or the New Statesman on the foundation of a body called the Socialist Countryside Group, of which he was a founder member. Incidentally I do not think it is appropriate for a national officer of a voluntary organisation to become involved in an overtly political organisation. He said that the Labour Party had a simple policy as regards access; namely, land nationalisation. Noble Lords will realise that this incident took place a long while ago and that view is as far out of the frame as it is possible to be. However, I recognise the point made by my noble friend Lord Peel that special protection is needed for those who obtain their living from sporting activities in the countryside. Special protection is also needed in conservation areas.
I wish to make two specific points. First, I believe that there is great virtue in the new gates that many local authorities provide which open and shut automatically. They are sometimes called Yorkshire gates. It is difficult for bicyclists to get over them. In that respect they are just as difficult as stiles. However, they are easier for disabled people to negotiate than stiles. That is important.
Secondly, I would like to see parish councils, which I regard as the real grassroots of government, have the power to issue orders that footpaths should be opened where there have been obstructions rather than having to go through the whole bureaucracy of county councils.
Finally, I congratulate the Government on their subtle approach to the matter. They cleverly leaked the idea that the matter would be dealt with by voluntary methods and then produced the promise of legislation. It will take a long time for the legislation to mature because there must be full consultation. It is slightly similar to the hedgerow legislation which took the
326
previous government some 10 years between pledge and implementation—and then it was not perfect, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers will know. As one who is perhaps to remain here for a while, I hope to do what I can to improve the eventual legislation.
4.40 p.m.
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am sure it is a coincidence that I am the fourth successive speaker from East Anglia to join the ranks of those who wish to congratulate my noble friend Lord Gladwyn on introducing the debate. I do so from a background of some forensic experience of rights of way. I am glad that in his comprehensive and admirable speech my noble friend touched upon that matter. I hope that the noble, Lord Whitty, will take the opportunity of building a little on what he said in his Statement of 8th March about the flexibility that the Government wish to build into the new approach to the network of public rights of way. I hope he will comment also on the documents that have now appeared from the Countryside Agency, referred to by my noble friend Lord Gladwyn.
The present legislation is immensely complex. Starting in 1949, it was amended by the Countryside Act 1968; then by the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; and then again in 1985. It runs to a large amount of print. It is supplemented by what the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, will no doubt welcome as a typical Department of the Environment circular running to 28 pages, circular 2/93, on how local authorities are to implement the legislation.
There is now an opportunity to cut down on some of the complexity. Circular 2/93 informs local councils of two matters: first, that there is to be no increase of expenditure or manpower. Councils are to ensure that sufficient resources are available from existing budgets to carry out their statutory duties. They are nevertheless to keep their maps up to date and ensure that the rights of way network is kept fit for use and clear of obstructions. Secondly, they are informed that the target date is the year 2000. Perhaps the Minister can say whether local authorities will achieve that target. Everyone will rejoice if they do.
Other noble Lords have spoken of the cost of the legislation, not least to local authorities. Of course they are promised that they can recoup some of the costs of diversions or the stopping-up of rights of way from those who benefit. That was brought into effect by statutory instruments in 1993 and 1996—but it is still discretionary. My local authority footpath officer tells me that the average cost of a very simple, unopposed diversion order for a footpath is between £700 and £800; £400 for the advertisements and about £300 to £400 for officers' time. Some of that money may be recouped but, of course, as it is discretionary, it may not.
The legislation is too complicated and too expensive. We are now 50 years on from the 1949 legislation and we are merely recording existing rights of way and their status—nothing more constructive than that. The legislation is so complicated that it took the Court of Appeal to decide in a certain case in 1990 the point of all the legislation. It is now clear that it is to record

327
what is available for public use; it is then for the local authorities to ensure that it is fit and available for such use.
There are problems with maps. A definitive map is created under the legislation and now, very sensibly, it is brought up to date from time to time as part of a continuous process. But the availability of the definitive map is a major problem. The Ordnance Survey has to be given notice of any changes; it then has to incorporate those changes into its maps. Copyright prevents any distribution of the definitive map to anyone who wishes to walk along a footpath Local authorities are not allowed to give the map to anyone. If they do, it is a breach of copyright and severe financial penalties ensue. That approach stands in great contrast to the approach of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Foods, which publishes maps under various conservation schemes—countryside stewardships, countryside access, environmentally sensitive areas and so on. The ministry will say to a local authority, "Here is a map. We are keen to promote the use of these access sites, so please feel free to make as many copies of the enclosed plan as you require." That is a very different approach from the one associated with the definitive map. I took advantage of the service on the way home. I went to one of the access sites, a heathland regeneration area, which was full of sheep and heavily fenced. I do not know what to make of that.
Now that the network is there and, broadly speaking, we all know who is allowed to do what, perhaps I may ask. the Minister what the Government propose to do to bring about a balance. Will local access forums be set up to conciliate between the very sincerely held views of landowners, ramblers and others who wish to use the countryside and to cut down the costs of disputes? Will a conciliation process be built into the legislation?
I welcome the maiden speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles. He made it plain that we must bring forward the process for the wider purposes that the Government have brought into the debate about access to open countryside. He described why one needs to have maps. Will the Minister say something about mapping and copyright within the wider process? I am sure that the Countryside Agency will help. I urge the Government to consider positively the needs of users of both the existing rights of way and the proposed wider areas defined in the legislation in order that everyone will know where they can go and where they cannot go. The Government can make a valuable—
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords—
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, I am well aware that I have overrun my time. If the noble Baroness had not interrupted me I would have sat down 30 seconds earlier. I do so now. I hope that the Minister will tell us where the Government are going on these matters.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I respectfully remind noble Lords that when the clock
328
indicates seven their time is over. If everyone speaks for two minutes too long, the Minister will be unable to answer any of the questions.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, following that instruction, I am almost tempted not to speak at all.
I shall not follow the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, down the footpaths and bridleways that he has opened up, except to say that on that subject I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Bridges, that the assumption that every track to which there has ever been vehicular access should now be open to motorised vehicles is idiotic and should be reversed.
Turning to the subject of the debate, so excellently introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, following the Statement made on 8th March by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, I expressed concerns, particularly in regard to the damage that could be done to fragile ecologies. I chose as my example lowland heathland. I have had a number of conversations on this matter and have taken care to reread the Statement and attempt to understand what it is all about.
I am to some extent reassured by the fact that much heathland is already open to general roaming and no harm is apparently suffered by the wildlife there. Also, there will be a continuing ability for the owners and managers of such land, and all other land covered by this approach in legislation, to close the land. or parts of it, at certain times of year and for certain lengths of time. Nevertheless, I still have some reservations about this approach to access to the countryside. Some of the attitudes that I wish to express were expressed much more ably by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, in an excellent and most interesting contribution which will certainly bear rereading.
My first specific question is: what will happen to open land owned by the Ministry of Defence? It is an important element in open, uncultivated countryside in Surrey, Hampshire, Dorset and Wiltshire, and no doubt in other parts of the country such as Yorkshire, where traditionally there have existed large military encampments of a permanent nature. It is an important matter that the Government are the owner, pro tem, of the land and they may wish to set a good example to others.
Secondly, there is the question of extending the right to roam to woodland. I come from Surrey, which is the most heavily wooded county in England. Much of that woodland is extremely remote. I assure noble Lords who may think that it is impossible to be remote in Surrey that that is not the case. The woodland is remote from any highway. The question would arise as to how anyone could reach it, supposing that any right were established for people to roam in it. The only way that it could be done would be by establishing rights of way through cultivated land. I wonder whether the Government have given any consideration to that problem, which no doubt arises in respect of other parcels of land, not merely woodland.

329
The question of cost has been referred to by several speakers. I have attempted to understand the Entec report commissioned by the DETR, which deals precisely with the cost-benefit analysis of various methods of achieving the Government's ambitions to grant a right to roam. In every case there are quite heavy costs which will be borne on an on-going basis by the owners of land. As the right reverend Prelate, among other speakers, reminded us, in some cases the people who are responsible for such uncultivated or open land are by no means among the richest of landowners or land managers. Nevertheless, as I understand it, the Government are not speaking in the same breath about compensation; they are simply talking about costs.
More generally, my doubts about this approach to increased access to the countryside can be summed up in the idea of creating an absolute right to roam. Every year, at Liberal and Liberal Democrat conferences and assemblies we have sung enthusiastically, "God gave the land to the people". Maybe He did, but most gifts require responsibility in their use. I do not share the optimism of some noble Lords that everyone knows how to use those gifts wisely.
The other day, on Leith Hill, we found a grass snake or slow-worm; to be honest, I cannot say which it was. The first group of people who found it, left it. However, we later came across a couple of young men carrying the said snake over a stick. When my daughter remonstrated with them she was subjected to abuse. In those circumstances everyone who has expressed doubts as to the balance of rights and responsibilities which the Government intend to build into forthcoming legislation is justified.
4.56 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I was not sure whether I should take part in this debate. However, I was considerably encouraged, indeed cheered up, by the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. The noble Earl pointed out that I have the rare distinction of being a life Peer rather than a common or garden hereditary.
The debate focuses on the Government's Statement on access to the open countryside. I believe that the policy outlined achieves a reasonable balance between the needs of all the interested parties and is worthy of support. We look forward to the proposed Bill, which we shall be able to scrutinise in detail. I know that we cannot anticipate the gracious Speech, but it would be less than satisfactory if the story in Monday's Guardian were true and there is to be no legislation in the coming year.
I wish immediately to raise a point concerning existing rights of way. There appears to be persistent flouting of the law on the part of some, albeit a minority, of farmers and landowners. They rely on public ignorance and complacency on the one hand and a shortage of local authority resources on the other to deny people access to paths which they are legally entitled to use. In my judgment local authorities ought to act more vigorously than they currently do and bring the law into play sooner for persistent offenders.
330
In that connection, will my noble friend the Minister tell the House what is the maximum penalty that can be imposed in such cases? Will he also tell us, in connection with one or two of the most appalling cases, whether, when the offender is a foreign national, there are legal powers which can lead to the person concerned being denied the right of residence in this country?
On a more pleasant theme, access to the countryside is part of our national tradition. I speak as someone who has always enjoyed the right to roam in the big city. But that is complementary to walks in the countryside rather than a substitute. The city environment has certainly deteriorated, especially in London, not least because it is now so much more crowded and congested. But my subjective impression is that there has been a different kind of deterioration in the countryside. That is not so much to do with crowds, although I understand that there are places in which there are so many ramblers that a solitary and quiet walk becomes impossible; it is much more that farming and other developments involving wire, impenetrable fences and locked gates make it almost impossible to walk across open countryside. I do not believe it is only in my imagination that my sisters and I when young ran across fields and gathered bluebells in the local woods. I appreciate that the world moves on, but it would be a great pity if young people in the future were denied the freedom that we used to have and experienced the natural world only in a structured and controlled way.
This takes me to another favourite theme. If one lives in the country one must get to the paths along which one wishes to walk. That means going down country lanes which themselves used to be suitable places for rambling. Without pavements, and with motor transport now out of control, they are no longer as safe as they used to be, especially if young children are involved. Speed limits are not low enough and are ignored by country folk who engage in so-called "rat runs" to save a minute or two rather than use main roads. These are the same people who are loudest in their protestations of the need to preserve the rural environment.
In the past, joining with other inhabitants of East Anglia, I have remarked that this is a problem in Suffolk where I live. The local authorities, the county council, the police and so on are always sympathetic but carry on blithely doing nothing. I am told that the problem is as great in other counties. I would prefer that local authorities acted on their own behalf than called for central government intervention, but we shall see whether that becomes necessary in due course if matters deteriorate further.
I revert to another of my favourite themes: the excellence of local newspapers. In this case I refer specifically to the East Anglian Daily Times which every week outlines a suggested local walk. That is most helpful to amateur ramblers like myself—perhaps I should now refer to myself as an amateur limper—both in terms of sticking to rights of way and stimulating interest. I know that other local newspapers perform an excellent service in guiding people towards such excellent walks.

331
To conclude, I join with others in saying how grateful we are to the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for introducing the debate in such a well-informed and sensible manner and for reminding us of the value of the countryside to our national heritage. As other noble Lords are aware, the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, is the author of an excellent book on Suffolk, which I read with great pleasure. So much of our history is set in rural areas and so much of our great literature is remarkable for its countryside scenes. It would be dreadful if young people viewed the countryside much as they view Mars—as a strange and distant place which they can read about but cannot visit or, when they do visit, are not welcome. Equally, it would be dreadful if no parts of our countryside retained an air of tranquillity. I hope that the debate will help to limit the damage that has occurred in some places and lead to policies that in due course will reverse it.
5.2 p.m.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I rise to seek the views of the Government on two specific cost issues which will arise if—I suppose that I should say "when"—they require the occupiers of land to allow people onto that land with no discretion as to their suitability or likely behaviour and no power to require from them terms and conditions. I join with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle in stressing that the occupiers in question are not just owners of large estates, who are often wrongly deemed to be rich, but include tenants, particularly upland tenants, who seek to earn a living from unpromising and unfruitful land.
The first issue I raise is the cost arising from the need to insure against occupier's liability. This point was raised by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. As a lawyer I recognise that the Government propose to impose on occupiers only the same level of duty as they owe to trespassers. Accordingly, the Government have said that they do not expect the cost of insurance to be much greater than it is at present. But let us take the case of open land quite near a population centre, and therefore likely to be visited, which has features such as rocks, caves or the mineshaft to which the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, referred, that may attract people who want to climb, go down potholes and so on.
In those circumstances I suggest it is quite possible that with this potentially large influx of people who are exercising a right, and therefore are more likely to bring claims, insurers will either insist on a higher premium or require works to be done, notices to be put up, safety precautions to be taken and so on. Surely, that cost, if it arises, must fall on the Government who have sent these people onto the land rather than on the reluctant occupier who is being ordered to receive them.
My second issue raises perhaps a greater problem and concerns damage done by these new compulsory visitors. I wholly agree with those who have said that however much rules are made, bureaucracy imposed, monitors created and so on damage will occur. I take two examples: first, dogs that are let off leads—however much the rules say that they must be kept on leads—and then chase sheep, killing lambs or causing ewes to abort. Secondly, what about picnickers who light a fire
332
which then spreads to a neighbouring plantation or building? It is likely that those who are exercising this government-given right will be less aware of and considerate to the risks and problems that their behaviour is likely to create. That point was very well made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas of Walliswood
In those circumstances, if such damage occurs it is highly unlikely that the occupier will have the name and address of the culprit. Even if he does, that culprit may well not have the assets to pay the damages. Surely, in those circumstances the Government, somewhat like the Motor Insurers Bureau, must accept ultimate liability for damage caused by those they have sent onto the land when no other source of compensation is available to the occupier.
Unless issues such as these are addressed and solved the Government's policy will cause great unfairness and resentment. I hope that in the light of my extreme compliance with the Government Whip's observations I shall receive very favourable answers to these problems.
5.7 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that I have an interest in what we are debating as chairman of the Sussex Downs Conservation Board. Currently, that is the only conservation board in the country set up by joint agreement between local authorities and the Countryside Commission. hope that that will be remedied shortly and that there will be other conservation boards as a result of a Bill which may receive its Second Reading in your Lordships' House on Friday. That is a bit of advanced selling of my legislation.
I am delighted to take part in this debate initiated by my noble friend—also one of my oldest friends—Lord Gladwyn and to have the chance to listen to the maiden speech of another old friend, my noble friend Lord Eccles. Listening to them both I felt that in a sense I had other interests to declare. I have walked with my noble friend Lord Gladwyn. My only criticism of his walks is that he tends to go a bit fast; he likes to get places and not have too many people talking en route. My wife and he have ridden the South Downs Way from the Hampshire border to Eastbourne. That is the longest bridlepath in the country and one that now falls under the bailiwick of my conservation board.
Listening to my noble friend Lord Eccles I was reminded of Bill Bryson's notes of walks around England in his enchanting book written before he returned to the States. I remember walking with my noble friend Lord Eccles and Viscountess Eccles through part of Swaledale not many months ago. The only omission from my noble friend's speech was the name of the extremely good pub at which we ended our morning's walk. I am sure that that is not because he has forgotten it.
I am anxious to agree with the comment of both the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Carlisle that the terminology "agreed access" is very much happier than "right to

333
roam" because it emphasises the spirit of compromise in approaching the very tricky issue of greater access to the countryside. It would be a better title.
The conservation board, which I have the honour of chairing, has done a lot of work on public access to the South Downs and long before the Government announced their intention to legislate on 8th March. That is only right because we are responsible for 2,200 kilometres of rights of way on the Sussex Downs. We put out a number of leaflets headed, "Take Your Bus for a Walk." The aim is to encourage people, for example in Brighton, to take their local bus on a normal bus route into some part of the Downs where they can get off, go on a circular walk and return to the bus an hour or two—or three—later.
We are developing a database, with the help of the East Hampshire authority and with some European Union money to map all the current areas of access to the South Downs.
The majority of those on the board favour a voluntary route to increased agreed access. We have had a great deal of discussion on the matter. We have always made it a principle to work with farmers, landowners and the local authority to arrive at land management agreements, which often include increased access, perhaps opening up a linear path between two open areas of access which are currently not joined together.
Shortly after I became chairman of the board we set ourselves a target of an annual 5 per cent increase in the amount of open access on the Downs. Although we made some progress, we have not yet reached the target and further progress has now stopped as a result of the Government's announcement. I am sure that the Minister will listen carefully to what I say. It has been stopped not least because the farmers and landowners with whom we were talking now say, in the nicest possible way, "We want to see the shape of the legislation before we go any further." That is a perfectly natural reaction.
The second reason for progress stopping is the Government's decision to freeze access payments under agri-environment schemes, for example, the environmentally sensitive area schemes and the country stewardship scheme. That was a mistaken decision because whatever the final shape of the legislation it has meant that the stewardship schemes, which were designed to open up access, have come to a grinding halt. I hope very much that the Minister will ask his colleagues to reconsider that decision. It was a useful bargaining tool.
I wrote to the Minister for the Environment about some of these issues on 19th March. I pointed out that the particular problem for us in the downlands was going to be the agreed definition of "down". A careful definition is critical to the success of any open access scheme. If it is confined only to chalk grassland it will mean very little indeed; if it is permanent grassland, the maximum definition, then that is likely to upset many farmers and landowners. We have to be wise and clever in making definitions; otherwise the Bill will start off by causing a great deal of confusion and distress.
334
Are rights of way improvements to be included in the legislation? How will the Government act to stop land being ploughed up before the right to roam legislation comes into force? The Government must take these points very seriously. I hope that in so doing they will consult very widely with a conservation board such as ours. We are there to help, whatever our views about the legislation.
The issue of the public liability of those who are required to open up their land under right to roam legislation and improved access legislation needs to be cleared up. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, was very dismissive of this point when he answered questions in your Lordships' House on 30th March. I hope that he has had time to reflect further because it is an imponderable of great additional possible cost, a Sword of Damocles that cannot be left hanging over the necks of farmers and landowners.
Finally, I hope that the Minister will give some indication today of when we can expect legislation on these matters. We have been waiting for many months, and the situation of suspense at the moment is intolerable.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I must remind noble Lords that when the minute seven is shown on the Clock, their time is up. The Minister is now losing time for responding to questions.
5.18 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, in this crowded island it is evident that access to our beautiful countryside for any member of the population who wants to enjoy it ought to be possible in some sensible way.
Unfortunately, noble Lords who have spoken so far have underestimated the sense of frustration on both sides, the sense of bitterness and confrontation which exists between some parts of the farming industry and the rambling fraternity. I do not think that bitterness and confrontation help anybody. There are landowners and farmers who do obstruct rights of way: there are also ramblers who are exceedingly unhelpful when it comes to the question of reasonably argued diversions that would be to the benefit of both the landowner and the public. I will return to that issue in a moment.
The Government have a duty to achieve a consensus at the centre and to isolate the extreme fanatics on either fringe. In this context I should like to make two suggestions. The first relates to the right to roam in the open countryside. The problem with all the proposals that have been tabled so far, including the Bill in another place, is that they will be impossible to manage.
Reference was made to the duty of care, but that duty of care has to be managed. It includes problems of litter, fires, camping, abuse of animal rights, danger to wildlife and wilful damage.
For 45 years I have been involved in land management in various parts of the world. I am a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. I do not own any open countryside, but I know that the current proposals are unmanageable. It would be easier to

335
manage those proposals if the right to roam were subject to a licence to roam. There is nothing difficult in that. It would be a licence similar to a dog licence or a licence to kill game, both of which can be obtained from the Post Office. It should be a licence with a photograph on it. It would have a number of distinct advantages. Somebody applying for a licence could then be targeted with necessary information about the country code and also about personal safety, which will be very important in relation to some of the more rugged hill areas. The licence would be available to anyone, subject to good behaviour: in other words, provided they did not have a record of convictions for doing damage or doing anything illegal under the country code or the Act when it is passed. With the licence, it would be easy to identify the transgressor. At present, if you walk to the top of a hill and find someone destroying something, you ask him his name and he calls himself Mr. Smith from Laburnum Grove, there is nothing to be done. At least, with a licence, it would be possible to identify the person.
Finally, if there were a modest licence fee, that could be used to help to supplement the increased cost of emergency services. Real dangers are involved in wandering in the countryside. The fee could also contribute to the cost of management.
The second point I wish to make relates to the rights of way network. As several noble Lords have said, that is a priceless asset in this country. I, too, am a slightly reluctant walker. My wife is very keen. I tend to volunteer to take the car and pick her up at the other end when there is an opportunity to do so. But I have walked extensively with the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. The problem is that the rights of way network is set in aspic. The needs of today's walkers are totally different from the needs of walkers of 150 years ago when the network formed itself.
Many noble Lords who walk will agree that today the public want circular walks, both long and short, preferably ending somewhere where you can park the car and if there is a pub not too far away, that is better still. That is what the public want.
I shall not go into detail, but I give the House an example of the problem of securing circular walks. Fifteen years ago, I was approached by my local council which asked me to agree to certain changes to rights of way in the parish on the land that I owned in order to achieve short and long circular walks, both of them ending at the newly constructed village hall. It is not newly constructed now; it is 15 years old. We still have not got there, after 15 years of negotiation because the legal position is so exceedingly difficult. If you want a comprehensive scheme, there is no way in which that scheme can be approved as a whole. Each variation, closure and dedication must be agreed separately, so that the inspector can cherry-pick. We believe that he will cherry-pick to our disadvantage, and I speak as a landowner in this case. The ramblers believe that he will cherry-pick to their disadvantage. So neither group wants to risk putting the application to the test. It is absolutely daft. It would be extremely easy to change the legislation to make sensible change easier when everybody wants it.
336
I hope that the Government will make a point of ensuring that when they introduce legislation, it is friendly to the development of new circular walks.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, this debate has covered many interesting points. I must start by declaring an interest as an owner of land. I was very sorry that the choice was made to have confrontation through legislation rather than having a voluntary agreement. That was an opportunity to achieve good will turned away. Nevertheless, we must get on with it as it is.
I speak for many when I say that we are not against properly controlled and better access to the countryside. First, we must remember that we have a fast-growing urban population, an increasing ignorance of the countryside, a diminishing land resource arid with it, its wildlife.
For over 100 years, my family has voluntarily permitted footpaths on the estate. In spite of that, recently I have been under pressure to allow greater access. I believe that the majority of ramblers are responsible and sensible people. However, there are leaders among them who display an insatiability for more. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, referred to the diversion of footpaths and how there are those who always oppose everything, however sensible it is. So when their demands included entry into a Grade I national nature reserve I am glad that English Nature stood firm. I must declare the fact that part of my estate is in that nature reserve.
However, I wish to speak briefly about the coastal regions and to ask that special thought be given to its protection. Some of our rarest birds nest on our coasts or on the mudflats. They are already under pressure from natural predators: raptors, foxes, rodents and so on. When not harbouring nestlings, many wintering birds use them for migratory purposes. It is also an area very rich in flora.
Thanks to the National Trust, as the noble Lord, Lord Chorley, reminded us, nearly 600 miles of coastline is now being restored because of Operation Neptune. But there is one great problem; that is, that the immediate hinterland is often uncultivated and could be defined as moorland. Careful thought must be given to ensuring that the lands adjacent to the coast are not damaged by human intrusion. That intrusion is not only by pedestrians. There is also access from the sea; for example, by yachts. We must somehow deter people coming for their picnics with dogs and children.
I have no doubt whatever that English Nature can be relied on to defend the SSSIs it controls. But in the past, many landowners have created their own reserves on their estates and often on uncultivated land. Therefore, I hope to hear that nature reserves, however small, will be protected. Where appropriate, daily permits can be issued to people interested in birds.
Also, consideration must be given to the great parks around our historic buildings owned by the National Trust, English Heritage and privately. Again, they are often uncultivated and therefore fall into that definition.

337
Finally, there is no doubt that education has a vital part to play in teaching people in the towns how to behave in the countryside. If such matters are taught in our primary schools, things will be very much better. How much I agree with my noble friend Lord Ferrers that the expression "right to roam" is unfortunate. "Permissive footpaths" is obviously a better way in which to describe those new routes. Perhaps there should be "permissive footpaths" for visiting at the weekends but not a right to roam.
5.26 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, it will come as no surprise that I speak from a Scottish viewpoint and as an active access manager in lowland Scotland. Even this morning, I was harnessed to the strimmer, keeping the footpaths open. It was particularly pleasant in Pondwood, south-east of Alloa, in the early morning light.
This debate is about the proposed changes and improvements to the public's right of access to land in England and Wales. It is certainly true that there will be additional work for land managers if more people are to visit the countryside's footpath networks and the open hills. That must be recognised, as it has been in the Scottish access debate. The proposals drafted by Scottish Natural Heritage seem well balanced. They propose a restatement of the ancient Scots law access provisions in a single Act and identify that land managers must be assisted in their task of coping with problems generated by increased access. They are about the responsible use of access rights. That builds on the ancient right of passage over land.
There is a considerable need for greater access to the Scottish countryside, particularly in the peri-urban setting. Recreational walking gives both health and recreational benefits. The poor health record in lowland Scotland can be attacked by an increase in low-cost recreational outlets, especially those which do not require transport to reach the start or finish.
The existing historic network of footpaths was laid down either for the purpose of getting to work or as estate maintenance infrastructure. The network requires some additional linking paths to make circular walks practical. Having done that in the Marywood between Alloa and Clackmannan, I know that it is not difficult to improve a network. Funds seem to be available for footpath creation but not for footpath maintenance. That needs to be remedied, especially if wheelchair and cycle quality paths are to be provided.
I have made deliberate reference to the peri-urban environment and hence the special needs of those who manage the rural areas on the urban fringe. I believe that the increasing emphasis in planning law and guidelines is towards forcing people to live in established urban settlements. That is creating a nation of townies. Very few young people have a real chance of growing up as countrymen. I accept that having a home in a rural area does not make an instant countryman, as all those urban commuters well demonstrate. A rural job is the most likely route, followed by a rural sport, hobby or interest.
338
Without a firm footing in the countryside the chance of people growing up with a good knowledge of the rural environment and all its systems is reduced, if not made positively unlikely.
In Scotland there is a philosophical shift in the legal situation from access to get to work to access for health, recreation and rural education. All this is highly commendable, provided that access rights are enjoyed in a responsible manner. The watchword has to be "Leave only your footprints", and for canoeists it is even better: "Leave only your footprints on the portage trail". This does not happen on every occasion. The problems include litter and household rubbish, fires, scrap cable burning, fence cutting, damage to bushes and saplings, rods, poles and trees cut down (and not even for firewood), footpaths dug up for worms by fishermen, stiles and gates vandalised, signposts ripped up, livestock released, airguns used in the vicinity of paths. I suspect there are more. I have not even mentioned wildlife disturbance, poaching and motorcycle damage.
The frustration comes from the fact that while 99 people come and go, leaving only their footprints, it only takes one person to spoil it. My own enjoyment of land held by the Mar and Kellie estate is tempered by the risk of having to remonstrate with those others who are doing damage or breaching some aspect of common sense.
The problems of increased access will not go away but they may be reduced. The Government in England must acknowledge that. Sharing the land is very desirable but it has to be on a fair basis.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, I declare two interests. First of all, I am a keen walker. I have walked in Yorkshire, Wales, Slovakia, South Africa and various other places. The other interest I must declare is that I am the owner of a heather moor which starts about a mile from a large town and which is crossed by many footpaths. These footpaths are well used and I, as a walker, recognise that they must be kept open. In fact they are kept open, there is no question about it.
I fully support the keeping open of all public footpaths. In Wales I have come across wired up footpaths. That is unacceptable. On moorland the owner is an idiot if he does not make certain that his paths are clearly marked. People try to use paths but if they cannot find them they cannot be blamed for wandering off. I fully support footpaths across moorlands. All the scenery can be seen without going off such footpaths.
However, the proposal for access I look upon as extremely dangerous. I do not accept that walkers are a problem. Eighty four per cent of them walk on the footpaths, and. peculiarly enough, the wildlife do not worry about people on footpaths. I have to go out and cull deer about this time of year. I was going up a well used track, not on the moorland but in woodland. I saw a buck about 40 yards away. I could not get round so I stood up and walked up the road and he paid no attention at all. If I had been seen in the wood he would have gone a mile.

339
The problem with the Bill is that it is not legitimating the walkers. It is legitimating all users. In spite of the country code 55 per cent of people with dogs let them loose. On two occasions I have encountered people walking along and talking while their dogs run totally wild. They resent even being asked to keep the dogs under control. There are people with airguns. Every single way marking sign is used as a target.
Many walls cross moorland. With open access someone will inevitably come to a wall. They have to climb over. Orienteers at the moment must get permission to carry out their activity and therefore put clown a route which is congenial to the country. There will be nothing to stop them planning, perhaps from London, an orienteering scheme which crosses a wall. By the time a hundred people have been over a wall there will be nothing left of it. I lost 35 acres of prime woodland when someone set fire to it. A thousand people had walked through, but it only took one to set fire to it.
There are also the saboteurs who go out quite deliberately to disrupt the shooting. They will have the right to be on the moor where they wish, provided they are not seen and caught doing damage. The idea of educating people out of all this, I am afraid, is sad.
The moors take a great deal of managing which I do not think is realised. In order for the heather to be kept in flowering and good condition, burning of small patches has to take place over a period of eight years. It needs to be done when the weather is right. The operation is time consuming and technically difficult.
Foxes and crows have to be kept down; otherwise they pick out lambs' eyes, and perhaps kill the lambs and all the ground-nesting birds. Bracken spreads naturally and quickly over moorland. Much effort, money and time are spent reducing bracken and preventing it taking over the moorland. The moorland is what people go to see and walk through. They do not want to walk through breast-high bracken.
Who pays for all this? The shooting interests. If the moors deteriorate, not through the walkers but through people of ill intent who also have the right to be there, away will go the shooters once that activity is no longer worthwhile. There will be no management. The heather will deteriorate, and there will be no birds. The walkers will lose their scenery and will have with them only controlled motorcyclists and cycles. At the moment there is some chance of controlling them because of the keepering system.
North Yorkshire says that access will be a hindrance to what they are trying to achieve. Why should one small political organisation have their way over the majority of walkers? Why should those who want to manage the moorland for them pay for it? Even the RSPB are worried about the effect of unrestricted access on ground nesting birds?
There are a great number of questions which I am not going to be able to read out. I hope that when the Government get those questions from the Country Landowners' Association they are prepared to give proper answers. For example, what research did the Government undertake on the nature of public demand
340
before making their announcement? What research are the Government undertaking now? What research did the Government undertake of the costs of management of access for upland livestock farmers, who have no means of meeting the costs as profit margins disappear? What advice did the Government take from English Nature on the environmental impact? The Government are in great danger of killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
5.39 p.m.
The Earl of Stair: My Lords, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to join this afternoon's debate and thank my noble friend Lord Gladwyn for initiating it. I declare an interest in that I am a landowner in Scotland, although I look on myself more as a manager and lifetime custodian of a comparatively small part of the countryside, a job description that has been so well interpreted in different ways by the noble Lords, Lord Beaumont and Lord Marlesford, and the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Now that Scotland has its own parliament, your Lordships' House and the other place will no longer be legislating on this subject in Scotland. However, the problems that will arise from this proposed legislation are similar in both countries.
As a landowner, I welcome the public to responsibly enjoy the open countryside, as I am sure do many other landowners. However, it is the definition of "responsible", and the degree of legislation that goes with it, which will make such a difference to the future of the countryside. In the first sentence of the Statement the Government refer yet again to their manifesto in which they promised a commitment to give people greater freedom to explore open countryside. Later in the Statement they claim that only a statutory right will deliver the access that they are seeking. Indeed, all through the Statement the Government give a one-sided preference to people to enjoy the open countryside. This, however, must be balanced by also giving definite legislation to support the people who both live in, and rely on, the rural environment to provide their living. I see it as very dangerous to make parliamentary time available for this law purely on the basis of a pre-election manifesto. The long-term effects and scope of this subject and the potential impact on the rural population are too important to be dealt with purely in that way.
The majority of the population of England is now urban based. Indeed, they are often several generations from a rural connection. Giving an open invitation and encouragement to people who are not familiar with, or even aware of, the basic dangers that can be encountered in the countryside will only increase the chances of injuries and perhaps even fatalities, a point that was aptly made by the noble Lord, Lord Hardy. If this is to be the subject of legislation, then perhaps a programme of education, backed up by an enforceable set of guidelines, should also be introduced.
The current legislation does not cover lowland ground in crop or grassland. However, silage is a crop and it is made from grass. Be it upland or lowland, it is still a crop. Under the current law, what is the difference between an enclosed silage field on low ground and an

341
enclosed field on an upland hill farm? There are often very good reasons why public exclusion from land is enforced and it is not always just so that the few can enjoy what the majority would like to enjoy.
During the debate after the Statement the noble Lord the Minister made it quite clear that liability for all matters arising as a result of this legislation would remain with the landowner. I wish to dwell briefly on the subject of liability for damage. Following the Statement on 8th March (at col. 51 of the Official Report) the noble Lord, Lord Renton, raised the example of a discarded burning cigarette. If a member of the public, under this legislation, were to discard a lit cigarette or light a cooking fire in a high risk area, particularly in the late afternoon or early evening, on open ground, moorland or forestry, in the summer, then the results would be catastrophic, not just on the open hill where the fire actually started but possibly also on neighbouring sites of special scientific interest. Why should the landowner have to carry the full responsibility and the inevitable cost of a higher insurance premium when he has no control over who has access to his ground? If this Statement is to form the basis of law, then it must also include some protection for the landowner, who at present can at least help himself by protecting his own interest.
I say again that I agree with the Government that everyone should be able to enjoy open countryside. However, the legislation must be stronger than mere by-laws to help protect the landowner or farmer. The countryside may appear to be a beautiful place in which everyone wishes a stake. However, it should also not be forgotten that people who work the countryside treat it as a business and very often have involved large quantities of their own capital in having that countryside both to run as a business and maintain. While a visitor to open land may see no harm in releasing his dog to enjoy a run, in the same way as it does in a park, and while not actually coming into contact with a farmer's sheep, that dog may still cause irreparable harm to an already frequently erratic animal.
5.44 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I have to declare an interest. I am the owner of a farm in Northern Ireland which is in a less favoured area. I have some 800 acres of moorland among others—bog and so on. On the other side, for seven years I worked for the Northern Ireland Sports Council as chairman of its countryside and recreation committee. In that role I spent a good deal of time with other people voluntarily negotiating for access; negotiating for slalom routes for canoes, for access to campsites, and negotiating to look after and protect some of the most precious areas of Strangford Lough and yet allow the farmers to have their way, the equestrians to have their way, the walkers to have their way and perhaps even the dogs to have their way. We eventually set up a management committee, which has now been adopted by the Government. So I know a little about Northern Ireland.
342
I have also walked and roamed as a serviceman in nearly all the Ministry of Defence—it used to be the War Department—areas from Northumberland to Land's End, and North Wales, South Wales, and so on. I have a particular interest in access to the countryside. I believe in it. I welcome it. I particularly welcome the Bill. But I hope that the Bill is more than following up a paragraph or two of the Government's election manifesto, which was perhaps motivated in those days by things other than goodwill. Having said that, I hope that the Government will realise the enormous task on which they have embarked and will give it the time, the energy and the money to get it right, or as right as anyone could get it, which is not easy.
I believe that statutory law based in Westminster is not the right place to run the countryside. We may have to have a statute but the management of the countryside and the bringing together of its users is much better done by local authorities and groups nearer the coalface. I am concerned about two or three points; first, the interpretation of what the Government are saying at the moment about the forthcoming Bill and their communications. Dare I hope for correct communication? As the right reverend Prelate said earlier, a statutory right to roam is perhaps not the best slogan for this legislation. It will almost certainly be interpreted by most, and, as we have heard this afternoon, is being interpreted by many, literally as a right to go anywhere on anyone's property. Those who have read the paperwork produced by the Government realise that that is not the intention. I accept and acknowledge that. But what is happening now is that where people were working towards agreement and working in harmony very often across the country, walls and barriers are going up and conflicts are starting to ensue. I ask the Government to get a move on with what they are doing and not delay.
The second side that worries me perhaps even more is the management of the countryside after the Bill has been passed. The Government say in their White Paper that they will do it all at little or no cost to the Government. Yet I believe that every moor and open area that is to become accessible will need its own specific policy, its own code of practice and its own openings and closings. Relationships will have to be built, whether or not a statute is in place, between farmers, owners, users, managers and so on. People will have to be educated to understand and have respect for the fact that the farmer has to earn his livelihood where the urbanite goes to enjoy and pass his leisure time.
We have heard several times today about the considerable worries on public liability. I would put before that, as we have also heard, rescue and health and safety. Having spent a good deal of time taking young people into the mountains, taking them down potholes, taking them on rivers and teaching them to climb rocks and cliffs, I know what the dangers are. I wrote some of the original codes of practice back in the early 1960s. I had telephone conversations with people, saying "Don't let them go there tomorrow". They went there tomorrow and died. If the Government

343
are going to take on responsibility for access to the countryside, they must work out how to manage the risks.
Lastly, there will inevitably be a cost to the farmer. I ask the Government to think again about how reconciliation will work. There will be serious damage. There will be loss of livestock, and walls and fences will be knocked down. I hope that the Government will think right through the huge number of portfolios of detailed problems under the legislation. I admire the Government for taking the role on. We have a wonderful countryside. Properly managed, access should be available for those who wish to make use of it properly.
5.50 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I too would like to thank my noble friend Lord Gladwyn for introducing the debate. I also wish to declare an interest in that I and other members of my family own an estate in and off the Chilterns.
I am relieved that at least one subject is left to me, the rather emotive one of the 28 days' change of use without planning control in the countryside. This is for other activities that take place on what some people would consider a somewhat doubtful legitimate basis. Those people would include my brother, who suffers from parachutists. Being inconsiderate to him is one thing. What about the animals and the noise around them, as a safety factor? What about the parachutists landing in his fields? It is fine if it is an ordinary grass field; it is not so good if it is a growing crop which has just been sprayed.
To many people, these are legitimate activities that might be allowed to take place in the countryside. For "parachuting" read "other matters", such as scrambling or whatever activities other people want to bring forward, in what I would like to think would be a wide-ranging consultation at some point.
Perhaps the Minister could look at the rather awkward situation in which I certainly feel that a period of 28 days without control is far too much. There are people earning money out of this, but they are not contributing by way of local rates, simply because they are not registered in any way.
That brings me to the horse-riding leisure situation, where planning is somewhat unclear for farmers, as to whether they can, and if so in what circumstances, have something called a livery. All this could be considered and tidied up.
For that and similar reasons, I feel that legislation is probably a good idea. It would raise the question of insurance, and not just for the public liability that we have been talking about. Licensing, if that is the appropriate word, for activities such as parachuting at least would be conditional on production of an insurance certificate.
If the Minister or an inquiry look favourably on horse-riding as an increasing leisure activity in the countryside. it follows that there is a need for off-road places to ride, on the basis that we have already heard, that a horse and a car are an accident waiting to happen. There is no reason why this should not be dealt with by
344
agreement with local landowners upon payment for the resource being used. Would that be a change of use by the landowner? Would it be considered a normal activity in the books, and go forward as income without any problems? What will be the situation? It is well worth getting the matter right for many years to come.
On the subject of footpaths, I entirely agree with my noble friend Lord Northbourne. At the other end of the scale there will be farmers with footpaths that they would like to have consolidated. Some of the footpaths are out of date and there really is not a need for the numbers. If we are to have rationalisation, it is only fair that the country as a whole is looked at. Thai is another reason for legislation. We look at the alteration of the straight line into the circle. At this point everybody might agree that footpaths came into being for the benefit of the locals, to get from A to B, with the agreement of the landowner, not for use by the general public. There will be occasions when it is appropriate to have an extra footpath, or two or three, and there will be areas in which it is appropriate to consolidate and remove some.
The circular footpaths will almost certainly end in car parks. Is there any good reason why the public should not pay for their car parking in the countryside? I have to pay in town. It is only fair and reasonable. And it is only fair and reasonable that assorted costs should be borne centrally, as other noble Lords have said, and not by local authorities, which, by definition, are rural local authorities. The money side of the matter bears close consideration. A little bit of fair play for the countryside would be welcome.
There is only one other point that I should like to make, in view of the area that has been covered by other noble Lords. It was rather unfortunate to hear the noble Lord, Lord Peston, refer to picking bluebells. It is an offence today to pick bluebells, and yesterday it most certainly was vandalism, which is why it is an offence today. We have bluebells, and we protect them by controlling.
On one occasion I left the farm on which I was then living and walked quietly up the road at about 6 o'clock in the evening. In front of me there was a car. Two children were picking bluebells in the wood, and their parents were sitting in the car. I did not alter my gait, but just wandered up. Clearly, the children picked up some vibes. They came out of the wood, left the bluebells and got back into the car. will leave your Lordships to think about what I said to those parents.
5.58 p.m.
The Earl of Enniskillen: My Lords. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the gap. I will not keep your Lordships long. I just felt that coming from Kenya, where I seldom have an opportunity to contribute, I might be able to add something to this debate.
In Kenya I am involved in wetland management. I have recently returned from Costa Rica, where I was given the honour and privilege of addressing the contracting parties to the Ramsar Convention. consisting of governments from all over the world, including the

345
UK Government. The subject was wetland management and people and wetlands. I felt that the sense from that conference might add something to this debate.
No one would question the right of access to water, particularly in a continent such as Africa. But, in spite of that, in my address to the conference I emphasised voluntary actions, sense of ownership, conservation of the resource and equitable distribution of the resource, without giving direct access to everyone. Throughout the week of the conference while I was attending there seemed little or no dissension from those principles; nobody argued for an unlimited right of access to such valuable resources as wetlands and the ecosystems that they support.
I believe that the open countryside in this country consists of equally important ecosystems, which must be sustainably managed and equitably distributed among the people of the country in such a way that direct access to all and sundry is not available. The need for educated and informed access, so that damage is limited, has been emphasised time and again.
I totally agree with the noble Earl, Lord Peel, and others, and I am not in conflict, I believe, with the noble Lord, Lord Peston, when I say that access to the countryside must be granted, but the right to roam, implying a sense of free access to all and sundry, is an unfortunate term, which I would urge that we consider changing. It is the wrong concept. Voluntary action at community level to provide access should be the underlying driving force of the legislation. As has been emphasised, we should not have overbearing national legislation which imposes a duty on those at community level who have special needs in special areas.
I support the statement that the privilege of owning land carries with it certain obligations to make it available to others, but that does not mean that there should be open and free access.
6 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Government's commitment to introduce legislation to give access to the open countryside as a right in perpetuity. We believe that it is a very important step in restoring the connection of people to their countryside. Although I accept that certain people own certain sections of the countryside, I believe that it is important that the countryside is seen as a common heritage. One of the difficulties that has arisen as a result of people being so disconnected from the wild, rural and beautiful areas of our landscape is that the legislation needed to protect those areas has not been brought forward. That is because sufficient pressure has not been brought to bear and that is because people have not had access to the countryside and consequently do not value it. The noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, put that point extremely well.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for initiating this debate. Access given as a right raises extremely important issues, a few of which I should like to address. Several noble Lords have referred to the environmental impact of such access. I believe that legislation on that
346
needs to go hand in hand with legislation to improve protection for wildlife in general and for sites of special scientific interest in particular. If the legislation does not come to pass in the next Session, I hope that the Government will take the time to bring forward a package of legislation which will deliver not only access but also protection for the wildlife which is otherwise liable to be badly affected.
My noble friend Lady Thomas of Walliswood referred to fragile landscapes. In their welcome consultation paper on sites of special scientific interest, the Government highlighted some of the difficulties, stating:
"Damage within SSSIs by people who do not actually own or manage the land has created problems on some sites. We propose increasing the penalties for deliberate damage and providing legal means to require restoration … We also invite views on the best means of deterring damage, particularly in the wider countryside where the detection of offenders can be more difficult".
Such legislation needs to be introduced in parallel with the proposed legislation on access. A wildlife Bill is essential.
That excellent document also refers to limestone pavements and to the problems of apprehending someone who is removing stones when that person does not see such actions as damaging. It is only when it is pointed out that if thousands of people removed from that limestone pavement the three or four stones which they are intent on using in their rockery such people realise that that pavement will cease to exist if that practice continues. I hope that the Government will consider introducing such legislation as a matter of urgency.
Other noble Lords have asked who will resolve the problems of access and of environmental conflict. The noble Lord, Lord Chorley, referred to the fact that a working party has done considerable work on that issue. I hope that the Government will draw on its experience. Will English Nature, for example, be asked to draw up a set of criteria that could, and should, apply? Noble Lords have also mentioned the length of time for which land should be closed to the public and for what purposes. I refer, for example, to the nesting of birds and to lambing.
I was very jealous of the noble Lord, Lord Hardy of Wath, who claimed to be able to see skylarks. I am sure that he can. However, hard as I frequently try to see them, I only ever manage to hear them. I must discover what sort of optician the noble Lord consults, given that he can see them so frequently!
I turn now to another issue which I think is of prime importance. I refer to the local access forums. How much of a say will be given to local people, such as land managers, landowners and local authorities? I believe that it is proposed that the forums should be advisory only and that the statutory agencies should have the final say. The success of such legislation will depend on the strength of those local access forums. They are the places where conflicts should be resolved and they need the necessary powers.
I must declare an interest as a local councillor in Somerset. That county has successfully introduced what is known as "P3", which stands for the Parish Paths

347
Partnership. The county council delegated to the district councils the right to decide what will happen with regard to rights of way. The local district council has set up a partnership with any interested parish councils and has said that they should have a major say over what happens. The Countryside Commission promoted the scheme, which has been most successful. Local landowners and people with an interest in walking those routes have taken on the management of them and have started to resolve conflicts and difficulties on a very local basis. They have the time to spend on such issues. That might not be the case with a more centralised scheme.
Another example of a matter which a local access forum might address comes to mind. I refer to the question of when a linear route may be particularly appropriate and when it is appropriate to have stopping-off places. I do not believe that most people want to wander very widely. They want a decent route to follow and, occasionally, they want to be able to wander 50 or 100 metres off that route to a viewpoint at which they can picnic before returning to the marked route. Such issues need exploring. We must consider whether to waymark particular places that are suitable for particular purposes.
As well as the local access forums, the national parks have a great deal of experience of questions of access and how to maximise the benefits for visitors while dealing also with the difficulty of protecting the environment.
I turn now to traffic. Although the Government's statement of 8th March was full and reassuring in some areas, it was a little dismissive of the fear about an increase in the volume of traffic. This is a big issue for local people, which needs to be carefully considered as people drive to, and need to park in, the places where they will walk, especially when access to some of those areas will not previously have been available. Some of the national parks have introduced schemes to deal with that. At points of high pressure, particularly during the summer or, as in my local area, when the snowdrops are out in a particular valley, together with local transport owners the national parks authorities laid on a minibus and then closed the road. One noble Lord referred to road closures in the Peak District. That scheme works extremely well. People pay a small contribution for using the minibus, and that money goes into the local economy. People do not have to worry about parking. They can go off and enjoy their walk. The bus will pick them up at any point on the route when they are tired. That helps one to enjoy the day.
Dogs are an ever-contentious issue in the countryside. As the owner of a very energetic dog, I agree that it is a great temptation to let it off the lead so that it can cover 10 times the distance that one wants to cover. Local access forums are again important here. The neat little pull-up gates which the National Trust introduced provide a statement about welcoming dogs while suggesting that the owner should be responsible for them. Nothing produces a less responsible attitude than very hostile notices saying, "Keep your dog on a lead",
348
which really means, "We don't like dogs". It is far more positive to be able to say, "We have provided this for your dog, now will you be responsible for it?".
A further important question is liability. A Question asked in your Lordships' House recently by the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, reflects the concern of many of those who deliver access to the countryside, such as the wildlife trusts, the National Trust and the Forestry Commission. A prime concern is the drift towards liability litigation, which the legal and insurance professions may well have encouraged. Many agencies, the prime purpose of which is wildlife and landscape conservation, are saying that they have been forced to divert increasing resources to expenditure on health and safety matters for visitors.
I believe that a clear statement of principle in primary legislation would enable a definite line to be drawn. That would be helpful to individual visitors, to organisations taking groups to the countryside, land managers and wildlife trusts. I believe that the legislation needs to make it clear to visitors to the countryside that they are deemed to accept primary responsibility for their own health and safety in respect of hazards arising from natural and manmade features that are a natural part of the countryside. I believe that important issue must be addressed as part of any legislation.
Finally, the simplification of the rights of way network is extremely important. I would not like this House to be too condemning of mountain bikers. In another debate we spoke enthusiastically of encouraging more time and resources to be devoted to youth. Boys and young men, in particular, enjoy mountain biking and a way must be found for them to enjoy the open countryside. If we want them to pursue healthy and worthwhile pursuits, but deny them any opportunity to carry out those pursuits, that would be hypocritical of us.
The Government have a big task in addressing all these issues. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, enjoys walking without talking. I walk for that reason also because I spend so much of my time talking and I take a rest by walking.
6.10 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, today we have given an airing to the many issues raised by public demand for the right to roam. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me if I do not manage to mention everyone who has made a contribution to the awareness and implications of such legislation.
The subject may be organised as follows: the public demand, the administrative consequences of that demand, the impact of that demand upon those lands involved, the implication of legislation and the management, after the Bill has been passed, to which other noble Lords have referred, and Indeed the risks thereof.
Journalists, lobbyists, politicians and private individuals have written and spoken much about what people want. A consensus has emerged than: most of them require constant access to land close to home and

349
occasional access to more remote parts of the country which may be hundreds of miles away. A few do not want access so much as the right to roam freely, without let or hindrance, on any type of land in any location.
It would be helpful to look closely at the experience of coastal authorities, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Montagu. Beaches and headlands have largely had open access since the 1950s. Many coastal authorities have now outlawed dogs, built charge car parks, stopped all free parking without residents' permits, imposed bans on jet skiing, on water skiing and ghetto blasters and have generally tackled some of the other problems that come with access.
A right to roam in the countryside will require similar controls and administrative backup. First, it will be necessary to decide what land is open to access and then to publish the rules, in the press, in handbooks, on maps and perhaps on the Internet. However, publicity will be sufficient in some cases, but all access land must be clearly signposted. It may be necessary to invent a universal code; for instance, a field that is totally open may have gateposts of pea-green; a field that contains footpaths may have gateposts of Jaffa orange; while an arable field that is totally closed may have gateposts of pillar box red. All fields with orange gateposts would also have finger posts which would sign the route.
Other noble Lords have mentioned the need for walkers to know where they are going, but what of territories with no boundaries? There could be footpath finger posts in orange, open land direction posts in pea-green and closed land surrounded by fence posts in red. What about areas of outstanding natural beauty? Who will pay for publicity? Who will buy and install such signs? Who will maintain them and replace them promptly when they are removed, defaced or destroyed? Indeed, those of us who live in the country already have those problems.
Of course, the roaming public will be covered for free treatment by the NHS, but what about payment for absence from work consequent on an accident? What about compensation, as mentioned by some noble Lords? The Government have indicated that landowners will continue to have public liability. Should the Government also insist that roamers carry insurance of their own, perhaps obtainable through the DSS and post offices?
It seems to me that accidents in open country will rarely be the fault of the landowner. Of course, most roamers will want to stick to established footpaths, as I mentioned earlier. Today I was delighted to see that MAFF have announced that 1,500 new farmland walks have been opened and guides will be forthcoming. That is good news, but who will provide all of those things that I have mentioned? I dare say that most roamers wish to stay on footpaths. They have no desire to disturb wildlife or to struggle with bracken, bramble or briar. However, who will provide the footpaths and maintain them, as mentioned by other noble friends? Who will patrol them to ensure that they are not annexed by bikers, abused by 4-wheel drive enthusiasts or churned up by horse riders?
350
In areas which are remote from town and city there will be a need for car parking facilities, public loos, seats, shelters and perhaps, where suitable, facilities for disabled access. Here too we should do well to learn the lesson from the coastal invasion, particularly from places like Cornwall. Here too we need to decide who will provide, maintain and pay for them?
In this context there is a potential clash between the right to roam legislation and existing laws which protect our areas of outstanding natural beauty. There is a clash between the needs of roamers and those who wish to maintain and protect the landscape. Who will prevail? The Countryside Commission has stated that priority in funding will be given to areas of outstanding natural beauty. Will that supremacy follow through to planning?
The outcome of that debate will impact upon rural dwellers, landowners and anyone who lives or works in an area that is open to the right to roam. The seaside experience would lead one to expect that our beautiful villages may become choked with traffic and littered. Moreover, we shall need to anticipate and legislate for the problems of the right to roam which will impact upon other legitimate countryside activities.
First, wildlife must be allowed to breed, feed and thrive. Secondly, rural production, which for many is their living, must be protected. For those who have had to diversify, as farm incomes have been so dire. into family holiday homes which offer peace and tranquillity. it is important that the countryside should be undisturbed and protected. Farmers' livestock should be secure and not vandalised. That may require limits to be placed on the number of people given access to certain areas. Many noble Lords have spoken of restrictions on dogs and of the importance of keeping them on leads. Last year, £2 million was paid out in insurance claims relating to sheep killed by dogs.
This subject raises many matters. We welcome the new farmland walks. As I said earlier, most people choose to walk near their homes. A recent Countryside Commission paper showed that the average journey of a day visitor to the countryside is 16 miles and that half of them travel for only five miles. On these Benches we would welcome a fair and voluntary approach to greater access for all. However, like many noble Lords who have spoken, we are also realistic.
Perhaps I may ask the Minister some questions. First, what is meant by access? I have read the Statement—I was not fortunate enough to hear it although my noble friend Lord Luke replied to it. One part of the Statement clearly states that the proposals are for walkers and that legislation will include improvements to the rights-of-way system. That will be an important package. It then states that:
"This comprehensive package will provide fresh opportunities for walking and other recreational pursuits".
What are we talking about? Are we talking about walkers or about a Bill that will enhance many different aspects of rural pursuits? At the moment that is not clear.
Secondly, since we had the Statement, a statutory instrument has been passed in this House which referred to national lottery money being made available for open

351
spaces nearer urban areas. That money was for pump-priming; for starting projects, not for long-term maintenance. So what happens in relation to long-term maintenance?
Will the Bill improve the situation for walkers and other recreational pursuits? And what about that most important aspect—compensation and public liability? If the Minister heard that once, he must have heard it 20 times today. There has to be a will of government to accept that it is unreasonable to expect land managers, landowners and tenant farmers to produce money to cover the cost of that liability.
All of us in this House expressed a wish to see access available. From these Benches we would like it to be a voluntary access. There is a tremendous depth of knowledge within this Chamber today and, while I am a mere lifer, like the noble Lord, Lord Peston, I am enormously grateful to all who have spoken, whether they are lifers or those who have lived in the countryside a lot longer than I—hereditary Peers.
6.21 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, for introducing this debate and for the wide-ranging and lucid way in which he revealed his knowledge of this subject, on which he is an expert outside this House, to the benefit of a lot of walkers in many parts of the country. I congratulate also the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on his maiden speech. He started by praising the Ordnance Survey and then rendered it redundant, at least in relation to Swaledale, by giving us a clear oral guide.
I was not quite as taken by the debate as was the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, to say that it was tending to change my opinion on hereditary Peers. Nevertheless, I was deeply impressed. Indeed, if I had been so tempted, I might have been substantially less tempted as the debate went on. Some of the contributions to this debate were fighting old battles and we really ought to be putting in a constructive light what we need to do to follow through the announcement we made in March.
Emotionally at least, if not in the precise legalistic terms of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley. The land belongs to the people. However, there are restrictions and responsibilities on people, whether they are owners or ramblers, as to how they use it. Because I believe access is a basic right, I do not warm to the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that somehow the ability to make use of that access should be subject to some sort of licensing system.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Does he accept that the right to own a dog is a natural right, but it is still covered by a licence?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, various forms of ownership are subject to licensing. Various forms of operation are
352
subject to licensing. Access to the land in this sense, in my view, should not be subject to licensing in the way described.
I should perhaps deal with the central issue. which is, why we are not dealing with this matter on a voluntary basis.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I did not want to interrupt but was tempted to do so because the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, did. I hope that the noble Lord will correct himself. He said that he agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, that the land is owned by the people. In fact that is not right. I can understand the sentiment behind it; but factually that is not correct.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I did say "emotionally". I said it "belongs" to the people and that does not necessarily imply the legal right on which the noble Earl and many of his noble friends are insisting. But in my view there is fundamentally a right for people to have access to the more beautiful parts of our countryside, and that is what this legislation is about.
We have been asked why we do not proceed on a voluntary basis. We have been trying for 50 years to proceed on a voluntary basis. If we continue to proceed on a voluntary basis in the way that we have, it will take a century or two to achieve the level of access to land that this White Paper provides. It is almost as slow as the reform of your Lordships' House. Those more malevolent than me may say that the parallel is perhaps not entirely coincidental.
We believe that once we have legislated here, the best way forward thereafter is to deal with the issue at local level by involving everybody—landlords, tenants, ramblers, voluntary organisations and the local community. Until we have so legislated, we do not believe that any significant increase in access to the open countryside will be provided.
There has been some over-reaction to this White Paper. I accept that there has been an over-reaction on the part of some of those who advocate access to the land—the ramblers' organisations and others. But there has also been over-reaction on the part of those who own land. We are not in any sense talking about access to the vast majority of enclosed agricultural land; we are not talking about an unfettered right to roam: we are talking about controlled and responsible access to the open countryside. Previous governments have tried to legislate for this; they have tried the voluntary approach. We now need to go further.
There is no doubt about public opinion; 80 per cent of those surveyed, whatever the origin of the survey, are in favour of seeing more of our countryside opened up. Therefore in March we announced the introduction of a new right; that is, the right of access on foot. but only on foot, to mountain, moor, heath, down and registered common land. In total, that is 4 million acres of open countryside. We have now asked the Countryside Agency, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Forestry Commission to report on access to other types

353
of open country—for example, cliffs, foreshore and woodland—so that we can consider the case for extending access to those areas.
Lord Gisborough: My Lords, the Minister said that access will be provided to 4 million acres. Is he aware that 1 million acres have been opened up by voluntary agreement since 1991. That is not all that slow, is it?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in most cases there are severe limitations on those voluntary agreements. It is not totally open access. Nevertheless, there has been some progress in recent years, partly because people have begun to feel that at some point the Government are going to have to legislate.
In terms of operating this locally, we are looking for a consensual, integrated approach to access. So we will have national and local access forums. As the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, said, these will be vital to the implementation of this policy. It is important that local arrangements are publicised, as my noble friend Lord Grantchester said. It is important also that the right of the tenant hill farmers, to which the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Carlisle referred, are reflected in those forums where appropriate.
Greater access will not, in my view, create the vast range of problems that were referred to in this debate. Indeed, making the countryside more accessible should help foster interest in its well-being and encourage the reporting by all parties of any illegal and inappropriate activities, of which there will no doubt be some. Moreover, it will enable us to modify the right of access where issues of conservation and protection of wildlife arise.
The noble Lord, Lord Montagu, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to wildlife. It is important that we provide additional protection for especially fragile and important habitats. It may be necessary, as we recognised in the Statement, to restrict access either temporarily or indeed permanently, or to linear routes where habitats are endangered. We will be giving the countryside agencies and the national parks authorities powers to close land where it might threaten wildlife.
In addition to those safeguards for wildlife, we intend to give landowners discretion to close access to land temporarily for a number of days each year. The annual limit will be set at 28 days initially, with perhaps 12 of those 28 days available for reasons other than land management. Moreover, in special circumstances, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, suggested, where there is a need, landlords will be able to apply for longer closures where the discretionary powers are insufficient.
Questions were raised as to what we mean by access on foot. We mean precisely that. The White Paper does not provide any additional legal access except on foot and any recreation which follows will be for those who are coming to that land on foot.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. I have a quick comeback to make on this
354
because the Statement did refer to walkers, but then went on to refer to walkers and other pursuits. Is the noble Lord clarifying that the Bill will deal only with access on foot to the countryside?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I can confirm that the Bill will deal only with access on foot to the countryside. There will also be recreational activities, like climbing in certain circumstances, which people who have access on foot may then pursue. But that is only access on foot and not by horseback or by mountain bike, although I praise the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, for advocating the role of biking to create greater health for some of our population, especially the younger element. However, the latter is not covered in the legal rights which apply here.
We on this side of the House pay tribute to those landowners who have already voluntarily engaged in access. We pay tribute to them for their management of the land, and indeed to organisations such as the National Trust. However, there are still vast areas of land through which there is no adequate access. We believe that legislating for a statutory right, followed through by local voluntary agreements on how to implement it, is now the best way forward.
A number of detailed questions were raised on this access. For example, the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, asked how one would get to the land if, in order to get there, you had to go through enclosed agricultural areas—the problem of "inaccessible islands", as I understand it is known in the trade. It will be necessary for local forums and local authorities to negotiate access across those areas. There will be no imposed right of access across such areas. However, we believe that we can deal with that problem in most cases provided that the local forums work. The noble Baroness also asked about MoD land. It is true that the MoD now provides a very substantial amount of public access to its training lands, and much of its estate falls within the definition of "open countryside".
Reference has been made to horses and dogs and to other means of access to the countryside. My noble friend Lord Peston and the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, referred to the effects of motorised access on existing roads. We recognise that there may be a problem and that we should perhaps have greater powers for local authorities to enable them to close off certain roads where access to areas is in fact destroying the countryside. We are considering giving greater traffic regulation powers to local authorities in that respect and will be issuing a consultation paper shortly.
As far as concerns dogs, I tend, like the noble Baroness, to be more motivated to walk in the countryside if I have a dog rather than a human being accompanying me—and I say that with all due respect to those who walk with me. Nevertheless, the legal rights which apply here will require dogs to be kept on a lead. They will be reinforced clearly by local by-laws, many of which are already in place. Therefore, it is important that there should be no additional problem of

355
the kind that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred to, in terms of dogs worrying sheep and other animals as a result of this right.
I turn now to the question of occupiers' liability. The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, accused me of being dismissive previously. I hope that I am not being so on this occasion. All the research that we have conducted indicates that the increase in insurance premiums would be very small, the reason being that all parallel circumstances indicate that there is not an enormous amount of additional damage upon which insurers would have to pay out. The example I gave previously in answer to the noble Lord was the National Trust, which has millions of acres of open countryside. Indeed, over a six-year period the trust only had 47 incidents in respect of which there was any question of damage and that resulted in only 15 claims, totalling £60,000, for the whole of that acreage. Such an amount is not an enormous one for the insurers to cover. Only one claim was actually successful.
Therefore, while we are not dismissive of the problem and will take on board any other information, we believe that it is a greatly exaggerated problem—
Lord Chorley: My Lords—
Lord Whitty: I am sorry, my Lords, I cannot take any further questions.
Lord Chorley: My Lords, occupiers' liability is a concern of the National Trust.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I will take the noble Lord's word for that. However, I have outlined the record as I understand it. I believe that that indicates that there should not be enormous pressure on insurance premiums.
I move on now to the rights of way aspect of the White Paper and of the announcement. My noble friend Lord Grantchester asked whether the local access forums would have a role in defining rights of way. The answer is, yes, they would. We expect the forums to discuss all access issues, including a new approach to rights of way. What we are seeking under the rights of way element of this Statement is to ensure a greater degree of flexibility. I am sure that that will be welcomed by both landlords and local authorities and that it will be recognised as necessary by ramblers' associations, and others, which advocate maintaining every right of way, come what may.
We shall shortly be consulting further on the matter and will be issuing proposals. However, it is important that those who feel they are affected by rights of way, whether positively or negatively, should have more flexible means of resolving such issues. Having revealed that he had engaged in criminal activity on other fronts, my noble friend Lord Peston asked what the maximum penalty would be for obstruction of rights of way. As app lies to other highways, the answer to that question is £1,000, although I am not sure what it would be for picking bluebells.
356
We must recognise that there is a background to this issue. For example, in Wales a survey was recently conducted on rights of way which showed that there are serious obstacles to 40 per cent of the rights of ways and that 23 per cent of those rights of way are impassable. It is against that background that we have to consider these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, referred to the South Downs and also advertised his debate on Friday, to which my noble friend Lady Farrington will be replying. It is important for us to recognise the special status of the South Downs arid we are considering a recommendation from the Countryside Commission on that front.
A number of speakers referred to the issues of mapping, both in relation to rights of way and to the mapping of areas of open countryside for the purposes of the proposed legislation. On the rights of way side, I was asked whether local authorities would reach the target set for them of defining all rights of way by the year 2000. I regret to say that I think it is unlikely that all local authorities will do so. However, we are increasing the pressure on them to provide as much information as possible and to complete their surveys as rapidly as possible.
As far as concerns the bigger mapping definition, as the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, will be well aware, some of the problems involved are quite complex. For example, the mapping of downland may present a number of complexities. Nevertheless, we are asking the authorities, and others, to engage in the mapping process as rapidly as possible. The countryside agencies are undertaking their work on the identification and mapping of access land. They will be producing draft maps on which we can then consult affected parties.
For this process to work, mapping is important. Local discussions are vitally important; indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, indicated, the details of the kind of codes and safeguards that we need are most important. It is possible that details like signing, recognition and advertising of both rights of way and of access to land may also be very important. But the basic right is also important. We announced in March that we intend to proceed down the legislative road. I cannot he tempted into pre-empting the Queen's Speech, hut I can tell noble Lords that we are putting substantial resources into ensuring that we get this right both in the consultative phase and in the legislation itself. We are doubling the number of staff dealing with access issues. We are also allocating to the Countryside Agency an additional £2 million to spend on access and recreation. Indeed, during the very first meeting of the new agency last week the board considered detailed proposals on how the agency might play its part in mapping and in the establishment of access forums. Therefore we are moving forward on all those fronts.
The noble Earl, Lord Stair, said that we should not legislate simply on the basis of a manifesto commitment. However, we on this side of the House believe in implementing our manifesto commitments through legislation. We believe in doing so in a sensible and constructive way with the maximum possible degree

357
of consensus. The Statement takes that commitment further; further consultation will refine it. I assure your Lordships that we intend to legislate and to legislate soon.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he has not dealt at all with the question of damage caused by unidentified or impecunious walkers. Will he undertake to write to those of us who raised that question?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have one minute left in which to speak. Clearly there will be irresponsible walkers, as the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, said. I have also failed to mention Scottish issues. I shall write to the noble Earl on those matters. One out of 100 walkers may cause some damage, either accidentally or with criminal intent. There are laws to cover that situation but the problems of detection in the countryside are difficult, as noble Lords will appreciate. Nevertheless, I do not believe that it is sensible to introduce new laws or new compensation in this area. After all, we do not provide such compensation to the owners of other properties when they suffer criminal damage. That damage should be covered by people's usual insurance. In this respect I do not believe that countryside landowners are different from owners of other properties such as factories, offices and buildings throughout the country. The Government do not believe that compensation is an issue in this matter.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Gladwyn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply responding to many of the questions that have been raised in this debate. I thank all noble Lords who have participated in it, with their specialised interests covering the whole of England from Carlisle to Kent and further afield. I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Eccles, on his maiden speech. The debate has shown how much still needs to be thought out and worked out before legislation is provided. I am glad to hear that the Government have set this in hand and are working away at it now. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Trials by Jury
6.42 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg leave to repeat an Answer given by my honourable friend Mr. O'Brien in another place earlier today.
"My right honourable friend the Home Secretary announced this morning, in response to a Written Question that appeared on Tuesday's Order Paper, the Government's proposals to change the way in which the mode of trial was determined for those cases that are triable either-way.
358
"The Royal Commission on Criminal Justice in 1993, and more recently the Narey Review of Delay in the Criminal Justice System in 1997, recommended that defendants should not be able to choose to be tried in the Crown Court in either-way cases where magistrates have indicated that they would be content to hear the case.
"We have considered this recommendation along with the responses to the consultation paper my right honourable friend issued on 28th July last year. The answer to the Parliamentary Question today indicated that we will be bringing forward legislation when parliamentary time allows to abolish the ability of defendants to elect for Crown Court trial in either-way cases.
"Some believe that to remove the defendant's veto on the magistrates' decision that they should hear a case would erode fundamental individual liberties established in the Middle Ages, if not by Magna Carta itself. However, while trial by jury is indeed ancient, a defendant's ability to choose to be tried by a jury rather than by the justices was brought in in 1855.
"The Government agree that jury trial is right for certain sorts of case. The question is whether it should be available on demand, or restricted to business which objectively warrants it. In the same way that defendants do not have a choice of which magistrate, or which judge and jury hears their case, we believe that defendants should not be able to choose where their case is tried. In Scotland there is no ability to elect for trial; indeed the prosecution decides the venue. I know of no other country in which such an ability to elect is allowed.
"The majority of cases in which the defendant elects for Crown Court trial result eventually in guilty pleas, but only after greater inconvenience and worry to victims and witnesses, and at considerable extra cost and using police time to little effect. Home Office research indicates that nine out of 10 people who elect to be tried at the Crown Court have previous criminal convictions. It is clear that persistent offenders are abusing the system of election. This Government's proposals will end the practice that many rightly regard as a manipulation of the criminal justice system by defendants demanding Crown Court trial for no good reason other than to delay proceedings.
"But there will be safeguards. When determining the mode of trial magistrates will be required to have regard not only to any defence representations but also to such factors as the gravity of the offence, the complexity of the case—as legislation already requires—and the effect of conviction and the likely sentence on the defendant's livelihood and reputation. In addition to the automatic right of appeal to the Crown Court against conviction, defendants will also be given a right of appeal to the Crown Court against the magistrates' decision on mode of trial".
6.45 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, your Lordships' House will be most grateful to the Minister for making

359
this Statement to the House today which the Home Secretary declined to make to another place. Of course I realise that the Home Secretary is today addressing the Police Federation in Belfast. But, after all, he chose the date for this announcement. There is no urgency about it. All it does is to anticipate the Queen's Speech. No doubt the Home Secretary chose to make the announcement today in order to "pad out" his speech to the Police Federation and avoid speaking about police numbers, police resources, the threat to police pensions and those kind of matters.
I agree with one Labour Member of another place who said that it was a disgrace that this announcement should be made first to newspapers and on the radio this morning and then later presented to Parliament as a Written PQ. However, we in this House have been more fortunate in that we have the Minister to explain the matter to us. Will the Minister confirm that this proposal was considered by the previous Home Secretary following the recommendations of the Royal Commission and was shelved by him? Now the Home Office, or more likely the Treasury, has taken it out of its pigeon-hole and the present Home Secretary has accepted it in spite of the opposition of civil rights groups such as Liberty and Justice. It is opposed particularly by those working with the ethnic minorities. It is opposed by the Minister's own professional body, the Bar Council, as well as by the Law Society, many Labour MPs and indeed by my colleagues and I. It was, of course, opposed by the Home Secretary until comparatively recently. He was particularly virulently opposed to it when he was in opposition. The Minister mentioned Scotland. But, of course, in that part of our kingdom legally qualified justices are involved, not lay magistrates.
I have a couple of questions to ask which flow from the reasons given for this proposal. My first question concerns finance. Will the Minister confirm that the expected saving—which is suggested in the newspapers at any rate which seem to be well informed on this matter—is about £70 million? If that is the case, does part of that saving arise presumably from the fact that lay magistrates are cheaper than paid judges for the simple reason that they are lay people? Does any of that saving arise from the shorter sentences which tend to be passed by magistrates than are passed in the Crown Court? Does the calculation take account of the fact that there will now need to be additional hearings? As I understand the position, many cases will now need to be heard first by a bench of magistrates to consider where the case should be tried. When they have made that decision there will sometimes be an appeal on it—as the Minister said—to the Crown Court. There will then have to be a second hearing by a different bench of magistrates—as they will not have heard all the particulars of the defendant and so on that may have emerged in the first hearing—in order to decide the case.
Then of course sometimes there will later be an appeal to the Crown Court against the decision in the case. I realise that so far as concerns the first appeal and the question of where the case should be heard, some lawyers take the view that appellate courts rarely interfere with matters which are within the discretion of
360
the junior court. So an appeal of that kind is likely to prove largely illusory. That of course helps We Home Office's financial arguments and savings but it goes against the fairness arguments advanced by the Minister.
Lastly, may I ask the Minister about the relationship of this proposal to proposals in the European Community. The Minister in another place drew attention to European comparisons. He implied that this was a proposal in the direction of European harmonisation. Can the Minister say whether this is part of the preparations for the so called corpus furls in the European Community?
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the announcement made by the Home Secretary this morning about the mode of trial of either-way cases. We are given to understand that the decision was made on the basis of the report of the Royal Commission on Criminal Justice and the Narey Review of delays in the criminal justice system.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, identified a number of organisations which are absolutely against the idea. Perhaps I may add to the list. As well as the Law Society, the Bar Council, the Black Lawyers Association, Liberty, Justice, the Legal Action Group, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, have all expressed concern about the diminishing of rights.
The reality of the Government's proposal is that more than 18,000 defendants per year would lose their right to a jury trial. The Government's decision requires a number of clarifications. I do not object to the fact that the Home Secretary, when he was in Opposition, said that the reform was wrong, short-sighted and likely to prove ineffective. I am entitled to ask what factors have determined his change of heart. The bottom line advanced is that the measure could save millions of pounds. Again we are entitled to ask whether it is based simply on financial considerations or were platters of civil liberties and the rights of the individual established since 1855 taken into account.
The argument that no other country has a system similar to that in England and Wales where, in certain cases, defendants can elect to be tried by a jury, does not mean that it is right to remove that particular right. Scotland was cited by the Minister as an example of a country where there is no ability to elect as to trial and where the prosecution decides the venue. In Scotland defendants do not elect; similar cases are heard by a professional judge, in contrast to magistrates' courts in this country.
Is the Minister aware of the considerable concern expressed by representatives of ethnic minority communities? Research evidence indicates that black defendants get a worse chance in magistrates' courts than they do before juries. A higher proportion of black defendants elect for jury trial because they believe that they have a more reasonable chance of being acquitted in the Crown Court.
The argument is advanced that the change is designed to end the abuse of the system, which leads to delay, waste of resources and a prolonged wait for justice. The number of cases where defendants elect to go for jury

361
trial has been falling for the past 10 years. It is not a growing problem. No one would argue that there are cases where the system is abused, but that does not mean that the right should be removed for others.
There are cases which affect the livelihood, respect and dignity of individuals. How would the new appeal system work in cases where the decision of a magistrates' court not to allow a trial by jury is contested? Will legal aid be available for such an appeal? Would not the appeal system simply create a new bureaucratic process which will diminish the aim of simplifying the justice system? What costs will be involved in such an exercise?
I have not been in the House as long as many noble and learned Lords on all sides, but I recollect that since 1974 a number of administrations have tried and dropped the idea because it failed to command support. It will be nice to know whether the Minister has revisited the earlier argument; if so, how has the situation changed?
My final concern has not been explained. It can no longer be guaranteed that a case will be heard by three magistrates sitting in a magistrates court. Many cases these days are heard by a single stipendiary magistrate. In a case heard by a jury there are at least 12 people to balance out any prejudices and reach a decision, which is not the case with one person.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am grateful for the responses of the noble Lord, Lord Cope of Berkeley, and the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. Perhaps I may deal first with the last point of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. He pointed out that the question of Scotland was not a perfect analogy because those trying the cases in Scotland are legally qualified. He then rather spoilt the perfect symmetry of his approach by raising a serious question about the independence of the stipendiaries; he said it was not appropriate for people to be tried by a single stipendiary. But all stipendiaries in our jurisdiction are fully legally qualified as a necessary pre-condition of their appointment.
The noble Lord, Lord Cope, will not mind me teasing him. He began by making one or two of the usual House of Commons points. The Question appeared on Tuesday's Order Paper and the Answer was given. It is an Answer simply of the Government's response to the consultative document. We have not got anywhere near a Bill and it seems to me that answering in such a way was appropriate. Subsequently, the Answer having been put down at 11.30, at 12.30 the Home Secretary was due to address the Police Federation—which is certainly a body with interest and expertise in this field. I see nothing inappropriate in the Home Secretary wishing to inform it of his current thinking. I stress, it is a response to consultation.
The noble Lord asked specific, more detailed questions about figures. The figures are still being worked on. I think that the savings may well be rather greater than he mentioned. It would be inappropriate for me to speculate on savings, but they are likely to be significant.
362
I would not wish to overlook the serious problem—I had intended to refer to it but the noble Lord, Lord Elton, with his invariable courtesy, has given me notice—of whether or not this new scheme of things, if it is approved in another place, would attack the very serious problem of remand prisoners awaiting trial. I visit prisons every week. A constant, recurring theme is how badly we treat remand prisoners; how long a time they wait for trial, normally in the Crown Court; and how their presence in the prison regime distorts the good work of rehabilitation, education and training on which the Prison Service should be focusing. Despite time limits, there are lengthy delays for some people awaiting trial at a Crown Court. If, as the figures demonstrate, a large number of people elect trial in the Crown Court only then to plead guilty, is it not fair to ask with an open mind why they elected trial in the first place? On the basis of evidence and experience, I have no doubt that many people elect trial in the Crown Court to put off the evil day. That is partly because they do not want to come to a finally concluded view on sentence. In many cases, it is an attempt to manipulate the system, hoping that the victims, complainants or witnesses will not bother to turn up or that their memories after so long a period—many months in many cases—will have faded. I have never found a satisfactory explanation for people electing to be tried in the Crown Court and, many months later, having made that expensive election, simply pleading guilty.
I am bound to say that when this proposal was originally floated there was considerable concern about it. I want to reiterate what has been built in by way of safeguards. First, the magistrates come to their conclusion, but they do so bearing mind certain indicative tests that will be provided for them. They have to listen to both sides and the representations made. Thereafter, if the proposal is accepted, there will be a right of appeal to the Crown Court judge who will be able to come to his own conclusion. I am not so dismal about the quality of the Crown Court judiciary as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, appears to be in thinking that they will not approach these matters with a fresh mind.
I am well aware of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, which have virtue and value. Certainly, representatives of some ethnic minority groups are deeply concerned. The noble Lord pointed out that representations have been made by the Law Society and, it was said, in an open-minded way, even by those belonging to my former profession. But even when I was chairman of the Bar I never believed that we had a monopoly on all virtue. Occasionally, when the poachers take over a bit of the gamekeeping, they recognise some of the poachers' devices.
It is true that some people opposed change. Many favoured it: the Magistrates' Association; the Association of Chief Police Officers; the Justices' Clerks' Society; the Crown Prosecution Service; Sir lain Glidewell, who carried out what most people thought was a masterly review, extremely critical in many ways of the then experience of the Crown Prosecution Service; Customs and Excise; the Royal College of Psychiatrists; and a number of judges. I come not least—I deliberately mention him at the end in order to give him due regard—

363
to the Lord Chief Justice. I do not think it can be seriously suggested in this House that the Lord Chief Justice has not been the most diligent, careful examiner of proposals for reform in the criminal justice system.
We hope that there will be savings, and not simply financial—although they are extremely important, particularly when resources are strained. But one has to bear in mind the effect of delay on witnesses. Delay pollutes the system. It alienates many people from the system. They are so disappointed, fundamentally and deeply hurt, by the delays that the Crown Court system sometimes inflicts upon them.
I repeat that this was a change in the law as recently as 1855. There is nothing fundamental about the alleged right which is claimed. It seems to me that if the magistrates approach their duties in the way that I have indicated, subject to the right of appeal to the Crown Court on venue, subject to the further automatic right which your Lordships know exists for appeal to the Crown Court against conviction and/or sentence, those are reasonable safeguards.
I believe that I have answered the questions put to me. I should repeat, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, that this proposal is not based simply on finance. When one addresses pressure in the system and the question of resources and consequences, one should not forget victims, complainants and witnesses. The Crown Court system is significantly more expensive than the magistracy—not simply because members of the magistracy are volunteers and Crown Court judges are paid. Given the expense of running a Crown Court trial with jurors—and alternates in effect, in case of illness on the first day—and the whole panoply of running the system, one is entitled to ask in many cases, particularly when the election is resiled from, whether we have got matters right. I do not believe that we have. In due time, when the Bill comes before the House, I hope that it will be given favourable scrutiny—proper, but open-minded scrutiny.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I assume that primary legislation will be needed to implement these proposals. When will it be introduced?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: The noble Lord is absolutely right on his first proposition. I simply say, as I did in reading out Mr. O'Brien's answer: when parliamentary time allows. In a sense I am not in a position to judge that. We have just completed the seventh day in Committee on the House of Lords Bill. This is an important and self-contained reform. Giving a hostage to fortune, it should not take too long in this House.
Lord Simon of Glaisdale: My Lords, this is a very important constitutional matter. Will the appeal be by way of re-hearing, as it was to the old Court of Session, or will it be, as the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested, a re view of discretion, which will be interfered with only if it is plainly wrong?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, there are two types of appeal to which I have referred. Appeal
364
against conviction is by way of re-hearing. Our minds are working on the precise details of the Bill, which I stress are a long way away. I believe that we need to give very careful attention to the point: is this a review of the merits or simply a review of the exercise of discretion? Whichever it turns out to be, it does not seem to me to be an exercise that need take a qualified judge very long.
Lord Elton: My Lords, as one who moved an amendment to bring in this change in regard to a rather narrow range of offences—namely, the handling of goods with a value of under £100—almost exactly nine years ago, I cannot object to the proposal as strongly, or indeed at all, as my noble friend has from the Front Bench.
I endorse the Minister's remarks about the effects on the prison system, which is what originally drew my interest. There is a very low acquittal rate among those who elect for jury trial. The waiting time in remand wings is pretty lengthy, and that time counts against the time of the sentence when awarded. Is it not therefore the case that there is a strong motivation to elect for trial by jury because a proportion, perhaps a substantial proportion, of the time served will be served with all the privileges that go with an unconvicted prisoner? Incidentally, there is a very much heavier burden per prisoner on prison officers than there is for sentence prisoners who do not have those privileges. Will not the consequence be a release of Prison Service resources to the proper care of sentence prisoners and the proper rehabilitation, aided by greater time out of cell? I ask all these questions in order to bring to the notice of my noble friend and others who have objected in the past to this proposal that there are considerable benefits to be gained in the operation, as well as the cost, of the Prison Service and in its small, but valuable, attempts to rehabilitate prisoners.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I agree with a significant part of the noble Lord's remarks: namely, that the Prison Service ought fundamentally to be devoted to the tasks that he identified. If the noble Lord had asked me that question 20 years ago, I would have tended to agree that there was the inducement for people to stay on remand because they had a more agreeable life than they would post-conviction. Alas, my experience these days is that for many remand prisoners, not all, life in prison is a good deal less attractive than it is for those who have been convicted, one of the points made by the noble Lord being the time spent out of cell. There is also positive fruitful activity and something by way of rehabilitation. It may well be true that to sit and languish, idle, in the remand system may be attractive to some. If it is, that is a very good reason for not allowing them to languish in the remand system. It is in my opinion, and that of many governors and members of the Prison Officers' Association, a distortion of the regime that we ought to be providing.
I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Cope, for not dealing with the specific point regarding corpus juris. This is not related in any way to the proposals—

365
I underline that word—for corpus juris, which essentially deal with fraud in the context of the European Union.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am in no way briefed by the Lord Chief Justice, but I am bound to say that if I was I would be very irritated at the Government's picking and choosing when to use the Lord Chief Justice. At considerable cost to himself by way of time, the Lord Chief Justice attended this House on two or three occasions recently to deal with the subject of vulnerable witnesses. Having spelt out guidelines in the Court of Appeal to stop any repetition of the abuse of cross-examination of complainants in rape cases, and having supported strongly the proposal to delete from the Bill the embargo placed by the Government on cross-examination, he was ignored. The same applied in the same Bill to questions that could be asked of the complainant. He put forward the view that this was quite wrong; it was an undesirable interference with the discretion of the judge. He was ignored. But now he is produced because he happens to say what the Government wish. That is all I say on that point.
I should like to inquire about the costs which will be saved. If it is entirely a re-hearing as to whether or not the trial should take place before the justices or in the Crown Court, given that it is a re-hearing against any conviction which means a new trial—not the ordinary situation of an appeal—will there be any saving? I do not know what assumption the Government have made about the frequency of appeals against conviction to the Crown Court. I would have thought that, almost inevitably, first offenders, who now normally opt for the Crown Court, would appeal to that court if convicted. I do not know to what extent this has been considered.
As the Minister well knows, about 20 years ago an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the right honourable Lord Justice James considered this very question. In paragraph 61 of its report it said:
"The existing right to elect trial by jury is so long established in our criminal justice system and valued so highly that its total abrogation requires very compelling reasons. We doubt whether such a radical change would be sufficiently acceptable to public and professional opinion to enable it to be implemented. We go further. In our view there is a real danger that the total removal of the present right of election would undermine the trust and support which the criminal justice system at present commands among the general public."
I do not know to what extent consideration has been given to that view or to the point favoured by that committee that consideration should be given to removing cases from the ambit of the Crown Court and reclassifying the less serious offences so that they are not triable both ways. Paragraph 16 of the report of the Royal Commission stated:
"One way of removing cases from the ambit of the Crown Court would be to reclassify the less serious offences as triable summarily only. We have not regarded the task of identifying the offences concerned as falling within our remit".
I suggest that there is a lot of reconsideration by the Government yet to take place, and I invite them to do so.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am well familiar with the report produced by the committee under
366
the chairmanship of Lord Justice James. I remember the fairly heated discussion at the time about his recommendations. My recollection, which may be wrong, is that in certain cases of theft he wanted the automatic right to jury trial removed altogether. There was a good deal of public disquiet, if I remember rightly. We do not suggest that in cases of theft the right should be taken away altogether but that the magistrates will hear the propositions put by the Crown in the form of the Crown Prosecution Service and representations made by or on behalf of the defendant and come to a conclusion. We then build in the safeguard of a right of appeal to the Crown Court judge on venue. I do not believe that, on whatever basis the right of appeal in the Crown Court is conducted, it needs to be a very long exercise; it is a perfectly straightforward, simple one.
Things are not set in stone. Your Lordships will remember the introduction of the breathalyser provisions and the right to trial by jury. I remember that with perfect satisfaction and happiness because it kept many of us going in south and west Wales for many years running completely bogus defences—I can say this now—about whether the policeman was wearing his cap and, if not, whether it constituted full uniform. Eventually, the right to elect trial in breathalyser cases was wholly removed and transferred to the magistracy. One cannot set these matters in stone; one must take a sensible balance and build in judicial safeguards.
I do not believe it is fair to say that the Lord Chief Justice has been abused. I went to a good deal of trouble in your Lordships' House to explain why we had not ignored him but had come to a different conclusion. Am I not reasonably entitled by way of help and accurate background to point out to noble Lords who say, perfectly properly, that so and so is against it that there are others who support it, not least the Lord Chief Justice?
Viscount Colville of Culross: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cope, suggested that when it came to the appeal on venue, not against conviction and sentence, the Crown Court judge might simply follow the line taken by the magistrates. Is the Minister aware of any statistics available now, or by the time the legislation is introduced, to indicate the results of what I believe to be an analogous situation? Recently, a situation was introduced whereby, against set criteria under the Bail Act, there could be an appeal to the Crown Court against the grant of bail by magistrates. The Crown Court then has to use the set down criteria in order to decide whether or not to uphold the magistrates on the matter. That seems to me an entirely similar exercise. If, by the time we reach legislation, there is any indication about how satisfactory that exercise of appellate jurisdiction has been, it may be helpful to all concerned.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Viscount, particularly given his vast experience of these matters as a judge. I am well familiar with the Bail (Amendment) Act. It was my noble friend Lord Mishcon and I who were able to persuade the then Home Office Minister, Mr. Maclean, that that right of appeal was required. I have no statistics

367
but I shall search out such as there are. My impression, which I recognise is a fallible one, is that there have been relatively few prosecution appeals against the grant of bail. I shall certainly research the point.
Viscount Brentford: My Lords, first, can the noble Lord say whether research shows that for similar offences the county court imposes a different penalty from that imposed by magistrates in the cases which are being discussed? Secondly, I strongly endorse any steps to reduce the length of time prisoners are kept on remand. I have a vivid picture of two young men lying face down on their beds and the governor saying that they were remand prisoners, that they did not have to do anything and they had refused to do anything. It is very important to encourage rehabilitation as soon as possible, and I would therefore favour that situation. Will there be a substantial reduction in remand time and will other moves that are afoot also reduce time spent in remand?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I have no doubt that there should be a significant reduction in remand time because many serious delays are in Crown Court trials. There are other aspects of this matter, and I am conscious that here I am trespassing into the territory of the Lord Chancellor, but all judges and magistrates have to be absolutely scrupulous when they make bail decisions. For our part, in the Home Office, we have to be certain that bail support schemes are universally available, or on a generally equivalent basis, and that bail hostels are available and that the places in them are properly used.
The general evidence is that Crown Court sentences are heavier than those in the magistrates' courts for generally equivalent offences.

Conductive Education
7.20 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh The Earl of Iveagh rose to call attention to special needs education, with particular reference to the promotion of conductive education for severely disabled people in the United Kingdom; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I should begin by defining exactly what is meant by special educational needs. To paraphrase the Command Paper Excellence for all children, the law states that a child has special educational needs if he or she has a learning difficulty (that is a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age, or a disability which makes it difficult to use the educational facilities generally provided locally), and if that learning difficulty calls for special educational provision (that is, provision additional to or different from that made available generally for children of the same age in local schools).
Within the broad spectrum of special needs, conductive education is succinctly defined as an education system for children and adults with motor disorders, by which individuals are guided and led towards the skills and motivation they need to overcome
368
the problems of movement they encounter in everyday living. Conductive education can instil greater confidence and motivate children and adults to achieve more, and results in improved communication skills with those around them.
Conductive education organises a developmental curriculum. It aims to teach the basic principles or attributes which can lead children to taking on the national curriculum successfully. Typically, a child's daily routine includes several series of tasks carried out in different positions, for example lying, sitting, standing and walking. Each child within the group receives individual attention at its specific level. Conductors continuously observe the children in order to change goals, as necessary, to assist the child's development. The best results are achieved where parents can continue the programme at home. The discipline that is learned encourages the belief that, with very hard work, dreams can come true.
For full effectiveness, total commitment is needed from parents. After all, most of any child's time is spent at home. It should also be pointed out that an accurate assessment of the child is vital, a point to which I shall return.
Conductive education originates from the work of Andras Peto at the International Institute in Budapest and was developed almost fifty years ago. Since then it has been taken up around the world. Conductive education is a relative newcomer to the UK's health and education scene. A BBC documentary in 1986 entitled "Standing up for Joe" helped increase overall awareness and led to the creation of the National Institute of Conductive Education, which is based in Birmingham.
At present there are over thirty institutions in the UK offering some form of approach to conductive education. Many others are aspiring to follow the principles adopted in that field.
Scope, formerly the Spastics Society, has played a leading role in its development. Scope runs two schools and has set up the Schools for Parents Network, which provides support for families and very young children at forty centres across the nation. The network is intended to introduce the techniques of conductive education.
Development has largely been the result of demand from parents. There is patchy knowledge of its existence, and the provision of service is still scarce. Often, long distances have to be travelled, and the availability of full-time places is chronically short.
The only extensive evaluation in Britain was published in 1993. It questioned the validity of conductive education over and above other practices. However, its findings have subsequently been questioned, notably by the aggressive research intelligence facility, which concludes that the effectiveness of conductive education is unproven. Surely there is a need for the Government to look again into the role of conductive education and its place in Britain.
On the ground there is a serious lack of trained conductors. A survey conducted in 1988 of the majority of institutions employing conductors showed that a very

369
considerable percentage of existing positions were vacant, with no UK-trained conductors available at all. Significantly, there are at least two degree courses which will supply qualified conductors in the future: at Keele University in conjunction with Scope, and Wolverhampton University in conjunction with the National Institute of Conductive Education. A Government commitment to support teacher training of conductors would go a long way to assist the development of the programme. Can the Minister give any assurances on this matter?
I should now like to turn to more general issues concerning special needs. The Government have placed inclusion of SEN children within mainstream schools high on its list of priorities. Inclusion must not mean an unprepared child in a school which is unprepared. Conductive education can help the Government achieve their aim, as it encourages a developmental curriculum that can be used to get individuals to a certain level where they may successfully enter the mainstream.
The Government's aim of inclusion where possible may be adversely affected by the introduction of school league tables. Schools operate in an increasingly competitive environment in which league tables count. SEN children may not perform as academically as others, and subsequently schools' academic performance may be adversely affected. This in turn may lead to mainstream schools being reluctant to admit them. In addition, inclusion is threatened by some parents who consider the presence of SEN children to be detrimental to educational standards. It is particularly important within the mainstream that adequate attention is continually given to special needs to prevent the deterioration of standards for everyone.
The Government therefore urgently need to develop other non-academic measures of achievement for schools which have children with special needs. This is the so-called value-added approach, and steps to develop official criteria by which performance is measured are essential. All children should surely have official recognition of their achievements, and the developmental approach of conductive education can add choice and additional values to the national curriculum.
Another welcome development would be the implementation of mandatory checks for all schools with regard to SEN. This would ensure suitable educational provision.
The Government also need to take into account what the inevitable closure of special schools means to parents whose children find that mainstream schooling is not an option. If we are not careful, those parents will be faced with ever-decreasing choice and ever-increasing distances to travel. The correct assessment of a child's educational needs is vital to ensure the application of a relevant educational programme.
I now wish to turn to some shortcomings of the statementing system. This Government's encouragement of conciliation services is surely a welcome development. Parents should be fully informed and
370
encouraged to take an active role in the statementing process. That initiative may help to avoid increasing the number of tribunals whose costs must have a large impact on local education budgets and give rise to a significant delay in the child's prescribed educational provision.
What undermines conciliation is the perceived lack of independence of assessors. Whenever that is felt, parental suspicions are inevitably aroused that the local authority is acting as judge and jury. There will be an automatic tendency to go to tribunal. Moreover, there is a real shortage of independent assessors and, where they can be found, only some local authorities are willing to pay for their services.
Other concerns relate to the statement itself. This Government should be congratulated on getting rid of the distinction which will mean that it will be mandatory for local authorities to provide all provisions within a statement. Let us take transport as an example. If the onus lies automatically with local education authorities, situations where parents have to pay that cost will always, not just sometimes, be avoided.
Equipment is another area which is often omitted from statements. Can it really be satisfactory that parents and others are raising funds for basic equipment by all manner of means? Surely equipment should be considered a basic need and one which must be included in the statement and its subsequent reviews.
Another important aspect of government policy is the co-ordination of services. As it happens, conductive education is well placed in that regard, being an approach which incorporates mental and physical development. Let us contrast that with the traditional provision of education where separate authorities provide the different strands of support. The traditional model is widely practised, for example, where health authorities make visits to schools run by LEAs. That often results in the health and education programmes being under co-ordinated. I should be grateful if the Government would outline any plans that they have to encourage better co-ordination. I look forward to all your Lordships' comments on this very important subject.
I beg to move for Papers.
7.33 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, first, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for his introduction of the debate. I am someone who deals with special educational needs generally. He has introduced me to a new area in which I have had to undergo a steep learning curve. I hope that he will forgive me if I display ignorance in relation to any of the issues.
Part of the learning curve has been to discover rather more about conductive education. Today, I finally received a definition, given to me by Mr. Andrew Sutton. Basically, it is a three-pronged approach. The first aspect is that the education involves gaining a rapport with someone. As a child, someone who has problems with muscle movement in his neck, head or back, may have real difficulty in looking at another

371
person, let alone speaking. Thus normal communication, even a baby with his mother, may be very difficult. Therefore, the first process is to establish a rapport.
The second aspect is to instil the idea that you can improve your physical wellbeing and movements. It is the inspirational part of the process. That is my interpretation. Thirdly, there is the long, hard slog. That is possibly the least controversial part. It is instilling your body with the ability to create normal movements. It can be anything from controlling bowel movements to being able to walk.
If conductive education can enable someone to acquire those basic socialising skills, then we must welcome it. The size of the welcome will depend on how we see it going forward. Scope, which has a client base of those who use conductive education, welcomes the approach. I suggest that that means that we should look at it extremely favourably. Also, it is recognised by many British higher education institutions. Very respectable universities are awarding degrees in it. I cannot remember which universities, and so I shall name none. But the issue should be taken very seriously.
It is not a universally accepted principle. I received a briefing note from Disability Awareness in Action. It states that one of the principal concerns can be summarised as,
"the damage, both physical and psychological, that can be inflicted on disabled children who are subjected to conductive 'education'".
That organisation is strongly in favour of inclusive education for those with special educational needs.
On more than one occasion, this Chamber has disagreed on the subject. Last time I tried to say this, I was immediately contradicted by a noble Lord who normally sits behind the Minister. I said that most of us have reached the conclusion that where possible integration in the classroom should take place. But that must be tempered by the practicalities. Sometimes someone who is learning by a different learning process cannot be in the same classroom. Sometimes the lessons are totally inappropriate to them. The finer points of English grammar for someone with dyslexia was my first example. The second example I tried to use was cross-country running for somebody in a wheelchair. There is no point in that.
In our current education system, we have the problem that the national curriculum was initially drawn far too tightly. Since then, we have been pulling ourselves back from it. Initially, it was too tight and bureaucratic and everyone moved away from it. That is not merely since the current Government came into power; it happened almost immediately after the passing of the 1988 Act. It was realised that the resources were not available to implement it and that the demands it was imposing were too great.
That takes me to another point referred to throughout the briefing I received. The Special Education Council says that help is needed in training classroom teachers, SENCOs, senior managers in schools, school governors, SEN specialist teachers, learning support assistants and educational psychologists to equip them for their new
372
role. The Scope briefing refers to seven "lacks"—a lack of accessible curriculum activities, physical access to buildings, educational materials, and so on.
If we want to provide a full range of opportunities, particularly with a more integrated system, there are problems in relation to resources. It is an historical problem and no government, certainly not this one, are about to throw sufficient money at the problem to be able to solve it, even within the lifetime of one or two Parliaments. However, that is something we must bear in mind.
I have hardly touched on the subject but II have run out of time. There is an historical problem as regards resources which must be approached on a cross-party basis and, indeed, by society in general.
The Earl of Effingham: My Lords, I too thank the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for raising this very important subject. RADAR, a national organisation run by and working with disabled people, focuses on the social implications of rehabilitation and is not involved in the treatment.
The action programme, launched in November 1998 by the Minister for School Standards, Estelle Morris, is welcomed. It is a positive document which seeks to set out clear priorities and policies for moving forward the ideas set out in the 1997 Green Paper enticed,Excellence for all Children: Meeting Special Education Needs.
The noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, mentioned the statements' issue. I reinforce his comments. Many statements do not have clear objectives and goals. They lack clarity over the review process and too many children and parents go to tribunals to have their needs met. Scope, which the noble Lord mentioned, has identified four key areas of concern. First, the statements make a distinction between educational and non-educational provision to meet a child's needs. Depending on which part of the statement outlines the provision, it is either legally binding on the local education authority or not. This is why Scope is reminding the Government that their 1997 Green Paper proposed to do away with the distinction, which will mean that all provisions in the statement will have to be provided.
Secondly, this distinction also related to transport, which is not always available to the schools or the children. Thirdly, children often do not get the educational materials they need. The statement should include clear details of equipment to be supplied. Finally, parent partnership schemes and independent parental supporters must be truly independent and be seen to be independent. Perhaps the Minister would care to comment on these concerns.
The new code of practice is welcome. It gives guidance on contents and procedures regarding statements on special education needs and is to apply also to secondary schools.
I should like to recount one example of the problems facing a nine year-old boy in a mainstream school even when he appeared to be receiving proper support. He has spastic diplegia; his legs are more affected than his

373
arms and he has learning difficulties. He attended a special school until he was seven when an assessment concluded that he was excelling his peer group and he made the move to a mainstream primary school. He was awarded a full-time learning support assistant and a regular visit from the health trust physiotherapist. The school adapted a small room and put in ramps and handrails. Parents and school met together to discuss his lack of progress and together they contacted Scope.
The following problems were apparent. Although the boy received regular physiotherapy in the school the staff had not been advised about his need for stable seating. Despite his increasing difficulty using a pencil, his need for information technology had not been assessed. Despite the fact that he was to leave his primary school in less than 18 months, no one had considered whether the local secondary school was accessible. As it happened, it was not. Would the Minister care to comment on this case?
I should now like to mention briefly the special education needs of severely disabled service and ex-service personnel and their dependants. In March 1996 the Royal British Legion's vocational assessment centre at Aylesford in Kent was opened. Its most important activities are three days of detailed psychometric tests and referral to on-site medical and therapeutic intervention. The Legion's centre has taken over a sizeable proportion of statutory welfare services. I would therefore ask the noble Baroness the Minister to take note.
In conclusion, significant developments have occurred over the past decade but there is still a great deal of ignorance and prejudice about what conductive education means. It is a holistic approach and the needs of children are traditionally provided by a range of therapists, some of whom oppose its developments. It must be said, however, that some of the most enthusiastic supporters are found in these professions.
7.44 p.m.
Lady Kinloss: My Lords, this is a very important subject that my noble friend Lord Iveagh has introduced for debate this evening. There are many charities which help with disabled children and young people. Scope, the charity for people with cerebral palsy and allied disabilities, including those with very serious disabilities such as muscular dystrophy and spina bifida, has been supporting the development of conductive education as one of the options available for meeting the needs of children with cerebral palsy and other disabilities.
Some years ago I was invited to the Hungarian Embassy to see a film on conductive education, filmed in the Peto Institute in Budapest, which was extremely interesting. One could see how the children were developing, but it was also physically very hard and exhausting for them, and not suitable for all. It is an emotive subject which causes a lot of feeling as it is an extremely expensive form of education. I can understand parents pushing to have their children educated by
374
conductive education, but it should be seen against the wider context of 20 per cent. of all children in the United Kingdom having special educational needs. This was defined in the broad sense by the Warnock Committee's report in 1978.
The Government are to be congratulated on launching new policies in the field of special educational needs. They have taken some major new initiatives to promote the education of children with special needs in mainstream schools while at the same time retaining a range of special schools to meet the needs of a small minority of children who cannot manage a mainstream school. There is always the hope that some of these children who need very specialist help will manage as they get older to move to a mainstream school.
It is very important that the education of children with very special needs is not overlooked when it comes to supporting them with the equipment they need. The Royal National Institute for the Deaf is concerned that there is a need for large-scale research into the educational progress of deaf children of school age in the United Kingdom. The last large-scale survey of the educational attainments of deaf school-leavers dates from 1979. This is obviously now out of date because of the radical changes to patterns of educational placement and teaching approach used with deaf children over the past 20 years. Does the Minister agree that there is now a need for a new survey of these children's attainments in the light of the changes that have taken place?
Disability organisations welcome the commitment that the Government have made to inclusion, that disabled children should not be forced to fit into a system not designed for their needs, but that schools can be designed to include most children, although some will still need a special school. Access and inclusion for disabled children does not just include ramps. It includes access to educational materials of all kinds.
Technology is helping to overcome many of the difficulties that disabled children have faced in the past. Children should be given support and help in using new technology that is suitable to their needs. The Royal National Institute for the Blind found that many of the people it spoke to expressed concern about the quality of education that young children and young people were receiving rather than the type of school they went to.
Mobility training is an important part of every visually impaired child's educational entitlement. It needs to be taught from a very early age as it is a central part of a child's education and preparation for adult independence. Does the Minister agree that mobility has to be comprehensive, to include cane use, which is very important when it comes to navigating obstructions on pavements, guide dogs, the use of pedestrian crossings and many other requirements? Can the noble Baroness the Minister say whether there are sufficient teachers for this very important subject?
One major issue in providing materials for literacy is in alternative media, such as electronic format, which involves copyright. At the moment publishers do not

375
give permission for materials to be sorted or transmitted by electronic means. This is a great disadvantage to young children and children at school who are visibly impaired and for whom electronic media are the most versatile to meet their needs. Is the Minister aware of this problem with copyright?
I apologise for asking the Minister yet another question. The programme of action is summarising action over the next three years. Can she say what progress has so far been made, as it is welcomed warmly by many charities working in this field?
7.50 p.m.
The Earl of Winchilsea and Nottingham: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this important debate. Some noble Lords may remember that back in 1992 I led a fundraising drive to Budapest to raise money for the Stepping Stones appeal. This was to support the National Institute of Conductive Education in Birmingham to help people disabled by a variety of conditions, mostly Parkinson's disease and multiple sclerosis in adults, and cerebral palsy in children, although all forms of motor disorders caused by damage to the central nervous system can benefit from the treatment, including those who suffer some of the more serious aftermaths of strokes. Our drive consisted of a convoy of licensed taxis from all over the UK escorted by members of four British police forces in two police vehicles. We drove them to the Peto Institute in Budapest.
The Hungarians have rightly been credited as being the pioneers of this innovative form of treatment. Alone in the world, they did not reject as hopeless children with cerebral palsy. All too often, these children were written off as sad cases, who would never be able to do any thing for themselves or play a useful role in society. It was never thought possible to teach them anything different, so no one tried, except a remarkable man in Budapest.
The institute in Hungary was founded in the 1950s by Dr. Andras Peto. When he first started, he was subjected to ridicule and disbelief by his colleagues in the medical profession, but he persevered. I will not forget watching as a six year-old girl from Braintree took her first staggering steps on her own. Her parents had been told that she would never walk and they would have to do everything for her for the rest of her life. But here she was, walking, and by doing so, defying all professional advice available at that time in the UK. We are not talking about the Dark Ages; we are talking about 1992. The expression on her face 'was memorable; concentration, determination, intense pride and satisfaction at her achievement. She was going to do it, my Lords, and nothing was going to stop her. It didn't, and she did.
The reason for our fundraising efforts was so that that little girl and her parents, and hundreds, and I daresay thousands, like them would not have to travel to Budapest to get treatment. We wanted the same levels of care and attention that were available in Hungary to be available in the UK. Noble Lords may like to be reminded that our efforts raised nearly £35,000.
376
I pestered quite a large number of your Lordships to make a contribution and the response was typically generous.
Conductive education offers no miracle cure, but it does offer genuine hope to thousands of people who would otherwise have none. We ran that convoy to Hungary as a tribute to the Hungarians for what they had pioneered in the face of global scepticism. In doing so, I believe that we, in this House, played a small part in establishing in the United Kingdom this great gift to the world from Hungary.
Since it was first set up in 1987, our own institute of conductive education has gone from strength to strength, and the news continues to spread. There are now no fewer than 30 centres or institutions for conductive education in the UK alone, more than 40 in Germany, more than 50 in the United States, with still more in Israel, Scandinavia, Australasia and elsewhere. In June this year there will be a gathering of some of them in Birmingham.
One of the main tenets of Dr. Peto's beliefs was that his methods could often achieve what everyone else said could never be done; namely, to teach children who suffered from severe motor disorders to attain levels of physical and psychological development which would allow them to benefit from schooling. Therefore it seems that our education system must take into account that its responsibilities towards seriously disabled children do not begin and end with getting them access to the national curriculum, but it must also support a development curriculum which is essential before these kids can benefit from schooling. This is the whole point of conductive education. As far as the Government are concerned, funds should be made available to establishments which teach it from both the Department of Health and the Department for Education, because one depends on the other. If government funds are not made available, then it is my submission that they are failing in their duty to offer free education to each and every child in the UK, including those who suffer serious disabilities.
Conductive education needs all the support it can get. I am sure that the Government are very much aware of the valuable role it plays in our society. I urge the Minister to make every representation possible for government funds to be allocated. If anyone remains doubtful of the astonishing potential ability of this farm of treatment, I recommend that they take themselves to the national institute in Birmingham and have a look for themselves. They will be amply rewarded for their time and trouble. While they are there, they ought to dig deep into their pockets and make a much needed donation to the National Institute of Conductive Education. Another name for it could be the National Institute for Hope. for both the young and the not so young. Parents of children with motor disorders, sufferers from Parkinson's disease, MS and strokes, all have reasons to he for ever grateful to that pioneer and brave man from Budapest, Dr. Andras Peto. One day, who knows, you and I may have cause to be grateful too.
7.56 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Iveagh for bringing this topic to the notice of your Lordships. That this subject is being discussed today will be of encouragement to parents of severely disabled children who sometimes feel they have insurmountable struggles to overcome.
There are so many aspects of special needs education. As conductive education has been so well covered, I should like to spend my few moments on wider matters, as there are so many different needs which should be addressed. My feeling is that children with special education needs and their parents should have choices. Sometimes these children can thrive and benefit in mainstream schools if they have the necessary support and therapy so that they grow without developing further problems. Other delicate and vulnerable children cannot thrive in a mainstream school and it could put them in a dangerous position.
It is important that children are treated as individuals and that their needs are assessed, not for the convenience of a local education authority but because the full potential development, both physical and educational, of an individual child is paramount.
Some time ago I was invited to give the prizes at a comprehensive school in Watford. There were about nine physically disabled children who had done well academically but I noticed that several of them had serious problems of sclerosis. I asked the headmaster whether they had physiotherapy. He said, "No, there are not enough to make it worthwhile." A growing child who has to sit in a wheelchair will need therapy to keep his or her limbs from becoming contracted and deformed.
On another visit to a special school near Stockton-on-Tees it was observed by a general practitioner who attended that the working school day was rather short. The headmaster said, "So many of the children are brought into school by ambulance personnel who have to dress the children as the parents were still in bed recovering from the night before." The headmaster said that if he did not give the children breakfast they went to sleep by the middle of the morning. Social problems are very real in many families where there is disability.
I recently visited a school for deaf children and was full of admiration for the expertise and dedication of the teachers and the support of parents. I feel that many children with severe disabilities need the peer support, and they learn from each other techniques to overcome their disabilities. Children with disabilities can become isolated if they do not have support when they need it.
I was impressed some time ago when I visited Germany looking at rehabilitation facilities and met the therapists involved. They have a combined three-year qualification for ergotherapeuts. This is a combination of therapist and nursing skills for working with disabled children. One of the problems in the United Kingdom is that different people from different professional groups sometimes give parents conflicting advice. I hope that the holistic speciality will be looked at.
378
Will the Minister get together with the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, and try to improve the special needs education in secure units and young offender institutions? There is a serious problem of dyslexia, and, because schools have not addressed the problems early enough it is possible that young people without good parent support will turn to crime and unsocial behaviour through total frustration. If a child gets into trouble and has a statement for special needs, will that be adhered to within the penal system or if the child is in local authority secure accommodation?
8 p.m.
The Earl of Macclesfield: My Lords, I too am grateful to my noble friend Lord Iveagh for raising this important matter.
I should like to try to persuade the Minister of the value of training teachers in a diagnostic way. A general practitioner is there to deal with normal ailments and to diagnose specialist problems and send them elsewhere for treatment. Exactly the same is required in teachers; they have to spot a pupil with an abnormality as opposed to one who is not good enough or who is malingering.
My interest in this matter is that I have a daughter of nearly 30, Tanya, who is dyslexic, and that Stephen, who works for me and is the same age, is also dyslexic. Tanya's problem was picked up by her mother when she was aged about six, because her mother was an infant teacher and could not believe that at the end of the school day her daughter would not look her in the face and come home happily. That is the first behavioural problem that one can get, out of frustration. Her work was handed to a schoolfriend's mother, a remedial teacher, who took one look at it and said, cannot diagnose it, but there is a problem here". It was taken for granted that our daughter was trying and was not a malingerer. She went into the diagnostic system and out came dyslexia, at which point I simply told Tanya, "Your brain is connected up differently. You have to be taught differently". Away went all the pressure and any sign of frustration.
Fortunately, Tanya is of a placid temperament, as is Stephen, who got through, without ending up in Borstal, the state system, which totally failed to diagnose anything. It did not see any problem, when to me, as the father of a dyslexic, it was blindingly obvious once I saw his first written efforts. Anybody else would probably have tried to ease him out of the door. I was quite happy talking to somebody of intelligence and I could see what the problem was. Under other circumstances he could easily have found himself on the scrap heap, being treated as stupid, dumb and the rest.
Stephen also came out of the state system with virtually no vocabulary. To start with I had to simplify my conversations with him. Any third person walking in would have wondered what on earth I was doing holding a childish conversation. Everything has come to fruition in that sense, simply because I told him, "You have to see things my way. I can read what you write down, but if you disappear and don't leave me a message, and I am in trouble as a result, I shall get out my sharp knife and proceed in Japanese fashion".

379
Having come to that amicable arrangement, I go home and find odd spellings that I do not even notice now. He has not infused me with his idea of spelling—at least, I do not think so. I have seen the traditional dyslexia symptom of the same word written three times in a paragraph, each time differently. In that case he actually got one right. I laughed when I saw this. He looked up from his work and I said, "You have written the same word three times, each time differently, and you have actually got one right". I did not see any point in saying, "That's the correct one", because I suspected his brain would do anything it chose five minutes later.
When I talk about early diagnosis, I am referring to those who are severely disabled and who in principle can be taught in class, with extra tuition. Two things can be done. The first is to stabilise the child. Secondly, any teacher who is anything approaching a good teacher will be able to show the rest of the class that there is nothing stupid about that particular child; it is simply that the teaching needs to be different, so that if the other children see odd things written down they know it is nothing to laugh about—it is just one of those things.
Children are nasty creatures. If one starts early in class with them and they are given a straight explanation one will get a straight reaction, and they will probably pitch in and help. It is much the same as when a child keeps asking, "Why?" There are occasions when one does not know how to respond, except with a straight answer, which one is fairly sure he or she will not understand. If one produces that straight answer, one stops what is going on. Similarly, if one produces a straight answer in this context one will stop any sign of bullying that might go on, which again would increase frustration and pitch the child concerned into Borstal and the types of problems that the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, described.
I think and hope that I have made a case for the noble Baroness the Minister to go back to the Treasury, which is notoriously mean about everything, and suggest that there could actually be a dividend on the investment here, on the ground that, put very simply, one less officer might be needed in Borstal, because there will not be the same number of offenders there. In addition there will not be a need for the same number of counsellors trying to sort out families, with the mother and father at loggerheads because the child is in the state that has been described. They do not understand, because they have never seen it, and if they have not diagnosed it they will be in the same frustrated position as the child, which is talking and seems perfectly normal, until a pen is put in his or her hand and something goes totally wrong.
I hope that effort will be put in particularly to getting teachers to understand the problems. Then even if there is not the money to put some of this right, at least the teacher will be able to help the child through the formative years.
8.8 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, like the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, I should declare an interest. I am the father of a very severely handicapped child,
380
handicapped mentally and physically, aged 44 and with a mental age of two, who has never been able to be taught anything except to put a spoon into her mouth if it has food in it. She does not know what to do with the spoon when she has done that. My other interest happens to he that, thanks to her, I have been associated with MENCAP for over 30 years, and I have been chairman and president of it.
I too am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh. Indeed, until some months ago he drew my attention to conductive education I had never heard of it and knew nothing about it. Of course, it covers a wide range of problems with people of all ages, and even people of my advanced age, I am glad to say. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, will assure us when she replies that the Government will examine deeply and with open minds the possibilities of conductive education, for it may help to solve a wide range of acute personal problems. I should add that it covers even people who have had strokes or have Parkinson's disease. As has been mentioned, we in the United Kingdom are lagging behind some other countries in pursuing the advantages of conductive education.
In the short time allotted to me in this debate. I should like to consider the extent to which special schools should be used for people with learning disabilities or whether they should enter the ordinary education system. I have noticed and have read with interest what the Government have said on this matter. Perhaps I may refer to page 6 of the Government's summary of the special educational needs system, which states:
"We confirm that specialist provision—including special schools—will continue to play a vital role".
I submit that there are five reasons why people with learning difficulties do better in special schools than in ordinary schools. First, many such people need much more specialist and individual attention than can be given in ordinary schools. Secondly, while they are in special schools, their individual needs can be met by teachers specially trained for the purpose. Thirdly, when mentally handicapped young people attend ordinary schools, it is well known that they develop an inferiority complex. That is hardly surprising when a great mass of ordinary children are tearing around them. Fourthly, there have been some sad cases of bullying of mentally handicapped children attending ordinary schools. 'That, above all, should be avoided. Fifthly and finally, I believe that the presence of children with learning difficulties or mental handicaps in ordinary schools—noble Lords may choose whichever phrase 'they prefer; I think that "mental handicap" is a more accurate term because everyone has a learning difficulty: I cannot play the piano with more than one finger! — places a burden on the teachers and that that may interfere with the education of normal children.
Those are the main matters that I had wanted to raise, but as there is a little more time left to me I wonder whether I dare raise a matter which is not the responsibility of the noble Baroness arid her department, but of the Department of Health, which knows of the views that some of us hold on this matter. It may be relevant to the debate to mention them. I refer to the question of where people with learning difficulties

381
should live, perhaps for the rest of their lives, especially if their parents either are dead or can no longer look after them. My daughter lives in a splendid village community, where she is wonderfully looked after. A wide variety of people with mental handicaps live there. Some of them are well enough to go out to work; others, like my daughter, could not possibly do so, but they are all part of the local community which takes an interest in them. We must keep an open mind on that matter. There is a splendid body in the north of England called RESCARE which advocates the care of such people in village communities. It has pointed out that even a former asylum can be adapted, if it has spacious grounds, to form a splendid village community.
I must now sit down, but before doing so I should mention that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, cannot be here tonight because of a sad family reason. His absence is regrettable because he has done wonderful work for MENCAP.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add the thanks of these Benches to those paid to the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for initiating this debate. There have been some moving and cogent speeches. My first contact with the Institute for Conductive Education was over 10 years ago when it was seeking sponsorship for sending its first conductors for training at the Peto Institute in Hungary. As we have heard, there are now some 30 centres employing conductors, including centres such as Craighalbert in Scotland and PACES in Sheffield. Noble Lords may have seen in the press that those centres were established as a result of extraordinary individual efforts, including in particular fundraising efforts.
One of the better things done by the previous government was to support the Peto Institute in a major way over a number of years as a result of a visit made to Hungary by the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, when she was Prime Minister. As a result of the efforts of the institute, and principally of Scope, conductive education is no longer regarded as an esoteric treatment but as a mainstream treatment. As pointed out by, among others, my noble friend Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, conductive education provides the essential development work needed to give children the basic skills to access the mainstream school curriculum.
Although believing that ultimately it is desirable for all children with disabilities to take advantage of mainstream education if they can, we on these Benches do not believe that that should be elevated to dogma in the name of "inclusion" as some groups appear to believe. It is not true to say that,
"all forms of provision provided in separate special schools can he provided in mainstream schools"
as the Alliance for Inclusive Education and others appear to think. My noble friend Lord Addington dealt with that point very well. The noble Lord, Lord Renton, provided cogent reasons why children suffering from learning disabilities may in certain circumstances need special education in separate schools.
382
Parents and children should be allowed to form their own judgment and make their own decisions. That is why I welcome the tone of both the Government's Green Paper of October 1997 and the recent action programme, published last year. I welcome also the Government's consultation over the code of practice which was published earlier this year. These moves clearly demonstrate the priority being accorded to special educational needs by the Government. I welcome that tone specifically because Ministers confess that although believing the maximum inclusion to be desirable they want to take a pragmatic approach. They have stated—I am sure that the Minister will restate it tonight—that the needs of the individual child come first. The noble Baroness, Lady Masham. made that point cogently.
We on these Benches welcome the attention that will be paid to the training of special needs assistants through a national framework for training. We also welcome the fact that the Health Bill contains mechanisms to improve the interface between health authorities and education departments, particularly as regards speech and language therapy which seems to fall the wrong side of the educational/non-educational divide. However, major challenges are involved, given the cuts in school nursing provision and the devolution of healthcare policy to primary care groups and trusts.
We on these Benches obviously want to enter a number of caveats. We appreciate the need to minimise the bureaucracy of statementing and the Government's desire to avoid statementing where possible and to make the best use of the time of educational psychologists. However, statementing is an important way for parents to assess legal rights that are otherwise not available. Parents need first to be convinced of the quality of the provision before forgoing their legal rights.
Incidentally, as a lawyer, I find it somewhat odd that in the Pamela Phelps case there is a dispute with an education authority as to whether or not a child is owed a duty of care by the psychologist producing the statement. A statement is a crucial foundation for the future education of a child with learning difficulties. Is it so odd to expect to be able to rely on it legally? Have the Government received advice on the impact of the Human Rights Act on Part IV of the Education Act 1996?
As we move towards more "inclusion" of children with learning difficulties into mainstream education, there must be the resources provided to ensure that they are given the assistance they need and that they are not isolated. Above all, there must be the resources to ensure that all children have full physical access to mainstream schools.
We welcome the increase in money available under the schools access initiative this year and the promise of more to come, but the "Within Reach" survey carried out by Scope and the NUT in 1993 showed that at least another £200 million on top of that is needed to provide adequate physical facilities for those with special needs.
If the alternative to statementing is early intervention, education authorities need to be proactive and to have the resources to identify those with special educational

383
needs. If the intention is that statements are to be substituted by more proactive early intervention, the system should be more efficient than the current one and not simply an excuse to save resources.
In that context, on these Benches we are not encouraged by the replies of the Minister to my questions about identification of certain categories of children with special educational needs, although I thank heir for the courtesy of her most recent reply before today's debate. However, my question concerned why, in England, we shall not follow the Scottish school census, which has some 14 different categories and which would enable us to identify the particular learning difficulties experienced by children. That will enable the Scots to track educational outcomes, which is a matter of major importance when it comes to assessing the performance of schools and teachers and, of course, the children themselves.
The Green Paper, published in 1997, placed heavy emphasis on outcomes. The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, cogently described the issue of assessing attainment, as raised by the RNID. Yet the Minister has stoutly resisted any suggestion that in England we have anything to learn from Scotland and declared that the department has no intention of following the Scottish way in the English census. If I had the time, I would expand on that further and its impact in certain areas because it does not allow us to track the incidence of important conditions such as autistic spectrum disorder. However, I a m partly encouraged by the Minister's reply that there will be piloting of the collection of data on what are described, by the department, as low incidence special education needs. No doubt we shall return to the subject.
To return to conductive education, the matter is not without controversy, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned. There are those who claim that there is no evidence of its effectiveness. However, I believe that the children demonstrate its effectiveness, both in person and in some of the videos your Lordships may have seen. I welcome the fact that the institute now offers children under three, in their region, free assessment and treatment. I hope that the department will be able to ensure that that is the case in other regions. That is a major achievement and we should be doing everything in our power to assist them, Scope arid other conductive education centres to improve the lives of children in their care.
8.23 p.m.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for initiating this debate and for the excellent way in which he introduced it. As so often is the case, time does not allow noble Lords to do justice to such an important topic, which covers so many dimensions of special educational needs. Therefore, I shall have to confine my contribution in this debate.
Issues about which there is agreement on all Benches include early identification of children who have special educational needs, identifying effective teaching and learning practices and, of course, the importance of funding and the effective application of funds.
384
I have always thought it important in the context of a debate about children with special educational needs to recognise the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, as has been mentioned by the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, which culminated in the Education Act 1981. For the first time, the Warnock Committee identified the percentage of children with special educational needs. The breakdown resulted in approximately 2 per cent with severe educational needs and up to a further 18 per cent in need of some degree of special provision.
Throughout the following two decades work continued on improving training, disseminating best practice, improving identification procedures and the targeting of resources. The Education Act 1993 introduced a more structured five-point approach to early identification, which gave schools, local authorities and the medical professionals specific responsibilities.
Parents were given more choice, the right to more information and a greater role in determining the nature of educational provision through a system of statementing. Parents with serious grievances were also given the right of access to a special needs tribunal, although I note that some of the shortcomings of the system in practice, referred to in the debate, merit review. That was always the intention of the department when the measures had been in place for some years. They have now been in place for five to six years.
The Government, following consultation, have now set in train further developments in the field of special education, which is to be welcomed, although we have yet to see the legislation that may be required for implementation. It would be helpful to know from the Minister what progress is being made in preparing such legislation.
I understand from information provided to the Library by the Government that spending on special educational needs was estimated to be £2.5 billion per year. However, the department also went on to say that children with special needs will benefit from increases announced to cover the period of the comprehensive review, 1999–2000 to 2001–2002. Thus, the Government noted that targeted funding for special educational needs would nearly double to £37 million between 1998–99 and 1999–2000. I find the information a little confusing and, therefore, it would be helpful to know the comparable figure for the estimated annual spend of £2.5 billion for each of the next two years.
However, the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, invites us to consider quite specifically the provision of conductive education. I have found what the noble Earl, and other noble Lords, had to say this evening fascinating. I know that this form of education is controversial, especially among professionals. Some of us remember the controversy among professionals about dyslexia. Some dismissed it as a middle-class disease used by parents to cover for the stupidity of their children. I was very moved by the words of the noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, on that matter. Thank goodness that attitude has changed dramatically over recent years and

385
that children with dyslexia are now taken more seriously, although there is still further to go, as other noble Lords have said.
I am also aware of the research into conductive education commissioned by the previous government and published in 1993. That research found no evidence that children receiving conductive education progressed better than comparable children at maintained special schools.
There appears to be considerable evidence of children achieving great progress from conductive education. Many organisations can produce evidence to that effect. An excellent briefing paper, prepared by Scope for this debate, already referred to, is very supportive of conductive education. That organisation should know.
Therefore, would it not be appropriate, given the passing of six years, to commission further research to address many of the questions which remain, despite the previous report of 1993? Is it no more than a trendy and ineffective form of education? Is the reason that local authorities do not refer cases to the conductive education centres a matter of resources or a matter of genuine professional advice? Is the rather, in my view, too aggressive policy of many professionals to integrate children with special needs into mainstream education the reason for the low number of referrals to centres such as the Coldon Welsh School, the Scottish Centre for Children with Motor Impairments or the High Green School for Conductive Education and many others? Or could it be, as in the case of dyslexia, that professional prejudice just may give way to the view that conductive education is effective and is worthy of greater support.
The one thing that parents dread is that their children will be born with or will acquire a disability which requires special educational provision. However, so much progress in developing effective special education has been made and there is a wealth of good professional practice which can make a significant difference to the quality of life for the individual and to the peace of mind of their families.
Refurbishment work, I know, is taking place at the Peto Institute in Budapest under an inter-governmental agreement made at the tail-end of the last government. However, in the interest of keeping an open mind and of pursuing all avenues to improve services to children with special educational needs, I hope the Minister will both tell the House of any increased support that may be planned for existing conductive education centres and consider seriously the need to update research into conductive education.
The noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, has certainly given us all food for thought, and he is to be warmly congratulated.
8.30 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, like other speakers, I welcome the fact that the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, sought to use the opportunity to debate this important issue. I also welcome his commitment, shared with many other Members of this
386
House—the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was mentioned, as was the noble Lord, Lord Rix—who are committed to ensuring that all children with special educational needs have the opportunity to develop their full potential. That is a commitment which I and my ministerial colleagues share. That is why we are reviewing special educational needs policy and did so soon after coming into office, publishing our SEN Green Paper as early as October 1997 and why, in November last year, we published our programme of action for SEN. That sets out our vision for children with special educational needs and the agenda for developments in SEN for at least the next five years.
Tonight I want to touch on the key themes in the action programme and then say something about how developments within the field of conductive education can both contribute to and support our policies on special educational needs. We are investing significant resources to support the SEN action programme. The noble Earl, Lord Macclesfield, is right to say that there is a payback on investment in this area. This year alone we have provided almost £60 million in targeted funds. But our investment includes virtually doubling the targeted support for SEN under the Standards Fund and increasing five-fold the capital support under the Schools Access Initiative from the £4 million that we inherited to £20 million. There will be further increases in both those areas over the next two years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. asked specifically about funding under the CSR. Unfortunately, it is not possible separately to identify SEN spending out of general learning aid provision year on year. But we will be requiring LEAs to set out much more clearly how much they are allocating to SEN. That will enable us to make year-on-year comparisons in future, which is important.
I hope that this extra funding will allow us to make real progress in the five areas set out in the action programme, ensuring better support and advice for parents, which a number of noble Lords who have children with special educational needs mentioned; improving the SEN framework; developing a more inclusive education system; developing the knowledge and skills of all staff working with children with special educational needs; and promoting partnership in SEN locally, regionally and nationally. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about legislation. As she is aware, we are committed to legislation, although at this stage I cannot say when that will be.
Perhaps I can now say something about the third of the action programme objectives; that is, developing a more inclusive education system. Several noble Lords made reference to the excellent contribution that centres for conductive education in the UK play in supporting and developing children with cerebral palsy. I endorse that and acknowledge the important role that the many voluntary organisations like Scope, which are concerned with special educational needs, play in supporting children and their parents. Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, that the Government have an open mind in relation to conductive education.

387
The Government want a more inclusive system where more children are able to have their needs met in a mainstream school. But the action programme also makes absolutely clear our commitment to a system which is both flexible and responsive; a system with a range of provision sufficiently diverse to meet the equally diverse needs of our children. Let me be absolutely clear. Within the overall framework there will be a continuing role for special schools, including centres which specialise in conductive education. As the noble Lords, Lord Addington and Lord Clement-Jones, and the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and others made clear, there are many excellent special schools which provide teaching which is highly valued by both parents and pupils. We want to build on their strengths and ensure that they develop closer links with mainstream schools so that their expertise is used to the full. As the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, the needs of the children have to come first and of course the views of parents are very important.
Conductive education is fundamentally about helping children with a motor disability towards independence. Noble Lords will know, as I do, of children who have been helped through conductive education to participate in mainstream schools. We want to build on that and enable more parents to feel confident that their child's needs can he met in mainstream schools.
The noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, asked about the co-ordination of provision. Noble Lords will know that it is government policy that local education authorities should determine provision locally, according to the needs of the individual child. It must be right that parents, teachers and local education officers, working together, are best placed to reach a view on an individual child's needs and the provision to meet those needs, including any specialist equipment that the child might need. However, we recognise that not all LEAs are able to provide the full range of support to pupils in their area. For example, in some areas of low incidence disability there may he a need for provision which goes across local authority boundaries. That is why we are promoting regional co-ordination aimed at helping collaboration between LEAs and other providers.
There are already five first-phase projects which are investigating the co-ordination of different types of service and support. There has been a lot of interest in these projects which is why, just before Christmas, those local authorities not already involved were invited to join the second phase of the programme. It is our intention to extend regional co-ordination of provision in all areas from April next year.
Regional co-operation will help to develop links between local education authorities and other providers, including voluntary organisations. A number of noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned parents. Our action programme recognises the key role that they play and the need to ensure that they have better advice and support. That is why we are making at least £18 million available over the next three years to develop and expand parent partnership services. Our aim is that there should be a parent partnership service in every LEA. Through those services, we will
388
expect every parent of a child identified as having special educational needs to have access to independent advice.
Therefore, I have been very encouraged to learn of Scope's Schools for Parents Network. It is important that parents understand their child's special needs. That is particularly so in the area of conductive education where parents play a crucial role in helping to develop the child's motor skills.
The Schools for Parents Network is a good example of the initiatives that we want to see developed for parents. I am greatly encouraged by their expansion, which I believe to be a clear testimony of their success, and by the fact that over half of the schools are funded by statutory agencies—either health or education. I am also pleased that two of those schools are jointly funded by health, social services and education. That is an example of a multi-agency approach which is actually working in practice. A number of noble Lords commented on the need for highly skilled professionals to work with children with special needs so that we can maximise their achievements.
I recognise the importance within conductive education of ensuring that there are sufficient appropriately qualified conductors in this country, and the role that the courses run by Keele arid Wolverhampton universities play in helping to achieve that aim. I very much welcome the partnership that Scope has with Keele and the international Peto Institute to provide a course which trains UK conductors arid ensures that they receive an initial teacher training qualification. I also welcome the fact that we are able to fund this course through the Teacher Training Agency, and that Scope provides additional funds to support the third year of the course at the Pete Institute in Hungary. Officials will be working with Scope to evaluate the Keele course and consider its future development. I hope that that provides the assurance requested by the noble Lord.
Perhaps I may also add that, as part of our discussions with Scope, we will want to review the existing funding arrangements for the year in Hungary and, in the light of this, consider how the course might be funded in the future. We want to explore with Scope the possibility of students being able to carry out their work experience year in the UK as there become greater opportunities for these students to work alongside trained conductors in this country. The noble Earl, Lord Winchilsea and Nottingham, stressed the value of more conductive education in the United Kingdom. I hope that that will be possible, if we are able to train more students in this country.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, asked about research. As I believe the noble Baroness knows, the department's research priorities are determined through an annual planning cycle, which is designed to ensure that all proposals for research and evaluation result from clear policy and operational needs. Each summer we have a process in which we seek the views of others on possible areas of research; indeed, we do consult widely. However, if Scope or any Members of your Lordships' House believe that there is a case for the department

389
conducting further research on conductive education, I hope that they will submit proposals as part of that process.
A number of more specific questions were raised in the debate. I shall not have time to answer many of them, but I shall try to pick up one or two. I shall write to noble Lords with answers to those questions that I will not have time to cover this evening.
Perhaps I may tell the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that we are looking at the implications of the Human Rights Act on SEN. We are awaiting the outcome of the Lord Chancellor's consideration on the overall implications of the legislation. The noble Lord also raised issues about Scotland concerning which he has written to me. I am sorry that he is not altogether satisfied with my answer. However, I do not believe that there was anything in what I said in my letter which would imply that we do not take any notice of what happens in Scotland; we certainly do. Nevertheless, the systems there are somewhat different and, of course, that will continue to be so under devolution.
The noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, commented on deaf children. In particular, the noble Lady, Lady Kinloss, asked about research. The department published a literary review last year on the education of deaf children. We are currently working with a consortium of the major deaf organisations to co-ordinate work in the area of the educational attainments of deaf children. I believe that that will determine what further research is needed.
The noble Lady also asked a number of questions about teachers of visually impaired children, copyright issues and mobility training. I hope that she will forgive me if I write to her on those matters rather than try to deal with them tonight as some of them are not perhaps directly related to the subject of conductive education.
Questions were also raised about statementing. Indeed, the noble Earls, Lord Effingham, and Lord Iveagh, asked about that. As regards the independence of the assessor, I can say that LEAs do employ educational psychologists to give clear professional advice and make professional assessments of the child's needs.
I have to tell noble Lords that I have run out of time. However, I should like to conclude by thanking the noble Earl, Lord Iveagh, for raising our awareness of the very important role that Scope and others play in promoting the contribution of conductive education. The Government want to work with the voluntary and other statutory organisations to secure improved provision for all children with special needs, including those who may benefit from a conductive education approach.
8.46 p.m.
The Earl of Iveagh: My Lords, I should like to thank all noble Lords who have participated in this debate. It has been a debate of very high standard and one which has been both informative and illuminating. I should tell the House that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has
390
sent her apologies to me. She had a long-standing engagement this evening, but would very much have liked to be here.
Within the time available this evening we have covered many very serious issues concerning special needs education. I was delighted to hear many of the encouraging and enlightened words about this type of education from all parts of the Chamber, but most notably and encouragingly from the Minister.
The relevance of the debate has been emphasised by a week in which the Government have seen their largest revolt in the House of Commons over disability issues. Finally, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to a little piece of history: this may be the last time that an hereditary Cross-Bench Peer sponsors a Private Member's debate in the presently constituted House of Lords. On that note, I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Road Traffic Regulation (Cycle Parking) Bill [H.L.]
8.48 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

NHS: Millennium Services
8.49 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they are taking to ensure that the National Health Service has sufficient resources to cope from 11.00 p.m. on 31st December 1999 till 7.00 a.m. on 1st January 2000.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Unstarred Question gives the House the opportunity to consider the crucial few hours, so far as the NHS is concerned, of the millennium holiday period.
With the continual scare stories in the press, and the regular, and deliberate eye-catching status reports of Action 2000, we feel it is right that the Health Minister responsible for millennium cover should have a chance to put the public's understandable and widespread concerns to rest.
In 226 days staff throughout the NHS will have to cope with what is expected to be the busiest and most stressful time on record. A normal New Year's eve is almost the peak period of winter admissions. However, this year there will also be thousands of spontaneous events taking place at the same time all over the country. The likely exuberance of the night, heightened by the relaxation of the drinking laws, is widely expected to lead to an increase in drunkenness and potential violence.
All this may well be exacerbated by millennium bug chaos. Most people accept that there will be computer problems, but no one, not even the industry experts, can say how great, how widespread or how damaging this will be. Will there be equipment failures in the middle

391
of life saving operations? Will there be a loss of patient records? Nowhere does millennium compliance mean the difference between life and death as much as in the National Health Service.
The previous government were keenly alert to the potential problem of the millennium bug. Taskforce 2000, established in 1996, was the first of its kind to be set up anywhere in the world. Its aim was to convince the country of the threat, the need to take action, and to allow sufficient time for the essential testing.
As a result of the early planning, there is some hope that the software problem is largely resolved, and that the great majority of embedded chips in electrical equipment will not fail. Although there is still work to do, I sense that most of the IT issues are mopping themselves up, and that the majority of NHS organisations are making satisfactory progress.
This optimism, however, is not helped by the recent suggestion that the Territorial Army might be needed if a "worst case" millennium disaster stretches health services beyond their limit. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell me if the NHS has plans to use the TA, and in what capacity.
The predicted cost of ensuring that computers and IT systems are millennium compliant in the NHS has been escalating. It was estimated to be £292 million in June 1998 and £312 million only two months later. The NHS Confederation estimates that it is now at least £500 million. Can the Minister confirm that there is some accuracy to these figures as they will have significant resource implications for this year, and for the NHS's clinical priorities thereafter?
There are a number of millennium compliance issues that are still to be resolved, but I have time only to refer to four key areas. The first and most important issue is the lack of compliance information from suppliers, which is affecting the ability of NHS managers to plan effectively and with confidence. Secondly, a common concern raised in returns to the NHS Executive is the need for further assurances regarding the continuity of supply from the utility companies. Hospitals are particularly concerned about the millennium bug wrecking supplies of electricity and water, which are both computer programmed. Electricity and water supplies are an absolute baseline requirement. Indeed without electricity, the compliance, or otherwise, of many IT systems becomes purely academic. Many of the more sophisticated diagnostic services, which the NHS uses on a daily basis, rely extensively on electronic equipment. The failure of such systems will have serious and perhaps fatal conequences for patients.
Despite this, a major electricity supplier sent round a letter at the end of last year which conceded that, despite its best efforts, it could not guarantee a continuity of electricity supply. I should be grateful if the Minister could give the House some assurance that, as far as the NHS is concerned, the Government believe that essential utilities will not be affected.
Thirdly, there are limited and declining numbers of local, skilled IT staff in some areas. There is much evidence that freelance programmers who agree to stand by as "firefighters" on millennium night can expect to
392
earn up to £1,000 per hour. Freelance rates normally stand at between £30 and £90 per hour. Is the Minister concerned that the NHS will not only have difficulty in recruiting the necessary IT staff, but also having the money to pay them?
Fourthly, computer virus experts are warning that the rogue programmers' next big trick is likely to be the "millennium virus". It would seem that the significant date, and concern over the millennium bug, will prove to be only too tempting for them. Can the Minister confirm that the latest anti-virus software has been installed throughout the NHS to offer protection against a virus such as this?
On 30th September the NHS must have completed contingency plans to provide health care without these IT systems or the machines that may be at risk. Action 2000 tells me that the NHS still has a mountain to climb, particularly some individual hospitals. However, if these hospitals maintain their present rate of progress, Action 2000 anticipates that there will he no significant disruption. I am reasonably confident that almost all parts of the NHS will achieve this millennium compliance deadline and that the real problem that the NHS will have to face over the millennium period is one of staffing.
The Government have made it clear that they will not provide any national millennium pay bonus for NHS staff, insisting that staff's public service duty should override financial gain. Bearing in mind that some babysitters and waiters are charging £1,000 for the night, this decision has understandably bred an atmosphere of discontent and low morale.
At Unison's annual health conference delegates voted by a margin of three to one to strike over the two days of the millennium. If this happens, can the Minister tell me what impact the Government believe this will have on NHS services, and what alternative provisions are in place?
Some NHS staff, despite possessing a deep commitment to the public sector, may decide that spending time with their families and friends during this momentous period is more attractive than turning up for work. Does the Minister foresee absenteeism as a significant problem?
The NHS Confederation estimates that the NHS will have to employ thousands more staff, and negotiate considerable stand-by allowances, particularly as flu and bad weather will have an impact on staff sickness levels. How do the Government believe that NHS trusts will cope without substantial budget overruns? It seems unreasonable to expect trusts to meet these costs within their normal budget in a difficult financial year. and one with such a unique period of clinical stress. Will the Minister consider reviewing the Government's approach since the Year 2000 situation is such an exceptional one?
With regard to primary care, GP practices, co-operatives and deputising services are likely to receive the brunt of the pressures over this period. Additional funding will surely be required in order to

393
cope with the extra costs of support staff such as nurses, receptionists, telephonists and the out-of-hours co-operative staff.
Although by the holiday period 60 per cent of England will be covered by NHS Direct, only one-third of that coverage will have been in place from the beginning of December 1999. It will therefore be largely untested. What will be the role of NHS Direct over the holiday period and what further publicity do the Government intend providing to ensure that the service is used?
GPs in some areas will also wish to avoid the problems encountered last winter when the capacity of some telephone services was heavily exceeded, leaving patients unable to contact the out-of-hours services and GPs unable to contact patients and hospitals. The Department of Health must insist that BT provides adequate service capacity at this vital time.
Unlike many other NHS employees, junior doctors do not attract premium rates for working nights, weekends or bank holidays. Under a national agreement, each additional duty hour is paid at less than the full rate, usually half. Junior doctors, after at least six years of arduous training at medical school, will be treating sick and injured revellers for long hours for as little as £4 per hour. That compares with £3.20 per hour that an unqualified 16 year-old can earn in McDonald's. Do the Government believe that that is adequate for those highly skilled professionals who will not only not have the option of celebrating the millennium but probably will be saving the lives of those who have been? The junior doctors committee of the British Medical Association is balloting members on their willingness to strike on this issue. I understand that there is a strong mood tending towards industrial action.
The combination of the shortage of NHS staff and the inevitable pressures of the millennium holiday period will cause hospitals to prioritise emergency cases, inevitably delaying the treatment of others. In previous winter crises there has been a dramatic increase in waiting times, even for major surgery. Does the Minister anticipate that waiting lists will increase as a result of the millennium period?
In the short time available I have covered only a few of the most important points. Our aim is to ensure that there is the necessary quality care for those who need it from the National Health Service over the millennium period. I am much looking forward to the Minister responding for the Government.
9.3 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the noble Lord. Lord Astor, has raised some very important issues in his Unstarred Question today. I do not plan to deal with all the issues he has raised but shall concentrate purely on the issues of staffing and pay, which he described as the key question.
As a result of a circular from the NHS Director of Human Resources we know that there will be no national deal for millennium holiday working. Local
394
deals will also be discouraged. In the circular trusts are told to,
"draw on this tradition of public service and the commitment to the NHS as part of your action to make sure you maintain services over the millennium holiday period'.
and to provide staff with extra accommodation, rest facilities and hot food. Yet clearly hospitals such as the Northern General in Sheffield, which has agreed to pay consultants five times their normal fee, feel that they have to make a local deal in order to meet expected demand. The fact of the matter is that if there is no national deal many other local hospitals, apart from the Northern General, will make a judgment that they need to pay to get the appropriate staff over the millennium holiday.
Despite deficits being lower than last year, trusts still cannot afford it. The estimated amount that they will have to pay out—which was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Astor—is £100 million in total or £200,000 per hospital trust. Do we want to put trusts back into major deficit again?
However, unless there are such local deals, junior doctors—who, after all, comprise some 50 per cent of the 62,000 doctors in the health service—because a bank holiday has been declared for 31st December, will receive only half their normal rate, that is, £4 per hour. on both New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. Over the full Christmas and New Year period they will receive only two working days' pay out of the 12 days that are worked. This will give rise to all kinds of injustices. In many hospitals leave is already being cancelled for the New Year.
How is a junior doctor or a nurse, whose spouse is also working over the millennium or who is a single parent, going to employ a baby-sitter or a nanny over the millennium? They will have to be paid far more than the doctor or nurse receives. In effect, they will be subsidising the health service.
The meanness to employed hospital staff is in stark contrast to the treatment of locum and agency staff. Agency nurses may receive £700 for working on a millennium bank holiday. In the private sector, Allied Domecq bar staff will receive treble their hourly rate over the millennium New Year. The Nationwide Building Society information technology staff who will be on call over the New Year will receive overtime pay worth six times their hourly rate. Cable and Wireless will be paying its staff four times their basic salary. Scottish Power staff will receive special disturbance payments. Yorkshire Water and BBC employees will receive a £500 bonus. AA employees will receive a £750 bonus. I could go on.
Votes will be shortly taking place both by Unison and by the junior doctors which could have major consequences for the health service in terms of stoppages and strikes in protest at this decision, at precisely the time when NHS staff will be most needed.
At the end of all this, what assurance do we have that the NHS will be properly staffed? Do we even know that there will be a sufficient number of ambulance drivers to deal with emergencies? What about NHS Direct? On a lighter note, who will help deliver those carefully

395
planned millennium babies? Reports from Superdrug suggest that sales of pregnancy tests grew by 42 per cent last month, suggesting that couples are trying for a millennium baby.
Who will he in casualty to tend to the injuries caused during no doubt boisterous and sometimes violent celebrations? Is the NHS's planning for the millennium any better than its workforce planning?
The situation reminds me of nothing so much as when the Conservative government came into office in 1979, when they considered that central planning was a dirty word. The attitude was let the market take its course.
Effectively, the Government have left it to others to sort the matter out. They are leaving it to others to pick up the pieces, such as the Doctor Patient Partnership and its Health Alert 2000 task force, who in an extremely effective way are trying to make sure that the best use of primary care health resources is made over the millennium New Year period. Has a Labour Government really come to this?
The usual response to these matters is to hope that the Government get it right next time. I am not sure that in this case we on these Benches are prepared to wait that long.
9.8 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor, for introducing this topic. It is an extremely important one. As he said, some of the press coverage in this area has been lurid to the point of sensationalism; and there has been inadequate recognition of the scale, depth and complexity of planning that has gone on throughout the public and the private sector in this country. In that context, the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, were unusually intemperate in terms of his suggestion of a lack of responsibility, effort and co-ordination. I hope that I can illustrate that in some of my remarks.
The millennium poses particularly difficult challenges for those in the NHS. It brings together the IT complexities of dealing with the date change at a time when major celebrations and large public gatherings are anticipated. That means that there must be contingency planning for whatever might occur as a result, as there is every time there is a large pop concert or football match, but we recognise that these large events will occur on the same night. In addition, it will be the middle of winter, when the NHS is always stretched very hard by winter pressures. Also, a large number of bank holidays will come together, so that there will be only two normal working days in a 10-day period. So it will be a particularly challenging time.
But none of the factors described is unique. Even millennia happen every thousand years! Earlier this evening I went to ask for a document in the Printed Paper Office, and the computers were down. I am sure that they are working again now. Computers do go down from time to time, in NHS hospitals as in other organisations, and we must have standby systems in order to cope in that event. Electricity supplies are
396
known to fail in bad weather and there are interruptions to supply. The NHS would be in a fine state if we did not have adequate contingency planning and standby generators within hospitals to make sure that we can cope with those events. Even water mains burst from time to time, and the water companies have contingency plans. Health service users, from major institutions to individuals who are having renal dialysis at home and need to have a pure water supply, are catered for in the emergency planning. So there is a great deal of emergency planning in the NHS for any contingency which will be brought into play in the plans for this year.
While I understand the passion with which some staff have argued their case over special funding, in the time that I have been associated with the health service I have been in hospitals many times on Christmas Day, New Year's Eve and New Year's Day. We are a 365-day a year service. We are a 24-hour service. We cannot opt out of providing emergency care when it is needed. We must recognise that. Although these celebrations are very special and very unusual, we should not go completely over the top. A survey published this week indicates that the vast majority of the population are planning to do nothing more than put their feet up on New Year's Eve. So we should not get carried away with the idea that everyone will be getting drunk and being violent. It is possible that a lot of people will behave responsibly.
Putting that to one side, this year there are, as I said at the beginning, particular challenges: I hope to be able to demonstrate to noble Lords that we are planning to meet them very comprehensively. The year 2000 date change has challenged the intellects of those involved in the IT industry and beyond. Planning for it in the NHS started two and a half years ago and is subject to rigorous scrutiny internally, and we now also have a system of external audit. We are part of the National Infrastructure Forum. In the spirit of openness in which Action 2000 is conducting its affairs, we report our progress, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor. pointed out.
We have made it absolutely clear to the NHS that it must be assured of the compliance of its own organisations or of alternative contingency plans being in place by 30th September of this year. The NHS Executive analyses bi-monthly monitoring returns from all NHS organisations on year 2000 readiness and follows them up through visits and other action. This is being very closely managed from the centre, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. will be pleased to hear, and then through the regional offices. Current estimates of the cost of the work in the NHS are about £320 million over a three-year period. The results of this process are regularly reported to Parliament and published on the Internet. We are ensuring that those organisations which at the moment are not making the progress that we would wish are effectively coached and managed so that they, too, will reach readiness by 30th September.
If I have one quarrel with the noble Lord, Lord Astor, it is with his narrow definition of the period referred to in his Unstarred Question. The challenge facing the NHS is far wider than simply that eight-hour shift. The challenge is to plan effectively for the whole winter.

397
Aficionados of year 2000 issues know that there are other significant dates which we must ensure we can deal with. For some systems, 9/9/99 will be a challenge and test, and we shall not finish on 1st January; some systems will have difficulty in dealing with 29th February 2000. Just as there is a whole range of IT issues there is a range of service planning issues, in that we must ensure that there are plans to cover the whole period.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, pointed out the demand on services on New Year's Eve. It is absolutely true that that is a busy night for emergency services. It is a busy night for ambulance services and personnel and also in casualty. However, that is not the peak of admissions. The pattern of peak admissions tends to be after bank holiday periods when primary care and social services come back into train. Therefore, we have to plan for the post-bank holiday period. But I assure the noble Lord that, in respect of elective work, the planning of hospitals for this winter recognises that they will face a very challenging period of emergency work extending over several weeks at the year end. We look to organisations to schedule their elective work so that it will not be driven off course by that. We are enormously helped by the very great success that we have witnessed in the reduction of waiting lists during the year.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, rightly drew attention to the dependence of the NHS on other sectors, particularly the public utilities, and the importance of assuring the supplies of electricity and water. A great deal of work has been done in the National Infrastructure Forum, where Don Cruickshank, chief executive of Action 2000, has reported to us his confidence in the utilities being able to cope with the demands placed upon them. They are showing up very well in his traffic light system in terms of their compliance planning.
But it goes wider than simply the utilities. We have looked particularly at the availability of medicines. We have drawn together the private sector, pharmaceutical manufacturing companies, and pharmacies themselves, GPs and a whole group of interested parties into a pharmacy alliance to look at the whole supply chain both nationally and internationally. Organisations have to ensure that they have availability for other commodities and medical devices. There is a whole tranche of work going on to ensure year 2000 compliance for medical devices, and to inform the public who have medical devices in their own homes about what they need to do and where they can obtain advice.
It is an enormous challenge to bring together effective service planning. I believe that that is best done at a local level within very clear national leadership. We recently issued joint guidance to health services and local authorities, defining the health authority's lead responsibility for local NHS planning, together with social care, and to other local government and emergency service partners. The guidance includes the comprehensive checklist of planning issues that must be addressed locally. We have made it clear that planning must be at least on an integrated health authority basis, and we have told health authorities to establish local
398
winter planning groups, combining those NHS and social services. These groups will be at the centre of local planning for the winter and the millennium holiday. NHS executive regional offices will ensure that plans dovetail across health authority boundaries and advise on good practice and innovative solutions to local problems.
We are putting in place tight monitoring arrangements so that the service's performance will be actively managed against key review points. The date of 30th September is that by which we will ensure that we have confidence in the plans that have been made.
As to telephone services for primary care, I can assure the noble Lord that although there were problems last year, these were discussed between individual co-ops and NHS Direct at a conference last week. There are firm plans in place to double and even quadruple the number of incoming lines, at the same time reserving other lines to ensure outgoing calls can be made so that we can learn from some of the problems that arose last year.
As the noble Lord said, NHS Direct will cover up to 60 per cent of the country by the beginning of December this year. By the millennium weekend, 30 million people will have access to this convenient, highly popular service, one that has enormous potential for providing a more effective and convenient service for patients and for reducing demand on both hospitals and primary care.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor, asked about new services. We are learning as we go along from the success of existing services, but many of the new services will extend those that are up and running to larger geographical areas, so I do not anticipate a big learning curve there.
A great deal has been made about the issues of staff. I know that these are difficult issues, but perhaps I can correct two misapprehensions. There has been no definite vote to strike by Unison. It would not be possible to initiate any ballot until we are much nearer the end of the year. Those junior doctors who are rostered to work on the millennium bank holiday will not lose money. They will receive their full pay. Those junior doctors on call will, equally, receive the same on-call payments as they would at other bank holidays.
We recognise the difficulties of this situation and we have told employers to recognise the commitment of staff who work over the holiday period to meet their needs in terms of catering, accommodation and transport, to see that staff receive their full entitlements under terms and conditions of service and encourage employers to show their appreciation of staff who work over the millennium period. We are also expecting employers to explain their planning and rostering arrangements to staff as soon as possible and to consult staff representatives locally.
Our overall responsibility on this New Year's Eve and this New Year's Day, just as in every other year, is to ensure patient safety and patient services. I hope that, in the limited time I have had available, I have given noble Lords some flavour of the very comprehensive work that is going on throughout the NHS to ensure that we do exactly that at the turn of the century.
House adjourned at twenty-five minutes past nine o'clock.

  Treaty of Amsterdam: Entry into Force
  Treaty of Amsterdam: Entry into Force
  General Pinochet
  General Pinochet
  Immigration and Nationality Department: Casework System
  Immigration and Nationality Department: Casework System
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Immigration Act Detainees
  Highpoint Prison
  Highpoint Prison
  Human Rights Act: Compatibility of Legislation
  Human Rights Act: Compatibility of Legislation
  Interpol
  Interpol
  Either-way Cases: Mode of Trial
  Either-way Cases: Mode of Trial
  Arson
  Arson
  Yugoslavia: Costs of NATO Operations
  Yugoslavia: Costs of NATO Operations
  Army Units: Withdrawal from Germany
  Army Units: Withdrawal from Germany
  Hormonal Growth Promoters in Cattle
  Hormonal Growth Promoters in Cattle
  Official Veterinary Surgeons and the Meat Hygiene Service
  Official Veterinary Surgeons and the Meat Hygiene Service
  Medicines (Advertising) Regulations: Consultation
  Medicines (Advertising) Regulations: Consultation
  Terminally III Patients: Treatment
  Terminally III Patients: Treatment
  Radio 1 and Radio 2
  Radio 1 and Radio 2