Sitting of 12 April 2000

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

    CITY OF LONDON (WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By ORDER).
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Wednesday 19 April.

Oral Answers to Questions
  NORTHERN IRELAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Education Funding
    Mr. Roy Beggs: How Northern Ireland schools and colleges will benefit from the additional funding for education announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if he will make a statement. [117340]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): As you are aware, Madam Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State cannot be here today, because he is attending the Queen at Hillsborough as she awards the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I am sure the whole House will join me in welcoming that honour: it is richly deserved, given the RUC's dedication and courage, and a fitting tribute to the 302 officers who have lost their lives.
    I announced on 6 April that additional resources totalling £14.7 million were being distributed to primary, post-primary and special schools for the current financial year, largely on the basis of pupil numbers. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is consulting Northern Ireland political parties on how further resources might be deployed, and I hope to be able to make a further announcement shortly.
    Mr. Beggs: I echo the Minister's opening remarks, and thank him for his reply. I regret to say, however, that the additional funds will not solve the problems in Northern Ireland. School governors throughout the Province experience great difficulty in managing within their budget allocations, especially when teachers are on the top salary scales. Many well-managed schools are in deficit for the first time, and are cutting the services that
    348
    they used to provide for pupils. Will the Minister further review funding for our schools, and undertake to meet the full cost of teacher salaries at each school?
    Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman knows, the sum to which I referred is the additional amount earmarked specifically for schools in the Chancellor's Budget statement, and it will go directly to them. The hon. Gentleman will probably also know that an extra £18.8 million is to be distributed across the public services in Northern Ireland. He will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is consulting party leaders on where priorities should lie with regard to the extra money, and I am sure that what he has said, as well as other competing demands, will be taken into account.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the RUC, and those members of it who have impartially upheld the rule of law over the past 30 years. Is he aware, however, that beneath that umbrella of congratulations are those who stood idly by while Belfast was burned and the ghettos were bombed, and those for whom a former Secretary of State and Attorney-General had to use the royal prerogative to prevent them from being prosecuted for perverting the course of justice—
    Hon. Members: Question!
    Madam Speaker: Order. Has the hon. Gentleman a question that relates to the substantive question on the Order Paper, on education? If so, I should be pleased to hear it.
    Mr. McNamara: I have, Madam Speaker; but, given my hon. Friend's introduction, and given that Robert Hamill was kicked to death in the presence of RUC officers who did not intervene, it must be seen that the award is a matter of controversy. While we applaud all RUC members who impartially uphold the rule of law, those who did not should not be covered by that.
    As for the substantive question, will my hon. Friend arrange for schools to publish the details of how they are spending the extra money? There is concern about that.
    Mr. Howarth: Schools will, of course, be asked to account for the £14.7 million. However, the reason why we gave the money directly to schools was to enable them to decide for themselves what their priorities should be. Although we hold them accountable for the way in which they spend public money, it would not be appropriate at this point for us to direct their resources. As for the additional expenditure, it will be in line with the public spending priorities set by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, following consultation on what those priorities should be.
    Mr. John Bercow: Has the spending increase proposed for Northern Ireland been subjected to the same double and triple counting by Government as has applied in relation to both England and Wales?
    Mr. Howarth: As the hon. Gentleman's premise is entirely false, it would be inappropriate for me to answer in terms.

    Executive
    Mr. Tim Boswell: What progress has been made in re-establishing the Northern Ireland Executive. [117372]
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What progress has been made in re-establishing the Northern Ireland Executive. [117375]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. George Howarth): We are currently engaged in discussions with the Irish Government and the Northern Ireland political parties to agree on a way forward that will enable the Executive and other institutions to be restored as soon as possible. Our aim is to achieve an understanding that will provide the cross-community confidence that is necessary to enable the restored institutions to work effectively for the benefit of all people in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Boswell: I thank the Minister for his response, but may I ask him for two parallel and linked assurances? First, will he assure us that he and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will be tireless in exploring all avenues that might lead to the re-establishment of the Executive? Secondly, will he assure us that he will not seek to involve any persons who have not been able to establish, by their actions as well as their words, that they are genuinely committed to a peaceful solution?
    Mr. Howarth: On the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, of course the Secretary of State and I, and our colleagues in the Government of the Republic of Ireland, are deeply committed to that. No stone will be left unturned as we try to find out how we can progress matters. I know that there is, if not complete support, then wide support throughout the House for that position. The coming weeks will be difficult; no one pretends otherwise—but I still believe that, with good will and above all some understanding for everyone's position, there is an opportunity for us to achieve something.
    It is important that everyone, including those who have links with terrorist organisations, or who have had such links in the past, understand clearly that the only way forward involves no violence, but instead, politics. Through politics, we can make it work. Through violence, the only way is backwards.
    Mr. Swayne: Given that the Executive failed because of the inability to secure meaningful decommissioning, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Executive cannot be re-established until decommissioning is achieved? If that is the case, is he sure of the wisdom of his policy of continuing prisoner releases, because those prisoners might be the leverage by which he would achieve the decommissioning necessary?
    Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is aware that prisoner releases is a difficult issue. The issue has been difficult for everyone to deal with and to face up to, but in the agreement there is no direct link between prisoner releases and decommissioning.
    350
    The Secretary of State rightly takes the view that prisoner releases will be judged on the merit of each case and on the basis of the prevailing security circumstances at any given time, but the hon. Gentleman made a fair point within his question. If we want politics to work, private armies must be removed from the equation.
    Decommissioning is still most likely to happen in the context of the implementation of the whole agreement, including the restoration of the institutions. That, in its turn, is most likely to happen if there is genuine confidence on everyone's part that decommissioning will happen in good time and that the threat of violence has been removed for good. Only the IRA can create the confidence by making the position clear with an unmistakeable signal of peaceful intentions. I hope that it will do that.
    Mrs. Maria Fyfe: As too many people would like the Good Friday agreement to be dead, and numerous people fear that it may be, can my hon. Friend give any reassurance based on discussions that he has had with the Government of the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Howarth: It is important that we emphasise that the Government of the Republic of Ireland are a very important partner in the undertaking. We keep close contact with them and respect very much their input to the process.
    My hon. Friend makes the point that some people would like the process to fail. I have no doubt at all that she is right, but, by the same token, no one in Northern Ireland wants to go back to the situation before the peace process started and before the Good Friday agreement.
    It is my view that most people in Northern Ireland, and, indeed, in the House, have too much invested and too much to lose if the process fails. I believe that most people of good will want the process to work and to move forward. I just hope that, over the coming days and weeks, we can find a way to make that happen.
    Mr. Steve McCabe: Does my hon. Friend agree that the re-establishment of the Executive will require community-wide support from all sections of Northern Ireland society? To that end, does he welcome last week's ecumenical initiative from the Churches in Northern Ireland, which, I understand, met representatives of the Ulster Unionists and Sinn Fein? May I ask the Government to continue to encourage and to support all such genuine community initiatives to find a way forward in the peace process?
    Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. At the end of the day, the understanding that is needed will happen because of cross-community confidence-building measures. We will, ultimately, get a solution through politics. At the same time, however, any pressure, help or new incentives that can be applied in the situation by Churches and other groups in the community are always to be welcomed. I believe that it is very important that the whole society of Northern Ireland make it clear, by whatever means are available to them, that they want to move forwards, not backwards.
    Mr. Lembit Öpik: Will Ministers be convening formal round table negotiations with the

    351
    political parties in Northern Ireland before the end of April? In that context, how significant does the hon. Gentleman feel that the 22 May deadline is?
    Mr. Howarth: We are using a variety of meeting formats, including round table discussions. There has already been one round table meeting of all the pro-agreement parties, to talk about how we can move forward. We certainly would not rule out using that medium again. However, other ways need to be explored—including bilateral discussions between us and the Government of the Republic of Ireland, and meetings with individual political parties. All those methods have been employed in recent weeks, and we shall continue to employ them as and when it is appropriate to do so. Of course 22 May is still a significant deadline, as it had certain actions attached to it.
    As I said a few moments ago, however, it is important that we get some sort of agreement that recognises that all the issues that come under the heading of the Good Friday agreement can be resolved. At this stage, I want to use dates not as barriers, but as targets. If we can have that type of understanding, it is possible that we can get people together and understand what is necessary to get this whole process back on track.
    Mr. Robert McCartney: Does the Minister accept that no institution of Government properly described as democratic can include the political representatives of an armed terrorist group that is determined to remain armed? Does he accept that there is absolutely no evidence of any type that the IRA has shown any intention whatever of disarming?
    Mr. Howarth: It is very kind of the hon. and learned Gentleman to strike a constructive note in these discussions. As I said a few moments ago, if we want politics to work, private armies have to be removed from the equation. Our objective is to bring not only the IRA but other paramilitary groups who profess support for the Good Friday agreement to a point of understanding, so that guns, bombs and violence are taken out of the equation for the future. If we can achieve that—replacing what has gone before with proper politics and with devolution, whereby local people make local decisions about local services—it has to be progress. That is what we want to achieve. I hope that all people of good will—politicians and others—in Northern Ireland will come to see that that is the only way forward.
    Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will the Minister straightforwardly confirm that it is incompatible with our parliamentary democracy for those who are inextricably linked to paramilitaries who have singularly failed to decommission any illegally held arms or explosives to be Ministers in the Executive?
    Mr. Howarth: Over the coming weeks—if it takes longer, it will take longer—we seek to achieve a situation in which those who are linked to paramilitaries make it absolutely clear and beyond doubt that that phase is over and that they are irreversibly in the phase of politics. The issue that therefore arises is whether, in the next few weeks, we can get a process going whereby everyone—including those who are in the Unionist party, who have to make very difficult decisions—is absolutely clear that
    352
    we are in a phase of politics, not a phase of terrorism. I hope that we can achieve that. If there is anything that I or the right hon. Gentleman can do, we should set out on that path.
    Mr. MacKay: It appears that Government policy is moving. Will the Minister explain the fact that the Secretary of State said on 11 February when suspending the Executive:
    The blunt truth is that unless the issue of decommissioning is resolved, the Executive institutions cannot properly function whether formally suspended or not?
    Yet last Saturday, at the Alliance conference, he said:
    I believe that we must think twice before linking decommissioning directly to the continuation of these institutions.
    It does not help the process if there is conflicting information in speeches by the Secretary of State. Will the Minister be good enough to clarify the position?
    Mr. Howarth: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman should heed the words of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), leader of the Ulster Unionists, who has made it clear that the Ulster Unionists need to feel confident that the decommissioning issue will be dealt with once and for all, that the threat will be gone and the weapons will he put beyond use. We and our colleagues in the Republic of Ireland are working towards that. It is what the right hon. Member for Upper Bann will need to persuade his colleagues back into the process of devolution, with an Executive running services that are directly relevant to Northern Ireland. I have explained the position and what we will work towards achieving.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: Let us hope for the early re-establishment of the Assembly and the Executive. Will my hon. Friend confirm that the Secretary of State, in his talks with representatives of the political parties, is actively engaging with the likes of Monica McWilliams, David Ervine, Gary McMichael and others who, in their different ways, have an important part to play in the peace process and the re-institution of the Executive and the Assembly?
    Mr. Howarth: I can confirm that. Indeed, I have attended many meetings where all the parties, including the Northern Ireland Women's Coalition and other parties whose representatives were mentioned by my hon. Friend, were included in the process. We recognise entirely that it is not just the big parties, important though they are, that are part of the process; the small parties also signed up to the Good Friday agreement. We have every reason to include them and we shall continue to do so.

    Security
    Mr. Patrick Nicholls: If he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [117373]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): There remains a continuing potent and dangerous threat from dissident paramilitaries. There has also been a recent increase in the so-called

    353
    punishment beatings, which we unreservedly condemn. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State continues to keep the security situation under close review.
    Mr. Nicholls: On this most remarkable day, with the presentation of the George Cross to the RUC, Ministers are clearly speaking for us all when they pay tribute to the matchless courage of the RUC. The Roman Catholics who have been brave enough to serve in the RUC also deserve a mention, bearing in mind that the Irish Republican Army made it clear that it would kill them for doing so, if it could. Does the Minister understand that if the badges, emblems and tradition of the RUC are to be cast aside to appease those who spend their lives trying to destroy the RUC, that will amount not to a celebration of the courage of the RUC, but to its betrayal?
    Mr. Ingram: Of course today is a very auspicious day, with the award of the George Cross to the RUC. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State referred to that and the whole House endorsed what he said. In terms of the way forward in respect of the future policing of Northern Ireland, I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman could lif his eyes slightly higher and look at the new horizon, which is an inclusive approach to Northern Ireland that involves everyone in taking forward a new normalised society. That was implicit in the Good Friday agreement and was presaged in the Patten report. We will present our views on how to proceed with that in legislation in due course.
    Mr. Tony Clarke: Does my right hon. Friend believe that the central point for future security in Northern Ireland is decommissioning and that, if paramilitary groups ensured that there was a noticeable reduction in or an end to punishment beatings, that would be a positive move towards decommissioning and could form part of the Government's discussions on the issue?
    Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend raises an important issue, which was addressed on earlier questions by my ministerial colleague, who made it very clear that if politics is to work, private armies must be removed from the equation. Decommissioning is most likely to happen in the context of implementation of the whole agreement, including the restoration of the institutions, which in turn is most likely to happen if there is genuine confidence on everyone's part that decommissioning will happen in good time and the threat that weapons pose is removed for good.
    Mr. John D. Taylor: On this special day in Northern Ireland, we welcome the visit of Her Majesty the Queen. We are especially delighted at the well-deserved award of the George Cross to the Royal Ulster Constabulary.
    Does the Minister recall that, when we signed up to the Belfast agreement, the Government agreed in article 1 on page 28 that they would give full respect for the
    identity, ethos and aspirations of both communities..?
    Is he aware of the public opinion poll conducted last week by McCann Erickson—a well-known public relations firm in Northern Ireland—and printed in the Belfast Telegraph, which confirms that 93 per cent. of the Protestants in Northern Ireland and 61 per cent. of the Roman Catholics
    354
    are not offended by the name "Royal Ulster Constabulary"? Why do the Government propose to breach the Belfast agreement?
    Mr. Ingram: I do not think that we are breaching it. We are involved in discussions through which we hope to move forward in a more progressive way over the coming weeks, or a longer period, if that is required.
    The survey to which the right hon. Gentleman referred contained other statistics and showed that a sizeable proportion of the minority community found the RUC offensive. We have to take that into account. We can argue against it all we want and we can uphold and defend the good name of the RUC, which I and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State do on many, many occasions, but we have to take account of the need to create an inclusive society. That is what the Belfast agreement set out to achieve, and that is what we are seeking to implement in full.
    Mr. Peter Robinson: Is the Minister aware of the controversy surrounding the action of an IRA prisoner who is suing the Government for £50,000 following a botched attempt to escape? Will he instruct his Department to stop settling claims from prisoners out of court and to ensure that any money received by prisoners is clawed back to make up for the amount spent by the Government in compensation?
    Mr. Ingram: It would be inappropriate for me to discuss any individual case that is currently before a court of law. Compensation claims are settled following a practice that has been adopted over a number of years: there is no new development. Claims are always settled on the basis of the best legal advice available on the nature and extent of the claim. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that. If he returns as a Minister in the restored Assembly, he may have to make some difficult decisions himself. I look forward to his having that opportunity.

    Fuel Tax
    Mr. Eddie McGrady: What recent discussions he has had with the petrol retail industry in Northern Ireland concerning the level of tax on fuel; and if he will make a statement. [117374]
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Adam Ingram): Ministers and officials have maintained close contact with industry representatives and are fully aware of the impact of excise duties on Northern Ireland petrol retailers. In his recent Budget, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer announced that apart from the automatic inflation rise of 2p per litre there will be no real terms increase in road fuel duties. Officials are in touch with Treasury colleagues to explore possible ways of ameliorating the situation.
    Mr. McGrady: I thank the Minister for that reply. I am sure that he agreed with his ministerial colleague who criticised Barclays bank for destroying the commercial heart of towns and villages, but that is what the fuel duty is doing to the rural communities of Northern Ireland. Would he again consider the scheme that was initiated by the Dutch and German Governments to

    355
    address their border problems caused by differentials in excise duties and levies? Will he at least introduce a de minimis scheme to alleviate the problem, which benefits only the racketeers, the smugglers and the paramilitaries and denies livelihoods to local people?
    Mr. Ingram: The Government do not minimise the impact of the issue on border communities. The scheme that was due to be applied on the Dutch-German border by the Dutch authorities was found to be inappropriate in terms of EU regulations. We considered it as a possibility for Northern Ireland, but if it is not deemed to be appropriate for the Dutch it would also be inappropriate for us to proceed with a similar scheme. I assure my hon. Friend that we will continue to consider how we can develop schemes that will tackle that difficult issue.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ms Sally Keeble: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 April.
    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 be having further meetings later today.
    I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our most profound condolences to the family of Bernie Grant, who died at the weekend. He was a dedicated constituency Member who worked tirelessly for the cause of social justice. He was an inspiration and an example to black people and others throughout the country. He will be deeply missed.
    Ms Keeble: I also send my best wishes to Bernie Grant's family. He helped me some years ago when I was a council leader and I had huge admiration for him. He will be deeply missed.
    Is my right hon. Friend aware that Labour-controlled Northamptonshire county council has today announced a £4.4 million cash windfall, as a result of the recent Budget, to pay for 5,400 extra child care places, and an £8 million cash windfall to do up the county's schools? That is in a year when we do not even have council elections. Does my right hon. Friend agree that that shows that Labour is delivering on the big issues that affect the lives of my constituents, while the Tory Opposition can only sit on the political sidelines and brand those spending plans as reckless?
    The Prime Minister: About a half of schools will get new buildings and facilities as a result of the new deal for schools, which is opposed by the Conservatives. I am delighted to say that the extra £1 billion of Budget spending for education will mean that in the three years between 1998–99 and 2001–02 there will be an average real-terms increase of some £300 per pupil. That increase of £300 per pupil compares with the reduction of £50 per pupil in the three years of the last three Budgets of the
    356
    Conservative Government. That is the reason why people should choose a Labour Government who care about education over a Conservative Government who undermined it.
    Mr. William Hague: May I associate this side of the House with the Prime Minister's remarks about Bernie Grant, and join him in sending our deepest condolences to Bernie Grant's family?
    On a different subject, does the Prime Minister recognise that what has brought thousands of sub-postmasters here today, with a petition with 3 million signatures, is the fact that the Government are presiding over a record number of closures and a threat to thousands more post offices? Will he now listen to the wholly reasonable campaign for people to be able to receive benefits and pensions in cash at post offices without the compulsory use of bank accounts and introduce a proper swipecard system, as we planned, so that the future of post offices can be secured, not destroyed?
    The Prime Minister: The first thing that should be pointed out is that the Conservative Government closed 3,000 post offices and planned to privatise the Post Office. The Conservative party still plans to privatise it. Of course we all want to see post offices thrive, but we must ensure that that is done against the background of necessary modernisation. More people will want to draw their pensions, child benefits and other benefits via their bank accounts. However, let me make one thing absolutely clear, again: no one will be prevented from continuing to receive benefits in cash at the post office if he or she wants to, and not only monthly but weekly. We will work with the post offices to give them a viable future, but like every other institution—they recognise this—they will have to face the challenges of modernisation.
    Mr. Hague: Everybody involved in the lobby down the Committee Corridor knows that those are meaningless reassurances. They know also that the number of post office closures in the last year of the previous Government was 116, but that in the last year under the right hon. Gentleman's Government there will be 500 closures. We had a policy to save post offices; the right hon. Gentleman has a policy to close post offices. Is it not sickeningly hypocritical of the Government to launch hopeless boycotts of banks while swinging the axe on thousands of small businesses? Is it not undeniable that a system such as the Conservative Government proposed to introduce would have saved hundreds or thousands of post offices, which now are being condemned to closure?
    The Prime Minister: No. Of course, the last Government did not actually introduce the new system, and I shall explain why. When we came to office, there was probably no greater shambles than the Horizon project. It was three years behind schedule. It would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds more than the present system. It is a cruel deception to pretend that that project would have provided an answer. The system that we are suggesting will still allow people, if they want to, to get their pensions or their child benefit in cash, while recognising that more and more people will want them paid through their bank accounts.

    357
    We must now work out with the post offices and others how they can have a viable future. That is exactly what we are trying to do. The 3,000 figure for closures that I gave the House is correct. However, let me give the average for Wales when the right hon. Gentleman was Secretary of State for Wales—it quadrupled in the years 1992–97 and averaged 90 a year.
    Mr. Hague: Give the answer now—if the project was such a shambles, why did the right hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson), the then Secretary of State, say 18 months after the Government came to power that the project was important? He added:
    I feel confident that the project will be properly completed.
    Now we know that those assurances meant nothing. It was not the project that failed, it was Ministers who failed. The problem was not smart cards, it was stupid government.
    The right hon. Gentleman says that people can still collect their pensions or benefits in cash, but who will bear the transaction cost of the collection of benefit from a post office when it goes via a clearing bank? How can people collect their benefits in cash if the sub-post office has already been forced to close? Asked these things, the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, said that the Government
    do not have answers to all the questions—[Official Report, 29 March 2000; Vol. 347, c. 451.]
    The Minister is obviously an understudy for the Prime Minister. Will the right hon. Gentleman now change his policy and complete the project that we planned, to save the post offices before it is too late?
    The Prime Minister: Again, I stress that if the right hon. Gentleman is saying that he would reintroduce the benefit payment card system, that is a commitment of hundreds of millions of pounds, without the slightest prospect of that project being able to do what the previous Government said it could do. No doubt that is why they did not introduce it. The information technology platform is important, which is why we are introducing it into post offices.
    We are also sitting down with the Post Office to see how many post offices can provide some of the banking services. Barclays has already agreed to take part, and 3,000 post offices—[Interruption.] It is surely sensible to take these steps. Three thousand post offices are to have cashpoint services, but we must face the hard realities. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman says that we have to make welfare savings. This system will allow us to make welfare savings of £600 million a year—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House is having its fun, but it will come to order now.
    The Prime Minister: At least we know that the Conservative party would refuse that offer. It would turn it down and not allow new services to be provided by the Post Office. What a ridiculous position to be in.
    358
    More and more people—
    Hon. Members: More, more.
    Madam Speaker: Order. One or two people will be leaving the Chamber in a moment—and, Mr. King, you might be one of them.
    The Prime Minister: Half a million more people each year choose to get their pension or child benefit through their bank accounts. That will carry on, so inevitably the post offices are faced with a process of change. The question is how to deal with it. The best way is make sure that people can still get their benefits in cash, if they want to do so, but that we work with the post offices to provide a new range of services for the future. That is better than proceeding with the policies of the previous Government, who did not introduce their benefit payment card, which would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Their actions had already resulted in the closure of 3,000 post offices. That is not a sensible policy for the future.
    Mrs. Rosemary McKenna: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to a matter that is of great concern in Scotland, especially in the central belt? He will be aware of the world-renowned quality of shipbuilding on the Clyde. Does he share my concern at the speculation that the Ministry of Defence order for roll on/roll off ferries could go overseas? That could have damaging consequences for the long-term future of shipbuilding on the Clyde.
    The Prime Minister: I am fully aware of the uncertainty over the order, but I stress to my hon. Friend that no decision has been taken—contrary to some of the speculation in the media.
    I stress also that United Kingdom warship orders are coming up, and Scotland can be expected to benefit. For example, it is most probable that the type 45 destroyer first of class will be assembled and launched on the Clyde. That is a different order altogether, but I stress that a decision has not yet been taken. However, I also emphasise that the Government recently spent about £500 million on defence equipment from contractors based in Scotland. Orders are coming, but it is important that we take decisions not only on the best commercial grounds but in the best interests of our shipbuilding industry.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: May I associate my hon. and right hon. Friends, especially those who represent London constituencies, with the tributes that have been paid to the late Bernie Grant?
    To return to the issue of post offices, will the Prime Minister acknowledge that the previous Conservative Government had a plan to save them? I am sure that King Herod had a similar plan to save the first born. The Prime Minister is right to condemn the 3,000 post office closures that took place under the Tories, but will he not at least express regret at the 500 closures that have taken place under Labour?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, but we must try to provide post offices with the best guarantee of a good

    359
    future. No one can stand here and guarantee that no post office will ever close. I said that half a million more people each year now decide to get their benefits paid through their bank accounts. We cannot stop them. If more and more people want to do that, there will inevitably be a challenge for the post offices.
    We are very happy to sit down with the sub-postmasters and post mistresses and work out the right way forward. However, it has to be done on the basis that we recognise the modern realities, and there has to be a limit to Government subsidy.
    Mr. Kennedy: Given that the Government are proposing to transfer benefit payments and pensions away from the post offices to the banks—and I am not sure that hitching their wagon to Barclays is sensible at the moment—will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government have projected that savings of £640 million will accrue over the next five years? If the House is serious about the future of rural post offices, would it not make sense to reinvest those savings in the network so that it has a viable future?
    Finally, will the Prime Minister confirm that, when in opposition, the hon. Member for Bristol, South (Dawn Primarolo), who is now Paymaster General, wrote in a letter that the Tories' plans were totally unacceptable to the Labour party because they targeted
    those members of our society who are least well off, such as those on benefits and pensions…?
    If that was the case then, why is it not the case now?
    The Prime Minister: The Conservative policy was then, and is now, to privatise the Post Office. The privatisation of the Post Office would lead to the closure of rural post offices. We have to balance two different things. The first is obviously to make sure that if people so wish, they can get their benefits paid through their bank accounts, and the second is that if they still want to receive them in cash, they should be able to do so. We have given an absolute commitment, which I have repeated again today, and, what is more, they can collect them weekly as well as monthly. We must work out the best way to do that.
    The new system will not be introduced for two years and then there will be a transitional period of two years. We have time to work out the right future for the Post Office, but it must be done on a basis that is sustainable for the future.
    As for welfare savings, I accept that the Liberal Democrats always want more money to be spent—that is part and parcel of what they are about—but for the Conservatives to go around the country saying that they will fund tax cuts through welfare savings and then to oppose every single aspect of those savings is absurd. The £140 million that it is estimated will be saved as a result of reductions in fraud is also important.
    I make no apologies for the policy—it is right. We now have to work out how we deal with the consequences of the fact that more and more people over time will get their benefits paid through their bank accounts. We have offered a proper partnership to the post offices, which is surely better than giving a guarantee, which could not be
    360
    sustained, that no post office will ever close. It is surely better than the Tory plan which is, I repeat, to privatise the Post Office.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the very welcome new deal for communities programme, operating in Liverpool and elsewhere, and boosted by today's announcement, will be fully effective only if we continue to have a successful economy? Does he accept that the triumph of the new deal programme generally is a vindication of the importance of redistribution and intervention in our economy, and please can we have more of both?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, as a result of the partnerships that have been announced today a considerable sum of money will be available. Indeed, £31 million will go to an area in my hon. Friend's constituency.
    Overall, to tackle the problems—particularly of inner-city deprivation—the Government introduced the new deal, which is cutting unemployment. Some 800,000 new jobs have been created. Also, 1 million people are benefiting from the minimum wage and the working families tax credit benefits 1.25 million families—while free eye tests, the new winter fuel allowance and the new minimum income guarantee all help pensioners. Those policies show that it is part of the Government's essential mission to tackle poverty in this country.
    Mr. John Gummer: When I asked the Prime Minister some time ago what the effect would be on Britain's emissions of the moratorium on gas-fired power stations, he did not know. His right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions thought that the effect would be so small as to be laughable. It turns out that the effect is, in fact, so large that it countervails the whole effect of the climate change levy. Did the Prime Minister not answer me because it was embarrassing, or did he not know because the Government had not worked out the figures? If he disagrees with my facts, he may wish to know that they were contained in an answer given to the House last month.
    The Prime Minister: If the right hon. Gentleman is speaking on behalf of the Conservative party, I hope that people in the coal industry will realise what it means for them. We are on course to hit the entirety of our Kyoto targets on CO2 emissions. The Government have taken the lead on that, and our commitments will be met—and met in full. That is the best answer that I can give to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: Does the Prime Minister welcome the most important recommendation made by the Chairman of the Select Committee on Liaison in its report "Shifting the Balance: Select Committees and the Executive", which, if implemented, would mean that the Government would never again choose who should be charged with scrutinising them and holding them to account through the Select Committee system? That would be a welcome and universally acclaimed constitutional change. Will my right hon. Friend use his authority to ensure an early vote on the matter, which should, by convention, be a free vote

    361
    as it is a House of Commons matter? That would allow us to put the proposal in place before the general election and to say goodbye to the parliamentary choreographers on both the Government and the Opposition Front Benches who choose who shall serve on Select Committees.
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that anyone has ever accused my hon. Friend of being choreographed by anybody. I have been given some rather wise advise from my right-hand side, which is that our response will be made in due course.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Does the Prime Minister accept that sterling's appreciation by 40 per cent. against the deutschmark over the past four years has made life extremely difficult for those who produce and export everything from cars in the midlands to ships on the Clyde? Has he read the comments attributed to the Secretary of State for Defence in today's Scottish press, to the effect that metal bashing is no longer a vital national asset? Will he take this opportunity to distance the Government from that attitude and to show that he recognises that shipbuilding is a high-technology, not a low-technology industry? Will he indicate that he understands the vital contribution of the Govan yard and offer his personal involvement in securing its future?
    The Prime Minister: First, the comments attributed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence are absolute nonsense. Secondly, I have already answered my hon. Friend the Member for Cumbernauld and Kilsyth (Mrs. McKenna) on the order referred to by the hon. Gentleman. However, I must add that the SNP is the one group of people with absolutely no right to raise the issue. There are 20,000 Ministry of Defence personnel in Scotland, and £500 million a year is spent on defence equipment orders. The SNP wants British armed forces out of Scotland. The SNP's separatism plans would close Govan, Faslane, Coulport, Yarrow and RAF Lossiemouth and lose 20,000 MOD personnel. When it comes to a choice between the SNP and Labour on defence and its contracts, people are better off with us.
    Mr. George Galloway: The whole of Scotland will welcome the Prime Minister's assurance that there is everything to play for over the contract for six roll on/roll off ferries. Will he guarantee that the competition for the contract will be held on a level playing field? Will it be taken into account that foreign competitors are reportedly moving cheap labour from eastern and central Europe into their shipyards? People are living in containers on the docksides and in the shipyards, and that sort of competition is wholly unfair.
    Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that tens of thousands of jobs in Scotland depend on Ministry of Defence procurement spending, each and every one of which would be in danger of being sunk by the flagship policy of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond), which would make England a foreign country and break up this small island?
    The Prime Minister: On my hon. Friend's first point, yes of course there is everything to play for, and of course it is important that there be a level playing field.
    362
    With procurement contracts, as they are not defence contracts as such, we are bound by the procurement contract rules of the European Union in the same way as every other country. I can tell my hon. Friend that we shall scrutinise carefully any bids to make sure that they fall in line with those rules. As for what my hon. Friend was saying about the policy of the SNP, I wholeheartedly concur.
    Mr. Hague: The whole House will want to join in congratulating the Royal Ulster Constabulary on the richly deserved award of the George Cross by Her Majesty the Queen today. I know that the Prime Minister will agree that it is a fitting tribute to its service and sacrifice, with 300 officers murdered and 10,000 injured over the past 30 years.
    Does the Prime Minister also accept that many people will find it difficult to understand how the proposal to strip the RUC of its title sits easily with that wholly justified award today? Will he at least think again about that and agree that it would be a mistake to introduce any of the security-sensitive measures in the Patten report before there is lasting peace and decommissioning?
    The Prime Minister: The award is absolutely vital for the RUC and totally deserved in view of what has happened during the past 30 years. It is vital that its officers' service be recognised throughout the whole of the United Kingdom. Many died during that period and many others have suffered loss of limbs. Their families have often lived in the most appalling fear and terror. I am delighted and honoured to pay my tribute to the RUC for all the work that it has done.
    The Patten report made a series of recommendations about the RUC name. We believe that that report, with the amendments that the Secretary of State has already discussed, is the right way forward. Although we listen to the concerns that people have, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman agrees that it is essential in future that Northern Ireland should have a police force and a police service that can attract recruits from all sides of the community. That is all that the Patten recommendations are designed to achieve.
    Mr. Hague: Of course we agree with the objective that the Prime Minister has expressed, but does he acknowledge that the capability and capacity of the main terrorist organisations remain, in the words of the Chief Constable, "undiminished", and that, as events last week confirmed, the threat from dissident groups continues? Will the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that there can be no question of introducing measures such as large cuts in the manpower of the RUC, or allowing Sinn Fein on to policing boards, while the IRA hangs on to its guns and bombs?
    The Prime Minister: We will take no risks whatever with security in Northern Ireland; of course not. The number of people in the RUC is dependent on the security situation, but the actions of a small group of dissidents should not hold up progress towards a better future for everyone in Northern Ireland. Irrespective of the actions of those dissidents, it is surely important that we try to

    363
    implement proposals that are designed to give us a police service and a police force in Northern Ireland that can attract people from all the different parts of the community.
    I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that that is the right objective. After all, the Patten report was drawn up by Chris Patten, a former Northern Ireland Office Minister in the Conservative Government, and the committee that drew up the recommendations was made up of a very balanced group of people. It would be unfortunate if the right hon. Gentleman and his party now decided to disagree with those recommendations.
    Mr. Bob Russell: By the time of the next general election, will hunting with dogs be banned, as most people believed that Labour had promised to do at the last general election?
    The Prime Minister: As I said, Lord Burns will publish his report in due course. The Government will
    364
    then state their position and the House will have an opportunity to vote. Let us be quite clear that the views of the House are already well known—and so are mine.
    Ms Linda Perham: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the enormous contribution made by public libraries over the past 150 years towards enhancing the lives of British people? Does he recognise the continuing importance of public libraries to the knowledge economy and the information society?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I do. What is more, as a result of lottery money that is being used for libraries, we are making sure that everyone in the country has an opportunity for education. The proportion of national income spent on education having fallen in the last few years of the previous, Conservative Government, it is now rising again under the Labour Government. The investment in schools and hospitals is one very good reason for people to come out and vote Labour on 4 May.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. At about 2.50 pm today, I tried to gain access to the House through the St. Stephen's entrance. Because of the large number of representatives of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses complaining about the change of policy on the payment of social benefits, it took me and my two guests more than five minutes to gain access. The Metropolitan police had lost complete control over access to the House. Will you make representations to the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, Madam Speaker, to ensure that Members of Parliament can gain ready and immediate access to the House whenever necessary?
Madam Speaker: I shall certainly draw the comments made by the hon. Gentleman and the delay that he experienced in gaining access to the House to the attention of the Serjeant-at-Arms and seek a report from him.
Mr. Michael Jack: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. On 13 April, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson), speaking as a Minister, made a statement commenting on—[Interruption.]
Madam Speaker: Order. To which year is the right hon. Gentleman referring?
Mr. Jack: This year, Madam Speaker—[interruption.] I apologise, Madam Speaker; it was last year.
Madam Speaker: I should like to know the year because my memory is not all that good.
Mr. Jack: Clearly, there may be deficiencies in mine, Madam Speaker.
At column 13 of Hansard, on 13 April 1999, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate, speaking as a Minister, commented on remarks made by the Opposition. She said that our policies would have caused a third of the London underground to be closed down. While she was still in office, I pursued the reasons behind that statement through correspondence with her Department.
I received no reply, but continued to pursue the matter by correspondence. Yesterday, I received a reply from the office of the current Minister, signed by a private secretary. The substance of that letter was that, because the item that I queried had come from a Labour party briefing, it was not possible for the Department to comment on it, and that the matter was being referred back to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate for her personal comment.
I had thought that when Ministers spoke from the Dispatch Box, they spoke on behalf of the Government, and that they should be able to justify their statements. Is it in order for such business to be sub-contracted back for answer from a Back-Bench Member?
Madam Speaker: The matter that the right hon. Gentleman raises is certainly a matter for argument; however, it is a matter for the Government and I hope that he will pursue it with them.

Registered Fair Rents
3.34 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Rent Act 1977 to limit the maximum fair rent registrable in respect of regulated tenancies.
The Bill is a technical measure to restore the position of protected tenants to what it was before the 15 February Court of Appeal judgment that the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999 was made beyond the powers of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
Most private tenancies entered into before January 1989 are regulated under the Rent Act 1977. Tenants have long-term security of tenure and both landlord and tenant have the right to have a fair rent determined by an independent rent officer. Both have the right to appeal to a rent assessment committee if they are not satisfied with the rent officer's decision. Rents are set every two years and become effective two years from the previous registration, or on the day of the rent assessment hearing.
Fair rents, as laid down by the 1977 Act, are decided by, first, the age, character, locality and state of repair of the building, and, secondly, the rent that could be achieved in the open market if the supply and demand for accommodation are balanced, which is usually referred to as "scarcity". Therefore, until 1988, fair rents were decided by comparisons with previous fair-rent decisions based on those two factors.
The system did not seem to be unfair to landlords, who continued to buy property in which protected tenants lived. They were able to buy property cheaply because the protected tenants were there. They received a reasonable, secure and unfailing return on the money that they had invested, and they were certain of capital gains when the tenant died or moved on.
The Housing Act 1988 had two main effects: it introduced assured and shorthold assured tenancies at open market rents, so now comparable market rents were available; and it prevented the emergence of future generations of regulated tenants by allowing tenancies to be inherited by spouses only. As a result of the latter effect, those affected by the Court of Appeal judgment are mainly pensioners or coming up to pension age.
Since the 1988 Act came into force, a number of developments—some of which were consequential on the Act—have had the effect of raising rents. The sale of council houses sanctioned by the 1988 Act added to the shortage of homes available at lower rents, and increased prices generally. The increased use of the rent assessment committee by landlords resulted in rent rises in 80 per cent. of cases heard, and in half of all cases the rent was increased by an average of 18 per cent.
In 1997, the case of London Rate Assessment Panel v. Curtis determined that market rent comparables should be used in all cases. That placed tenants at a disadvantage in obtaining reliable information on market rents actually paid, as opposed to those asked for. Landlords, on the other hand, usually have their own properties with which to compare, and were placed in a more powerful position.
A Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions consultation paper, published in 1998 and sent to tenants and landlords, offered tenants some hope. Its tone was sympathetic to statutory tenants and it suggested that

367
rent increases should be capped at 10 per cent. plus inflation. Following representations by tenants, that was altered to 7.5 per cent. plus inflation, and the Government drafted a statutory instrument known as the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order.
What is galling for the statutory tenants, given that the judgment appears to result from a legal technicality, is the fact that the order was delayed because it had to be checked by the lawyers of the Law Officers' Department, but, on 11 January 1999, the statutory instrument became the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999. It came into force on 1 February.
Spath Holme Limited, a Manchester-based landlord, took the matter to judicial review and the Court of Appeal found that the order was ultra vires vis-a-vis the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
It is important for the House to realise that the Court of Appeal did not rule on the principle of capping regulated fair rent increases, or on the level of the limits set in the order; it ruled merely that it was outside the powers conferred on Ministers by the parent legislation to set limits by regulations.
As a result of that judgment, thousands of tenants now face the prospect of rent increases similar to those that were common before the order came into force. This morning, I met a tenant of Lamont Properties, whose rent has increased from £135 to £255 a week; another tenant, of Clapham Properties, whose rent has increased from £4,000 a year to £9,000 a year; and a tenant of the Wellcome Trust, supposedly a charity, whose rent has increased from £3,100 to £8,500 since the Court of Appeal judgment.
The situation for tenants is actually more difficult than it was before the order was introduced. Through no fault of their own, they have been made responsible for the
368
difference between the capped rent and the uncapped rent, backdated for at least 28 days. DETR issued guidance to the Rent Service Agency to advise landlords that, if the difference between the capped and uncapped rent is large, it will be open to them to seek a county court order to obtain arrears for up to six months. Bearing in mind the fact that most statutory tenants are pensioners, not only will they have to pay retrospective arrears, but they may be forced to appear in the county court—an indignity that will horrify them and that they have done nothing to deserve.
Although initially refused leave by the Court of Appeal, the Government have indicated that they will petition the House of Lords to appeal. Although the ruling raises an important constitutional principle about the scope of ministerial discretion, it could be several months before an appeal is heard and there is no guarantee that it will be successful.
I present my Bill in the hope that the Government will consider another way to restore the limits on registered fair rent increases and to prevent vulnerable tenants from receiving unaffordable rent increases that may force many of them from their homes. Emergency legislation is required and there is not a day to lose.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Adrian Sanders, Ms Karen Buck, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mr. Michael Portillo, Mr. Paul Burstow, Mr. Tom Brake, Mr. Andrew Love, Dr. Jenny Tonge and Dr. Vincent Cable.

REGISTERED FAIR RENTS
Mr. Adrian Sanders accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Rent Act 1977 to limit the maximum fair rent registrable in respect of regulated tenancies: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 14 April, and to be printed [Bill 111].
Opposition Day
[9TH ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Sub-post Offices
  Madam Speaker: We come now to the motion on the future of sub-post offices. I have selected the amendment that stands in the name of the Prime Minister.
  3.42 pm
  Mrs. Angela Browning: I beg to move,
  That this House condemns the Government's failure to provide a coherent strategy for the future of sub-post offices; expresses concern that nearly a year has elapsed without any solutions to the problems created by the arbitrary announcement to withdraw income from community post offices in return for the payment of benefits; believes that the acceleration of post office closures in 1999–2000 will continue as a result of the Government's policies; applauds the determination of the last Conservative Government to maintain a national network of post offices; supports the computerisation project started by the last Conservative Government to tackle fraud and improve technology available in post offices without cutting their income; calls upon the Government to recognise the social value of post offices to local communities; and now requires the Government, as a matter of urgency, to identify new income streams for sub-post offices in the future and to end the confusion for benefits recipients about the future payment arrangements at local level.
  Today, 2,000 sub-postmasters are in London because they fear for the future of their businesses. Nearly a year has elapsed since the Secretary of State announced Labour's Treasury-driven decision to switch the payment of benefits and pensions from post offices to automated credit transfer. Since that announcement was made, there have been many debates in the House; indeed, this is the second Opposition day debate that the Conservative party has introduced.
  In the past year, there has been an acceleration of post office closures—double the number the previous year. Post offices are being advised by their banks not to extend their borrowing and we know that the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters fears for the future of 8,000 sub-post offices, which are privately owned businesses at the heart of both rural and urban communities. Indeed, it was shocking to hear at Prime Minister's questions this afternoon that the Prime Minister still seems to believe that Britain's network of sub-post offices is part of a nationalised industry and that it is not made of private businesses that invest their own capital and need to prepare their own business plans for the future.
  Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend has touched on one of the most important aspects of this issue. Six post office closures in my constituency have already been announced this year. Four were very much part-time post offices and two were small village shops with a post office. Does she not agree that we are seeing a process that cuts at the bone of the rural network of small businesses that support small village and rural communities?
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The network is made up of businesses that provide a range of services and they often combine the post office with
  370
  the village shop. Like everyone else, sub-postmasters have to make business decisions and plan for the future. In the uncertain world that the Government have created, many choose to get out altogether rather than sell their businesses on. That is an indictment not only of the Government's arbitrary decisions a year ago, but of the way in which they have subsequently handled matters.
  I want to place Conservative achievements on record. When we were faced with a choice between more savings for the Treasury and ensuring the survival of the post office network, the previous Conservative Government, by contrast with Labour, opted for the more expensive benefit card project to ensure the survival of the sub-post office network for rural and urban communities.
  As the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters said in its submission to the Select Committee on Trade and Industry:
  the decision of the previous Government to automate the delivery of benefits payments using the benefits payment card was based on the need to reduce costs, eliminate fraud and ensure beneficiaries would be able to continue to receive their payment in cash from the post office, thus ensuring they retained a choice as to the method of payment which best suited their individual circumstance …
  The submission continued:
  this was recognised to be the only way to ensure the future survival and prosperity of the post office network.
  Earlier today, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) introduced a debate on sub-post offices in Westminster Hall. It is not the first time that he has spoken on this subject in the past year. The fact that he puts on record the background to the way in which the Conservative party introduced the switch from the book to the payment card, and the proposals that this Government inherited, clearly identifies the previous Government's priorities.
  My right hon. Friend speaks with the authority of someone who has been Secretary of State in the two key Departments—the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Social Security. He said:
  When I moved to the Department of Social Security, my interest deepened further, as I saw how essential the network was to the effective delivery of benefits to many of the most vulnerable people in our communities. I helped to ensure that that delivery mechanism and the network would continue by agreeing to the horizon project, about which the Government are now trying to rewrite history … —[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 12 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 52WH.]
  Mr. Andrew Miller: The hon. Lady will recall that, in the last Parliament, I praised the approach of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) to merging benefits and taxation issues. However, I am not sure that I could praise his handling of the original Horizon project. I have followed its progress from the beginning. Will the hon. Lady put on record the fact that it is Conservative policy to reintroduce the previous plan, exactly as it was, for the system? We will then know precisely what the debate is about.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman knows what the Government inherited, and what they did with that inheritance. The Conservative party will consider what we inherit and what we can salvage from the damage and the mess that the Government are creating.
  In the past year, we have asked many questions to which we have received few answers. Even today, the Prime Minister failed to answer questions in terms that

  371
  could provide comfort to the 2,000 sub-postmasters who have given up a day's work to persuade the Government to think again and identify new streams of income to replace the income that has been lost through the Government's policies. We have debated the matter often in the past, but the Government do not intend to listen. I want to focus on the future, because today's debate is about that. That is why sub-postmasters are here today.
  Sub-post offices are businesses and, like any other small business, they need to plan for the future. When the Prime Minister received the sub-postmasters at No. 10 this morning, he pointed out that the Government still have many issues to sort out between now and 2005. However, businesses do not have the luxury of time: sub-postmasters have to make business decisions today, and their bank managers are advising them today. What a luxury it is for a Government to think that such considerations can all be kicked into the long grass while they set up another focus group or advisory committee. We know that in the meantime sub-postmasters are going to the wall.
  The Government should be focusing on possible extra streams of income for sub-post offices and prioritising those Government services that might be such a source of income in future. However, as we heard again from the Prime Minister this afternoon, this is all about saving money from the Department of Social Security budget, which is a failure if ever there was one, because the Government have not fulfilled the pledge to cut that budget which they made when they came to office.
  The DSS and the DTI are packed with former Treasury Ministers who have rolled over and allowed the Treasury to recoup that £400 million, taking it out of the pockets of sub-postmasters, yet Ministers need four years to think up ideas that will enable post offices to plan for the future. In this matter, as in so many others, the DTI ministerial team do not understand how businesses work, and despite all the wringing of hands by Labour Members, they do not care.
  Since the last summer recess, I have visited dozens of sub-post offices throughout the country. Only last month, in Sadberge in the Prime Minister's constituency, I visited the small post office, which sells a few groceries and is clearly important to the local community. With the sub-postmaster and the national president of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, I posted a letter from that post office to the Prime Minister at No. 10. He did not reply, and I was rather surprised because I should have thought that even he would have time to recognise that in his constituency sub-postmasters are struggling, as they are throughout the country.
  The Prime Minister's office sent my letter to the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, who I see is on the Treasury Bench this afternoon. He sent me a two-page reply in which he comes to the crunch and makes a point that may explain why the Government have been so slow in deciding how to help post offices and how they can contribute to replacing their income streams in response to the smash-and-grab raid by the Treasury. The right hon. Gentleman said:
  Therefore, sub-postmasters' remuneration is a matter between POCL—
  Post Office Counters Ltd.—
  and the post-masters themselves.
  372
  In other words, this is nothing to do with the Government, and yet they have decided to end a contract halfway through its duration and, without giving any notice, they are removing a huge chunk of post offices' income, without the slightest idea of how the loss will be made up, jeopardising post offices and accelerating their closure.
  According to the federation, 8,000 small businesses are now at risk, representing about 24,000 jobs throughout the country. If 24,000 jobs were at risk in any other industry, one would expect that the Secretary of State would have set up a taskforce by now, but instead the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, writes to me saying that it is not a matter for the Government.
  Mr. John Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that the Prime Minister's Panglossian optimism is singularly misplaced when we recall that the group managing director of banking and customer services at the Post Office, Mr. Stuart Sweetman, said that he is not at all confident that income from other sources will in any way be sufficient to make up for the Post Office's loss of income from benefits as a result of the Government's stupid policy?
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is right, and I have visited an excellent sub-post office in his constituency.
  The Government are quick to claim that they are doing something. When the Prime Minister is out and about in the country—I recall his visit to the countryside in the west country a little while back—instead of saying frankly, as we now read in missives from every Department around Whitehall, that it was not a matter for the Government, he tried to placate postmasters by saying that cash dispensers would be installed, and that the Government would sit down and talk, as he said again today. He has had a year to sit down and talk to those businesses, yet we are expected to believe that for once he will come up with something useful.
  Mr. Miller rose—
  Mr. Desmond Browne rose—
  Mrs. Browning: I have already given way to the hon. Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller); I now give way to the hon. Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne).
  Mr. Browne: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. On the contributions to the discussion from Mr. Stuart Sweetman, is she aware that Mr. Sweetman attended a meeting of the all-party group on community banking convened by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) on Monday? I hope to tell the House some of what he said, if I am called to speak. In the Committee Room, he explained in great detail the discussions with banks in which he was engaged, which could generate £200 million of income for sub-post offices—hardly a drop in the ocean.
  Mrs. Browning: Of course we support any initiative. I must tell the Secretary of State that it is past five to 12, as far as sub-post offices are concerned. As they plan their

  373
  business for the coming financial year and particularly for the next two or three years, sub-postmasters need to know what other sources of income will be available to them. After a year of inactivity on the Government's part, any activity is to be welcomed. The question is whether it will be enough to save the sub-post offices that are now closing at double the rate at which they closed last year.
  Mr. David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. Before she leaves the subject of the Prime Minister, did she find it instructive that in his replies earlier this afternoon, he said that there was nothing wrong with the policy—it was just the consequences? Would it not be helpful if the policy touched base with the consequences? The consequences are that there will be no post offices by the time the new technology is available.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is right. It was also noted this afternoon that the Prime Minister made a point of saying that he made no apology. Those on the Treasury Bench are well known for making no apology when they close businesses, put people out of work and create chaos and confusion among some of the most vulnerable people in society. That is the hallmark of the Prime Minister and his Cabinet.
  Let us consider alternatives to chaos—[Interruption.] I wrote the speech myself. Unlike the ones that come from Millbank tower, these are all home-made.
  There are steps that the Government could take, and they should act quickly if they are to save the post offices. The big question is whether they want to save them. If they drag the process out long enough, the more difficult cases—those that open part time and those that are less viable—will be off the scene altogether by the time the Government produce proper suggestions to help the rest. Given the Government's track record, that seems to be the policy that they are following.
  We read in the papers this week a suggestion from the Minister for Competitiveness that sub-postmasters are to become local consuls. We would welcome that, if it is recognition of the other services that postmasters provide in their local communities—the many things that they do, unpaid and unsung heroes and heroines in their communities.
  However, apart from proposing that postmasters should be given a smart badge, which presumably was meant to flatter, the hon. Gentleman did not spell out whether there is to be any remuneration for them. If he has a practical business plan to put on the table that would help post offices by allowing them to provide services for which they would be remunerated, perhaps that suggestion would have some credence. This, however, is merely papering over the cracks to disguise the big problem that the Government have brought about.
  As we all know, local people rely on sub-postmasters. If someone does not collect their pension one week, the sub-postmaster will notice. The sub-post office is often the calling-off point for the local doctor, who may leave a prescription there at no charge. The value that sub-post offices provide for communities is almost unquantifiable. That is why the last Conservative Government believed it was worth remunerating sub-post offices. We recognised
  374
  the value of their contribution in the heart of vulnerable communities—unlike the Minister of State, Department of Social Security, who has accused sub-postmasters of telling porkies.
  That does not sound to me like the view of a Government who are sitting down and talking to sub-postmasters about their problems. It is certainly not the opinion of the 3 million people who signed the Western Daily Press petition. Whatever the Prime Minister and other Labour Members say, there is now such a groundswell of opinion—clearly demonstrated by the size of the petition presented to Downing street—that the Government must either rethink, or come up with alternative suggestions pretty smartly.
  Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: No, I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once already.
  The Government must either rethink or come up with alternative suggestions so that these businesses can not just survive, but survive next year. It is as urgent as that.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will my hon. Friend give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I will indeed.
  Mr. Winterton: My hon. Friend is presenting an excellent case. What advice would she give to residents of my hill villages of Kettleshulme and Wildboarclough, which are both in the Peak park, and the village of Higher Poynton, whose sub-post offices will close in the next few weeks? Am I not right in saying that such sub-post offices are critical elements of the success and the on-going potential of rural villages? How will the villages survive if this essential facility is closed?
  Mrs. Browning: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In the rural communities that he and I represent, a fragile situation is deteriorating. He, along with other Members of Parliament, will have made his representations, because there is now a sense of urgency. All our constituencies contain dozens of sub-post offices which are now genuinely at risk, not in three years' time but this year.
  Sub-post offices deserve better than the Government's action. It is no good the Prime Minister saying, as he said yet again today, that cash dispensers are the answer. People need bank accounts in order to obtain money from cash dispensers, and if a post office is to have a cash dispenser in the wall there must be a minimum number of transactions a week for it to be viable.
  There is another problem, unless the Government announce today that they are to round up all state benefits into multiples of five. In my experience, it is not possible to obtain both notes and coins from a cash dispenser. Pensioners who prefer to draw all their benefit each week so that they can plan how to spend it will not be used to that, but they may now be forced to make more than one visit a week.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Mr. Davey, at my post office in Blockley, tells me that what is really threatening his viability is the fact that a circular being sent to all claimants informs them that their benefit must

  375
  be paid through a bank account. It does not tell them that, if they wish to continue to receive it in cash, they must opt out of the present system. If they do opt out and continue to have the benefit paid in cash, Mr. Davey's transaction payment will be cut from 12p to 1 p. That is what is threatening his business.
  The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The hon. Gentleman is wrong.
  Mrs. Browning: No, my hon. Friend is right. It is true. The Government have made a virtue of the fact that it costs only I p to transfer the money from the Department of Social Security to the BACS system. Apart from that, the Government have given no explanation of where the funding is coming from. There is certainly insufficient funding to make up for the loss of £400 million, which will be lifted out of post offices' revenue. That is where the problem is. The Government have made a Treasury-initiated decision. They do not have a clue how they will fulfil many of the pledges.
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Browning: I will in a moment.
  If the Secretary of State is going to talk us through the payment streams of each transaction movement from the time that it leaves the Department of Social Security, we will welcome that. What is interesting is that the "Dear colleague" letter that we received this week contains no mention of that. One would have thought that, if the Minister for Competitiveness had the answer to that, it would have been a good idea to put it in the letter that was circulated to every Member yesterday.
  Mr. Byers: Does the hon. Lady agree that one of the reasons why there was a number of closures last year in the post office network was because of the misleading information put around by a number of Members? [Interruption.] We have just had a very good example of that misleading information from the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). Benefit recipients have a choice: if they want to receive the benefit payment in cash at the post office, they will be entitled to do so. It is important that we put the record straight.
  Mrs. Browning: I am afraid that the Secretary of State misunderstands the problem for sub-post offices. He has outlined what he believes to be his Government's pledge in relation to recipients. We would grateful if he explained how that will work, but the focus of the debate is income for sub-post offices. In the transaction, where is the income to come from for sub-post offices to make up the money that the Government—
  Mr. Byers indicated dissent.
  Mrs. Browning: It is no good the Secretary of State shaking his head. That is where the loss of income will come from. Therefore, he must explain to sub-post offices how they will make up the income drop by way of transactions, for which he has been unable to produce an audit trail to show that money will be into post offices and those businesses.
  376
  This morning, in the Methodist hall, I listened to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters offer the Government—although there was no Government representative there—the hand of friendship.
  The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I was there.
  Mrs. Browning: If the right hon. Gentleman was there, he kept his head down at back of the hall. I am sorry that he was not noticed.
  Those in the hall made it clear that they do not want handouts; they want to do business. They want a plan for the future. They need the Government to behave in a more business-like manner, to negotiate and to make decisions now, not in three years' time.
  Tomorrow is the Secretary of State's birthday. I anticipate that he will receive about 18,000 birthday cards, one from every sub-post office, asking him to think again. They will tell him:
  For your benefit, give us today the answers that will benefit sub post offices—before it is too late.
  In that spirit of friendship, I offer him a birthday card for tomorrow—the first of 18,000. I hope that he will listen carefully, if not to me, then to the 18,000 sub-postmasters, the 2,000 who have given up a day's work to come here and the petition containing 3 million signatures that the Prime Minister received this morning.
  4.9 pm
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Stephen Byers): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
  `welcomes the fact that the Government is committed to a national post office network and is taking steps to secure this; welcomes the Government's moves to plan the introduction of automated credit transfer; welcomes the Postal Services Bill which will enable the Post Office to modernise, so building up new business for the network; welcomes the investment of £500 million to ensure the network is computerised, so enabling a successful and modern network to emerge; welcomes the Government's introduction for the first time of criteria for access to Post Office services; welcomes the commitment to give benefit recipients the choice of having benefits paid in cash via a post office even after the switch to automated credit transfer is complete in 2005; and applauds the work of the sub-postmasters and postmistresses and condemns those who make their lives harder by talking down the network.'.
  Mr. Bercow: Open the card.
  Mr. Byers: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I shall open the card a little later. I am also looking forward to the present that comes with it.
  I know that the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) and many other hon. Members have had the opportunity today of discussing with sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses and representatives of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters their concerns about the future of the post office network. I want to use this opportunity to deal with some of the concerns that have, quite understandably, been expressed by those individuals who often have committed many of their own resources to their business—a sub-post office. We are a Government who listen to the concerns of the communities that have

  377
  been affected. We have also listened, and we shall continue listening, to the concerns of those who are responsible for running the post office network.
  We recognise the vital role that local post offices play not only in rural communities, but in our inner cities. Many thousands of post offices in our inner cities and in our rural communities perform a useful and important community function. We recognise that they have that important role to play.
  Very often, the post office is the focal point of the local community, providing access to cash, postal services and other daily items. Very often, for the elderly and those who are less mobile, the post office is where their benefits are available. We recognise that.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I shall give way when I have made some progress.
  The Government recognise the invaluable role that sub-postmasters and mistresses play in communities and the way in which they develop and deliver those important services. The Government's commitment is to ensure that people have convenient access to the services of Post Office Counters.
  The Post Office is still the largest retail network in Europe. Some 60 per cent. of rural parishes have a post office, and more than nine out of 10 people live within a mile of a post office.
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: Before the Secretary of State tires himself, and possibly the House, with repetition of those pieties, will he understand that what we need to hear today is a clear and unambiguous statement that the Government will take time off from their current proposals and develop a serious, workable and practicable alternative?
  Mr. Byers: I hope that, once I have had time to make progress in my speech, I shall have dealt with those concerns in a way that the hon. Gentleman will feel is not pious.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: Will the Secretary of State guarantee that, after 2003, on one side of the counter, when pensioners who currently do not have a bank account are forced to have one, turn up at the post office and draw their pension in cash, they will not be charged any extra money whatsoever—bank charges or anything else? Will they will be in exactly the same position as now? On the other side of the counter, will he guarantee that the sub-postmaster will receive a reasonable reward for the transaction?
  Mr. Byers: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security has already addressed that issue. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the answer?"' The answer is yes. I hope that that will go a long way towards reassuring the hon. Gentleman and his constituents. That is the policy, and my right hon. Friend has already stated it.
  Mr. Alan Duncan: Will the Secretary of State then explain to the House exactly what the components and total of the sub-postmaster's income deriving from that process will be?
  Mr. Byers: I was answering the question of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on a "reasonable" amount. These matters are all subject to negotiation. We are talking about something that will occur in 2003, which is some years away. There will be a process of discussion. We have a very good working relationship with the national federation, which enables us to talk about the details of implementing the transition to automated credit transfer, and we shall do that. However, the answer to the specific question of the hon. Member for Gainsborough is, quite simply, yes.
  Mr. Mike Hancock: I was grateful for the Secretary of State's comments on the plight of urban post offices. I should be grateful if he explained to me and those of my constituents who visited Westminster today what choice will exist for those who can exercise a choice under the proposals, but who, in doing so, rob someone else of the choice of being able to continue to use the post office's facilities, because the post office will no longer exist? The viability of urban post offices is very much under threat, and many will disappear. In my constituency, probably half of them will go within two years of implementation of the proposals, unless the Government come up with a plan that will not only give security to postmasters, so that they can continue operating, but allow people to exercise choice in how they receive and use their benefit.
  Mr. Byers: I was rather confused by the hon. Gentleman's question. There will be a choice. The Government are not prepared to compel people to have their benefits paid in cash at a post office. We are not in the business of compulsion. When we move to ACT between 2003 and 2005, people will retain the choice that they have now. Benefit recipients will continue to have a genuine choice.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I have a choice; I must give way to the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) first.
  Mr. John MacGregor: What choice will pensioners have if by 2003 many sub-post offices have closed and there is no longer one nearby?
  Mr. Byers: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Post office closures have nothing to do with the move to ACT in 2003. However, changes to the network have continued for decades. Over the years, some post offices close and others open.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton made great play of the fact the number of sub-post office closures last year doubled compared with the year before. The figures show that closures have not doubled, although 383 sub-post offices closed last year. If she looks at the record, she will realise that the highest number of closures in the past 20 years was back in 1984–85, under a Conservative Government. Closures happen because

  379
  sub-post offices are businesses and people have to take business decisions. It is only right and appropriate that they do so. Any closures that happen today are not because of ACT, as that will not happen until 2003. In the period leading up to 2003, the Government intend to identify a new way forward for the network.
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: I must make some progress, but I shall try to give way to the hon. Gentleman a little later, when I have explained the new role that we believe the post office network can play.
  The clearest demonstration of the way in which we want to develop the post office network is the fact that we are investing £500 million in equipping all post office counters with modern online computer facilities. We are giving the Post Office the commercial freedom that it needs to develop new services. Our Postal Services Bill allows for social and environmental guidance, providing the vehicle for guidance on access to post office services. That is why the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office is carrying out an extensive study on how we can ensure a viable future for the post office network.
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I remind the Secretary of State of what he told the House on 15 February. He said that it was a question of viability and added:
  The Government will consider very closely the need to include a provision that would enable a subsidy to be provided where appropriate to do so. Indeed, there will be a Government amendment to that effect.—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 805.]
  Why did the Government fail to table that amendment in Committee?
  Mr. Byers: We have been considering the detail of such a proposal. I shall address the question of providing a subsidy a little later in my speech. I hope that I shall be able to give some comfort to sub-postmasters about the Government's intentions. There was never a subsidy under the Conservatives. Later this afternoon, I shall announce that when we consider the Bill on Report next week, we shall introduce the provision that I promised the House. We are doing that because we consider it such a significant development that we feel that it is appropriate to deal with it in front of the whole House, rather than in Committee where only members of the Committee can consider it. It will go a long way to reassure many of the sub-postmasters who are in London today that we are listening to their concerns and prepared to respond accordingly.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I want to make some progress. I have given way many times and I want to put on record the Government's approach to these important matters.
  Many people, including those in the federation, recognise the importance of modernising the network. The Conservatives did nothing to help the Post Office to prepare for the challenges ahead. From 1992 to 1997,
  380
  they frequently announced their policy to sell off Parcelforce and review the status of the rest of the Post Office business; but they did not even do that.
  This is an important point, because it strikes at the heart of the money that has been made available to the post office network: by 1995, the Treasury had taken £1 billion from the Post Office. Over the next two and a half years, an additional £1 billion was taken from the income received by the Post Office. That money could have been used to invest in the network, but the Treasury came first with the Conservatives.
  Under this Government, £500 million is being invested in the Horizon project and computerisation. We are helping the Post Office to adapt to the changes that are taking place, but that means taking what are often difficult decisions. We have heard the concerns about our decision to cancel the benefit payment card and move progressively to ACT as the norm for benefit payments between 2003 and 2005. That is the sensible way forward.
  I want to explain the background to our decision. The previous Government committed themselves in 1994 to modernising how benefits are paid, and in May 1996 an eight-year contract was awarded under the private finance initiative to ICL Pathway. The aim was to automate post office counters and provide a secure and more efficient way of paying benefits, through a card.
  By early 1997, still under the Conservative Administration, it was clear that the project was in difficulties. We inherited those difficulties. In late 1997, the project was incurring cost overruns of £600 million and was three years behind schedule and we had to consider whether it could be continued. We undertook a detailed review and in 1998 we tried to put the project back on course, but slippages continued. In October 1998, the key milestone for the start of live trials of the system was missed yet again. There were real and increasing concerns that, even if the card could be delivered, the technology was becoming increasingly out of date.
  Mrs. Browning: Why, then, as late as November 1998, did the Secretary of State's predecessor say:
  I feel confident that the project will be properly completed.?
  Mr. Byers: Because at that stage we were trying to put the project back on course. Following a further review early in 1999, we decided that the benefit payment card could not continue, because the problems had become overwhelming. We made the tough but right decision to stop the benefit payment card element of automation and instead to build on the existing ACT system as a means of paying benefits.
  It is worth reminding the House that ACT was introduced and extended by the Conservative Government, for good reasons, not to threaten the Post Office network but to ensure that payments went to those who needed them in the most secure way possible.
  Mr. Miller: My right hon. Friend should not attack the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) in such a way, because at least what she said contained more sense than the comments of the Leader of the Opposition, who said earlier that he wanted to reintroduce the system as originally planned. That would be crass stupidity. The previous Government told us on numerous

  381
  occasions that we could not introduce new services for post offices through Government because those were commercial decisions for the Post Office.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right and there is a conflict at the heart of the Conservatives' position on the issue. They introduced and extended ACT as a way of delivering benefits, for what were good and legitimate reasons. People have voted with their feet and have chosen to have their benefits paid into bank accounts. In November 1999, 50 per cent of new retirement pensioners chose ACT, and 54 per cent. of new child benefit customers did so. People are making that choice and the Government cannot and should not ignore those trends.
  Mr. Nicholls: On 29 March, I put it to the Minister of State that the Government's assurances about the continuation of cash payments after 2003 were on the basis that the recipients would have a bank account. Being the honest man he is, the Minister of State dodged that question and would not address it. Is the Secretary of State now confirming that everyone will have to have a bank account after 2003, and that the Government will fund that; or is he saying that the Government have received an assurance from the banking industry that it will provide free banking? It can be only one of those two—which is it?
  Mr. Byers: No, we recognise that for some benefit recipients—those who do not want, for whatever reason, to have bank accounts—we will need to have an alternative method. For those people, we are considering what alternative simple electronic money transition systems could be introduced that could be accessed through post offices. We are having this debate in April 2000 and migration to ACT starts in 2003, so we have the time—because we have given plenty of notice—to put in place a mechanism that will ensure that all those who do not have or want bank accounts have an alternative means by which their benefits can be paid.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Byers: I am not going to give way, because Opposition Members have had their chance. I have been generous in giving way, but they have sought to mislead so much in their interventions—inadvertently, I am sure.
  Mr. Roger Gale: There are 3,000 sub-postmasters out there who want answers.
  Mr. Byers: They will not get an answer from the hon. Gentleman, but they will get one from my speech.
  The reality is that all benefit recipients who wish to do so will continue to be able to access their benefits in cash at a post office, both before and after the change to an ACT-based system. I repeat that we shall put in place a mechanism so that both before and after 2003 all benefit recipients and state pensioners who want to will be able to access the exact amount of their benefits in cash across the counter at the post office, without incurring a charge for doing so.
  382
  The Opposition may wish to compel people to have their benefits paid through post offices, but we do not accept that. People must have a genuine choice and that is what we intend to offer.
  Mrs. Browning: I heard the proposals that the Secretary of State outlined for recipients, but how much will that be worth in income for sub-postmasters?
  Mr. Byers: As the hon. Lady knows, no figure has been agreed and the contract remains to be negotiated. It is a commercial transaction and the figure will be reached in the normal course of negotiations. [Interruption.] They are businesses and the negotiations concern a commercial arrangement. I shall not take part in the negotiations. Does she not understand that? The Government intend to ensure that the benefit recipient has a choice. She needs to be aware of that. We are having useful discussions with the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters about our broad approach to ACT and the new services that can be offered. The Post Office will discuss with the federation the detail of the agreements that are entered into. Contractual negotiations will take place, and there are many months between now and 2003 during which they can be concluded.
  Mrs. Browning: If it is a commercial transaction that is a matter for business and not government, how is it that the Prime Minister takes credit for the installation of 3,000 cash dispensers?
  Mr. Byers: I cannot see what relevance that has to the issue that has been raised. The hon. Lady made an important point when she talked about the amount per transaction that a sub-postmaster is to receive as a result of the changed circumstances. I am saying that that is a subject for commercial negotiations between the Post Office and the sub-postmaster. No doubt she will try to explain what that has to do with cash points. We are talking about different issues.
  There are new opportunities for people to go to a post office and use its services. As I have said, benefit recipients will still be entitled to have their cash paid over in full in pounds and pence. People such as me will be attracted to post offices to get money from cash machines. I may spend some of that money in the shop, which is often linked to the cash machine and the post office. That is what should happen.
  Mr. Duncan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: No. I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. David Heath: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is making progress on this issue now. We look forward to his comments on subsidy later in his speech. The key issue is whether the Government will underwrite the integrity of the post office network. If, on the basis that it is purely a commercial matter, they are not prepared to do that, we shall lose the network. Will he underwrite it?
  Mr. Byers: We intend to address the issue through access criteria, which the performance and innovation unit report will disclose some time after Easter. That is how we can address people's need for local post office counter

  383
  services. Access criteria can then be considered by the Post Office regulator when that person is in post. That is the appropriate way to consider the matter. It is all about access to the services that can be offered through the post office network.
  Mr. Frank Roy: In my constituency, 80 per cent. of post offices depend for more than 50 per cent. of their business on the Benefits Agency. Any opportunity to increase their business will be most helpful. As for Link cash machines, will they not provide more business opportunities for sub-post offices? Those people who do not use post offices now will be able to when they are installed. They will then be able to spend the money that has been dispensed in the post office.
  Mr. Byers: My hon. Friend is right. That is why the development of cash machines in post offices has been widely welcomed by the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. It is a good example of the post office network taking a more commercial view of the new streams of income that can come into the network. It is important that we consider new ways of encouraging people to go into a post office and using the services there provided as well as those provided by the shop, which often runs alongside it. As a result, the sub-postmaster and the shop owner—often one and the same person—will have the dual benefits.
  Mr. Duncan: We seem at last to be concentrating on the kernel of the issue. As a result of his policy, the Secretary of State will replace a certain, guaranteed, Government-sourced income for post offices with an uncertain, commercially negotiated one on which he cannot at present put a figure. Yet he says that their income will remain reasonable. Those two points do not stack up.
  Secondly, if the commercially negotiated income is insufficient, the post office network will collapse. What will constitute a reasonable income, and by how much does the existing income of sub-post offices need to fall for the Secretary of State to deem it to be unreasonable?
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman did extremely well to deliver that question without breaking into a smile. His views on the Post Office are well known. He wants to go down the route of privatisation. We know that the post office network receives financial support from the Post Office. That is the reality: if Opposition Members think otherwise, they are fundamentally wrong and do not understand how the system works. He is on record as saying that he wants to break up the Post Office and then privatise it. That view is shared by the hon. Member for Gainsborough, who has always argued for that option, as have many other Conservative Members.
  We have to ensure that, where appropriate, the post office network has proper support. Our proposals in the Postal Services Bill will give the Post Office greater commercial freedom.
  Mr. Leigh: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I will let the hon. Gentleman into the debate in a moment. I know his views, which he has stated clearly. He is a man of principle on these matters and it
  384
  will be useful for the House to hear his views. They may be quite helpful to me, too, so I shall be more than happy to give way in a moment.
  The Postal Services Bill gives the Post Office greater commercial freedom. The real question is whether the Post Office will want to support the social role that the post office network can play. That is a real issue, and the Government intend to address it. In a moment, I shall inform the House about how we might do that, but I am sure that hon. Members will want to hear from the hon. Member for Gainsborough first.
  Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, but he must be fair about this. When I worked at the Department of Trade and Industry with my right hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the proposal was to privatise the Royal Mail. We recognised that sub-postmasters had always been private operators. There was never a proposal to privatise Post Office Counters. We always recognised that we had to maintain a national network of sub-post offices.
  The Secretary of State must stop repeating that the Conservative party wants to privatise the whole set-up and that everything will go to wrack and ruin. That has never been our proposal.
  Mr. Byers: The hon. Gentleman probably makes my point for me. He wanted to take Royal Mail and parcel delivery away from the Post Office. That would have broken the link with the post office network and put nothing in its place. That would have had a detrimental effect on the post office network, and it is one of the reasons why the network was so worried about the Conservative proposals. The then Prime Minister would not go down that route because he was worried about its political implications.
  Mr. Martin Salter: On my constituency office wall, I have a letter from the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), the former Deputy Prime Minister. He was replying to a member of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which vigorously opposed Conservative plans to privatise Royal Mail. In the letter, the right hon. Gentleman stated quite simply that he believed that the post office network should be privatised.
  Mr. Byers: It is good to have that on the record. I hope that my hon. Friend will circulate that communication and not keep it pinned up on his notice board.
  Mr. Tim Collins: Will the Secretary of State give way?
  Mr. Byers: I will give way once more, but then I want to draw my remarks to a close. I also want to talk about the important matter of the financial assistance that we may be able to offer to the post office network.
  Mr. Collins: I want to return to the vital issue of the income stream. What does the Secretary of State say to my constituent Mrs. Hilary Pavitt, the sub-postmistress of Kent's Bank post office near Grange-over-Sands?

  385
  She says that she will lose more than a third of her income under the Government's proposals. Is he guaranteeing to replace all that lost income?
  Mr. Byers: I have two points to make. First, the hon. Gentleman's constituent will need to convince those who presently receive their benefits in cash to continue to do so. I am sure that she has a good relationship with them, so she need only tell them that they have a choice. People who want to continue with the status quo and have their benefits paid in cash are entitled to do so. They will continue to have that choice until 2003, between 2003 and 2005, and beyond 2005. That is what I would advise her to do to ensure that her customers stay loyal and keep receiving their payments in cash.
  Secondly, the hon. Gentleman's constituent needs to know that her post office will be automated as a result of a £500 million Government investment. She will be able to offer new services, which will result in new people coming in to her post office. That will give her new vision for the future. I hope that she will recognise that this way will provide her with opportunities that she does not have at the moment.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I will try to if I have time, but I have already spoken for far longer than the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton, and I want to provide Back Benchers with the opportunity to contribute.
  I want to take right hon. and hon. Members through the subsidy. If the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) has any further questions, he may put them after I have gone through how it will work.
  I have already, I hope, made it clear that benefit recipients who want to continue to have benefit paid in cash in full at the post office will still have that choice. Next week, we will table a new clause to the Postal Services Bill when it is debated on Report. It will enable me to set up a financial scheme to ensure that essential services can still be delivered through a nationwide network of local post offices. Our key target is a viable future for the network. We want to ensure that the Bill covers all possibilities. It may well be that in future, because of changes that are being introduced, financial assistance should be offered to the network.
  The power is a safeguard, intended to keep open the option of financial assistance. The Government believe that the Post Office should modernise the network and be able to provide new and updated services and products, developing alternative revenue streams to replace income that may be lost because of the transition to automated credit transfer beyond 2003.
  We recognise the real concerns of many people throughout the country about continued local access to post services, particularly in rural areas and also in some of our inner-city areas. The new clause will provide an additional safeguard in the Bill to provide financial
  386
  assistance if it proves necessary to do so. This underlines the Government's commitment to a nationwide network of post offices.
  Mr. Winterton: I am sure that the Minister for Competitiveness will, if asked, tell the Secretary of State that some Conservative Members were not in favour of the privatisation of Post Office Counters. I happen to fall into that category. The then Government did not proceed with privatisation because of the number of Conservative Members who opposed it.
  The Secretary of State is announcing some very encouraging proposals. Sub-post offices in rural villages are as vital as the village school and the village pub. Will the right hon. Gentleman assure me that his proposals will ensure that they survive so that our rural areas have the facilities that they need?
  Mr. Byers: The important thing is that, through the amendment that we will introduce on Report, we are providing a mechanism that will allow financial assistance to be given. It does not exist at the moment, but we will put it in place. There will be opportunities to provide financial support if it is appropriate to do so. I am sure that it will make a big difference to many small rural post offices as well as some in the inner cities. It is a safeguard, and we intend to introduce it next week.
  Mr. Bercow: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Byers: I have already given way generously, and I want to draw my remarks to a conclusion.
  The hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton said that I can look forward to 18,000 birthday cards arriving tomorrow. I understand that this is also good news for post office workers in Victoria SW1, who are likely to receive a bonus—negotiated by the Communication Workers Union a few years ago—as a result of the high volume of cards that I am likely to receive. They will have cause for celebration as well.
  The network of post offices has never been static, but the Government must acknowledge the important community and social role played by individual post offices to which we should provide new opportunities. We can use the great strengths in the post office network to reach out to people and to give them access to information and services.
  I want to see how we can use the local post office as the first source of information on central and local government services. We need a new vision for the Post Office of the 21st century. I want the local post office to interact directly and electronically with business, and to be a channel of delivery for electronic government. With the new technologies that we are giving to the post office network, all that is possible.
  By giving the Post Office greater commercial freedom, investing in new technology and providing safeguards to ensure reasonable access to Post Office Counters services, we are helping the Post Office to adapt to change, expand its services and respond to changing consumer demands. We intend to work with the Post Office. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said this morning to

  387
  Colin Baker, the general secretary of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, we intend to work in partnership to meet the challenges that lie ahead.
  Mr. Peter Lilley: Will the Secretary of State confirm that he is talking about the possibility, for which there is as yet no substance, of replacing a loss of revenue that is certain and definite? Will he confirm that the Horizon project, as now truncated, deals only with the internal management and revenues of sub-post offices, and that it as yet does not have the functionality to deliver the banking and other services of which he has speculatively spoken? Will he confirm that he will not even go out to tender to obtain the necessary software until later this year?
  Mr. Byers: The problem that we inherited was that the scheme concocted by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) was three years behind schedule. Our project will deliver automation for every post office by spring 2001. In addition, the changes that I intend to introduce to the Postal Services Bill next week will provide a safeguard and a mechanism. Even if we have to use that mechanism, we shall not have to do so until 2003, when ACT is introduced. We are giving plenty of notice of change, which will continue from 2003 until 2005.
  For more than 150 years, the Post Office has been an important part of the social fabric of our country. The Government are committed to ensuring that it continues to play an important role in British society by building a modern, vibrant network fit for the future. We shall deliver that, and I commend the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
  4.48 pm
  Dr. Vincent Cable: I welcome the debate and pay tribute to the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which has assembled one of the largest petitions ever presented to Government. It has been extremely successful in promoting its agenda, for which, as a small organisation, it deserves great credit. Colin Baker came up with a phrase this morning that captures, in many ways, what is so important about the network. He described postmasters and postmistresses as the general practitioners of Government, the people who provide communities with government services. The network comprises not just a group of small businesses that have fallen on hard times, but people who play a key role in communities.
  We must focus on what is happening in businesses. Much attention has been devoted to the decline in numbers, but that is just the tip of the iceberg. Anyone who talks to people who work in the post office network will confirm that behind those who have sold up stand many more who want to sell but cannot because of the collapse of asset values. Many more people would sell up their businesses if they could.
  The Secretary of State made the particularly unhelpful suggestion that much of the crisis was caused by scaremongering by Opposition Members and others. We are talking about rational, hard-headed small business men and women who can make rational calculations about their future earnings and the value of their assets. If they have a crisis of confidence, it is because there is a crisis of confidence. That is what the Government are being
  388
  called on to redress. We call on them to give a clear, unambiguous guarantee and undertaking to preserve the network. What the Secretary of State said today about subsidy is helpful, and it is an advance, but the Government still need to do a lot of work to remedy the crisis of confidence that underlies the closure programme and the collapse of asset values.
  We keep coming back to the issue of the loss of income and what it means—what is the money flow. The answer to a question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), the former leader of my party, established that the loss of income by 2005 would be about £640 million. We have used the figure of £400 million, but it would be due to rise to something of that magnitude. That is the income that is being lost to the post office network.
  It is useful to break down that figure and analyse what it consists of. There are two main elements to it. One is genuine technological advance. The automated credit transfer process is a technological advance; it replaces a cumbersome paper-driven operation with electronic switching. There is a real gain in productivity there, and no one seriously argues that that process should be stopped. The other element in the £640 million is the payment that would otherwise be made to the post office network for performing a genuine service, which will still have to be performed by someone.
  My colleagues and I have been trying to establish through letters and questions to the Department of Social Security the split between the technological improvement and the fee income to the post office for services. It is a clear question, and the DSS does not deny that such a distinction can be made. However, it has told us that it is a commercial secret. That raises a fundamental issue. We are dealing with a transaction between a Government Department and a state agency, albeit a limited, incorporated entity, which the Government choose to regard as a matter of Government confidentiality.
  Some colleagues will recall that we voted a few evenings ago on whether information leading to advice, as well as the advice itself, should be kept secret. We have a good practical example here. Information crucial to an understanding of the debate is being unnecessarily withheld. The issue will be pursued with the ombudsman, but we have great difficulty understanding what is going on, because the Government simply refuse to divulge the split between the technological gain and the remainder of the fee income.
  Mr. Browne: I am listening with care to what the hon. Gentleman says and much of it I agree with. I understood the Secretary of State to say that the figure to which the hon. Gentleman refers was not yet known, so the split could not be specified. If I have misunderstood, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could point that out to me. I, too, am a great advocate of freedom of information, but unless the information exists, it cannot be withheld. Until the negotiations are concluded, the information cannot exist.
  Dr. Cable: It is a perfectly fair question. I will happily copy to the hon. Gentleman a letter from a Mrs. J. Spiller of the DSS, who acknowledges that the information is available, but says that she will not disclose it because it is commercially confidential. That is a matter of record.
  The Minister for Competitiveness, who has responsibility for postal services, is fond of using an analogy that is quite helpful. He talks about the need for

  389
  the Post Office Counters network to achieve a soft landing. One has a mental picture of an aeroplane with him at the controls and the runway in the distance. I think that we can see the outline of the runway, which consists of a new income stream that will come from a mixture of online government, banking services and so on. That is fine and clear. However, the problem with that mental picture is that the Minister is flying an aircraft that has no undercarriage—it has no wheels. The problem with the Government's story is how that landing can take place.
  One of the key aspects is the replacement of the present income stream with one from banking services. That is an important and welcome part of the story. We need to break down those banking services, to find out what they are, how they will be provided and what benefit the network will derive from them.
  The banking services have two distinct elements. One is the 3,000 cash machines, which are welcome if they provide an additional facility. However, there is still a question about the many people—especially in remote areas—who will continue to pay a charge for that service. Even if Barclays and the rest move away from their £2.50 charge, the hidden loyalty charges will remain. The public will not receive a free service—the bank will derive income from it.
  A more serious and important development—although it is welcome—is that 10 banks have agreed to use the Post Office Counters network for the provision of banking services. That is an advance and represents a significant new vision for postal services. However, why are the banks doing that? After all, Barclays and the rest are closing down thousands of branches throughout the country. Why are they entering into agreements with the DSS or the Post Office to open up such services? The banks are not charities—as we are painfully aware. Sir Peter Middleton and his chums are the most hard-headed bunch in business. Why are they doing that?
  One obvious reason is that the agreements represent an extremely good deal for the banks. Instead of providing traditional bank branches, with all their overheads, security costs and business rates, the banks will acquire a cheap facility inside post offices—while keeping their brand. As the Government are in a weak negotiating position, they will not ask much for that service.
  The banks will gain in other ways. As people will be encouraged—we are told that they will not be coerced—to have bank accounts, new accounts will be opened. They will bring the banks deposits and spreads on those deposits. The banks will earn charges. Banks will do extremely well from the shift to automated teller machines, and from the provision of banking services. We should be asking the Government—and they should be asking the banks—whether they are getting the best of that bargain with the banks.
  The broader context is important. Many questions are legitimately being asked about the operation of the banking system. The Cruickshank report referred to estimated excess profits of £5 billion—in other words, rates of return to shareholder value that are larger than the market—for an industry that does not run full commercial risks, because, of course, banks and their shareholders are underwritten by the lender of last resort. We are talking
  390
  about a system which has excess profits and is not fully competitive muscling in on the closure of the post office network to earn a nice little penny.
  Although I welcome the vision—the development of the post office network from mere post offices to centres for online government and for banking services—will the banks be required to make sufficient payment to the network for that service? I fully accept and welcome the idea that the taxpayer has to pay a subsidy for the post office network, but the banking system also has a social obligation—to deal with the problem of financial exclusion. Are the Minister and—especially—the Chancellor paying adequate attention to the extent to which the banks, as well as the taxpayer, have a financial obligation to maintain the network as it is?
  The key issue raised by Members on both sides is that the post office network needs an absolute guarantee of its future. That guarantee will be partly met from subsidy and when the access provisions are identified. However, until then, the crisis of confidence will continue; asset values will continue to fall; and there will be continued closures in all our constituencies.
  4.59 pm
  Mr. Robert N. Wareing: When I read the first words of the motion—
  That this House condemns the Government's failure to provide a coherent strategy for the future of sub-post offices—
  I could hardly believe my eyes, because those words come from a Tory party which, throughout its 18 years in government, was responsible for a colossal reduction in the numbers of sub-post offices, and indeed post offices, in this country.
  During the Tories' period of office—more specifically, between March 1979 and just before the most recent general election—the number of Crown post offices declined from 1,580 to 606 and the number of sub-post offices from 21,213 to 17,731. In other words, over the 18 years of Tory Governments, there was a reduction of about 3,500 post offices. I therefore find it a bit rich that the Tories now have the audacity to suggest that they are the friends of the sub-postmasters. It was they who wanted to sell 51 per cent. of the shares in Royal Mail—in other words, to privatise Royal Mail—and no doubt it was the widespread outrage that was expressed at the time by employees and customers that caused the then Government to retreat. Frankly, they were more concerned with providing for profit than for public service.
  Dr. George Turner: I wonder whether my hon. Friend is aware that, in the Postal Services Bill Committee, the Opposition spokespeople still argued time after time in favour of privatisation as their preferred solution for the Post Office. Is he aware that they are still sticking to that policy? I believe that that was the last time there was a major deputation to Parliament on behalf of the postal services.
  Mr. Wareing: I am sure that that is the case, because in a debate in the House on 21 November 1994, the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine), who at the time was Deputy Prime Minister, at column 353, gave us the reason for dropping the privatisation proposal: not that

  391
  the then Government did not believe in it, but that there was too small a majority to get it through the House of Commons.
  Mr. Brian Cotter: The hon. Gentleman may share my concern that, in the Committee considering the Postal Services Bill, the Conservative Opposition proposed an amendment to reduce the threshold for the universal requirement for packages from 20 kg to 10 kg. That would have hit hard at the universal service, which is of great importance to rural services and the whole community. It was a clear indication of a desire to privatise.
  Mr. Wareing: As I did not serve on the Committee, I did not know that, but it is the sort of thing that I would expect. However, having said that about the attitude of the Tories—who are, in a sense, irrelevant to the debate—I shall move on.
  There are very important grounds for concern. The announcement that, gradually, more and more benefit recipients will have to enter the banking system is probably the hottest issue in my constituency and throughout Liverpool.
  I should like the Government to review their policy in light of several matters. Those who have a notion that, by the year 2005, a majority of the people in my constituency will have bank accounts fail to take into account the social variations between the area that I represent and other parts of the country.
  The Library of the House of Commons published an interesting research document. It shows that it is not so much rural areas that will suffer, although I have no doubt that many villages will face difficulties. If my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and his colleagues were to examine the research paper, they would see that the 20 constituencies at the top of the vulnerability list are almost all in urban areas.
  My constituency is rated the 10th most vulnerable, but what do we mean by most vulnerable? In my constituency, there are 15 post offices and, in 13 of them, more than 40 per cent. of the work is related to the payment of benefits. A substantial proportion—87 per cent.—of the post offices in my constituency depend considerably on benefit work. At the bottom of that league table are constituencies such as South-West Surrey, Sevenoaks, Tunbridge Wells and Kensington and Chelsea. They are richer areas and fewer people in them depend on benefits. The consequences of the switch to payments through bank accounts are likely to be dire for my constituency.
  Consideration should be given to social variations, and I recommend that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State consult the list that I have described. No one is against post offices and the Department of Social Security making use of technological advances, but we must consider in detail how such advances will affect customers and employees.
  Mr. Lindsay Hoyle: I am sure that my hon. Friend recognises that people have the right to have their benefits or pensions paid in cash. That is an absolute must. We must also guarantee a nationwide post office network and ensure that we do not lose it or allow it to wither on the vine in the way the previous Government did.
  Mr. Wareing: I agree with my hon. Friend. I believe that the Government are sincere in their desire that there
  392
  should be a proper choice between going to a bank or to a post office and between receiving benefits and pensions in cash or having them paid into a bank account. However, they have not taken into account social variations between different parts of the country.
  Mr. Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wareing: I shall give way shortly.
  For example, car ownership in my constituency is far below the national average, so many people rely on public transport. I know that pensioners in Liverpool receive, as they do in London, free public transport, but many people on income support will find it extremely costly to go to a bank, because there are only three bank branches in my constituency. There are moreover six wards in my constituency; in three of them there is not a single bank branch.
  Mr. Gale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Wareing: The hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) tried to get in first.
  Mr. Letwin: The hon. Gentleman expresses much common ground between all parties. However, does he acknowledge that no one accuses the Government of lacking good will? The problem is administrative; the Government have simply not worked out how to achieve the result that they seek. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with us and hon. Members of all parties that there should be a delay in implementing the arrangements until the new administrative system has been worked out?
  Mr. Wareing: I agree, to the extent that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me about examining the details of the scheme more closely. However, he would doubtless privatise the Post Office. Our agreement founders at that point.
  Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman referred to the lack of bank branches. Can he deal with the point on which the Secretary of State refused to give way to me? Why are the Government so hell-bent on implementing a costly programme to transfer pension payments to banks, which are reducing the number of branches in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine, when the junior Minister wrote to hon. Members today to extol the virtues of the Horizon programme? It has been rolled out in every sub-post office, which could deal with precisely the sort of transaction that the hon. Gentleman's constituents and mine want handled locally.
  Mr. Wareing: The hon. Gentleman may have a point. However, the Postal Services Bill has not been enacted yet, and the problems that the hon. Gentleman and perhaps other hon. Members face in their constituencies already exist. They do not result from changes in the way in which benefits are paid.
  I am worried about the sick, the disabled and the elderly in my constituency. A post office has already closed there, although that was the result of vandalism, not the problems that will beset post offices under the current proposal.

  393
  Of course my constituents can go to a post office and draw cash under the proposals, provided that the post office exists. A move from a cash system of payment at the post office, which many of my constituents desire, means that those post offices will close down. Not only post offices, but nearby shopping areas suffer. The post offices will suffer not only through the change in the payment of benefit; their sales of newspapers and cigarettes will also suffer, and a whole range of shops in the area could be affected. Economic activity will decline and more jobs will be lost. The Government should tackle that problem.
  The Post Office currently has a monopoly on services up to £1. The reduction to 50p is bound to have an effect and to endanger not only sub-post offices, but other businesses in the area.
  Mr. Nigel Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, given that 500 post offices closed last year, and given the uncertainty of the impact of the changes on their profitability in future, many decent people who have put their life's savings and work into post offices are now witnessing the value of their businesses depreciate greatly? Those who want to sell them cannot get the money that they need for their businesses.
  Mr. Wareing: I am not sure whether the figure of 500 that the hon. Gentleman cited is correct. He would probably be more convincing if he were able to offer options other than privatisation, because that would cause high Post Office prices.
  We must remember that industrial relations in the Post Office have been transformed in recent years. [Laughter.] I do not know that the departure of the Minister for Competitiveness had anything to do with that. I am sure that he would have contributed to the improvements that have resulted from the measures to enhance competitiveness which arose from the negotiations between John Roberts, the Post Office chief executive, and Derek Hodgson, the secretary of the Communication Workers Union.
  The union members readily accepted the new measures that were introduced by the union and management combined, but I do not believe that that acceptance will continue if we move away from the payment of benefits to recipients through post offices. Indeed, industrial relations are likely to suffer.
  There are 15 post offices in my constituency. I fear that if the measures are implemented, those in areas such as Muirhead avenue, east and Baycliff road—as well as the Dog and Gun post office—will not survive for long because there are high rates of high unemployment and sickness and they depend on the payment of benefits such as disability benefit.
  I hope that the Government will take heed of what I have said. The Tories' contribution to this debate is irrelevant, given their ideological commitment to privatisation, which is opposed by almost every Post Office employee. I have received representations from many people in my constituency, where this is a hot issue. I have also received representations from the Communication Workers Union, postmasters, the Liverpool chamber of commerce and, of course, the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which is leading the lobby today.
  394
  It is not enough to defeat the hypocrisy of Conservative Members, who have shed crocodile tears. I beseech the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary to listen to the people in our heartlands, where there is real opposition to the proposals on benefit payment changes.
  5.18 pm
  Sir Peter Emery: I wish to express considerable concern that the Secretary of State's speech did not reflect the real fear of tens of thousands of sub-postmasters and mistresses about their future and that of their business. I must tell the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) that the biggest ever red herring is the idea that the Conservatives want to privatise the post office structure. Does he not realise that sub-post offices are already privatised because they are private businesses? I have never been in favour of the privatisation of the Royal Mail. Indeed, at this moment, that is not part of the Conservative programme. We must ignore that red herring.
  There is a lack of understanding on the part of Ministers of the role that sub-post offices play in the community, whether in Liverpool or in my villages, such as Dolwood and Southleigh, way out in the country. Part of the role of sub-post offices in the community is the payment of benefit.
  I circulated a questionnaire to the 36 sub-post offices in my constituency. I want to tell the House about the feelings of those postmasters and postmistresses. They want a guarantee that they will be able to sustain their businesses in the future. That is not an unreasonable request from any business, whichever party one supports.
  Some realistic suggestions have been made, which have not received sufficient emphasis in the debate. Local authorities have the right to give rate relief to sub-post offices. In many areas, that is not done completely. In my area, East Devon district council gives rate relief of 50 per cent. It would be much better for sub-post offices if they were given 100 per cent., as that would assist them generally.
  Sub-post offices need to be able to generate greater income, and there are ways in which that could be done. The Government should arrange for sub-post offices to issue vehicle tax licences. There is a demand for that service, especially in the countryside, where people are some way away from a major post office where they can obtain a tax disc. Passport forms should also be available from sub-post offices. Why not? These small matters are not being considered in the debate, but they are realistic and would help the remuneration of sub-postmasters.
  There was talk of subsidy. How much? How is it to be dealt with? Has it been agreed with the Treasury? I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will clarify the matter.
  Few people know about the banking services that are already offered through post offices by Lloyds TSB, the Co-op and Alliance & Leicester. That is not advertised nationally on television, and only customers of post offices and sub-post offices would know about it. More publicity should be given to the availability of banking services.
  The suggestion that cash machines should be installed in post offices overlooks the fact that the people most likely to use them are the elderly. I wonder how many

  395
  elderly people who do not have a bank account or a piece of plastic understand the operation of a cash machine and would know the PIN number needed to operate it. Such matters must be considered when we speak about elderly people, particularly those whom I see in my constituency, whether in the better areas of Budleigh Salterton or out in Dolwood, Southleigh and such places.
  What about the possibility of taking out of a bank machine cash other than in notes? Many pensions are not rounded to a sum that would be payable in notes alone. I do not know of bank machines that will deliver £56.50. What will happen when an account is overdrawn? Does it become overdrawn? How is anyone to know? None of that has been considered fully.
  I do not think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) would be at all happy if his constituents could not obtain their cash on a weekly basis. They need the money in order to run their homes, and they will not be willing to receive it on a four-weekly basis. That has not really been considered either.
  The Government seem to gloss over the idea that all this will come about when ACT is operating in 2003 and 2005. I can tell Ministers that I shall not be in the House of Commons then, but I can also tell them that many small post offices will be out of business by that time. There is no point in preparing a system for a group of businesses that will not be able to sustain their operations.
  Fear of what is to happen has driven down the value of sub-post offices. It is now six times more difficult for sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses to sell their businesses than it was four or five years ago. Until now many people, on retirement, have bought sub-post offices, run them for some years using their savings as income, and supported themselves for the rest of their lives with the income from the sale when they have handed them on. Over the past few years, a host of post offices in my constituency have had to close because no one could be found to take them on.
  I appeal to the Government to start being more practical, and to come to grips—as any business man should—with the problem of how to extend the incomes of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. It is possible, with a little lateral thinking. If the Government could do that, I believe that thousands of people who are outside Parliament today would be very much happier.
  5.28 pm
  Miss Geraldine Smith: I am struck by the sheer effrontery of the Conservative party. You were in power for 18 years, but you did absolutely nothing for the Post Office. I marvel at the sheer arrogance of it. You have collective amnesia.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. When the hon. Lady uses the word "you", she is addressing me, and I have nothing to do with these matters.
  Miss Smith: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  For 18 years, the Conservative party did nothing for the Post Office. I know, because I was employed in the postal industry, that the Conservatives did not take one significant step to help the industry. A Post Office review took place between 1992 and 1997, but there was no outcome. The issue of privatisation was a shambles:
  396
  was the Post Office to be privatised or not? If it was to be privatised, where would that leave the Post Office Counters network? Where would it leave the small sub-post offices?
  The Conservatives are engaging in sheer opportunism. I will take no lessons from them about post offices. They cared nothing for the post office network; only of late have they begun to show some concern.
  Mr. Duncan: Perhaps the hon. Lady could explain in all conscience why my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), when he was Secretary of State, chose the more expensive option of protecting the very network that we are debating?
  Miss Smith: The more expensive option? To protect what? Let me go through some of the points in case Conservative Members have forgotten. Do they recall that, between 1985 and 1995, the Post Office was forced to hand over £1 billion of profits to the Government and that, despite having announced in March 1995 that they would reduce the burden on the Post Office, they subsequently hugely increased it and demanded a further £1 billion from the Post Office? Do they not realise that that money could have been invested in the Post Office network? We could have had computerisation of sub-post offices years ago. We should have had it years ago. The Conservative party caused unnecessary delays and, of course, there is the privatisation shambles.
  Perhaps the Tories will remember that, during their 18 years in office, about one fifth of the Post Office Counters network was closed. They seem to have forgotten all about that. I worked in the industry throughout that period and I can recall no significant Tory Government measure to prevent the widespread closures. I recall no comments from Conservative Members at that time. They now have the cheek to say that we have no strategy or policy on the Post Office. What is their policy? Perhaps the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) will tell me.
  Perhaps Conservative Members will tell me what their plans were for the Post Office. Were they going to privatise? During discussions on the Postal Services Bill, they said that they wanted privatisation. Today, Conservative Back Benchers have said they were not going to privatise and would not privatise if they got back into power. They seem confused about the whole issue of the Post Office.
  Mr. David Drew: Besides the confusion on the Opposition Benches, with Front Benchers saying that they are in favour of privatisation and Back Benchers saying that they are not in favour of it, Conservative Members say that they support the universal service obligation in the Bill at the same time as saying that they want privatisation. The two are not compatible.
  Miss Smith: They certainly are not. Privatisation would have completely wrecked the sub-post office network. We have heard that sub-post offices are private businesses. They are, but they depend on the public side of Post Office Counters. I used to do stock requisitions for sub-postmasters, and used to send money to sub-post offices and do audits. I worked for a public organisation, the Post Office, not for a private company.
  Sub-postmasters face problems that need to be resolved. Last Friday evening, I held a meeting with sub-postmasters in my constituency. The fact that more

  397
  sub-postmasters were at that meeting than there are Members in the Chamber says something about the strength of feeling.
  Sub-postmasters are concerned because there is a period of uncertainty. I understand that. No one likes change; it is difficult, particularly if people do not know what the future holds. I accept that some sub-postmasters may be having trouble selling their businesses because the future is uncertain. At the earliest opportunity we need to give as much information as possible to those people, so that they can carry on with their businesses.
  ACT is already happening. To do nothing about it would leave sub-post offices to wither on the vine. They are already losing business. We know the arguments. All hon. Members know that, every year, sub-post offices lose business and close. We have to do something about it, and we have to offer them new business.
  There is no point in Conservative Members going on about the payment of benefits, because we have to find other types of business, such as banking, for sub-post offices. Sub-postmasters and postmistresses do not want subsidies or hand-outs. They want new business, and I believe that we can help them to find it. Barclays and other banks are closing many branches, creating a real role for sub-post offices to play, especially now that they are being computerised and have the technology necessary to link up with other systems.
  I visited a post office in my constituency and saw its new computer system, which is very good. Although of course they are having some teething problems, the system—it is a simple one—is generally working well. However, it needs to be connected with other systems, so that the sub-postmaster can offer banking facilities.
  At my meeting on Friday, most of the sub-postmasters said that they would like to have a people's bank, which would not only be a community facility, but would offer a whole new opportunity. We need to help provide that opportunity. Sub-postmasters and postmistresses should be able to offer a cash-back facility to those who pay with a Switch card. We should examine the possibility of placing more lottery terminals in sub-post offices. We also need to provide more information to sub-postmasters on precisely how automated credit transfer will work. Until we can answer those questions, and until sub-postmasters have that information, there will be fear and uncertainty.
  Mr. Evans: Having talked to the sub-postmasters and postmistresses in her constituency, the hon. Lady will appreciate that income from benefits payment sometimes constitutes 60 to 70 per cent. of a post office's income. She is therefore absolutely right that postmasters need more sources of income, derived from providing different services. Does she not agree, however, that the drive to move benefits payment from post offices to banks should be deferred until those new services can be offered?
  Miss Smith: The hon. Gentleman does not seem to realise that ACT is already happening. When new pensioners are asked how they would like their pension to be paid, very many of them already opt to receive it in their bank account. We cannot re-invent the wheel. The change is already happening. The Government are grasping the nettle by saying, "This change is going to happen, so we have to find alternatives for sub-post offices."
  398
  Those alternatives will have to be found, and timing is crucial in doing so. Sub-post offices must have new business before ACT is implemented. If that new business is not in place, ACT should be delayed. However, we have three years to go before implementation. The Horizon project is already up and running in most sub-post offices. The initial difficulties with the project have been overcome, and the project is working well. We are now moving to the second stage, when we have to find new banking and other work for sub-post offices to take on. I believe that that is achievable in three years. I am sure that, at the end of the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness will be able to tell me what progress has been made.
  I welcome the Government's access criteria, which will guarantee postal services for everyone. I realise that the status quo is not an option but, as I said, it is essential to get the timing right. New business needs to be in place before ACT is implemented. I believe that we can find that new business, and that sub-post offices have a bright future.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. John MacGregor: There are 120 towns and villages in my constituency. Some are very small and have never had a sub-post office and others have not been able to sustain one over the years, but a large number have one: there are 59 in all. I will not be able to give all the names as some colleagues have done, because it would simply take too long.
  Like my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), I recently conducted a survey of all my sub-post offices. I asked people whether, if the situation continues as at present, they will have to close their sub-post office. In an 80 per cent. response, 60 per cent. said either that they definitely will or that they probably would. Even allowing for some exaggeration, that is a very high figure. Of that 60 per cent., 45 per cent. said that they definitely will. The danger is that all the footfall trade for the village shop is lost, so not only the sub-post office but the shop will go.
  My remarks are based on that survey and on all the responses that I have had both from sub-post offices and from many of the constituents who use them. Some hon. Members have commented on the fact that sub-post offices have closed over the years. Of course they have, given the changing commercial pressures and life styles and the fact that so many alternatives are available and so many communities are too small to sustain them.
  I readily acknowledge that that happened under the Conservatives, too, but the average during our years in office was 143 closures a year, and compared with that trickle we now face a flood. With the loss of the benefit payments on which sub-post offices are so dependent, many will close in the near future. That is why I share the concern of both Government and Opposition Members about the impact on the more disadvantaged, including elderly pensioners in rural areas who do not have a car. About 10 to 25 per cent. of households in villages in my constituency do not have cars.
  That is why I said to the Secretary of State that the argument about pensioners having the choice of getting their pension in cash or through the bank will be an unreal one if the anticipated closures go ahead. There simply will not be a sub-post office there to dispense the cash. I share

  399
  the concerns about the impact on people who are very dependent on their sub-post office. I shall not quote any of the many letters that I have received on the subject, because it would take too long.
  The real problem is not the fact that there is a three-year gap until 2003, when the ACT system comes in, but people's perception that it is on the way. The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) made the point very effectively that sub-postmasters are already aware of the likely fall in income that they will have to face. Many of them get very little income out of the sub-post office side of their business in any case. They foresee running into loss and they want to get out now. They will make that decision now unless they are given some clear idea of where future income will come from.
  The Government have not yet found a satisfactory answer to that. I agree entirely with what my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon and the hon. Member for Twickenham said about some sub-postmasters trying to sell and finding it extremely difficult, with grim consequences for their lifetime's savings and investment.
  People are acutely aware that the substantial income that comes from dispensing benefit payments will disappear. It is as though they are being told to get on the plank and that they will have to jump off in three years' time, without knowing whether there will be a safety net or how far they will fall. The problem is that they cannot step off the plank and find an alternative, because they do not know what they are going to do with their businesses.
  I recognise that some of the sub-post offices would have gone anyway. They are often run by elderly people who perhaps cannot cope with the new computer era and will get out either by retiring normally or because they cannot cope with the pressures. However, younger people, who are computer literate, will not take on the job, so the sub-post office will go.
  I deal now with the alternative services. I entirely agree that the potential for such services exists, and it is important that they be built up. However, I am bothered by the pious claim that such services will replace altogether the income that currently stems from benefit payments. I have studied carefully the letter from the Minister for Competitiveness sent to us on 10 April and other comments that he has made about the matter. The difficulty is that none of the alternatives look really viable and no figures have been attached to them.
  For example, 3,000 cash machines will be installed, which is obviously desirable for the communities that they will service. However, 18,000 sub-post offices are threatened, and I suspect that few of the 59 in my constituency will get a cash machine. It is not a real answer, and many sub-post offices would also face technical difficulties in the installation of the cash machines.
  The option that pensioners will have in the future of still being able to opt for cash payments will be a problem for the reason I have already given—many of the sub-post offices will close in the meantime—and because we do not know how that option will operate. Much of the thrust of questions from my right hon. and hon. Friends has not concerned the position of pensioners, on which the Government have given a guarantee, but the income flow for sub-post offices. We are told that that will be the subject of a commercial agreement, but the situation is
  400
  so uncertain that, frankly, that is not much comfort to sub-postmasters, given what they will lose. That is also unlikely to be the answer.
  The provision of alternative banking services has potential as part of the solution. The sub-post offices have a network that should be able to pick up a large portion of the business that Barclays and other banks will lose through their regrettable closures. However, some real difficulties arise. Technically, it looks as though much of the necessary software will not be put in place until 2005. That is far too long for sub-postmasters, who are seriously considering their future, to wait. I have not seen any conclusive analysis of the situation, but it seems that alternative banking services will not be a credible replacement for the loss of income that the post offices envisage. I am told that the estimate is that they will replace at most half of the income from benefit payment.
  Another alternative, as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon rightly mentioned, is the provision of other public services, such as driving licences, vehicle licences and passports. I am sure that the Minister is considering such issues and that it will be part of the unit's work. However, I suspect that that option will also face limitations and will not be enough to replace the loss of the benefit payment income. I wholly support all that is being done to look for alternative services, but they will not replace the 35 to 40 per cent. of income that the sub-postmasters know they will lose.
  My final point concerns the need for the Government to give the guarantee that the sub-postmasters seek that the income they will lose in 2003 will be replaced. I should say first that I agree with my right hon. Friend that all the issues that have been raised about privatisation are a red herring and totally irrelevant to this debate. That is not only because the sub-post offices are privatised already, but because the income that will be lost comes from the public sector. It is the income that the sub-postmasters receive for delivering benefits. The question is whether private sources will supplement that income sufficiently to sustain the sub-post offices, or whether the Government should do something with public money to replace those payments.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: The right hon. Gentleman says that privatisation is irrelevant and a red herring. Does he honestly believe that if Post Office Counters was privatised it would keep such a large network of post offices in rural areas? Would it subsidise small sub-post offices? The banks tell us what would happen if the Post Office were run by a private organisation. It is a public-private partnership, not a privatised business.
  Mr. MacGregor: The hon. Lady has missed my point. We are talking about the loss to sub-post offices of payments from the public sector. They come not from post offices but from the Benefits Agency. That is why privatisation is irrelevant to the issue. The loss of business from the Benefits Agency is causing all the worry among the sub-post offices.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), in an admirable speech in Westminster Hall this morning, drew attention to the central issue. I recommend all right hon. and hon. Members who were not present to read it. My right hon. Friend was speaking from great experience as a

  401
  Treasury, Department of Trade and Industry and Department of Social Security Minister. He said that the solution lies in the DSS area. When he was faced with the proposition to move to automated credit transfer, he was told—I am sure this is right because I have had experience of various Departments, too—that if he carried through the entire project as it is now being proposed, the loss of £400 million would close most sub-post offices.
  My right hon. Friend went for an alternative solution, and that was the swipe card. I have received letters from the sub-post offices in my constituency asking why we do not go for that solution. Those who have written these letters say, "That was the solution that would have protected us and we support it", but we are told that it has run into great technical and other difficulties. For example, there are difficulties of delay and in terms of practicalities, and therefore it is no longer practical to pursue it. I do not know whether that is the position and nor does my right hon. Friend, although he has some doubts about how hard the project was driven by the Labour Government. Also, I do not know whether there are real issues that cannot be resolved.
  Dr. George Turner: The right hon. Gentleman has talked much sense, but is he really proposing that the future of the Post Office lies in yesterday's technology? That is what he seems to be saying. Is he a supporter of the privatisation that his Front-Bench colleagues are urging? Is he supporting measures that will reduce by half the parcels that can be delivered within the present single cost structure? Is he supporting those on the Opposition Front Bench?
  Mr. MacGregor: It is obvious why I think that the privatisation issue is a red herring in this debate. However, I and many of the sub-post offices that have responded to me understand the importance of keeping pace with technology. They welcome the arrival of computers under the Horizon programme, for example. The problem lies with the loss of payments that were previously coming through the benefits system.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden went for a solution that would have cost the taxpayer or the Treasury, however one likes to put it, about £200 million. I am talking in broad figures. The remainder of the £200 million under the £400 million would have been saved by moving away from the paper system to a swipe card, so there would be a cost to the taxpayer.
  I now come to exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman raises.
  Mr. Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is almost inconceivable that the swipe card should be impossible to deliver? Is it not rather the case that it is seen as something of a bore, and that the management systems for delivering it turned out to be rather inadequate? Is not the answer for Ministers to try to improve the management?
  Mr. MacGregor: There are two ways of approaching the matter. Unfortunately, because I have not been party to any of the internal discussions and negotiations, I do
  402
  not know what went on. However, my hon. Friend is right—one approach would be to go back and look at the matter again. I suspect that the DSS and the DTI came up against a problem with the project itself. The Treasury realised that there was an opportunity to grab the whole £400 million. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden resisted that because he recognised the impact on sub-post offices. If I were in the position that my right hon. Friend was then in, I would still be driving exactly along that line. The other approach is to look to replace the sums of money that would be lost, which my right hon. Friend would have protected.
  This afternoon, I took down some of the Secretary of State's words with care. He said—this is in the context of an amendment on Report next week—that financial assistance may well be offered. To take the powers to offer financial assistance but not indicate the scale of it or the way in which it will be delivered will not help any of the sub-post offices. By the end of next week, we shall be in the same position.
  The Minister must find a way of firming up that announcement so that it will bring comfort to sub-postmasters, who are thinking of getting out of the business. After all, the Government are proposing that quite substantial sums of public money should go to rural areas for rural diversification over the next few years. It does not make much sense to introduce subsidy schemes to encourage new small businesses when existing small businesses are being driven out through lack of financial or other support.
  We know that the Government, in the case of Rover and BMW, are proposing that substantial sums should be made available to help the west midlands deal with the loss of jobs. The loss of jobs as a result of losing rural sub-post offices will be substantial as well.
  The Minister needs to firm up the Government's position. He said in Westminster Hall this morning that the previous Government backed down in the early 1980s and 1990s on ACT proposals. I well recall those moments because I was then in government. There is sometimes a tension between the technological advances that we all want to see and the preservation of essential community services in rural areas. There is a balance to be struck. In the early 1980s and 1990s, we struck the balance in finding a way to protect essential local services in rural areas. At present, the Government have not done that, and I urge them to do so.
  5.56 pm
  Mr. David Borrow: I shall keep my remarks brief, given the significant number of Members who wish to contribute to the debate which will soon come to an end.
  I recognise that the problems of the sub-post office network are part and parcel of a pattern of difficulties that small businesses have had in communities both urban and rural over the past 30 years, whether they be butchers, greengrocers, ordinary grocers or small independent petrol filling stations. Many of these small businesses that operate to serve local communities have been hit by changes in shopping and retail patterns over the past 30 years.
  The decline in the sub-post office network has taken place because in many areas people now shop and spend their money in a different way. That has led to a decline in small retail outlets in small communities, whether in urban or rural areas. That is part of the long-term pattern.

  403
  In the context of sub-post offices, we are facing the problem of the introduction of automated credit transfer. We know that ACT exists and that it has had an effect on sub-post offices over the past few years by eating away at their business of providing cash benefits across the counter. As the years pass and if we do nothing, more and more people will transfer to having benefits—pensions, child benefit or whatever—paid through ACT. The 40 per cent. of income that sub-post offices now receive through the operation of the benefits system will decline naturally as people transfer to ACT, irrespective of what the Government do.
  The Government's problem was: "What do we do, if we leave the system as it is, to ensure that people continue to have benefits paid through the existing old-fashioned paper system. Do we try to stop people moving to ACT? Do we try to sustain the sub-post office network in that way? Do we recognise the change that is taking place and seek to build on it, and signal"—this is what the Government have done—"that during the two years from 2003–05 there will be a move across the board to ACT, while preserving the right for people to receive cash across the counter in sub-post offices? Can we use that as a trigger for discussions with sub-post offices on alternative revenue sources that can be introduced?" I very much welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's promise of subsidies where necessary to enable the businesses to be sustained into the future.
  Sub-post offices are small private businesses, often run from their homes by married couples. The fact that the business plan beyond 2003–05 is not known creates uncertainty and undermines the resale value of those businesses. The Government have encountered a dilemma in attempting to move forward. Did they wait until every nut and bolt of the new system was in place, and until every question about new revenue sources could be answered, before they made an announcement about the transfer to ACT? If so, that could have looked like a fait accompli.
  Alternatively, did the Government signal that, some time in the future, most benefit payments would be transferred gradually to ACT? In the interim, some payments would continue to be paid in cash through an automated system at post offices, but the majority would be paid into bank accounts through ACT. That interim period could provide an opportunity for discussion and consultation between the post office network and Government Departments on the development of alternative sources of income. I believe that the second option is the right way to proceed.
  Mr. Letwin: Is not there a critical problem with that option? Given the complete lack of a plan, does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the period between now and 2003 is not sufficient? Should not sufficient time be allowed to put in place a proper plan, to ensure that people know that problems will be solved in time?
  Mr. Borrow: I have made it clear in previous contributions in the Chamber on this matter that, as a matter of urgency, the Government must come up with the details of how the system will work after 2003. They have a responsibility to ensure that post office network representatives can work out business strategies for sub-postmasters and mistresses over the next few years.
  404
  Recently, I addressed the annual meeting of the Preston branch of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters. About 60 or 70 people attended a lively meeting, at which it was clear that federation members were not averse to change. Change is part of small business, and many post offices have had to change over the past 20 or 30 years and develop new lines. However, problems arise out of uncertainty.
  That uncertainty cannot go on indefinitely. If the nuts and bolts of the proposals cannot be put in place quickly, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to consult his colleagues in the Department of Social Security and to re-examine the time scale of the transfer. I have always made it clear that I support the transfer principle, but I want to ensure that my constituents in Lancashire villages have a viable post office network through which they can get their benefits and so on.
  If it takes a bit longer than 2003–05 to achieve that, then so be it—that would be a small price to pay to ensure that the network is retained. In the months ahead, we must focus not on keeping things as they are but on ensuring that a robust new model for the sub-post office network is introduced. That model must be capable of being sustained, not for three or four years but for 30 or 40.
  6.4 pm
  Mr. David Prior: I begin by thanking Keith Nicholls, who runs the post office in Stalham, and John and Christine Page, who run the office in Cromer, for coming to lobby me today. They appreciate the seriousness of the Government's proposals, even if the Government do not. They recognise that to lose 30 per cent. of their income, and possibly more, will damage the capital value of their businesses, put new entrants off going into the business, and lead to widespread closures of sub-post offices.
  Many other people have written to me over the past two months. Many do not have bank accounts. Even when they have them, many want to take cash out every week and spend it in their local villages. In addition, many of them have a real understanding of and sympathy for those who live in the countryside.
  A Miss Rowe from Gimingham in my constituency wrote to me to say that, over the past 35 years, her local village school has been closed, and the local shop. The local policeman no longer lives in the village, the resident priest has gone and the forge has closed. All that is left in that village—and in many others in Norfolk and elsewhere—is the post office. The post office is a vital hub of local services, especially in rural areas.
  I want to draw three key facts to the Minister's attention. First, 2 million adults in this country, most of them pensioners, do not have bank accounts. If they live in the country, the frail, the elderly and those without access to transport often cannot get to a bank. Many of those pensioners are worried that they will not be able to get their weekly cash because their local post office will no longer be there. What choice do they have?
  Secondly, 19 million people receive weekly cash benefits from local post offices. If they are forced to go elsewhere, much of the business that they currently

  405
  conduct in their village, or locally, will go with them. As Mrs. Browning from the small village of Langham in my constituency put it:
  The weekly pension I collect gives the cash to pay the milkman, the coalman, and buy my paper and bread. If the Government's proposed changes are implemented, I will have to travel 12 miles to the nearest bank, which means I will spend less money in my local shop.
  The knock-on effects on the local economy of closing a sub-post office are very significant.
  In the country above all, poor transport means that local post offices are crucial for local people. Online banking and travelling long distances are not options for many, especially for old people.
  My third fact goes to the heart of the debate. Most sub-post offices receive at least 30 per cent. of their income from benefit and pension payments. The footfall effect in offices that are in shops or which provide other services may increase that to more than 50 per cent.
  How will that income be replaced? Nothing that we have heard today gives me confidence that the Government have thought through the implications of having to replace as much as 50 per cent. of the income of a sub-post office. We have been offered only the Secretary of State's vision for the future. There have been no concrete proposals, and those who run sub-post offices cannot exist on his vision. They need to know where the income is to come from, and how much it will be.
  Many sub-post offices operate on the bread line, and are run more for love than money. People run such offices because they want to contribute in a practical way to their local community.
  Two sub-post offices in my constituency have closed in the past year, at Tunstead and Saxthorpe. There is a growing suspicion that the Government are closing sub-post offices by stealth. The magazine Saga stated:
  There is a time bomb currently ticking away in Britain's villages and towns.
  I am not sure that the Government fully understand that post offices are hugely important local community centres, where people can meet and chat. They are a vital part of local communities. It is no good giving people the right to choose automated bank transfers or weekly cash if there is no post office left from which to receive their weekly cash payments.
  The uncertainty about the future caused by the Government's proposals for automated credit transfer is undermining the confidence of sub-post offices, destroying their capital values, putting off new entrants and accelerating their closure. That will have significant knock-on effects on local communities.
  This project should be put on hold until the future viability of sub-post offices can be assured.
  6.10 pm
  Mr. Desmond Browne: I cannot compete with the large number of sub-post offices that the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) has in his constituency. Nor can I compete with the years of experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), nor
  406
  with the experience of the Post Office that my hon. Friend the Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) brought to this interesting debate. However, I can articulate some of the concerns of my constituents. I welcome the spirit of all-party good faith from the hon. Member for West Dorset. We must put aside recriminations and move forward together on an all-party basis to get the best for our network of sub-post offices. Many right hon. and hon. Members have spoken about sub-post offices in glowing terms this afternoon and we all support them, or else we would not be here.
  Talking down the network is damaging it. I know that there are concerns about a crisis of confidence among sub-postmasters, and I accept that that means that people make business decisions in that climate. However, I see a crisis of confidence among the customers of sub-post offices. When I met my own delegation of sub-postmasters today—and I shall not resist the temptation of naming them at a suitable point in my speech—Mrs. Nan Haswell, who has been communicating with me about this issue for some months, told me that she can, in her small sub-post office in the village of Dunlop, collect council rents. One of her regular customers was issued with a new rent book this week. She said to Mrs. Haswell that as the sub-post office would not be there any more, she wrote to the council saying that she would pay her rent directly through the bank. That is the effect that the crisis, which is to some degree generated by deliberate campaigns to undermine the network for political purposes, is having in some areas on the network of post offices.
  Millions of people are signing petitions to keep post offices open, and tens of thousands of them are at the same time signing bank forms to carry out transactions that could easily be done through the post office. They are using banks to receive benefits or pay for services. The irony of that is not lost on me, and I hope that it is not lost on Opposition Members.
  My delegation consisted of Mrs. Haswell, Mr. Mohammed, who runs an urban post office in a housing scheme in Whatriggs road in the Bellfield area of Kilmarnock, and Mrs. Dunlop who is the sub-postmistress in the small village of Fenwick. Their message was that they do not want any favours, they just want a fair day's wage for a fair day's work. That seems a reasonable request from honest working people and I, as their Member of Parliament, feel duty-bound to help them achieve it.
  The complications of this issue have already been mentioned and concern the nature of the businesses. I do not propose to repeat what other people have said, but I think that there is potentially an important and bright future for these businesses in providing community services. However, I believe that that future depends on a partnership between the businesses, the Post Office—which is sometimes all too separate from those businesses—the communities, local councils, community councils, parish councils, local enterprise companies, training and enterprise councils and other local businesses. We have to work together to generate that community spirit, and the view that the resources are important to the community life not only of small villages and rural areas but solid urban communities, which are sometimes small villages within urban settings. The post office provides an important hub for some of those communities.

  407
  That cannot happen unless we do several things, including breaking up the centralised approach of the Post Office to the way in which deals are done for post offices rather than by them. Post offices in my constituency are told by Cascade telephone calls that services that they previously provided can no longer be provided because the Post Office has concluded the contract. That happened in one case with Scottish Power. No one explains to sub-postmasters that this important aspect of their business and income stream will be lost—they are told by a Cascade telephone call. They were told in my constituency last week by such a call that they have lost the right to sell BT stamps because BT has moved on to plastic.
  I make a plea for the Government to engage with the Post Office to devolve power to the post offices so that the network, which is not a homogeneous lump of rural post offices or two homogeneous lumps of rural and urban post offices but a number of individual businesses, can work with the local communities, councils and local enterprise companies to generate the local partnerships that are needed to provide services.
  Another example of how centralisation has worked against the post offices in my constituency is Girobank' s recent insistence on a £1 charge for a transaction relating to the collection of council tax. The council has absorbed that cost for some time but can no longer and has had to tell people who pay their council tax that way that they will have to pay an extra £1 when they go to the post office. Sensibly, those people will not do it, because some of them are paying small sums such as £4 a week towards their council tax. Again, decisions are being made centrally that affect the income stream of individual businesses. There needs to be some flexibility.
  My final point relates to the opportunity of post offices to take advantage of the current negotiations with the major banks to design and produce a bank account that can be operated at low or no cost, which will prevent people with small amounts of money from going into overdraft. It is important that the deal, which can, I understand, be done within weeks is properly funded by either the banks or the Government so that it can be put in place now. In that way, it can be ready for customers in time for the ACT changes. I understand from the managing director of retail services at the Post Office that that alone could generate £200 million of the £400 million income that the network receives from benefits payments.
  In short, I do not believe that this valuable network of post offices should be made to depend on the payment of benefits or pensions in future. That is an unsustainable and unviable future. However, there are many opportunities out there. We must all co-operate to generate such opportunities, but we need considerable assistance from both the Government and the Post Office.
  6.19 pm
  Mr. Howard Flight: I think that right hon. and hon. Members will agree that the debates this afternoon and in Westminster Hall this morning show that the Government are mishandling sub-post office policy. As my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) advised us, the Secretary of State will be getting his cards in the next day or two—some 18,000 of them—from sub-postmasters.
  The Government will be extremely foolish if they go ahead with the policy as it stands. They are out of touch not just with sub-postmasters but with their own
  408
  constituency, as has been made clear in the debate. Many of the Government's aspirations are common sense, and we agree with them, but they do not add up to a viable policy. It is probably correct to argue that post offices should not depend in the long term on income from delivering benefits. I am a great supporter of the idea that the commercial banking system should subcontract provision of services to sub-post offices, particularly in rural communities. Horizon offers new conduits of business for post offices in the booking of theatre tickets and travel and so forth. All those things provide good opportunities.
  The problem is that adherence to the automated credit transfer timetable is likely to cause the loss of one third of our sub-post offices. There will not be enough of a network to take up the opportunities. The Government must adapt their policy to address that problem, and there are several options. They must either provide a public underwriting of subsidies sufficient to sustain the post office network, which would allow ACT to be operative by 2003, or ACT should be postponed, perhaps for seven years but certainly until new revenues from bank subcontracting and Horizon allow post offices to phase in the income reductions that will result from ACT. The Government could also re-examine the Conservative swipe programme arrangements.
  It appears that, of the projected £400 million saving on ACT, £100 million is purely from technology advance. The realistic reduction in payment is around £300 million. The swipe card arrangement is a compromise that would marginally reduce income to sub-post offices from benefit administration, but would allow them enough income to remain viable.
  It was inappropriate of Ministers to criticise commercial banks for closing branches when the banks have made arrangements with post offices to provide services. The Government's own timetable on ACT is certain to result in closure of one third of our sub-post offices, and they have not made any provision to guarantee support for those post offices. In other words, the Government are being less helpful to customers than the banks are. The banks have done what they feel they must do because of advanced technology, but they have considered the impact and made alternative arrangements. The Government merely say that they must do what they are doing because of the need for ACT, and they could not care less about the people who have invested their life savings in running sub-post offices or about the public at large. It is humbug to criticise the banking sector while doing what they are doing.
  I hope that the Government have received the message. They will pay a big political price if they have not. The most logical choice is to delay ACT until alternative revenues have come through.
  6.24 pm
  Mr. Martin Salter: I welcome the opportunity to take part in the debate as a supporter of a publicly owned post office network and a campaigner against the tide of financial exclusion that has engulfed many communities because of post office and bank closures. I also welcome it as a former deputy leader of Reading borough council, one of the few that installed a sub-post office in its civic offices and that was expanding postal services in its area.

  409
  Labour Members will not be impressed by the crocodile tears of some Conservative Members. Their party presided over an unprecedented decline in the post office network. Over the past 25 years, one fifth of the network closed down. We all remember, to our horror, that we had a Conservative Government for 18 of those years, and it was that Government, in 1983, who introduced ACT.
  I am partly reassured by statements from Ministers, including my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, that cash payments will be available after 2003. I welcome the announcement that a new clause will be inserted in the Postal Services Bill on Report to provide subsidy, and I welcome the £1 billion capital modernisation of the post office network. Even a luddite like me can see the value of equipping post offices with modern online information technology.
  It would be nonsensical for the Post Office to continue to rely on purely paper transactions. However, it would also be nonsense to suggest that the future of the post office network should be predicated on huge benefit payments resulting from the kind of mass unemployment that happened under the Thatcher Government.
  There is an urgent need to find new business to strengthen the Post Office and guarantee its future. Having been broadly supportive so far of the Government's approach, I want to sound a couple of warning notes. We have, to be honest, come to this matter rather late. Cash machines have their place, but I first came to the fight on bank closures in local communities because Lloyds TSB was installing cash machines instead of cashiers in banks in my constituency. What use are cash machines to someone who is blind or disabled? What use are they to a jobbing builder who needs more than £200 a day? Machines are welcome, but they have their limitations.
  We need more than talk from Ministers, and from politicians of all hues, if we are to provide the vital new business of banking services in the post office network. Bank closures, which are engulfing many communities, present an opportunity to open up the post office network. Last Friday, Barclays shut 172 branches, leaving 84 communities without a bank, and that is the tip of the iceberg. We have seen 4,000 bank branch closures over the past 10 years. Deloitte and Touche Consulting Group anticipates a similar number of closures over the next few years—1,000 more communities will be bankless. Barclays's last-minute, face-saving deals with the Post Office are fooling no one.
  We need measures to support small, district shopping centres in general because post offices face the same pressures as they do. A review of services currently available only at Crown post offices, but which could be available at sub-post offices, is also necessary, as is proper regulation of the banking industry. Access to redundant bank premises—or the capital receipts, where appropriate—would help post office modernisation and extension. A co-ordinated approach is needed by the UK banking sector, Post Office Counters and the Government to ensure that basic banking services are available the length and breadth of the land.
  410
  The Post Office is the best loved of all our public services. It belongs in the public sector. It is the fulcrum of community life. All we ask is that it should thrive and prosper in the 21st century. All that my constituents want is access to their own money. It is not too much to ask.
  6.29 pm
  Mr. Oliver Letwin: This is the third time that I have spoken about this subject today, something that I have in common with other hon. Members present. I shall take just two or three minutes at most. I wish to make one practical point, which has become clearer and clearer during the day. It has not yet entered the official doctrine of the Minister and his colleagues.
  It is now almost five years since the swipe card system was first proposed. I have no knowledge of what went wrong with the administration of that system in the later years of its implementation, but clearly something did. In those five years, there has been a technological revolution. The Minister will be as aware of it as any other hon. Member present. Among other things, the extension of asymmetric digital subscriber lines and the presence of internet technology and IT-based solutions make it almost inconceivable that there should not now be available a simple and cheap variant of the swipe card arrangement, with or without cards, which would enable sub-post offices, with or without direct connection to the Horizon project and perhaps personal computer-based instead, to deliver cheaply and effectively the benefits and pensions that the Department of Social Security wishes to deliver at about the same cost as was originally envisaged.
  I suspect that the way in which the DSS has traditionally gone about business precludes an approach that would work. However, the Minister is not at the DSS but the Department of Trade and Industry. He has the chance, through the Post Office, to adopt a modern solution that uses the technological revolution. The costs of installing remote computer networks have fallen not by half or a quarter but by perhaps 90 per cent. in the past five years. Whatever it would have cost then, it must be vastly less now.
  I apologise for repeating the cri de coeur, but if the Minister will just give himself a little more time, personally take charge through the Post Office and remove from the hands of the DSS the means of implementing the changes on a cheap, cost-effective basis, we can get over the problem. We can find a way through that will preserve our networks and a system that enables people who are vulnerable and not particularly sophisticated to collect their benefits over the counter in existing sub-post offices throughout our land. Everyone will then be very happy and I promise the Minister that I meant what I said this morning in Westminster Hall. I will be the first to construct a statue to his memory if he manages that.
  6.32 pm
  Mr. Alan Duncan: This is an important day for the future of the post office network, because hundreds, if not thousands, of people have travelled to the House to put their case. That was not stage acted: in the fine tradition of democratic lobbying, it was an endeavour with a serious point and purpose. Those people were not just representing themselves—a fact to

  411
  which the three million signatures on a petition handed in this morning readily attest. I congratulate all of them and hope that they have travelled safely from far and wide.
  We have initiated this debate, not for the first time, because we have been leading on this issue and we shall continue to press the Government for the answers that they refuse to give. It is high time that they listened hard and answered in detail. Perhaps the starting point for that should be the debate, which I commend to hon. Members on both sides of the House as compulsory reading, initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) in the Westminster Hall annexe this morning. My right hon. Friend spoke in detail and with devastating effect.
  The Government's policy simply does not add up. They say that they want to protect the post office network, but they intend to rob it of its income. They then speak with certainty only of issues irrelevant to the problem that they are causing. We will not let them get away with that.
  We have had a lively debate, and many hon. Members have brought their experience to bear. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), even though he spoke from the Government Benches, was spot on. He essentially said, "No income, no post offices," and explained that that would hit the poorest hardest. Many of his constituents will be very hard hit by the Government's policy.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery) was rightly worried about post office closures in his constituency. Indeed, there have been more than 500 up and down the country since the general election. Let me be honest about the earlier figures. In the 18 years preceding the general election, there were 2,568 post office closures. Let us put that figure on the table. It is not 3,000, as the Prime Minister said from the Dispatch Box this afternoon. I doubt whether he will come back to the House and correct the figure. I am afraid that, if he did that on each occasion, it would become too habitual a duty.
  The call is for the Government to be more practical. I think the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Miss Smith) must be a deeply confused person. She says that post offices do not want subsidies. She is right. They want incomes. She was unable to explain to the House where those incomes would come from.
  Miss Geraldine Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: In a second. The established income risks disappearing—
  Miss Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: If the hon. Lady will only listen, I have already said that I would give way. Post offices' established income risks disappearing before any new income appears on the scene.
  Miss Smith: I have made it clear where the income will come from. We need new business for the Post Office, including banking facilities. I mentioned the words "a people's bank". It is no good doing as the Conservative
  412
  party would and relying on benefits work. That would leave post offices to wither on the vine. The Government are trying to do something about it.
  Mr. Duncan: The hon. Lady—like many of her Government's Ministers—has to realise that wishful thinking does not constitute a properly delivered public policy. Although she may have an idea that there should be a new income flow, until the Minister can describe the detailed way in which it will happen, her wishful thinking will count for nothing.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said it all. I sympathise with him in choosing not to name all his sub-post offices. I, too, have more than 100 villages in my constituency of Rutland and Melton and many of them face a dire predicament. As my right hon. Friend says, the trickle of closures is becoming a flood and the anticipation of problems in the future is causing a big problem now. The income of post offices does not stand to be replaced by credible alternatives, and we need to know that it will be.
  I hope that the House will forgive me if I do not rehearse all the arguments put by other hon. Members, including the hon. Members for South Ribble (Mr. Borrow) and for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) and my hon. Friends the Members for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight), for North Norfolk (Mr. Prior) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin). I would like to get to the kernel of the debate. Let us dismiss all the irrelevances that have crept in. Of course automatic teller machines will change the pattern of some cash collection, but they are not a solution and there are problems for people who do not want to receive their money in units of £10 or who simply cannot, and who need every single penny to which they are entitled. Indeed, there is the problem of charges. The Government may put 75p on the pension, but if £1.50 disappears in ATM charges, that ain't much of a solution either.
  Privatisation is also a red herring. This is not a debate about ownership. It is a debate about the income that will accrue to those institutions that are already in private hands and will determine whether they are able to survive. It is a question not of ownership but of income. Only parliamentary discipline stops me expressing quite how irrelevant I feel privatisation has become to the debate.
  Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Duncan: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, but I must press on.
  Let us concentrate on the one crucial issue to which we need answers from the Minister this evening—the income that individual sub-post offices will either continue to enjoy or be denied. This is all about income. If the Minister gives us decent answers on that issue alone, we will be satisfied with his response. It is the crux of the matter. Under the policy that the Minister is gradually implementing, the vast post office network—roughly 19,000 or more post offices—may suffer a loss of income of between 40 and 60 per cent. In practical terms, the Government are replacing a guaranteed Government-sourced income, as my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, with an uncertain, commercially negotiated income. Not only will that income be uncertain but it will be one of which the Government intend to wash their hands.

  413
  As the Minister's letter to every hon. Member said:
  The amount that subpostmasters will receive will depend on the contracts that the Post Office Groups strike with banks and on negotiations between the group and the NFSP. These are commercial matters and it would not be appropriate for the Government to become involved.
  However, it would be appropriate for the Government to tell the House and—more important—all those who have risked their money and dedicated their lives to the preservation of a widespread Post Office network what that income will be. Where will it come from? How will those people be able to continue in business? In the present climate, they do not need a crystal ball to work out that they face a certain reduction in their income, with no certain plans for its replacement.
  The Secretary of State refused point blank to answer questions on that detail. It is shameful that, whenever the right hon. Gentleman is asked a question, he obfuscates and diverts the argument to something that is wholly irrelevant—privatisation or the fact that people can withdraw cash, in full, without deduction. That is good—as far as it goes. However, if, when a person withdraws 100 per cent. of their entitlement, the agent or intermediary who is providing the service that delivers that money receives the square root of diddly-squat in return, there will not be a Post Office network through which to deliver 100 per cent. of benefits. The Minister smiles. He always enjoys my use of language—we had "scragging" in Committee; now we have "diddly-squat".
  If the Post Office network does not have an income that is sufficient to maintain its commercial viability, there will be no network. The only issue that matters is what the income for the Post Office network will be following the implementation of the Government's policy. The Minister does not need to divert the argument; he does not need to talk about anything else.
  Let me summarise the matter for the Minister's benefit, so that he will be under no illusions. We know that the Secretary of State has not had a good month. With his failure to answer our questions on this issue, things are getting even worse for him. I have a few specific questions for the Minister. What will be the income of the sub-post offices—be they in urban areas or in rural areas, such as those that many of my right hon. and hon. Friends represent? How will that future income compare with that which they currently enjoy? Much of their present income is derived from a Government source, of which the Minister has control. It does not derive from a commercially negotiated arrangement over which they have less control and which is bound to produce a lower amount. What will be the components of their future income? In the new Labour world, how will the Post Office network income be made up?
  To follow up my question to the Secretary of State—who replied, in effect, "Don't worry, they will all have a reasonable income"—what is a reasonable income? How much lower will a sub-post office's income have to be before the Secretary of State, in all his wisdom, would consider it unreasonable? What income does the Minister think is required to sustain a Post Office network of roughly the same size as the present one? How will the new arrangements be sufficient to replace the income that he is taking away from the network?
  414
  Given the activities carried out by post offices, and the services they deliver, does the Minister agree that income is much better than subsidy? I suspect that, in order to atone for much of what the Government know will happen, they will try to slew the arrangements away from income towards subsidy—I think that will come into next Tuesday's Report stage of the Postal Services Bill. They know full well that, if that is done, subsidy will wither on the vine in due course—away the network will go. If there is no income, there will be no post office: no income—no network. We need to know what the income of sub-post offices will be in new Labour's future world, when their policy is implemented. We want detail on that point.
  Tomorrow is the Secretary of State's birthday. My hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) said that 18,000 birthday wishes are winging their way towards him—even as I stand here. I hope that he will give proper answers to all those 18,000 hard-working people. In the meantime, it would indeed be appropriate if the Secretary of State got his cards.
  6.45 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Alan Johnson): This is the second debate on this issue today; the first was in Westminster Hall this morning, when I heard several constructive contributions. During this afternoon's debate, we were asked—at least twice—to read the Hansard report of the speech made this morning by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). I commended the work of the right hon. Gentleman. I also pointed out that he was a politician of ability and effectiveness—that is obviously why he no longer sits on the Opposition Front Bench.
  Furthermore, I noted that the right hon. Gentleman understood the arguments on this matter because the NFSP had held two previous, well-attended rallies at the House. As a member of the Communication Workers Union, I worked shoulder to shoulder with the NFSP on the Post Office Users National Council, so I know that the federation is a very effective organisation.
  Those rallies were held in the early 1980s and the early 1990s; both were about ACT—as was the rally today. As this is an Opposition day debate, and as the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning) referred to the history of the Conservative party on this matter, we shall make the same point this afternoon that we made throughout this morning's debate: the Conservatives introduced ACT, for the first time, in the early 1980s.
  The NFSP held a rally at which its members made several demands. First, they said, "No ACT." Secondly, on the back of the Rayner report—commissioned by the then Conservative Government—they said that pensions should not be paid fortnightly. Thirdly, they said that child benefit should not be paid monthly, but should continue to be paid weekly. The rally was most effective. The Government rejected the federation's arguments on ACT and on monthly payment of child benefit and went ahead with ACT.
  The next rally was held in the early 1990s—when the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden held office—over the extension of ACT. Not only did the previous Government introduce ACT—they extended it in the early 1990s to cover benefits such as those for

  415
  unemployment and disability. The federation argued against extending ACT and the right hon. Gentleman advanced many arguments—recorded in Hansard—in its favour.
  The right hon. Gentleman argued that ACT was an especially effective and secure form of payment. He argued:
  People are increasingly accustomed to receiving payment into their bank accounts: 70 per cent. of claimants have bank accounts, and many find payment into their accounts more convenient and safer.—[Official Report, 19 May 1993; Vol. 225, c. 259.]
  He advanced further arguments on the benefits of ACT.
  As a result of that NFSP rally—in which I took part—the right hon. Gentleman introduced the well-intentioned benefit payment card. We can forget all the Conservative hype and all their poor attempts at political point-scoring. "Why did the benefit payment card scheme collapse? Why cannot we return to it?" was a question put by the Leader of the Opposition at Prime Minister's questions this afternoon.
  We tried hard to continue that system. The most instructive information available on the matter is in a report from the Select Committee on Trade and Industry, which pointed out that, since 1 May 1997, the Labour Government had probably tried too hard to rescue the system—to pull the fat out of the fire. However, the Committee was extremely critical of that disastrous PFI—it was a turkey of a PIF. The Trade and Industry Committee made four points, on which we are still awaiting a report by the National Audit Office to the Public Accounts Committee.
  However, the essential facts are as follows. The benefit payment card collapsed. We had to rescue the computerisation of the Post Office, and we have taken that forward. As a result, 5,000 post offices are already computerised, and by spring 2001 the whole network will be online under the Horizon system.
  Mr. David Davis: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Johnson: I will give way in a second.
  It is important that we should know, in this debate, where the Opposition stand on this issue; after all, it is an Opposition day debate. They need to tell us what they would plan to do. Would they have continued with a benefit payment card project that was three years behind, vastly overspent and heading for disaster?
  We have been told time and again that the issue of privatisation is irrelevant to the debate.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown rose—
  Mr. Johnson: The issue of privatisation is extremely relevant, for the following reason. Conservative Members are still committed not only to privatising the Post Office but to breaking it up. As every sub-postmaster and sub-postmistress in the country knows, anyone who proposes ripping the Post Office Counters network away from the rest of the Post Office must be two foils short of an order book, because the Post Office depends on the Royal Mail for 24 per cent. of its income. Parcels returned to mail order companies create a major part of its income. Therefore, breaking up the Post Office is an essential feature of Conservative policy.
  416
  I give way to the hon. Member—I am sorry; the right hon. Member—for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. Davis: The hon. Gentleman is right that the National Audit Office report will appear in front of my Committee in due course, but it will be some time before it does so. Will he undertake today to place in the Library immediately all the documentation relating to the costing, which we have heard amounts to hundreds of millions of pounds, of this PFI—I imagine that he meant PFI, not PIF, when he was speaking earlier—so that the whole House can be aware of the basis of this £100 million overcost now instead of, perhaps, in nine months' time, when my Committee considers it?
  Mr. Johnson: I do apologise to the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, the National Audit Office has access to papers that the Trade and Industry Committee was entitled to see on a confidential basis, and that means that that report is extremely important.
  The Opposition still labour under the misapprehension—this is crucial to the point made by the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan)—that the Post Office Counters network is in the private sector. It is not. For the absence of doubt, let me explain to Opposition Members that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have sunk £1 billion of their own money in in total, as private business people, subcontracting to a publicly owned organisation, driven from the centre in terms of policy, and actually driving forward a system where there is already cross-subsidy, so that the sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses are not in control of the arrangements for subsidising post offices, or for cross-subsidising post offices, which is an essential element of keeping half the network open.
  Mrs. Browning: The hon. Gentleman is aware that twice in previous debates I have asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether, in turning the Post Office into a publicly owned plc, he would guarantee that the Government, if they continued in office, would never sell shares in that plc. Will the hon. Gentleman now continue that debate by guaranteeing to the House that that will never happen?
  Mr. Johnson: The hon. Lady knows full well that we have made it quite clear on the face of the Postal Services Bill that any move to privatise the Post Office by any future Government would need primary legislation, which would have to pass through the House.
  Mrs. Browning: Guarantee.
  Mr. Johnson: We are looking for a public sector solution. The problem with the Conservative party is that it was driven by dogma; it could not see any solution other than privatisation. It was for those reasons that the Conservatives suggested breaking up the Post Office.
  Mr. Duncan: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Johnson: I will give way one more time.
  Mr. Duncan: Given the time, may I respectfully ask the Minister now to answer the questions that I asked him about the kernel of the debate—questions about the future shape of the income?
  Mr. Johnson: The hon. Gentleman thinks that he has struck the kernel of the debate. I consider that the hon.

  417
  Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and other Conservative Members did so. I think that, if anyone did, it was the hon. Member for South Devon—[HON. MEMBERS: "East Devon."] I apologise. I believe that the right hon. Member for East Devon (Sir P. Emery), and Labour Members, struck the core of the debate.
  The core of the debate is the question, "How do we modernise the Post Office, equip it for the 21st century, attract new work into the business and then ensure a successful future for the post office network?" We shall not solve this problem—and the previous Government would not have solved it—by using the benefit payment card, which was a swipe card. It was an interim measure. The Post Office had said that it wanted to move on to smartcard technology. The contract was for only eight years, concluding in 2005, and there is every evidence that whichever Government were in power would be moving to ACT following that eight-year contract.
  There was a problem in the early 1980s, and there was a rally in the 1990s, when sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses had to come to the House because of the problems that ACT was causing. We shall not solve this issue until we find a way forward that both ensures that there is a proper future for the Post Office in a modernised, computerised network and resolves the dilemma about how we can cause people to visit post offices to collect their benefits and pensions in an automated network.
  Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Johnson: No; I am not giving way any more.
  We are not saying that ATMs are the answer to the problem that has been suggested by Conservative Members. However, we are saying that, in a network of 18,500 post offices, the fact that 3,000 ATMs are now being installed where there were fewer than 200, will be a great help to the rural economy. We are not suggesting that we move to ACT, then look to modernise the network and then look to attract new work. We say that the first step, by 2001, is to computerise the network, the second step is to attract new work and the third step is to move to ACT.
  We have had a very important opportunity today to debate the real issues that face the future of sub-postmasters throughout the country. An argument was made about the income of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses. One of the aspects of the Post Office's being a publicly owned service is that, every year, there is a negotiation between the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters and the Post Office to determine the unit payment per transaction. The hon. Member for Rutland and Melton left out the part of my letter in which I pointed out that, currently, the figure negotiated with the banks was 17p. There is no reason whatever why that should change under the arrangements that we are proposing.
  Furthermore, about 10,000 post offices do not depend on the transactions at all; they receive a minimum floor payment as part of a publicly owned Post Office's commitment to keeping post offices in rural areas. That does not depend on income.
  The future lies in the Horizon project, and in the performance and innovation unit study. We have been criticised because the PIU has taken four months to
  418
  produce a report; the previous Government were reviewing the Post Office between 1992 and 1997 and still did not come up with a response, and it cost £1.6 million of taxpayers' money.
  The PIU report meets some of the points made by Members on both sides of the House, in that it will look across Government at ways in which we can utilise an under-utilised network, promote an under-promoted network and find new ways to attract people to come into the Post Office that do not depend on the constant battle against ACT, to which people are moving in increasing numbers, year by year. We can bring back network banking to rural areas. We can provide a modern Government service through local post offices. The very fact that the move to ACT is taking place in 2003–05 has galvanised the Post Office, the Government and everyone else into action, to see how we can bring new work into the Post Office. At the end of that, we guarantee that any benefit recipient or pensioner who wants to receive the payments in cash, in full across a post office counter and weekly—as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister reminded us this afternoon—will continue to be able to do so. That is the future for the Post Office network.
  Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided Ayes 139, Noes 364

  Division No. 163]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Gale, Roger

  Amess, David

  Garnier, Edward

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gibb, Nick

  Artuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gill, Christopher

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Baldry, Tony

  Gray, James

  Beggs, Roy

  Green, Damian

  Bercow, John

  Greenway, John

  Body, Sir Richard

  Grieve, Dominic

  Boswell, Tim

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Brazier, Julian

  Hammond, Philip

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Hawkins, Nick

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Heald, Oliver

  Butterfill, John

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cash, William

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Horam, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Clappison, James

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Collins, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Johnson Smith,

  Cran, James

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Day, Stephen

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Duncan, Alan

  Lansley, Andrew

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Leigh, Edward

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Letwin, Oliver

  Evans, Nigel

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Faber, David

  Lidington, David

  Fabricant, Michael

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Fallon, Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Flight, Howard

  Loughton, Tim

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Luff, Peter

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Fox, Dr Liam

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Fraser, Christopher

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  419

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Spring, Richard

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Madel, Sir David

  Steen, Anthony

  Malins, Humfrey

  Streeter, Gary

  Maples, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Syms, Robert

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Moss, Malcolm

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Norman, Archie

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Townend, John

  Page, Richard

  Tredinnick, David

  Paice, James

  Trend, Michael

  Paterson, Owen

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Pickles, Eric

  Walter, Robert

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Waterson, Nigel

  Prior Dravid

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Randall, John

  Whittingdale, John Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Wilkinson, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Robertson, Laurence

  Wilshire, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Ruffley, David

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Yeo, Tim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Shepherd, Richard

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Soames, Nicholas

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Ainger, Nick

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Burden. Richard

  Alexander, Douglas

  Burgon, Colin

  Allan, Richard

  Burnett, John

  Allen, Graham

  Burstow, Paul

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Ashton, Joe

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Banks, Tony

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Barron, Kevin

  Cann, Jamie

  Battle, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Beard, Nigel

  Casale, Roger

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Caton, Martin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Cawsey, Ian

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Chaytor, David

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Clapham, Michael

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Benton, Joe

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Berry, Roger

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Blackman, Liz

  Clelland, David

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Coaker, Vernon

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Cohen, Harry

  Borrow, David

  Coleman, Iain

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Colman, Tony

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Connarty, Michael

  Brake, Tom

  Cooper, Yvette

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Corbett, Robin

  Breed, Colin

  Cotter, Brian

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Cousins, Jim

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Cox, Tom

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Crausby, David

  Browne, Desmond

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  420

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cummings, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwatk N)

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Hurst, Alan

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Dalyell, Tam

  Illsley, Eric

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampsteaa

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Denham, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Drew, David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Edwards, Huw

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kemp, Fraser

  Ennis, Jeff

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Etherington, Bill

  Khabra, Piara S

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Kidney, David

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Flint, Caroline

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Flynn, Paul

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Follett, Barbara

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Laxton, Bob

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lepper, David

  Fyfe, Maria

  Leslie, Christopher

  Galloway, George

  Levitt, Tom

  Gapes, Mike

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Linton, Martin

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Livsey, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  LJwyd, Elfyn

  Godsiff, Roger

  Lock, David

  Goggins, Paul

  Love, Andrew

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  McAllion, John

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McCabe, Steve

  Grocott, Bruce

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Grogan, John

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Gunnell, John

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McDonnell, John

  Hancock, Mike

  McFall, John

  Hanson, David

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  McIsaac, Shona

  Harris, Dr Evan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Harvey, Nick

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Healey, John

  McNamara, Kevin

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  McNulty, Tony

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  MacShane, Denis

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Hepburn, Stephen

  McWalter, Tony

  Heppell, John

  McWilliam, John

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hinchliffe, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hoey, Kate

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hope, Phil

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Martlew, Eric

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Maxton, John

  421

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Meale, Alan

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Singh, Marsha

  Miller, Andrew

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mitchell, Austin

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Moore, Michael

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Snape, Peter

  Spellar, John

  Mountford, Kali

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Mullin, Chris

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Stevenson, George

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Norris, Dan

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Stringer, Graham

  Olner, Bill

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  O'Neill, Martin

  Stunell, Andrew

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pearson, Ian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pendry, Tom

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Pike, Peter L

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Plaskitt, James

  Timms, Stephen

  Pollard, Kerry

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pond, Chris

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Pound, Stephen

  Touhig, Don

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Primarolo, Dawno

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Tyler, Paul

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Rapson, Syd

  Wallace, James

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Wareing, Robert N

  Rendel, David

  Watts, David

  Robinson, Geoffrey (CoV'try NW)

  Webb, Steveo,

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  White, Brian

  Rogers, Allan

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Rooney, Terry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Roy, Frank

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Ruane, Chris

  Wilson, Brian

  Ruddock, Joan

  Winnick, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Wood, Mike

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Woodward, Shaun

  Salter, Martin

  Woolas, Phil

  Sanders, Adrian

  Worthington, Tony

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wray, James

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Sawford, Phil

  Wyatt, Derek

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Sheerman, Barry

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Mr. Greg Pope and

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mr. Clive Betts.

  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 310, Noes 167.

  Division No. 164]

  [7.14pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ainger, Nick

  Darvill, Keith

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Davidson, Ian

  Allen, Graham

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Ashton, Joe

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Austin, John

  Denham, John

  Banks, Tony

  Dobbin, Jim

  Barnes, Harry

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Battle, John

  Doran, Frank

  Beard, Nigel

  Dowd, Jim

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Drew, David

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Edwards, Huw

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Ennis, Jeff

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Etherington, Bill

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Flint, Caroline

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Flynn, Paul

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Fyfe, Maria

  Borrow, David

  Galloway, George

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gapes, Mike

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Gardiner, Barry

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Gerrard, Neil

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Browne, Desmond

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Burden, Richard

  Goggins, Paul

  Burgon, Colin

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  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)

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cann, Jamie

  Hanson, David

  Caplin, Ivor

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Casale, Roger

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Caton, Martin

  Healey, John

  Cawsey, Ian

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Chapman, Ben (WirralS)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clapham, Michael

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heppell, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hood, Jimmy

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hope, Phil

  Clelland, David

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cohen, Harry

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Coleman, Iain

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Colman, Tony

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Connarty, Michael

  Hurst, Alan

  Cooper, Yvette

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Corbett, Robin

  Illsley, Eric

  Cousins, Jim

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cox, Tom

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Crausby, David

  Jamieson, David

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Cummings, John

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  423

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Norris, Dan

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Olner, Bill

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jowell, Fit Hon Ms Tessa

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pearson, Ian

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pendry, Tom

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Kemp, Fraser

  Pickthall, Colin

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Pike, Peter L

  Khabra, Piara S

  Plaskitt, James

  Kidney, David

  Pollard, Kerry

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Pond, Chris

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Pound, Stephen

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Powell, Sir Raymond

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Laxton, Bob

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Lepper, David

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Leslie, Christopher

  Purchase, Ken

  Levitt, Tom

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rapson, Syd

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Linton, Martin

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lock, David

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Love, Andrew

  Rogers, Allan

  McAllion, John

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Rooney, Terry

  McCabe, Steve

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rowlands, Ted

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Roy, Frank

  Ruane, Chris

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Ruddock, Joan

  McDonnell, John

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McFall, John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Salter, Martin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  McNamara, Kevin

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  MacShane, Denis

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  McWalter, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Maxton, John

  Snape, Peter

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Spellar, John

  Meale, Alan

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moffatt, Laura

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Stringer, Graham

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Taylor, David (NWLeks)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mountford, Kali

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Timms, Stephen

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  424

  Touhig, Don

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Winnick, David

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Wood, Mike

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Woolas, Phil

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Worthington, Tony

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Wray, James

  Wareing, Robert N

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Watts, David

  Wyatt, Derek

  White, Brian

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Mr. Clive Betts and

  Mr. Greg Pope.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Garnier, Edward

  Allan, Richard

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Amess, David

  Gibb, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Gill, Christopher

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Gray, James

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Green, Damian

  Baldry, Tony

  Greenway, John

  Ballard, Jackie

  Grieve, Dominic

  Beggs, Roy

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Hammond, Philip

  Bercow, John

  Hancock, Mike

  Body, Sir Richard

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Boswell, Tim

  Harvey, Nick

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Heald, Oliver

  Brake, Tom

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Brazier, Julian

  Horam, John

  Breed, Colin

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Burnett, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Burstow, Paul

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Butterfill, John

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Johnson Smith,

  Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cash, William

  Key, Robert

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Clappison, James

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Lansley, Andrew

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Leigh, Edward

  Collins, Tim

  Letwin, Oliver

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Cotter, Brian

  Lidington, David

  Cran, James

  Livsey, Richard

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Loughton, Tim

  Day, Stephen

  Luff, Peter

  Duncan, Alan

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Evans, Nigel

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Fallon, Michael

  Madennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Fearn, Ronnie

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Flight, Howard

  Malins, Humfrey

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Maples, John

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Moore, Michael

  Fraser, Christopher

  Moss, Malcolm

  Gale, Roger

  Nicholls, Patrick

  425

  Norman, Archie

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Taylor, Ian (Esher S Walton)

  Page, Richard

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Paice, James

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Paterson, Owen

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Pickles, Eric

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Prior, David

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Randall, John

  Townend, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Tredinnick, David

  Rendel, David

  Trend, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence

  Tyler, Paul

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Wallace, James

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Walter, Robert

  Sanders, Adrian

  Waterson, Nigel

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Webb, Steve

  Shepherd, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wilkinson, John

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Willetts, David

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Spring, Richard

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Steen, Anthony

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Streeter, Gary

  Stunell, Andrew

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Swayne, Desmond

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

  Syms, Robert

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House welcomes the fact that the Government is committed to a national post office network and is taking steps to secure this; welcomes the Government's moves to plan the introduction of automated credit transfer; welcomes the Postal Services Bill which will enable the Post Office to modernise, so building up new business for the network; welcomes the investment of £500 million to ensure the network is computerised, so enabling a successful and modern network to emerge; welcomes the Government's introduction for the first time of criteria for access to Post Office services; welcomes the commitment to give benefit recipients the choice of having benefits paid in cash via a post office even after the switch to automated credit transfer is complete in 2005; and applauds the work of the sub-postmasters and postmistresses and condemns those who make their lives harder by talking down the network.

Asylum Seekers
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): We now come to the next motion, and I must tell the House that Madam Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
7.26 pm
Mr. David Lidington: I beg to move,
That this House believes that the United Kingdom should continue to offer a safe haven to genuine refugees in fear of persecution; is concerned that the right to claim asylum in the United Kingdom is at present subject to widespread abuse; believes that the large proportion of unfounded asylum claims harms the interests of genuine refugees who are fleeing from persecution; notes that in 1999 there were over 71,000 claims for asylum in the United Kingdom, compared with fewer than 30,000 in 1996; further notes that the backlog of unprocessed applications stands at over 103,000, double the levels of 1997; further notes that the vast majority of asylum applicants are refused and are neither granted asylum nor exceptional leave to remain; further notes that fewer than 8,000 failed asylum seekers leave the United Kingdom annually as a result of Government action; deplores the 'soft touch' message sent out by the Government and condemns the Government for its failure to address the root causes of the present crisis; supports the abolition of cash benefits for asylum seekers but deplores the Government's incoherent and ineffective attempts to implement new arrangements for their support and the continued burden on local authorities; and calls on the Government to implement common sense solutions, including the increased use of detention and more removals of failed asylum seekers, to discourage bogus applications and address the current crisis, which is causing great concern to the people of the United Kingdom.
I preface my remarks by briefly expressing the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe). She had been looking forward with relish to the debate, but a throat infection has silenced her in a way that Labour Members have failed to do over the past three years—and will continue to fail to do.
In the three years since the Government took office, the number of people claiming asylum in the United Kingdom has more than doubled, from 26,640 in 1996—the last full year of the Conservative Administration—to 71,160 in 1999. That means that last year the number of asylum claimants in Britain was roughly equivalent to the electorate in an average parliamentary constituency. The backlog of cases awaiting a decision from the Home Office has almost doubled, from 57,405 in 1996 to 102,870 at the end of 1999. I therefore make no apology whatever for the Opposition's decision once again to choose this subject for debate.
The truth is that the crisis over asylum policy is now arousing anger and resentment among our constituents and, if Labour Members are honest, among their constituents as well. People are angry about the transparent abuse of this country's long tradition of giving asylum to genuine refugees, and they are indignant that our asylum system is overwhelmed by bogus applications from people who are intent on evading our immigration controls.
Mr. Mike Gapes: What would the hon. Gentleman say to my constituent who came to my advice surgery on Monday with his wife and daughter and told me that he had made an application in 1993, under the Conservative Government, and his wife had made an application in 1994, also under the Conservative

427
Government, and neither of their cases had yet been resolved? Will the hon. Gentleman accept that the policies introduced by his Government were responsible for at least some of that delay of six or seven years?
Mr. Lidington: If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my introductory remarks, he would have heard me say that under the three years' stewardship of asylum policy by the Government whom he supports, the queue and the number of applications have doubled. Despite all his lectures to me across the Chamber, he cannot escape from the fundamental truth that while his Ministers have had stewardship of this area of policy, the problem that he described has been getting much worse.
The anger and resentment of our constituents do not, I believe, spring at all from feelings of racism or xenophobia among the people whom we represent. Most people in this country are willing to welcome men and women who are genuinely fleeing for their lives. They are willing to give such refugees the rights to education, health treatment and family reunion granted by the 1951 convention—rights which in practice pretty well match those given by this country to its own citizens.
Most of our countrymen and women well understand the positive contribution that various groups of refugees have made to British life and British culture over the centuries. I cite the Ugandan Asians who fled Idi Amin in the early 1970s as perhaps the most recent example of such a group.
There is also widespread public understanding that the great majority of applications for asylum are indeed bogus, and that the negligence and chaotic mismanagement by the current crop of Home Office Ministers have brought about a state of affairs that is unfair to genuine refugees. The very people whom we have both a moral and a legal duty to assist, and whose cases should be determined quickly so that they can be accorded the rights to which they are entitled under international law, are instead left to shuffle along in a queue with almost 103,000 other case.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Lidington: I give way first to the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck).
Ms Karen Buck: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Is he aware that the average processing time is now down to 13 months? It was last down to 13 months in 1990. At no point during the 1990s was the processing time down to its present level. At the time of the last election, for applicants who had come in before 1993, the waiting time was 65 months. That is entirely down to the appalling mismanagement under his party in government.
Mr. Lidington: I am always delighted to have the opportunity to pay tribute to the dedication and professionalism of staff in the Home Office, whose efforts begin to make progress at times, despite the handicap of having to cope with the mismanagement of the Ministers to whom they report. I must tell the hon. Lady that at the current rate of decision taking, it will still take roughly five years before the Home Office can eliminate the backlog which the Ministers whom she supports have allowed to develop.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I join him in paying tribute to the staff of the immigration and nationality department. If he is so fond of their work, why did the previous Government offer redundancy to several hundred of them, an act which caused the disruption in the service?
Mr. Lidington: The hon. Lady will refresh her memory after the debate. She will discover once again the fact that at the time the Labour Government took office, both the backlog of applicants and the number of applicants were falling dramatically, as consequence of the measures introduced by my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). The Conservative Government were getting on top of the asylum problem. The current Government got in and the problems began to get worse.
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): If the Conservative Government were getting on top of the problems, why was the delay 20 months at the time of the general election, whereas it is now down to 13 months?
Mr. Lidington: The Home Secretary can take no pride in a backlog that has risen from 50,000 cases to 103,000 cases during his stewardship of the Home Office.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman must answer the question. If the position was so good in 1997, why was the time that it took to deal with the backlog 50 per cent. longer than the corresponding time now—20 months then compared with 13 months now?
Mr. Lidington: The number of people waiting has doubled. If we examine the number of decisions taken during the past year, we find that until the last couple of months, the number of decisions was desperately low, at a time when the number of applications was rocketing. As regards decision taking, the Home Secretary was failing even to keep pace with the number of applications coming in.
Ms Diane Abbott: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Everyone in the House knows that issues to do with race, immigration and asylum excite real fears. Is it responsible to pretend that the challenge that we perceive from thousands of asylum seekers coming in has everything to do with the failings of the present Government, and nothing to do with the civil war that has been raging across the Balkans over the past three years?
Mr. Lidington: I intend to deal with that point slightly later in my speech. If the hon. Lady will forgive me, I will respond to her point when I come to that passage.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Lidington: I give way to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), and then I will make some progress.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I am grateful. The hon. Gentleman repeated again a moment

429
ago the argument that the vast majority—those were his words—of those who came were bogus asylum seekers. How then does he explain the fact that of the decisions made last year, according to the official figures, 36 per cent. were recognised as refugees and granted asylum, and 11 per cent. were granted exceptional leave to remain, so that even before appeals were turned down, 47 per cent. were accepted?
How does the hon. Gentleman justify the fact that the cost per household suggested in the Tory local election manifesto is £160, whereas the accurate answer is £24? Is that not just exaggeration to pander to prejudice, as Tories regularly do?
Mr. Lidington: I shall try to be generous to the hon. Gentleman. I shall deal first with his point about the figures for last year. If he looks more closely at the statistics for 1999 published by the Home Office monthly, he will see that between April and July 1999, when the Kosovo crisis was at its height, and before the United Nations suspended its evacuation programme in July and it became safe for people to begin to return home, there was indeed a very large influx to Britain and other western European countries of people from Kosovo who were fleeing ethnic cleansing there. That accounts for the statistic that he gave for the year.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at the subsequent months of 1999, he will find that the pattern that I described, where the overwhelming majority of applications for asylum in this country were found to be without foundation, was resumed. In fact, for the last month for which the Home Office has published figures, the refusal rate was back up to 90 per cent. of the total.
I am trying to be fair to the hon. Gentleman. There was a particular reason in three or four months in 1999 why a greater than usual number of applicants were accepted as genuine, but there has now been a reversion to the pattern that has been maintained over many years.
Let me deal with the hon. Gentleman's other point. I am quite happy to give him detailed accounts of the costs to local taxpayers of support for asylum seekers, but it comes pretty rich from the Liberal Democrats to start denouncing members of other political parties for exploiting the race issue. It is only few years hence, as I recall, that leaflets were distributed by the Tower Hamlets Liberal Democrats which were deliberately designed to exploit that issue. We read in this morning's newspapers that in Islington they have been up to their old tricks again.
With due respect to the hon. Gentleman, he should go and preach his sermons to his own party members before he comes and preaches them to us.
The present state of affairs is unfair to genuine refugees, and it is unfair to British taxpayers and British local authorities. They are bearing the costs of supporting claimants and their families. I am not talking just about Kent or the London boroughs, although they have borne the brunt; complaints have been received from Liverpool and Glasgow city councils, and Northamptonshire county council has unearthed £425,000 of alleged fraud on the part of people involved in housing asylum seekers under the dispersal scheme.
430
When confronted with what is going on and with public anger, the Government have two main excuses, both of which we have heard from Labour Members today. The first consists of blaming their predecessors. We expect that from the Government, because it is the most convenient substitute for a good argument and sound evidence, but after three years it has begun to wear thin. Let us look at the Government's own targets. Let us consult, for example, their 1998 White Paper entitled, somewhat humorously, "Fairer, Faster and Firmer". If we turn not to the headline but to the annexe—the bit that we are not meant to read in any detail—we find their targets for future years.
Let us look at the Government's published target for asylum decisions during 1999–2000: it is 59,000. When we look at the number of decisions that have actually been made, add up the monthly decision totals from the Home Office's bulletin, and add to that the total of 9,000 which the Home Secretary gave us in answer to oral questions on Monday, we find that the Government are going to undershoot their published target by some 9,000 or 10,000. That is not successful or responsible stewardship of asylum policy.
Let us now look at the published target for asylum seeker support. The target for expenditure in 1999–2000 is £350 million. What was the outcome? Well, asylum seeker support has gradually become more expensive as the financial year has progressed. In a written answer on 2 November last year, the Minister of State predicted that the £350 million figure would rise to between £450 million and £490 million; but today, in a written answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald the Government published a figure revised upwards yet again, to no less than £597 million. When we add that projected figure for the current year to the expenditure that the Government have undertaken since coming to office, we find that, in the three years of their stewardship, no less than £1.5 billion of public money has had to be spent on asylum seeker support.
Mrs. Roche: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his courtesy in giving way to me again.
If the House had been ill advised enough to accept the amendment to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999 that was backed by the hon. Gentleman and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), it would have cost £500 million a year to restore income support, in addition to what we are spending already. What does the hon. Gentleman have to say about that?
Mr. Lidington: I say that the hon. Lady should look at the record again. She will find that my right hon. Friend the Member for Maidstone and The Weald said repeatedly that we were prepared to support a voucher scheme in principle, but that we lacked confidence in the Government's capacity to deliver a scheme that was capable of working effectively in the way the Government had promised. [Interruption.] We tabled our amendment when the Asylum and Immigration Bill came before the House. The Government did what they usually do when confronted with an uncomfortable debate: they introduced a timetable motion. As a result, not only our amendment

431
on asylum seeker support, but 365 of 367 amendments that had been passed in the other place were not debated. [Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think we have had enough sedentary interventions from both Back Benchers and Front Benchers.
Mr. Lidington: As I was saying, 365 of 367 amendments tabled in the other place—mostly Government amendments, such was the chaotic nature of the drafting—were not debated at all by the House of Commons.
The Government's second excuse—here I come to the point made by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—is that this is not their fault, because international crises have taken events beyond Ministers' control. Of course no Conservative Member would be silly enough to blame the British Government for the crisis in Kosovo, the actions of President Milosevic or the chaos in Somalia—although I find it interesting that, when an international crisis reaches a form of resolution, the Prime Minister usually tries to find some way of claiming credit for that success.
The question that I must throw back to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington is this: how did countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, which were exposed to exactly the same international pressures as the United Kingdom, manage to reduce the number of applications during 1999, while—according to the United Nations High Commission for Refugees—applications to the United Kingdom during that year rose by no less than 53 per cent.? Why has the United Kingdom now overtaken Germany as the country that receives more applications every month than any other nation in Europe?
Mr. Tony Baldry: Is this not one of the reasons? In our newspapers we see photographs of camps near Calais, for instance, housing hundreds of economic migrants who are waiting to get into the United Kingdom. How can it be possible, under the United Nations convention, for a country such as France to allow that to happen? Surely, under the convention, people should claim asylum in the first country that they reach. How can the spread of such camps be justified—camps for economic migrants seeking to come to the United Kingdom simply because they think that our benefit regime is more generous?
Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend makes his point well. I hope that the Home Secretary will give us an account of the representations that he has no doubt made to his French counterparts, and of the pressure that he has put on them to deal with those camps.
Many local authorities in London and elsewhere in the south-east are bearing tremendous burdens, despite the Home Secretary's recent and welcome move to extend the new support arrangements to Kent. Notwithstanding categorical assurances that the Government would be ready to introduce new voucher and dispersal arrangements from 1 April, the scheme seems to be hitting exactly the kind of trouble that Opposition Members predicted when the Asylum and Immigration Bill was before Parliament.
432
Last year, the Home Secretary told the House:
New support arrangements have always been due to come into force in April 2000.—[Official Report, 9 November 1999; Vol. 337, c. 982.]
On 2 February this year, he said:
The full scheme will come into force from April 2000.…Dispersal will be on a no-choice basis as regards location.—[Official Report, 2 February 2000; Vol. 343, c. 1065.]
There was no mention of phased implementation, and no hint that local authorities would still be obliged to support in-country applicants, who make up about 60 per cent. of the total. As I have said, we are prepared to give the Government support on a voucher and dispersal scheme, but nothing in the Government's record to date gives us any confidence that they are capable of making such a scheme work effectively.
May I put a couple of particular points to the Home Secretary? I hope that either he or the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), will be able to respond to them later in the debate. First, are Ministers prepared yet to use the powers that they have under the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 to designate reception zones in particular parts of the country and to take central control of the dispersal programme, which appears at the moment to be incoherent and ineffective and which has aroused considerable mistrust among local authorities—by no means just Conservative local authorities—in many different areas?
Mr. Roger Gale: Before he leaves that point, does my hon. Friend recognise that the people of Kent feel very let down by the Government, who have failed to meet their financial commitment to Kent county council in the past financial year by £1.7 million, and who have failed and are failing to implement their programme of dispersal? Is the figure of 20,000 economic migrants whom the Government have failed to deport following decisions that they should not remain in this country remotely satisfactory?
Mr. Lidington: The Government's record in defending the interests of the people of Kent and in upholding a reputable system for handling asylum cases has been deplorable throughout their three years in office.
Mr. Neil Gerrard: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington: No. Secondly, a report from Sir Geoffrey Bowman to the Lord Chancellor was published in summary on the internet just this afternoon. It makes a number of disturbing claims about the likely future trend of judicial review applications in asylum cases. It is a serious review team. It is chaired by Sir Geoffrey Bowman and includes Lord Justice Simon Brown, Ms Anne Owers, director of Justice, and senior legal academics.
The summary of the conclusions of the report reads:
The new asylum support provisions, and the limitations of the appellate system set up to deal with them, are likely to increase substantially the number of applications for judicial review.
If that prediction is accurate, it will be a very worrying trend.
Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington: No. I hope that the Government will take urgent action to set that right. If the Press Association

433
report of the review is accurate, the judge warns of an extra work load, which is likely to be somewhere between "substantial and a flood," and calls for urgent action to clear up the backlog before the autumn. If he is correct in his predictions, the time available to the Government to take corrective action is very limited.
I turn to the measures that we have proposed and which we urge the Government to accept. First, we need an increased use of detention. It is not some draconian or inhumane policy, but a system that is widely used by other European countries whose asylum problems are comparable with our own. Such a system, making greater use of reception centres, would deter bogus applicants and ensure that, when an application has been refused, the authorities know where the person is and can ensure his removal quickly from this country.
Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington: No.
Secondly, we urge the Government to establish a removals agency with power to arrest and to detain people—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman who is addressing the House will not give way. That being so, Members should resume their seats.
Mr. Lidington: We wish the Government to establish a removals agency with power to arrest and detain people who have no right to remain here. We must ensure that many more asylum seekers whose claim is rejected actually leave the United Kingdom. The Home Office admits that at least 20,000 failed asylum seekers have simply disappeared. Other estimates put that figure much higher. Allowing thousands of failed applicants to disappear sends out entirely the wrong message, as does taking no action against those who employ them illegally.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington: No.
In opposition, the Labour party denounced the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 as racist.
Mr. Marshall-Andrews: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Lidington: No. Labour said then that it would not implement our checks against illegal working because they, too, were racist. Two years on, they had an apparent change of heart. The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), announced to the House:
Illegal working is a growing global problem.
He went on to condemn what he called the "sweatshop economy", and exploitative employers and racketeers. He spoke of considerable abuse. Any conversion is always welcome, but I fear that the tough words were not matched by determined action.
434
The Minister advocated a much stronger and tougher message, but he had to confess at that time that there had been
only one prosecution, which was very recent… The reason that we have not prosecuted more is that we were considering the issue carefully.—[Official Report, 16 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 490-91.]
The Government considered; the Government thought: the Government reflected. What has happened?
Mrs. Roche: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been only one prosecution under the present Government, but will he confirm that, under the last Conservative Government, there were no prosecutions at all?
Mr. Lidington: I must point out that the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 had been in force for a couple of months before we lost office at the general election. The Minister and her colleagues have had three years to get their act together and to use those powers. She gave the game away, however. She told me in a written answer—she will probably recall it:
One prosecution has been brought thus far, in 1999.—[Official Report, 23 March 2000; Vol. 346, c. 676W.]
There we have it: one prosecution by June 1999; no more prosecutions by March 2000, nine months later—nine months after the Home Secretary and his Ministers had changed their mind about the powers in the 1996 Act because of what they believed to be systematic abuse and exploitation. So much for their commitment. So much for action. As on so many occasions, we see a Government who are all mouth and no delivery.
Mr. James Clappison: Does my hon. Friend find it absolutely unbelievable that the Minister of State should, of all people, complain about that? When she was the shadow Opposition spokesman for the Labour party, she wrote to The Daily Telegraph and said that a Labour Government would under no circumstances operate those provisions.
Mr. Lidington: My hon. Friend may have given the House the explanation of why, despite all the slogans from Ministers, the powers are not in practice being used, but it is not the only occasion when the Minister of State has eaten her words. If she looks back at the record of the debates in 1992 on the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Bill, she will see that, on Second Reading, she denounced in the most vehement terms any provision for taking fingerprints from asylum seekers; yet she now not only has charge of the compulsory taking of fingerprints from asylum seekers, but is trying to pilot through a pan-European fingerprinting system and fingerprinting database for asylum seekers. She will have the opportunity later to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that she will be able to give the House a full and apologetic account of the contradiction between her words then and her words now.
This country has for centuries been a haven from persecution for refugees, and that is a tradition that and I and the Conservative party believe that we in Britain must continue to uphold. However, that tradition of hospitality is undermined by large-scale, systematic abuse of our asylum law. The Government—by their negligence, complacency and incompetence—have undermined public

435
confidence in the law and betrayed the interests not only of the British people, but of the genuine refugees whom our law and international law have been developed to protect. The Government's record is dismal. I commend the motion to the House.
8 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): I beg to move, To leave out from `House' to end and add
`approves the Government's comprehensive, integrated strategy to modernise the immigration and asylum system to make it fairer, faster and firmer; welcomes the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which will overhaul the inadequate legislative framework created by the previous Government and will replace the chaotic asylum support arrangements introduced in 1996 which have imposed an intolerable burden on local authorities; is astonished that the Official Opposition voted in the other place to restore cash benefits to asylum seekers at a cost of £500 million per year; approves the measures being taken to tackle the smugglers and traffickers who profit from illegal immigration; approves the new civil penalty for drivers and others who bring illegal immigrants to this country concealed in their vehicles; welcomes the substantial additional investment that the Government is making to increase the volume and speed of asylum decisions; congratulates the staff of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on achieving record numbers of asylum decisions; and supports the Government's commitment to protecting genuine refugees while dealing firmly with those who seek to evade the control.'.
I express genuine sympathy with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) and genuine sorrow that, because of her infection, she has not been able to take part in this debate.
As the House will know, few issues excite more controversy, or pose more acute dilemmas of principle and practice, than asylum. By the end of 1997, it was plain that the basic structures established by the previous Administration were unlikely to withstand the test of time. Therefore, in a White Paper in July 1998 I proposed a clear strategy for reform. That strategy was translated into law in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which is the largest and most comprehensive reform of the system ever introduced in the United Kingdom.
Those reforms will ensure that this country honours our moral and international obligations to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. However, they will also ensure that we deal firmly with those who seek to use asylum as a means of evading normal immigration control. Our strategy is aimed at preventing and deterring unfounded applicants from entering the United Kingdom; speeding up the process once people are here; and dealing fairly and effectively with those who are accepted as refugees and those who are not.
First, let me deal with some of the points made by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington). In all his criticisms of the system—the unacceptable delays, the burden on local authorities, the increased numbers of unfounded applications, the lack of powers to track down organised criminals and racketeers—there is one common theme. As we all appreciate, Conservative Members do not like us to remind them of that common theme—which is that all those problems are the direct result of a legal and administrative framework established and implemented by the previous, Conservative Government.
Every single aspect of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996—including the so-called "white list", which the hon. Member for Aylesbury did not mention once—has been operated by the current Government in advance of the radical changes that we are introducing in our 1999 Act.
436
Who was responsible for the 1996 Act, which created the system that the Opposition—in what I consider to be wholly ill-judged and inappropriate language—claim has made Britain "a soft touch"?
Mr. Michael Howard: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: Of course I shall give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. It was none other than he who was responsible for that Act. I am very happy to give way to him.
Mr. Howard: The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that the 1996 Act was working extremely effectively. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The figures show that, in 1996, the number of applicants fell by 40 per cent. and that the backlog fell by 12,000. That is what happened under that legislation—until the courts intervened, effectively to subvert the legislation's effect. Why did not the Home Secretary legislate immediately after the general election to give that legislation its true and original meaning, rather than wasting three years in which the problem has spiralled out of all control?
Mr. Straw: I shall deal with each of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's points in turn. I am grateful for his notice of those points, which he gave in a letter to The Daily Telegraph. As I shall show, however, his Act failed.
Back in November 1995, the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the prescience to anticipate the Act's failure. Indeed, he wrote a long article in the Daily Mail, which said in the headline: "The Home Secretary"—the right hon. and learned Gentleman—"warns that if his Bill fails, the number of asylum seekers will double in five years". His Bill did fail. That fact, more than any other, is why the number of asylum seekers has increased.
Mr. Gale: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
Mr. Howard: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: I am delighted to give way.
Mr. Howard: The Home Secretary knows perfectly well that the point I was making in that article was that, if that legislation did not get through Parliament—it was under the most ferocious attack from none other than the Home Secretary himself—the consequence to which I referred in that article would happen. The Home Secretary had it within his power to give that legislation its original effect. Why did he not do that, instead of wasting three years?
Mr. Straw: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Gerrard: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Straw: Allow me first to answer the right hon. and learned Gentleman, and then I shall be very happy to give way to my hon. Friend.

437
May I explain to the right hon. and learned Gentleman what happened after the passage of the 1996 Act? I should be very happy to place in the Library the figures on what happened after introduction of his Act. At first, the numbers did decrease. They decreased also—to 22,370 in 1993—after implementation of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, which was supposed to solve the problem. However, after two years, the numbers had doubled. In 1995, to justify his proposals, the right hon. and learned Gentleman came to the House to speak of the relentless rise in numbers that had occurred under the 1993 Act—which had been introduced only two years before by the previous Government.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the numbers had decreased by 40 per cent. The numbers did decrease, but—I am delighted to place the figures on the Table and to give him a copy of them—they were increasing before he left office. Moreover, they would have continued to increase.
The whole of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's claim is based on false statistics, showing that the numbers were decreasing, when they were not. The numbers decreased briefly, as they had in 1993, but then they increased. He is now erecting—neither he nor Conservative Front Benchers have ever done it before, at least within my hearing—a whole fabric around the idea that, if only we had appealed the Court of Appeal's decision affecting local authorities, everything else would have worked.
One of the major failings of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's arrangements in the 1996 Act—he cannot complain that he was not warned about it; he was warned not only by Labour Members, but by the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke)—was that social security cash benefits were to be continued for those who applied at the port of entry. That would ensure that they would continue to act as a major incentive for people to come into this country, whereas those who applied in-country, however genuine their application, were simply to be left destitute. That was the point. That was the policy. Those people were to get nothing.
Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman willed that end, he had neither the wit nor the guts to will the means to achieve it. In not one word or line of the 1996 Act did he seek to do what he knew, and was warned, that he would have to do: to amend the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Acts, so that local authorities had no responsibility to support those who had been left destitute.
Mr. Gerrard: Will my right hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Gale: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment.
What then happened is that some applicants—at least a third of whom were genuine—were left destitute. If civilisation means anything, it means that we do not leave people destitute—unable to eat, with no accommodation whatever—regardless of the foundedness or unfoundedness of their claim. That was the right hon. and learned Gentleman's policy.
438
What happened next? Applicants—in the case of R v. Westminster city council and others ex parte M, P, A and X—appealed. The court at first instance, Mr. Justice Collins, said that Parliament had never, ever changed either the National Assistance Act or the Children Acts, and that, therefore, those duties plainly continued. That was followed by an appeal to the Court of Appeal, which said exactly the same thing.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman now asks why we did not appeal. As a matter of fact, the Department of Health, which took the lead on this, and local authorities—Hammersmith and Fulham, which is a Labour authority, and the City of Westminster, which is a Conservative authority—did appeal. They dropped their appeal only with the prospect of the new national asylum support system. It may have been three years later, but the consequence of rushing through legislation then, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman now suggests we should have done, would have been that 14,000 people who were receiving support from local authorities would have been literally—I am not exaggerating—thrown on to the street and left destitute without food, housing or warmth. So horrible was that prospect that, in my recollection, not once during the passage of what became the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, did any Conservative Member move amendments to that effect, although they had every opportunity to do so. I do not recall the right hon. and learned Gentleman himself proposing that until now.
Mr. Gale: Will the Home Secretary give way?
Mr. Straw: I shall give way in a moment, as I always do, but first let me deal with the canard about the numbers rising.
The second factor connected to the rise in numbers is Dublin—not the city but the Dublin convention on sharing responsibility for asylum seekers across the EU. I was made sublimely aware of that convention when I took office in May 1997. It turned out that it had been signed seven years earlier by Mr. David Waddington, the then Home Secretary. It was extremely convenient to the previous Administration that it did not come into force until October 1997. However, it is law and it is binding on us.
Before the Dublin convention came into force, effective gentlemen's agreements with France and Belgium enabled us to return within days applicants who could and should have applied in those countries. We are constantly asked why we cannot send back people who are the responsibility of another EU country. I wish that we could, but the Conservative Government stopped us doing that when they scrapped the gentlemen's agreements and instead imposed the Dublin convention, which has led to huge bureaucratic delays and the right of appeal for those who should have been transferred to third countries. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows, that is the truth.
Mr. Howard: The Home Secretary knows perfectly well, as he wrote to me about it only a few days ago, that the purpose of the Dublin convention was to facilitate the extent to which people could be returned to safe third countries within the European Union. The Home Secretary shares that objective. He has acknowledged that the Dublin convention is not working as it was intended.

439
His Government have had more than two years, with all the goodwill that they claim to have won within the EU, to get the Dublin convention to work as it was originally intended.
Mr. Straw: That is the weakest of many weak points that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has made so far. Of course he is right to say that the intention of the Dublin convention was to facilitate transfers between different EU countries. Not even I would have assumed that the Conservative Government were so daft as to sign a convention with the intention of making it more difficult, but as often happened under the previous Administration, there was a huge gap between intention and reality. I was complaining not about the intention, but about the reality and the fact that they did not think it through, just as they did not think through the 1993 Act. They certainly did not think through the 1996 Act. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me why we sought to amend it. I shall tell him. The gentlemen's agreements were bilateral agreements, which could easily be changed and they had to be scrapped under the Dublin convention.
I have often wondered whether we should simply scrap the Dublin convention, as it is mind bending in its bureaucracy and the difficulty that it imposes on good immigration staff sending people back. However, unless and until we had the agreement of the other 14 EU member states, we would have nothing at all in its place. So we have to continue with the Dublin convention. I have chaired article 18 committees of amazing tedium because of the structure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman established in order to try to get changes under the Dublin convention. We continue in our attempts.
The third factor was the previous Government's decision to downsize the operation of the immigration and nationality directorate and to impose a freeze on recruitment, all in the vain hope that the binding contract with Siemens would produce early and beneficial results. Staff numbers were cut by more than 500 at a time when applications were rising. By the time the Conservatives left office, the delay of which they are so proud was 20 months.
The previous Government were warned about that, and not by us. I know that, these days, he is certainly not regarded as a hero in the Conservative ranks, but the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) was once an immigration Minister. On 11 December 1995, at column 748, he warned that the investment that the previous Government intended to put into the new system simply was not enough to ensure that they could process the applications.
Fourthly, on why the number of applications have risen, I was glad to hear the hon. Member for Aylesbury say that no one should be so silly as to blame the Government for the civil wars in Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia, Kosovo, Iraq and a whole list of other countries. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman spotted that, but I might have been forgiven for thinking that I was to blame, even during Home Office questions on Monday. The hon. Gentleman was complaining about the rise in the number of applications. Four countries—Afghanistan, Sri Lanka, Somalia and Kosovo—account for 31,000 of the 70,000 applications for asylum that we received in 1999. Applications from those countries have increased by more than 12,000.
440
This time last year, the Government were under pressure not to take fewer refugees, but to take more refugees. As the hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's role in the Kosovo war, I might add that, had my right hon. Friend not shown the statesmanship that he did in leading the intervention against the Serbians, Europe would be facing not thousands but millions of refugees.
Mr. Gale: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I understand his desire to put some verbal distance between my request that he give way and his assertion that tonight was the first time that he knew of the recommendations by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). Is he willing to place in the Library the record of the meeting held between my right hon. and learned Friend, myself and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) in October 1997, in which every single remedy recommended this evening by my right hon. and learned Friend was mentioned? Unless the Government have a dishonest record of that meeting, he will find that all those recommendations and warnings were made then, but the Government took no action whatever.
Mr. Straw: That was certainly worth waiting for. I am delighted to place the minutes of that meeting in the Library. I am sure that there will be a queue a mile long of hon. Members waiting to read them.
Mr. Gale: They may be in for a surprise.
Mr. Straw: If the hon. Gentleman asserts that we should have put more than 14,000 people on the streets with nowhere to live, nothing to eat and no warmth, I am happy to give way to him again.
Mr. Gale: I am simply saying that the problems that were arising in October 1997, with the flood of immigrants from the Czech and Slovak Republics, had been drawn to the Government's attention by my right hon. and learned Friend and myself. The remedies suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend tonight were mentioned at that meeting. It is a matter of record and I am delighted that the Home Secretary has agreed to place the minutes in the Library. The record, if it is honest, will show what was said at that meeting, and the Home Secretary should have known about it then.
Mr. Straw: There was not quite a yes or a no in that. I do not remember the hon. Gentleman mentioning Slovakia and the Czech Republic earlier. I took early action on Slovakia by the imposition of a visa regime. We have always made our position clear, as we have in respect of Ecuador, Colombia and several other countries, and we shall continue to do so.
This is a short debate, thanks to the fact that the Conservatives decided to shorten it by voting twice on their own motion, but I want to set out the actions that we are taking to tackle the problems. We are strengthening our immigration control the better to tackle those who abuse the system. The immigration service is recruiting at least 700 operational staff this calendar year—a 25 per cent. increase—and a further expansion is planned for early next year.

441
We are also giving immigration officers new powers. The hon. Member for Aylesbury spoke about what I think he called a removal service, and suggested that we should give the officers powers of arrest. But for a new label on the door, we have done that: it is called the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The Act contains all the additional powers of arrest that any officers require to secure the better removal of those who are here unlawfully.
A crucial part of strengthening control is something that the hon. Gentleman was eloquent about in his silence. Not once did we hear anything either for or against the imposition, which came into force at the beginning of April, of a civil penalty of £2,000 on hauliers who are found unreasonably to have clandestine illegal immigrants in the backs of their lorries.
Miss Ann Widdecombe: We are against it.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Lady, who has miraculously found her voice—I am very glad that I have been able to find a cure for her—and the hon. Member for Aylesbury owe it to the country, when they are setting out their plan for the immigration service and for tackling the problems, to say whether they will remove the penalty on hauliers who knowingly, recklessly or negligently have clandestine illegals in the back of their trucks.
Prior to implementation of the penalty 10 days ago, 2,000 or so people were being caught every month coming to the United Kingdom in that way. I am pleased to tell the House that the penalty is being used. Up to yesterday afternoon, notices of penalty under the legislation had been served in respect of 30 vehicles, three of which were dealt with in Coquelles in France, where the 12 clandestine entrants were returned to the French authorities. The right hon. Lady now says that we should not have that effective control, even operating in France. That is saying one thing and doing exactly the opposite.
Two vehicles have been detained, one pending payment in respect of 50 clandestines found in the back. No one is telling me that one can drive a lorry containing 50 clandestines and not know that they are there. That lorry has been detained pending payment of a charge of £100,000. The whole country will be delighted and interested to know that the right hon. Lady is on the side of the truck driver with 50 clandestines in the back, and not on the side of the rule of law.
Mr. Simon Hughes: I share the Home Secretary's view that there needs to be control of vehicles so that people do not seek to come in in the back of lorries or hanging on to the undercarriage, but by what legal method can an asylum seeker from Sri Lanka, Slovakia or Afghanistan, say, with family here get to Britain to make a claim?
Mr. Straw: Those who come through another European country—all those who arrive by road or sea must do that, unless my geography is completely inaccurate—should have applied in that country. Those who arrive by air, if they have not come from a safe third country, are our responsibility, regardless of whether they have broken immigration rules. That is how the system works.
Mr. Julian Brazier: The Home Secretary has been generous in giving way. While he is talking
442
about whose responsibility the asylum seekers are, will he answer the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, as well as in an early-day motion signed by several Labour Members who are now in the Chamber, that secure race relations in this country must be on the basis of central Government taking full financial responsibility for asylum seekers rather than leaving it to a few local authorities?
Mr. Straw: That is exactly the purpose of our national asylum support system. We did not believe that it was fair on a few local authorities, such as the London boroughs, Kent and the Medway unitary authority, to have those responsibilities, and that is why we are relieving them of them.
The figures show that we have reimbursed Kent every penny of the expenditure that is the responsibility of the Home Office. I accept, as I said on Monday, that there is £700,000 in dispute for unaccompanied minors, who are at present the responsibility of the Department of Health. I cannot make an absolute promise, but I hope that it will be possible properly to resolve that dispute. I accept that, subject to the issue of unit costs, which will always have to be a matter for examination, central Government should of course accept responsibility for what is a national, not a local problem.
When we came to office, an asylum decision took 20 months and the number of staff was going down, not up. By contrast, we are investing heavily in the casework system, and 300 caseworkers have been recruited, doubling the number. Altogether, there has been a 27 per cent. increase and 1,400 more staff have been taken on in the immigration and nationality directorate. In March, more than 10,000 asylum decisions were made—another record, and four times the monthly average for the last three months of last year.
The problem of multiple appeals was left completely untouched by the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe. People could appeal against a decision, go to the tribunal and go to judicial review, and the moment a removal direction was issued they could appeal against it—three more stages—and then they could appeal against a deportation action. There was not a line in either the 1993 or the 1996 Act to deal with that.
Under the 1999 Act, under provisions coming into force on 2 October, there will be one-stop appeals. In the recent Ben James decision, the chief adjudicator said:
This case underlines in a very acute way the necessity for the implementation at the first possible opportunity of the provisions contained in the Immigration and Asylum Act … in relation to one stop appeals.
In respect of the case, which had been going on for 14 years, he went on to say:
it is very unlikely that—
had the relevant section been in force—
this claim for asylum, which took many years to investigate and try, would ever have got off the ground at all.
Fiona Mactaggart: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the fact that the numerous appeal rights have, rightly, been curtailed—with the widespread approval of those who have traditionally supported the claims of asylum seekers—places a real responsibility on us, as we make decisions faster, to make decisions of the best quality and to ensure that those fast initial decisions are accurate?
Mr. Straw: Yes. Not only have we taken on more staff, but at Croydon and the other offices a huge effort is being

443
devoted to ensuring greater consistency of decisions. In addition, the immigration appeal tribunal has been upgraded. It is now presided over by Mr. Justice Collins, a High Court judge of considerable experience. I commend him and all the adjudicators and staff in the Lord Chancellor's Department, as well as in the Home Office, for all the work that is being undertaken to ensure that the system is properly joined up and that higher-quality decisions are made than in the past.
Of course, we also have to remove people from this country as quickly as possible. Removals have not been as fast as they should be, not least because of the huge delays that have taken place. It is the delays in the system, more even than the total number waiting in the queue, that fundamentally lie behind the problems of removals. That said, 7,100 failed asylum seekers were removed in 1997 and, despite the difficulty of Dublin, that has been increased to 7,650 last year. Much better regional enforcement capacity is being established. An increase in the use of charter flights is being developed. The Oakington processing centre is operational and detention space is being expanded.
One of the issues raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury and which has been a theme of this debate is the new system of asylum support. We had to introduce a new system, not least to remove the burden on authorities such as Kent and those in London. The national asylum support system started its work on 3 April. All new port applicants are now on the system. As I told the House on Monday, it will apply to all new in-country applicants in Kent from next Monday and will be rolled out to the rest of the country soon.
The new system replaces cash social security benefits and local authority provision with an offer of vouchers for food, clothing and essentials with a small cash top-up and one offer of accommodation outside the south-east. The package of support will ensure that no asylum seeker is left destitute, and will relieve the unfair burden that has fallen on councils in the south-east of England.
Somewhat defensively, the hon. Member for Aylesbury said that there was no place for racism or xenophobia in the discussion of asylum and immigration. I take him at his word, but I have to say that it is impossible to read some of the documents that the Conservatives have produced, including their manifesto and a press release from the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), without forming the view that they have an agenda other than that of solving the problem of asylum in this country.
In a news report in the Colchester Evening Gazette, the hon. Gentleman claimed that Essex taxpayers were having to pick up a bill for nearly £700,000 thanks to bogus claims, which equated to 90 new police officers locally. That report was based on a press release that the hon. Gentleman had issued, which claimed that asylum now cost London taxpayers £180 million a year, which was £63 per household and the equivalent of 5,000 new police officers. Throughout, it implied that local taxpayers were having to pay that amount, when the truth is—it is even half-admitted in the small print of the press release—that every penny is reimbursed by the Government wherever the unit costs are being met. Even if there is some argument about the unit costs, the difference on the most generous estimates costs £1 per local taxpayer per year.
Will we hear an apology for such propaganda, which is peddling a big lie? Given the signature that the Leader of the Opposition appended to the statement by the
444
Commission for Racial Equality about the need for everybody to avoid inflammatory language and inflammatory actions, I say to the Conservatives that such stuff as that press release is reminiscent of the big lie. It is put out not because it is true, but because it is untrue and designed for one purpose only—to stir up anxieties where none should exist.
I am sorry to say that we have heard all this before. It is not as if the Tory party has an unblemished record on the issue of race and immigration. The hon. Member for Aylesbury mentioned the Ugandan Asians and some of us are old enough to remember the sort of stuff that emanated from the Tory Opposition in the 1960s, time and again. We do not have to look in the crystal ball, because we can see it in the book. In 1995, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) said—[Interruption. The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) looks perplexed by the reference to the Ugandan Asians, but that subject was raised by the hon. Member for Aylesbury.
Mr. Oliver Heald: The Conservatives let them in.
Mr. Straw: I am talking about the Kenyan Asian legislation in 1968. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire said—
Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): I hope that it is a point of order.
Mr. Heald: Is it in order for the Home Secretary to say that the Conservative party was racist over the Ugandan Asians when it was the Conservative party which let them come into this country and protected them at the time of their deepest fear?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Those are matters for debate and nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Member for Aylesbury raised the matter, and I was referring to what happened in the 1960s, which some of us remember. Some of us also remember Smethwick and the fact that the Tory party could not bring itself to vote for the race relations legislation in 1965. We also remember something much more recent. In 1995, in an absolutely desperate article about how the Conservative party could win the next election, the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire, when he was head of the Conservative research department, said:
Immigration, an issue we raised successfully in 1992, and again in the 1994 Euro election, played particularly well in the tabloids and has more potential to hurt.
That was the true policy of the Conservative party and the policy that it is continuing with the manifesto that it has just issued, which talks of asylum seekers "flooding" our country, in words reminiscent of a nastier age.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: This is a disgrace.
Mr. Straw: It is a disgrace, and the Conservatives should know that, although the hon. Gentleman has a better record than most of his party. Talk of flooding is wholly inappropriate, and such ill-judged language—
Miss Widdecombe: If it is so inappropriate, why did the Attorney-General use the word?
Mr. Straw: I would like to see the context in which the Attorney-General used the word. He certainly did not use it in the context of a party manifesto. I now do not know why the right hon. Lady is pleading illness. She has been muttering from a sedentary position and now she seems to think that she can have the luxury of making interventions when she did not even move her own motion.
Mr. Steve Webb: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Straw: No. I wish to bring my remarks to a close.
Talk of "flooding" is wholly inappropriate, and such ill-judged language, whoever uses it, is plainly outside the statement of the Commission for Racial Equality, as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees pointed out.
To use the issue of asylum to play the race card is a disreputable act for any party. Those who are tempted to do it should stop doing it. [Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald laughs about that, but she has come very close to doing so.
Conservatives seek to exploit the asylum problems of this country but they have refused to take any action to control unscrupulous advisers. They have failed to support our action. Indeed, they voted against our action to deal with clandestines coming in on the backs of lorries. However, while they simply and cynically seek to exploit the system, we seek properly to deal with it. We will not let the Conservatives deflect us from building a firm but fair immigration system that is worthy of this country's traditions and of its citizens' trust.
8.39 pm
Mr. Simon Hughes: Although this subject is extremely controversial, it is much better to have a debate where we can seek to establish the facts than not to have the debate and allow propaganda to be peddled, as it has been in recent weeks.
We last debated the issue on 2 February. Unusually, for reasons that the House may remember, the amendment that my right hon. and hon. Friends tabled on that occasion was selected by Madam Speaker. It ended by calling on the House to support the agreement made last year by the three main parties and the nationalist parties, which had been proposed by the Commission for Racial Equality, the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Refugee Council. The specific wording of the amendment and the declaration was that we should
not…use problems in the immigration and asylum systems in ways which could damage community and race relations.
As we try to deal with what is a challenge to this country and to every other country in western Europe and many countries beyond, I hope that it is appropriate to start by reminding all colleagues of what in our name our leaders signed up to only a few months ago.
Mr. David Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: I shall do so shortly.
446
As the Home Secretary rightly said, these are difficult issues that we share with other countries. It is ridiculous to suggest that the growth in the number of people seeking asylum in the United Kingdom—as in other countries in western Europe—is anything to do with the actions of the host countries. It is to do with the actions that have been taking place on our continent and throughout the world, of which everyone is aware.
Ms Abbott: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No. If the hon. Lady will let me get going, I shall give way in a moment.
As we deal with how to have an immigration policy and honour our asylum agreements in the context of international obligations, we must seek to ensure that we do nothing to add to the prejudice that already exists in this country in relation to people who come here, often with nothing, from other countries and who have no previous link with the UK.
Mr. Winnick: The line that the hon. Gentleman is taking is fully supported by Labour Members. We are against all forms of racism and xenophobia. However, will he bear in mind that when he says his good words in the House they are not necessarily echoed by a number of Liberal Democrat associations outside Parliament? What the Opposition spokesman, the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), said about one or two of those associations is well known to us. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will bear that much in mind. The line that Liberals take in this place is not necessarily the one that a number of Liberal activists take outside it.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly appropriate point. Sometimes people stray the wrong side of the line. It happened in the previous Parliament and we were clear in condemning it in the House. My then leader, my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown), condemned it, and the matter was dealt with. I take the hon. Gentleman's point. I shall not try to pretend that there is not an issue. As far as I can tell, the issue arises occasionally in each party at grass-roots level throughout the country.
Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No, I shall not give way on that point. We must be careful that we give leadership. It is for us to do so. If we give the right leadership, it is up to our parties to follow it. If they do not, we must make clear what is acceptable and what is not.
Dr. Evan Harris: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Hughes: No. I wish to make some progress and then I will give way to the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott).
Dr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on this point?
Mr. Hughes: No, I will not give way.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) has said that he will not give way. That should be enough.
Mr. Hughes: It is often said that the test of a civilised country is how it treats its homeless, its destitute and the

447
less advantaged. That is true. In some ways, however, the better test of how civilised a country is, is how it treats the stranger at its gates. In many ways, it is by how we respond to such issues as these that we shall be judged in the international community.
Ms Abbott: I represent a constituency in the east end of London. Although I deplore the tone of much of the debate, some of us would take the hon. Gentleman's pious note a little more seriously if we did not have experience of the ruthless way in which some Liberal associations exploit race issues.
Mr. Hughes: The hon. Lady makes an understandable point, and I do not condemn her for making it. I give her an undertaking, on behalf of my party, that we will seek to deal with any matter in our party that other people are concerned about. I hope that other parties will do the same.
Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No, I have already taken two interventions.
Dr. Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must calm himself.
Mr. Hughes: Liberal Democrat Members will show leadership. I am concerned tonight with establishing facts and how to proceed, but I also want to deal in particular with the leadership of the Conservative party. The hon. Members involved are behaving disgracefully, and they deserve to be condemned. As the Home Secretary rightly said, they do not merely seek to pander to prejudice, they positively misrepresent facts in order to do so.
Mr. Woodward: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is necessary to correct the language used by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) and his grotesque distortion of statistics. He said that the vast majority of asylum seekers last year were bogus. The fact is—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must know that interventions have to be brief. It sounds to me that he is making a speech.
Fiona Mactaggart: He is only giving the numbers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We need only one Deputy Speaker in the Chamber at a time—and this is a good Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Woodward: The hon. Member for Aylesbury will know that, in 1999, 54 per cent. of asylum seekers were given protection, so is not what he said a grotesque distortion that will incite racism in this country?
Mr. Hughes: I believe that it was. The hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward) is right about the figures,
448
but—despite all the variations in the world situation—the average over the past decade is that about 40 per cent. of applicants each year have succeeded at point of application. It is absolutely untrue to pretend that the vast majority of asylum seekers, either last year or over the past decade, have been "bogus"—to use a word that we prefer not to use.
In tabling our amendment, we wanted to express how we see the issue in the world context. This country is worried about the numbers of people applying to come here, of whom there are between 20,000 and 70,000 a year. About 1 per cent. of all the people in the world who apply for asylum come to this country. Although many of the very poorest countries put up with huge numbers of people coming to their borders, there are those in Britain—one of the richest countries in the world—who seem to believe that we cannot manage to deal with the applications that come our way. Given the hugely greater challenges in central Africa and elsewhere, that attitude undermines our belief in ourselves and our obligations to others.
In Europe, we consider that the best solution is for the European Union to deal with the challenges at its borders. I hope that member states will work much more effectively to achieve a pan-European solution. For example, some EU countries positively want more people to go and live in them because of their employment prospects and age profiles.
Will the Home Secretary say how people can come here legitimately to seek asylum? I hope that he will accept that that is a proper question. If they cannot come by lorry—or even by aeroplane, in many cases—how can we fulfil our international obligations? There must be a legitimate way in which people can come here. If such a way exists and is known to exist, those who come here can be dealt with appropriately—more appropriately than those who scramble here illegally, or who are carried here illegally in vehicles that belong to other people.
The Tory election manifesto said that racketeers are flooding Britain with asylum seekers. We reject that, and do not believe that that is happening at all. We are not being flooded, in general or in particular, and it is not right to describe most of the people who come here as bogus. I say that because, until people have their case determined, it is not possible to know whether they are valid applicants. We cannot pre-judge applications. Each case must be judged on its merits. Some people who may have their cases turned down have come here because their life chance in their home country is hugely worse than it would be here.
Of course, some people may try it on; there are people who want to abuse and exploit the system. However, many people come here because they think that Britain is a good place to come to and they can succeed here. They want to follow in the tradition of hundreds of thousands of people who have, over the years, been received in this country, made their home here and made a huge contribution.
Many of us across the House are representative of families who have come from many parts of the world because of persecution or economic reasons. If we believe that we do not benefit from such an addition to our original native culture, we are doing ourselves and our international community a grave disservice.
Ms Abbott: Members of Parliament on both sides of the House have fallen into the habit of talking about

449
economic migrants in negative terms. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that economic migrants are the engine of great cities such as London and New York? Economic migrants, whether they are from Ireland, the Caribbean, Pakistan or West Africa, have helped to build London.
Mr. Hughes: I agree entirely with the hon. Lady. If those who think that it is wrong for people to seek to come here and better themselves thought about the number who leave this country every year to better themselves somewhere else, they would realise the hypocrisy of that position. The world benefits from people being able to move to where there are greater opportunities.
Mr. Iain Coleman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: Let me press on for a moment.
There is another valid point that the Home Secretary made about the Conservative party with which I agree. I say this not just to the leader of the Conservative party and the shadow Home Secretary but to the shadow Minister for London as well. It concerns inaccurate figures. A press release set out, borough by borough, the alleged cost to people.
Mr. Coleman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: I have said no. It has been suggested that the annual cost per household of so-called bogus asylum seekers is £160. I have the manifesto here. The figures are not only wrong for the reason given by the Home Secretary, because most of the money is reimbursed, but because figures, confirmed by the Treasury, and given in answers to me and the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) by the Minister of State, Home Office, the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Mrs. Roche), show that the cost per household is about £24. That is the cost of the system per year, but it has been exaggerated sevenfold.
Mr. Coleman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: Not for the moment.
We have to address the way forward, given these challenges. We must address whether it is right to keep the voucher system, which my colleagues who dealt with the relevant measure consistently opposed. The test of the system is whether it is cheaper or more expensive as well as whether it is right. We have seen no figures showing that the voucher system will be cheaper. If it is not cheaper, the case for a segregating system cannot even be made on economic let alone moral grounds.
Oxfam has severely criticised the voucher system and the argument has been made in reverse by others. Not only do people have vouchers which distinguish them from the rest of us by not allowing them the same facility to buy food or clothes, they cannot even get change, in many cases, when they hand in the voucher. Oxfam says that it will not take the vouchers because it is degrading to contemplate accepting a voucher that is worth
450
more than what it pays for. Some of the commercial organisations that take vouchers regard the system as a revenue-making exercise.
If the voucher system is to stay, will the Home Secretary and his Ministers kindly revise it so that change can be given? In that way, the system might at least have the confidence of organisations such as Oxfam.
Dr. George Turner: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hughes: No.
The Home Secretary asked how we would deal with arrangements on arrival. [Interruption.] It is a fair question, and we could have a perfectly proper debate on how to provide adequate accommodation. The Liberal Democrats assume that most asylum seekers are not criminals—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On the Benches furthest from me, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) seems to be making an awful lot of noise. We cannot have that when an hon. Gentleman is addressing the Chamber.
Mr. Hughes: The majority of asylum seekers are not criminals, and we cannot assume that people will disappear simply because they have come to the UK. People should be treated decently and humanely when they arrive. Only when there is cause to believe that they will break the law should liberties that they could otherwise expect to enjoy be removed.
We have criticised the Government as well as the Tories, but they are not in the same league. In the run-up to this week, there often seemed to be a danger that Ministers were beginning to adopt the tone or the language of the Conservative party. Our consolation came on Monday when the Prime Minister made it absolutely clear that the race card should never be played. From now on, I hope that the agreement by Ministers that words such as "bogus" will not be used will be adhered to in all circumstances.
Criticisms remain of the system inherited by the Government. That system was not just left, but largely put in place, by the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, who sought to change the system's administration, introduced an untried computer system and took staff away at the same time. All that led to the problems of 1997. That was the Tory legacy, and the Conservatives have absolutely no reason to be proud of it. They left our immigration arrangements in dire straits.
Since then, the appointment of case workers has been slow. The Public Accounts Committee made it clear that it took a long time before adequate extra funds were put into the kitty. Will the Minister of State tell us what additional resources are now available for case workers? It costs about £400 to process an application, and £1,400 a week to keep a family. What additional resources will be provided so that the backlog of cases, which is adding to resentment, which in turn allows people like the Conservatives to pander to prejudice, can be considerably reduced?
No Minister should suggest that any application will be prejudged. The Home Secretary remembers my criticism of him on that. I understand his response, and, of course,

451
the hijackers of the Afghan plane had to be dealt with under the criminal law, but there was, to put it gently, at least a hint that he had taken a view, and he cannot do that and simultaneously honour our international obligations.
Another unhelpful set of remarks was reported by the press when it picked up on aggressive begging. I asked Westminster city council, which keeps ethnic records, how many beggars arrested last year had come from abroad. The answer was 20 per cent. We must not misrepresent people by suggesting that as they are asylum seekers or immigrants, they must be criminals too. People who have come here as immigrants are probably no more likely to commit crime than any other societal group. A police officer told me the other day that if we put 700 single police officers in such a building on £40 a week with nothing to do, we would have far more trouble out of them than we have from the asylum seekers in a building not far from here on the other side of the river.
The dispersal arrangements still seem to be shadowy, to say the least, and unsatisfactory in almost every respect. The Minister has an obligation to explain how many contracts have been entered into. My hon. Friends and I have consistently made the case that the idea of dispersal and of sharing the burden is reasonable, but only if people are sent to an appropriate place that has services and facilities and that is the sort of community in which they can settle. There is no sign that that has happened, but unless it does, bussing people around the country will have the same unsatisfactory consequences as one of the exercises of sending people to Glasgow so far.
It is a cause of considerable anger and frustration that those who have borne the brunt of the costs to date—the local councils—are still significantly under-resourced and have not had their full costs met. The figure for unmet costs is about £17 million. The local authority associations are still making the case. The Home Secretary made a comment about Kent on Monday. I understand the system, and that a tariff was set. However, as long as local councils are asked to pay bills for something that at all times should have been a national responsibility, there will always be the possibility of irresponsible people making mischief and causing trouble.
We hope that in the days to come and especially in the run-up to the local elections, the Conservative party will back off its dangerous approach. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, in her criticism in particular of the Conservatives and less so of the Government last week, has suggested that it would be helpful if a meeting was held with her in the near future. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), the leader of our party, and I have accepted that we should have such a meeting, and we informed her representative today. I hope that Ministers will be willing to meet her representative again and that the Conservative leader and the shadow Home Secretary will do so too. I hope that they will go soon to see the people who are criticising them.
I hope that the Conservatives will realise that it does their party no credit to present our country as one that, when it deals with asylum seekers and refugees, in large measure deals with people who have no case and no claim to be here. Our country can afford to give our people good health, good education, a good police service and good pensions, but we can also afford to look after those who come to seek our help. Of course we
452
fair system, but we must also have a system that lives up to our best aspirations and traditions. We have been in danger of going far away from that in recent months.
9.3 pm
Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the way in which Britain has received people who have fled from other countries. My parents were such people. They were able to flee from eastern Europe, leaving most of the rest of their families behind to be slaughtered in the holocaust. I therefore want to say right away how bitterly I resent the cheap remarks of the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) in likening capitalism to what the Gestapo and Hitler did to the Jews, homosexuals and all the other people who were murdered by the Nazis. Such a person is not fit to stand for public office, let alone be elected to it.
I have sat through immigration debates in the House for some 30 years, and there is none that I have approached with greater revulsion than the debate tonight: a debate in which the Conservative party has once again—as it always does when it wants to grub around for shoddy votes—played the race card. Last Monday the shadow Home Secretary, who has suddenly found her voice, besought my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to use the word "bogus" in the context of the issue that we are debating this evening. I am ready to use that word, because "bogus" is the ideal epithet to describe the Tory pretext for this trumped-up debate tonight. Asylum poses problems—as all hon. Members who represent multicultural constituencies are aware. However, for the Tories to say that there is a crisis, as they do in their nasty motion, is bogus. They talk of a crisis, but yesterday, the leader in The Times stated:
at no point can it be fairly said… that the system was really "out of control". In proportion to population, Britain ranks but ninth in Europe in terms of asylum-seekers… There is some evidence that the backlog is at last shrinking. The time taken to decide whether to award asylum has been reduced by seven months and record numbers of claims are being processed. A vast expansion in the provision of full-time adjudicators… and the creation of a new tribunal centre with 12 courts should further cut the backlog.
Mr. Baldry: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Kaufman: No. Many Members want to speak, so I do not want to take up more time than I need to.
If there is a problem, it was inherited from the Tories—as my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary illustrated in his extremely powerful speech. The Tories' legislative framework prevailed for three years until we introduced the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. The Tories dealt with none of the genuine abuses.
Unlike my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—through the 1999 Act—the Tories did nothing whatever to crack down on unscrupulous consultants and solicitors who actively encourage bogus applications for their own financial gain. I draw attention to the crooked and larcenous activities of Abdullah Azad's self-styled welfare centre in Manchester, which cons suckers out of huge sums. For example, Azad is refusing to repay my constituent Mrs. M. Mahmood of 5 Iqbal close £1,000 that he conned her into lending him to pursue a case that was solved by my contacts with my right hon. Friend—as he will be aware because we corresponded on

453
the matter. I call on the Greater Manchester police to investigate the fraudulent activities of this leech—this bloodsucker.
Most people believe that, when the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald was a Home Office Minister, all she did was chain up pregnant women in prison. However, she has a record on immigration, too. In a debate on the Asylum and Immigration Bill in 1995, she told the House:
The deterrent effect of our measures, by reducing the number of people who will try to take advantage of our system, should lower the number of persons who are lawfully resident and who also have to be looked after while applying for asylum.—[Official Report, 11 December 1995; Vol. 268, c. 793]
If there had been one word of truth in that bogus claim, her so-called crisis would not exist.
In October 1996, the right hon. Lady made another wholly bogus claim. In a written answer, she stated that the measures taken by the Tory Government would
strengthen our immigration control and… greatly reduce the incentives for those seeking to enter or remain unlawfully in the United Kingdom… The Government believe that it is wrong that people who are admitted to this country on the basis that they can provide for themselves or who are here illegally should receive benefits paid for by the taxes of lawful residents. The measures we have now taken and the work currently in hand will see that they do not.—[Official Report, 24 October 1996; Vol. 284, c. I W.]
If there was the slightest truth in the right hon. Lady's words, we should not now be facing the problems that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is trying to solve.
In addition, the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) blamed my right hon. Friend for passing defective legislation. It was the right hon. and learned Gentleman who passed defective legislation and who signed up to a defective convention. All that happened was that my wicked right hon. Friend did not put right what the right hon. and learned Gentleman and David Waddington got wrong in the first place.
Far more contemptible than anything done by the shadow Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald, is the approach of the Leader of the Tory party. We all know that, for too many years, it has been the practice of the Tory party to exploit racial and religious prejudice for vote-grabbing purposes, as I know from my constituency. In one election in which I stood, the Tory candidate published a leaflet intended for Muslim voters, saying that I was a Zionist, in order that my religion should deprive me of the votes of people of a different religion. My Muslim constituents were far too sensible to fall for that.
In 1978, during a by-election campaign—she did it deliberately—Margaret Thatcher, when leader of the Conservative party, said:
People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture.
The Tories were up to it then, just as they are up to it now.
The present leader of the Conservative party said that, under him, things would be different, and he wandered aimlessly and foolishly around the Notting Hill carnival, believing that such patronising and condescending activities would assure black and Asian people that the
454
Tories were not really racialist. However, this week he has launched the local government manifesto, which talks of
bogus asylum seekers… flooding into Britain.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath) sacked Enoch Powell from the shadow Cabinet for arousing racial prejudice when Powell spoke of rivers of blood. Enoch Powell spoke of rivers; Mrs. Thatcher said "swamped"; The Conservative leader today says "flooding". They have a preoccupation with liquids in connection with immigration policy.
The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup sacked Enoch Powell from the shadow Cabinet for arousing racial prejudice. It now seems that it is a qualification for being appointed to the shadow Cabinet is to arouse racial prejudice. If Tory Members challenge my words, let me quote to them what one of their very, very few black candidates—John Taylor, who stood at Cheltenham, and who is now in the House of Lords—said on 27 September 1995. This is their man, not our man. He said:
The Tory party think giving a few cocktail parties for Asian millionaires is race relations.
The Tories are still up to it today. The Hindujas know that they are always welcome at Conservative central office—but the Hindujas have more sense. Mr. Taylor continued by saying that the Tory party
alienate ethnic minorities by pandering to xenophobic voters with promises of crackdowns on immigration.
That is what the Tories' man said five years ago, and it is as true today as when he said it, because it is still happening.
Three days ago, in The Sunday Times, Mr. Mohammed Khamisa, a Conservative activist and a Conservative councillor, wrote an article headed:
What's black and blue and rejected all over? A Tory for 20 years, Mohammed Khamisa wants to be an MP, but the party does not seem to want him. Is race the reason, he asks.
He writes in his article:
Having applied for the position of Conservative candidate for 13 safe and marginal seats… I have not even been offered an interview by any of the local Tory associations.
This is the same racist Tory party which Enoch Powell represented, which Margaret Thatcher represented, which the present Leader of the Opposition said he did not represent but which the present Leader of the Opposition is now embodying as much as any of his worst predecessors did.
The Government's record on asylum is praised by ethnic minorities in my constituency—where there is a high proportion of ethnic minorities. At every advice surgery that I hold, genuine refugees come to see me who my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has treated with generosity and humanity. At my last advice surgery, there was a little boy of 14, a Kurd, who had come to the United Kingdom across Europe last year on a false passport and had been let in to join his brother, another Iraqi Kurd.
The problems that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey mentioned can be solved in very many cases. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is good and decent and generous, and he is admired in my constituency among Libyans, Algerians, Liberians, Somalis and people of many other nationalities who owe their presence in this country to him. Major Wellington

455
from Sierra Leone has praised my right hon. Friend for what he has done for his family. My right hon. Friend has good policies for genuine applicants, but he is rightly wary of potentially invalid applications of the sort fostered by Azad. My Asian constituents know the difference—they really do.
The Government do not yet have a perfect record on anything, including this issue, but they do have a creditable record on asylum seekers, while the Tory party shows itself again and again in its true, nasty colours. The House should chuck out this nasty and dishonest motion.
9.15 pm
Mr. Michael Howard: The last time I followed the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) in a debate on these issues was on 9 November 1999 when we considered the Government's Immigration and Asylum Act 1999. Then, there was much common ground between us, but I fear that there may be less tonight.
Four weeks ago, I spent several days investigating the impact of the large number of asylum seekers in my constituency. Of course, that was not the first time that I had done that, but on this occasion I visited the two reception centres outside my constituency that are run by Kent county council. I talked to the police, the education authority, and the social services department of the county council, and I visited Dover eastern docks in the constituency of the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). Since then, I have had further meetings on the subject.
A number of constructive suggestions emerged from those meetings. I have passed them on to the Home Secretary and I shall refer to them later in my remarks. There is no doubt that the presence of large numbers of asylum seekers in a community the size of the town of Folkestone has a considerable impact. We have, I am happy to say, so far at least—we must be cautious about such matters—avoided in my constituency the outbreaks of violence that occurred elsewhere last summer. I am proud of my constituents and of the way in which they have behaved.
There is a natural tendency in such debates to concentrate on the national statistics. We heard them from my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington), so I shall not take up the House's time by repeating them. However, when I went to Dover, I was given the figures for that port. I was told that, whereas 2,142 people had applied for asylum there in 1997, the number had last year increased almost fivefold to 10,347. In addition to that, the number of clandestine entrants applying for asylum there went up tenfold, from 851 in 1997 to 8,878 in 1999.
Why has that happened? The answer is not in doubt. The Government and their apologists sometimes pretend—the Home Secretary was at it in Home Office questions on Monday—that it is all the result of forces outside their control and that there was nothing that they could do about them. If that is so, one is bound to ask: what was the point of the 1999 Act? Do they expect it to have no effect on the numbers seeking asylum in the United Kingdom? Do they expect an increase in numbers over the next three years comparable to that which has occurred over the past three years? Of course not. They hope and expect that their measures will reduce the numbers; that is the point of their legislation.
When we debated the 1999 Act on 9 November, I remarked, when I followed the right hon. Member for Gorton, on the extent to which we had, at last, established
456
some common ground between the two main parties at least on the objective of policy in this matter. That objective is to deter undeserving applicants for political asylum, so that applicants genuinely entitled to asylum and genuinely fleeing persecution can have their claims dealt with speedily and effectively and can be given the asylum to which they are entitled.
When we introduced legislation to achieve that objective, we were accused of racism; when the Government did it, they were legislating responsibly. Never mind, we should always welcome the penitent sinner. However, penitence has been long delayed; the Government have wasted three years.
During those three wasted years, the Government have done nothing to tackle the problem. That is why such an explosive rise in numbers has occurred. Yet the Government had the means to deal with the problem; they needed only to remedy the effect of the intervention of the courts on the operation of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996.
Fiona Mactaggart: How?
Mr. Howard: I note the hon. Lady's question and I shall reply to it and the Home Secretary's point in a moment.
Before the courts intervened, the 1996 Act succeeded in bringing the problem under control. The only requirement was a short Bill, which made it clear that Parliament had never intended to place on local authorities the burdens under which they have suffered since the courts' intervention. If the Government had introduced such a measure, the Conservative party would have supported them. The remedy was at hand.
Mr. Gerrard rose—
Fiona Mactaggart rose—
Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman got up first; I shall give way to him in a moment. The remedy was available, but the Government chose to do nothing for three years.
Mr. Gerrard: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reiterate his arguments from 1996—that before their case had even been considered, people who claimed asylum should be left destitute? If he argues for that, I do not understand how any member of the Tory party can claim to uphold this country's traditions of giving sanctuary to people.
Mr. Howard: I dealt with that point fully when we considered the 1996 legislation; I shall tackle it again now. However, when the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) use words such as "starving" and "destitute", they should be aware of the effect of this Government's legislation.
As I understand it—I am sure the Home Secretary will correct me if I am wrong—anyone who has the temerity to apply for judicial review to challenge the decisions of the authorities on applications for asylum will be deprived

457
of all support. To use the language of the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Lady, that person will be left to starve, and left destitute. I shall explain—
Mr. Gerrard: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
Mr. Howard: No, I am dealing with the hon. Gentleman's point, Let me explain the crucial distinction between those who apply for asylum at the port, and who would have been entitled to benefit under the 1996 Act—I do not apologise for that—and those who apply in country. When those who genuinely flee persecution and come to this country to seek sanctuary and ask for asylum arrive at the port, surely their first action is to say, "I have been persecuted. I want asylum. Will you grant it to me?"
Those who apply in country fall into very few categories: those who enter the country illegally, or those who arrive on false pretences. For example, they may claim to be visitors, and say that they have the means to support themselves and that they do not intend to apply for asylum. The Home Secretary was wrong to say that the 1996 legislation made no provision for in-country applicants to receive benefit if they applied for asylum. The legislation provided for the genuine cases.
For example, if people came from a country where circumstances had changed since their arrival in this country, they would be entitled to benefit. We therefore provided for those deserving cases. However, we told those who entered the country on the pretence of visiting, claiming that they had the means to support themselves and assuring the immigration authorities that they did not come to apply for asylum, that they could apply but that they were not entitled to financial support from the taxpayers of this country. That was the distinction that we made.
Dr. Harris: If we accept for a moment the right hon. and learned Gentleman's reason why people find themselves in that position, is he saying that the Conservative party's view is that the punishment for it should be to make asylum seekers and their families hungry and destitute?
Mr. Howard: It is not a question of punishment; it is a question of the circumstances in which taxpayers' money should be used to support people in that position. The Home Secretary says in his current legislation that taxpayers' money should not be used to support any asylum seeker who has the temerity to apply for a judicial review. We took the view that taxpayers should not be obliged to support those who do not apply for asylum at the first opportunity when they arrive in this country and who do not say, "I am fleeing persecution and I want refuge," but who enter the country on a false pretence and then expect to be supported by British taxpayers. We said that that was not acceptable.
Mr. Gerrard: On the question of whether, under present legislation, people may be destitute, I point out to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that one or two of us disagreed with the Government on that point and voted against the measures. Will he remind the House what were the relative acceptance rates for asylum claims in country
458
and at port when he was Home Secretary? For much of that period, the rates of acceptance for in-country applicants were higher than those for applicants at port.
Mr. Howard: The rates varied a good deal at different times and that may have had more to do with the way in which the claims were dealt with than with whether or not people were genuinely fleeing persecution.
Ms Glenda Jackson: I am sure that during his time as Home Secretary the right hon. and learned Gentleman must have noticed that there were people in this country who had entered it entirely illegally, and when a terrible disaster, such as a civil war, struck their home country, they applied for asylum. Is he saying that in those circumstances, he would have argued that they too should have been left destitute?
Mr. Howard: I dealt with precisely that point, as did the legislation. [Interruption.] The hon. Lady, who is muttering from a sedentary position, is entirely wrong. The legislation expressly provided for a change in the circumstances of the country concerned, such as a revolution. Obviously, such events occur, and the legislation recognised that and provided for that. The hon. Lady is right to make that point, and we dealt with it properly and justly in the legislation.
Fiona Mactaggart: The right hon. and learned Gentleman's thesis seems to be that it is obvious to him that people came to this country because money was a draw. If that had been the case, his draconian legislation would have caused the number of people applying in country to decline to zero, but there was only a very slight decrease in that number in the period before the appeal. In this case, just as in the case of his claims about the increasing number of asylum seekers in Dover, his figures are misleading—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady's intervention is far too long. She will have to learn to make short interventions; then she will be able to get away with them.
Mr. Howard: The overall numbers declined by 40 per cent. in 1996, which was a greater decline than even I had expected. That was a tribute to the success of that legislation.
The Government have, belatedly, introduced their own legislation. As I have said before, I hope that it works, for the sake of my constituents, of genuine refugees and of the integrity of the asylum system, but I have no great confidence that it will do so. One of the curious provisions of the new arrangements, as I understand them—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong, and I may be wrong—is that if an asylum seeker applies for judicial review of an adverse decision under the Act, he loses all right to financial support.
Mrs. Roche rose—
Mr. Howard: Let me finish the point—then I shall be very interested in what the Minister says.
That sounds bold and draconian, but the Government have been obliged to make an exception. If the appeal is brought under section 65 of the 1999 Act, on the ground that a provision of the Human Rights Act 1998 has been infringed, financial support will continue to be available.

459
What is the logic of that? Why should a challenge based on the proposition that a provision of English law is being breached lead to a withdrawal of financial support, when a challenge based on the proposition that the European convention on human rights is being breached does not have the same consequence? How can the Government justify that inconsistency? I look forward to the Minister's explanation, now or in the course of her speech at the end of the debate.
That is not the only example of the trouble that the Government have stored up for themselves with the introduction of the so-called Human Rights Act 1998. However, it is an example that is likely to bring home the unforeseen consequences of that Act in a particularly conspicuous and unfortunate way.
I said earlier that I would return to the constructive suggestions that were put to me by my constituents and others last month. Some of them, which I have passed on to the Home Secretary, came from Superintendent Chris Eyre, the commander of the police district that includes both Folkestone and Dover. He put forward a number of ideas, including a proposal to improve the sharing of information about asylum seekers between other agencies and the police.
I wrote to the Home Secretary about that on 13 March, and he replied, undertaking to consider these matters. I should be grateful if the Minister told us when she winds up the debate whether any progress has been made.
More recently, I put to the Home Secretary some proposals made to me by hauliers in my constituency. They suggested that an area should be provided in Calais to which drivers could take their vehicles immediately before they embarked on the ferry, so that the vehicles could be checked there by immigration officers. They also suggested that the presence of immigration officers on board the ferries, particularly in the hold, would have a deterrent effect on the activities of asylum seekers who get into the lorries at that stage of the journey—in the hold of the ferry. I hope that the Home Secretary will give sympathetic consideration to those suggestions.
The problems that we have been debating this evening are the problems of the past three years. They are the problems, as I have demonstrated, for which the present Government are responsible. Their attempts to shuffle off the blame on to others have been wholly unconvincing. Their record deserves to be condemned.
9.32 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I begin by reminding the House that this country has a legal responsibility under treaty to asylum seekers—all asylum seekers. Until each individual's case has been given proper consideration, it is not possible to know who is bogus and who is not.
I remind the House, too, that asylum seekers are people, with human fears, hopes and motivations. If politicians on both sides remembered that, we might in time arrive at a workable system of dealing with the challenge of the rising number of refugees and asylum seekers. Too often in the debate, on both sides, we speak about asylum seekers as though they were some sort of inanimate object—the burden, the problem, the flood or the swamp. However, they are people.
In communities like mine, asylum seekers live side by side with us and their children go to school with ours. Of course we cannot be expected to take in economic
460
migrants outside the law, and of course we cannot be expected to take in people whose asylum cases are proved to be unfounded, but it is no coincidence that of the three Back-Bench speakers in the debate, each is the child of economic migrants.
The House would do well to remember the contribution of generations of economic migrants, whether from eastern Europe, Pakistan, the Caribbean, Somalia or Kosovo, who have contributed to making London the great international city that it is. We would have a better and more constructive debate if we put the issues in that context.
The occasion of the debate is the monumentally unscrupulous attempt by the Conservative party to use the issue of asylum to grub for votes in the forthcoming local elections. It is the tragedy of the Opposition that they have no other issue, and it is a tragedy for the parliamentary system that they form such a pathetic Opposition. It falls to a few Labour Back Benchers to do what we can to rectify the problems.
As I have said, the occasion for this debate is a monumentally unscrupulous attempt to exploit the issue of asylum. In the public mind and in political discourse, race, immigration and asylum are inextricably linked. It is totally dishonest to claim that it is possible to raise the issue of asylum, to use the big lie on asylum and to stir up people's fears on asylum, and yet not to be playing the race card. In the public mind and in public debate, the three issues are linked.
My constituency probably contains more asylum seekers per square mile than those of most Members who are present tonight. I do not claim to be naive about public fears and, in some instances, public antagonism towards asylum seekers; but, just once in a while, it falls to politicians not merely to look at the latest leader in the Daily Mail or the latest finding of a focus group, but to offer leadership on an issue.
Asylum is a difficult issue. I find it distressing when people who were themselves economic migrants come to my advice surgeries peddling the latest nonsense from the tabloid press about asylum. It is much easier to play that game—to play along with those fears and misapprehensions—but the right and responsible course is to discharge our responsibility as a Government as efficiently and fairly as we can, and to offer leadership in the public debate. The Conservative Opposition have failed dismally to offer the right leadership and, whether the general election takes place next summer or in the summer of 2002, they are proceeding inexorably to defeat. Trawling in the gutter for votes on the asylum issue will not help them in the long run, or even in the short run.
As I have said, this is a difficult issue, and there are practical questions to be considered. As Ministers know, I have raised those questions with them in season and out of season. I am taking a great interest in how their system of support unrolls, and in what steps they are taking to deal with the administration of the immigration and nationality directorate in Croydon.
My hon. Friends do not need to be reminded that the biggest incentive to the making of unfounded claims is delay. I fully accept that unfounded claims are a problem: indeed, I have probably seen more people who have made such claims than many other Members. Although my hon. Friends have devoted considerable energy to dealing with the problem of delay and have taken important steps in that regard, I believe that more can be done.

461
During the Committee stage of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1999, we were promised that the processing time for asylum claims would be reduced to two months, and that the time taken to process a claim and an appeal would be reduced to six months. I want an assurance that we are moving towards those targets. It helps no one if people must wait for years for their claims to be resolved, and it helps the communities in which they live least of all.
There are long-standing and systemic administration and management problems in Croydon. They date back to some time ago during the years of Tory government, but they still exist. The way in which Croydon is managed, the attitude of staff and some of the inefficiencies in the system repay close and continued attention. We can have the best legislation and the best intentions in the world, but the directorate in Croydon will defeat them.
Let me raise a minor point that people working in Croydon raised today. Despite all the effort that is being put into resolving cases, there is still a problem. When a case worker has made a decision on a case, that decision is passed to other staff to endorse and send out. However, because of staff shortages, there is a huge backlog of cases on which a decision has been taken, but not sent out. Colleagues will say, "How does that matter?" I will tell them: the delay in dispatching means that asylum seekers whose cases have been resolved positively cannot claim benefit, sort out their housing or whatever the need is.
I should like more detail on the staff who have been recruited in Croydon. How many specialist asylum case workers are there? How many clerical workers are there? Many of the problems in Croydon go back years and are to do with staffing, management and organisation.
As I say, I will watch with interest how the system of vouchers and forced dispersal unrolls, but I could not let the opportunity pass without expressing the concern of many people that asylum seekers who use vouchers will not receive change. That is why Oxfam is refusing to co-operate with the system. I could not let the opportunity pass without expressing the concern of many people that asylum seeker mothers will not be able to obtain toys for their children with those vouchers. I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance on that point.
I do not doubt the good intentions of my colleagues, but forced dispersal has never worked. It did not work in relation to the Vietnamese or to the East African Asians. I wait with interest to see whether the system of forced dispersal will work in the coming months and years.
The asylum issue is emotive. In many ways, it is easy to get cheap applause in sections of the press and cheap support from members of the public on the issue. People ring my office every day to complain about their housing and what the Labour Government have not done. As the debate heightens among politicians, people are increasingly ringing my office to complain about asylum seekers. I put it to Members on both sides of the House that, when politicians take a lead in talking about asylum in a certain tone and manner, they let loose a type of debate that, in the end, is often impossible to control and is not conducive to good race relations in this country.
Many of the problems to do with the immigration and nationality directorate are quite complex and involve the organisation and management of the system. I give my
462
hon. Friends credit for their good intentions. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is not in the Chamber to hear it, but his speech was the best that I have heard him make on the asylum issue. It put the Conservative Opposition in their place, where they belong.
The issue will not go away because it presents a challenge to many of our communities and because there are those of us in the House—the children and grandchildren of economic migrants—who will not allow a political debate to pass that takes a tone that seeks to denigrate people who are living in and contributing to our communities and who are helping to build a Britain in the 21st century that we can all be proud of.
9.43 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: The debate has been good in parts. Good points have been made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, but the attempt to smear the Conservative party on the issue of asylum, particularly by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), was beneath their normal standards. [Interruption.]
It is important—it has always been recognised throughout the House, in all parties—that refugees who are in fear of persecution should have a safe haven in this country. They come here because they know that this country has essential freedoms and has safety under the law. During the past 100 years, people have come from across the world to this country for safety. The Conservative party was in power for 75 of those 100 years, standing up for the rights of refugees and the international obligations that we have towards refugees. [Interruption.] We shall therefore not take lessons from hon. Members from other parties about standing up on behalf of refugees—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chamber is now full. Some hon. members have not heard the debate, but are shouting from a sedentary position. It is unfair that they should do that.
Mr. Heald: As other hon. Members have said, one of the United Kingdom's other strengths—apart from standing up for individual freedom—is economic freedom. Consequently, the United Kingdom is wealthy and provides social protection. Consequently, economic migrants come here looking for a better life. It is difficult to criticise them personally for that, but we are a small country and cannot afford to take every economic migrant who wants to come here. Even the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington accepted that we cannot take every economic migrant who comes here.
Every economic migrant who comes to this country and chooses to make an unfounded claim of fear of persecution damages not only the system, but the position of real refugees—those who are in fear of persecution, who want their claim to be dealt with quickly and who do not want to have to wait years for a decision, with uncertainties and delays hanging over them. It is therefore right that we should have a system that not only attempts to find the genuine refugees who are in fear of persecution and assists them, but makes it difficult for those who are economic migrants. That was the previous Government's policy.

463
One cannot argue with the arithmetic, which is that, in 1996—after introduction of the measures so ably described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), who had responsibility for them—the number of asylum claims decreased by 40 per cent.
What has happened since then? Although we heard a lot of sanctimonious priggishness from the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes), who was fiddling the figures, the trend has been clear. Since 1996, there has been a build-up in the number of applications, and ever more of them have been bogus. That is the trend. In 1998, for example, 71 per cent. of claims were refused. In 1999—because of special circumstances in Kosovo—54 per cent. of claims were refused. However, in the final quarter of 1999, 80 per cent. of applications were refused.
Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: I should like to make a bit more progress. I have very little time to sum up, because of the lengthy speech of one of the hon. Lady's colleagues.
In January 2000, 87 per cent. of claims were refused. The trend, therefore, is that ever more bogus applications are being made.
Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Heald: No, I will not; I do not have sufficient time.
We now have a backlog of 103,000 cases. It is simply wrong to say that such an increase in applications—as we have heard, there has been a fivefold increase in Folkestone and Hythe—should be ignored and should not be treated as a crisis. This country has occasionally to face such issues, and we must speak plainly. It is ludicrous to suggest that we should not be able to call it a crisis or to say that a doubling in the number of asylum cases is not a serious matter.
Why has it happened? We have had the Government's amnesties. We have had the failure to make employment checks. We have had abolition of the safe country list. We have had the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.
I should like quickly to quote to the Home Secretary comments by the Immigration Service Union—by those who have to deal with the provisions of his 1999 Act. They said:
The proposed measures are an acknowledgement by the Home Office that it has abandoned the struggle to prevent illegal immigration—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 22 March 1999; c. 455.]
They went on to talk about some of the problems:
the criminals who are making vast amounts of money out of bringing people here to make applications are adapting their procedures to meet what we do.
That echoes some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Gorton.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman complains about criminal racketeers. Does he therefore welcome the fact
464
that we have impounded a lorry and are expecting a fine of £100,000 in respect of the driver bringing in 50 clandestines?
Mr. Heald: I do not welcome the fact that innocent lorry drivers are being penalised by the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We do not have much time before the vote. It is not good that I keep having to intervene in the debate, but I cannot allow shouting across the Chamber.
Mr. Heald: How can the Home Secretary say that he favours human rights and then support an offence that hits the innocent and guilty alike?
We do not apologise for talking about racketeers. The Immigration Service Union, which deals with these matters, talks about those criminals—as did the right hon. Member for Gorton. We do not apologise for talking about a flood of applications if the flow becomes an inundation. The Attorney-General spoke about floods of potential asylum seekers. Everyone with any sense knows that we have to deal firmly with bogus asylum seekers. The Home Secretary himself has tabled motions in those terms in the past. Lord Janner, who is certainly no racist, has spoken about the need to deal firmly with bogus asylum seekers. The Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary, the hon. Member for Taunton (Jackie Ballard) who is not in her place, and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) have all talked about bogus asylum seekers.
We are trying to make a case that the people support—that we should be plain and frank in our language and explain what the problems are. As the Opposition, we are carrying out our constitutional duty, which is to give advice. Our advice is that the Government should put an end to the amnesties and make greater use of detention in cases involving safe countries. We believe that there should be more removals, tougher enforcement of sanctions against illegal employment and better international co-operation.
Finally, in this country we hold our freedoms dear. They include the freedom to speak our minds—free speech. I for one, and my colleagues in the Conservative party, are not prepared to be gagged by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey or anyone else.
9.53 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Barbara Roche): That was an absolutely extraordinary speech by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). First, he clearly was not listening when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that we were still operating the so-called white list. I expect that he will be in very deep trouble with the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe), who only recently admitted that the only amnesty that there had been in this matter was under the Conservative Government. The hon. Gentleman is certainly in a bit of trouble there.
There have been some very good speeches this evening. Unfortunately, they have not come from both sides of the House. I particularly commend the speech by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton

465
(Mr. Kaufman). He rightly reminded us that many right hon. and hon. Members have the privilege of being in the Chamber today because of Britain's asylum system. I count myself among that group of people.
My right hon. Friend quite rightly referred to the contribution that refugees have made to this country, not only over the decades but over the centuries. Last week I had the privilege to meet about 20 refugees. They are doctors who want to give their services to this country. We have a duty to make sure that when we give people refugee status or indefinite leave to remain, we integrate them fully in our communities, where they can keep their own cultural and religious identities, and offer them that passport to make the fullest possible contribution to society.
We need to restore credibility to the system. We want a system in place whereby we honour our international obligations to those who are genuinely fleeing persecution. We want to speed their cases and ensure that people are not kept hanging around for years and years. That is essential.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) spoke about rapid decision making. We have taken on hundreds of new asylum decision makers—my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) made this point—and they are there expressly to tackle the backlog of cases.
Dr. George Turner: My hon. Friend will have heard the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) call for the debate to be conducted in appropriate language and promise that he would give leadership in that. Is she aware that Susan Kramer, the Liberal Democrat candidate for mayor of London, described the voucher system as like pinning yellow stars on Jews in Nazi Germany? Does she—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to go on so long. It is unfair.
Mrs. Roche: I have seen the quotation, and as a Jewish person I take comparisons with the holocaust very seriously indeed. It is very regrettable that those comments were made.
The greatest threat to the genuine asylum seeker and advantage to the criminal facilitators who prey on vulnerable people is to have a slow system. That is why we are investing in the immigration and nationality directorate and ensuring that the 1,200 posts that the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald put in place and that were lost are restored.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington rightly said that she wanted to monitor the situation closely. We will do that. I want to ensure that we have all the proper processes in place. That is very important. The record number of decisions made is a real tribute to the staff. She also asked about toys. I am grateful to her for allowing me to place on record the point that of course those who are in receipt of vouchers can use them to buy toys.
Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?
Mrs. Roche: No.
466
There is absolutely no doubt that much of the increase in the number of clandestine illegal entrants has been organised by facilitators and criminal gangs who seek to profit from the misfortune of others—jackals preying on very vulnerable people. What do the Conservatives do? Absolutely nothing. They voted against the civil penalty. It was the only part of the legislation in which they took any interest.
We have spoken of the fines imposed and of the lorries that have been impounded. When 50 people are found in a refrigerated lorry, are we to assume that the driver does not know about it? Who are the only people in the country who are prepared to defend that practice? The Conservatives. They try to talk tough but they also try to exploit the situation.
Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 134, Noes 351.

Division No. 165]

[9.59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Grieve, Dominic

Amess, David

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Hague, Rt Hon William

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Hammond, Philip

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hawkins, Nick

Baldry, Tony

Heald, Oliver

Bercow, John

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Body, Sir Richard

Horam, John

Boswell, Tim

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Hunter, Andrew

Brazier, Julian

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Browning, Mrs Angela

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Butterfill, John

Jenkin, Bernard

Cash, William

Key, Robert

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Clappison, James

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Lansley, Andrew

Leigh, Edward

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Letwin, Oliver

Collins, Tim

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Lidington, David

Cran, James

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Loughton, Tim

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Luff, Peter

Day, Stephen

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Duncan, Alan

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Duncan Smith, Iain

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Evans, Nigel

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Faber, David

McLoughlin, Patrick

Fabricant, Michael

Madel, Sir David

Fallon, Michael

Malins, Humfrey

Right, Howard

Maples, John

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

May, Mrs Theresa

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Moss, Malcolm

Fox, Dr Liam

Nicholls, Patrick

Fraser, Christopher

Norman, Archie

Gale, Roger

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Garnier, Edward

Ottaway, Richard

Gibb, Nick

Page, Richard

Gill, Christopher

Paice, James

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Paterson, Owen

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Pickles, Eric

Gray, James

Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

Green, Damian

Prior, David

Greenway, John

Randall, John

467

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Townend, John

Robathan, Andrew

Tredinnick, David

Robertson, Laurence

Trend, Michael

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Tyrie, Andrew

Rutfley, David

Walter, Robert

St Aubyn, Nick

Waterson, Nigel

Sayeed, Jonathan

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Whittingdale, John

Shepherd, Richard

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Soames, Nicholas

Wilkinson, John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Willetts, David

Spicer, Sir Michael

Wilshire, David

Spring, Richard

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Steen, Anthony

Yeo, Tim

Swayne, Desmond

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Syms, Robert

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Tellers for the Ayes:

Taylor, Ian (Esher S Walton)

Mr. Keith Simpson and

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

NOES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Ainger, Nick

Cann, Jamie

Alexander, Douglas

Caplin, Ivor

Allan, Richard

Casale, Roger

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Caton, Martin

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Cawsey, Ian

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Ashton, Joe

Chaytor, David

Atherton, Ms Candy

Chidgey, David

Atkins, Charlotte

Chisholm, Malcolm

Austin, John

Clapham, Michael

Ballard, Jackie

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Barnes, Harry

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Barron, Kevin

Beard, Nigel

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Begg, Miss Anne

Clelland, David

Beggs, Roy

Coaker, Vernon

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Coffey, Ms Ann

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Cohen, Harry

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Coleman, Iain

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Colman, Tony

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Connarty, Michael

Bennett, Andrew F

Cooper, Yvette

Benton, Joe

Corbett, Robin

Bermingham, Gerald

Cotter, Brian

Berry, Roger

Cousins, Jim

Blackman, Liz

Cox, Tom

Blears, Ms Hazel

Cranston, Ross

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Crausby, David

Borrow, David

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Bradshaw, Ben

Cummings, John

Brake, Tom

Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

Brand, Dr Peter

Breed, Colin

Dalyell, Tam

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)

Darvill, Keith

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Davidson, Ian

Browne, Desmond

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Buck, Ms Karen

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Burden, Richard

Burnett, John

Dean, Mrs Janet

Burstow, Paul

Denham, John

Butler, Mrs Christine

Dobbin, Jim

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Donohoe, Brian H

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Doran, Frank

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Dowd, Jim

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Drew, David

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

468

Ennis, Jeff

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Etherington, Bill

Khabra, Piara S

Fearn, Ronnie

Kidney, David

Field, Rt Hon Frank

Kilfoyle, Peter

Flint, Caroline

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Flynn, Paul

Kirkwood, Archy

Follett, Barbara

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Forsythe, Clifford

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Foster, Don (Bath)

Laxton, Bob

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Lepper, David

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Leslie, Christopher

Fyfe, Maria

Levitt, Tom

Galloway, George

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Gapes, Mike

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Gardiner, Barry

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

George, Andrew (St Ives)

Linton, Martin

Gerrard, Neil

Livsey, Richard

Gibson, Dr Ian

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Llwyd, Elfyn

Godman, Dr Norman A

Lock, David

Godsiff, Roger

Love, Andrew

Goggins, Paul

McAllion, John

Golding, Mrs Llin

McAvoy, Thomas

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

McCabe, Steve

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Grocott, Bruce

McDonagh, Siobhain

Grogan, John

McDonnell, John

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

McFall, John

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Hancock, Mike

McIsaac, Shona

Hanson, David

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Mackinlay, Andrew

Harris, Dr Evan

McNamara, Kevin

Harvey, Nick

McNulty, Tony

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

MacShane, Denis

Healey, John

Mactaggart, Fiona

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

McWalter, Tony

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

McWilliam, John

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Hepburn, Stephen

Mallaber, Judy

Heppell, John

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Hill, Keith

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Hinchliffe, David

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hoey, Kate

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Hood, Jimmy

Martlew, Eric

Hope, Phil

Maxton, John

Hopkins, Kelvin

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Meale, Alan

Hoyle, Lindsay

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stetford)

Miller, Andrew

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Mitchell, Austin

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Moffatt, Laura

Humble, Mrs Joan

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Hurst, Alan

Moore, Michael

Iddon, Dr Brian

Moran, Ms Margaret

Illsley, Eric

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Morley, Elliot

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Jamieson, David

Jenkins, Brian

Mountford, Kali

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Mullin, Chris

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Norris, Dan

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

O'Hara, Eddie

Olner, Bill

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

O'Neill, Martin

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Palmer, Dr Nick

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pearson, Ian

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Pendry, Tom

Kemp, Fraser

Perham, Ms Linda

469

Pickthall, Colin

Stincbcombe, Paul

Pike, Peter L

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Plaskitt, James

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Pollard, Kerry

Stringer, Graham

Pond, Chris

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Pope, Greg

Stunell, Andrew

Pound, Stephen

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Powell, Sir Raymond

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Primarolo, Dawn

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Purchase, Ken

Temple-Morris, Peter

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Rapson, Syd

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigim)

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Timms, Stephen

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Tipping, Paddy

Rendel, David

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Touhig, Don

Rogers, Allan

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Rooney, Terry

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Rowlands, Ted

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Roy, Frank

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Ruane, Chris

Tyler, Paul

Ruddock, Joan

Vis, Dr Rudi

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Wallace, James

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

Walley, Ms Joan

Ryan, Ms Joan

Wareing, Robert N

Salter, Martin

Watts, David

Sanders, Adrian

Webb, Steve

Sarwar, Mohammad

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Savidge, Malcolm

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Shaw, Jonathan

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Sheerman, Barry

Shipley, Ms Debra

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Singh, Marsha

Willis, Phil

Skinner, Dennis

Wilson, Brian

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Winnick, David

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Wood, Mike

Woodward, Shaun

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Woolas, Phil

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Worthington, Tony

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

Wray, James

Snape, Peter

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Spellar, John

Wyatt, Derek

Squire, Ms Rachel

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Tellers for the Noes:

Stevenson, George

Mr. Graham Allen and

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

Questions accordingly negativated.
Questions, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursant to standing Order No. 31 (Questions on ammendments):—
The House divided: Ayes 312, Noes 169.

Division No. 166]

[10.13 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Beard, Nigel

Ainger, Nick

Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

Alexander, Douglas

Begg, Miss Anne

Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

Beggs, Roy

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

Bell, Martin (Tatton)

Ashton, Joe

Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

Atherton, Ms Candy

Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

Atkins, Charlotte

Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

Austin, John

Bennett, Andrew F

Barnes, Harry

Benton, Joe

Barron, Kevin

Bermingham, Gerald

470

Berry, Roger

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

Blackman, Liz

Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

Blears, Ms Hazel

Fyfe, Maria

Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

Galloway, George

Borrow, David

Gapes, Mike

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Gardiner, Barry

Bradshaw, Ben

Gerrard, Neil

Brinton, Mrs Helen

Gibson, Dr Ian

Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

Gilroy, Mrs Linda

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Browne, Desmond

Godsiff, Roger

Buck, Ms Karen

Goggins, Paul

Burden, Richard

Golding, Mrs Llin

Butler, Mrs Christine

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Grocott, Bruce

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Grogan, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Cann, Jamie

Hanson, David

Caplin, Ivor

Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

Casale, Roger

Heal, Mrs Sylvia

Caton, Martin

Healey, John

Cawsey, Ian

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Chaytor, David

Hepburn, Stephen

Chisholm, Malcolm

Heppell, John

Clapham, Michael

Hewitt, Ms Patricia

Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

Hill, Keith

Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hinchliffe, David

Hoey, Kate

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hood, Jimmy

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Hope, Phil

Clelland, David

Hopkins, Kelvin

Coaker, Vernon

Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hoyle, Lindsay

Cohen, Harry

Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

Coleman, Iain

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Colman, Tony

Humble, Mrs Joan

Connarty, Michael

Hurst, Alan

Cooper, Yvette

Iddon, Dr Brian

Corbett, Robin

Illsley, Eric

Cousins, Jim

Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

Cox, Tom

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

Cranston, Ross

Jamieson, David

Crausby, David

Jenkins, Brian

Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn HaWeld)

Cummings, John

Dalyell, Tam

Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Darvill, Keith

Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolvem'ton SW)

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Davidson, Ian

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

Keeble, Ms Sally

Dean, Mrs Janet

Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

Denham, John

Kemp, Fraser

Dobbin, Jim

Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

Donohoe, Brian H

Khabra, Piara S

Doran, Frank

Kidney, David

Dowd, Jim

Kilfoyle, Peter

Drew, David

King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Kumar, Dr Ashok

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Ladyman, Dr Stephen

Ennis, Jeff

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Etherington, Bill

Laxton, Bob

Fearn, Ronnie

Lepper, David

Reid, Rt Hon Frank

Leslie, Christopher

Flint, Caroline

Levitt, Tom

Flynn, Paul

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Follett, Barbara

Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

Forsythe, Clifford

Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

Foster, Rt Hon Derek

Linton, Martin

471

Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

Rogers, Allan

Lock, David

Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

Love, Andrew

Rooney, Terry

McAllion, John

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McAvoy, Thomas

Rowlands, Ted

McCabe, Steve

Roy, Frank

McCafferty, Ms Chris

Ruane, Chris

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ruddock, Joan

McDonnell, John

Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

McFall, John

Ryan, Ms Joan

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Salter, Martin

McIsaac, Shona

Sarwar, Mohammad

McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

Savidge, Malcolm

Mackinlay, Andrew

Shaw, Jonathan

McNamara, Kevin

Sheerman, Barry

McNulty, Tony

Shipley, Ms Debra

MacShane, Denis

Short, Rt Hon Clare

Mactaggart, Fiona

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

McWalter, Tony

Singh, Marsha

McWilliam, John

Skinner, Dennis

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

Mallaber, Judy

Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Smith, John (Glamorgan)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Snape, Peter

Martlew, Eric

Spellar, John

Maxton, John

Squire, Ms Rachel

Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

Starkey, Dr Phyllis

Meale, Alan

Stevenson, George

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Stewart, David (Inverness E)

Miller, Andrew

Stinchcombe, Paul

Mitchell, Austin

Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

Moffatt, Laura

Straw, Rt Hon Jack

Moonie, Dr Lewis

Stringer, Graham

Moran, Ms Margaret

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Morley, Elliot

Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

Mountford, Kali

Temple-Morris, Peter

Mullin, Chris

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

Naysmith, Dr Doug

Timms, Stephen

Norris, Dan

Tipping, Paddy

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Touhig, Don

O'Hara, Eddie

Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

Olner, Bill

Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

O'Neill, Martin

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Organ, Mrs Diana

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Osborne, Ms Sandra

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Palmer, Dr Nick

Vis, Dr Rudi

Pearson, Ian

Walley, Ms Joan

Pendry, Tom

Wareing, Robert N

Perham, Ms Linda

Watts, David

Pickthall, Colin

Whitehead, Dr Alan

Pike, Peter L

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Plaskitt, James

Pollard, Kerry

Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

Pond, Chris

Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

Pope, Greg

Wilson, Brian

Pound, Stephen

Winnick, David

Powell, Sir Raymond

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Wood, Mike

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Woodward, Shaun

Primarolo, Dawn

Woolas, Phil

Purchase, Ken

Worthington, Tony

Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

Wray, James

Radice, Rt Hon Giles

Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

Rapson, Syd

Wyatt, Derek

Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Mr. Graham Allen and

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

472

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Heald, Oliver

Allan, Richard

Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

Amess, David

Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

Horam, John

Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

Howard, Rt Hon Michael

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

Baldry, Tony

Hunter, Andrew

Ballard, Jackie

Jack, Rt Hon Michael

Beith, Rt Hon A J

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Bercow, John

Jenkin, Bernard

Beresford, Sir Paul

Key, Robert

Body, Sir Richard

King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

Boswell, Tim

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Kirkwood, Archy

Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Brake, Tom

Lansley, Andrew

Brand, Dr Peter

Leigh, Edward

Brazier, Julian

Letwin, Oliver

Breed, Colin

Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

Browning, Mrs Angela

Lidington, David

Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

Livsey, Richard

Burnett, John

Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

Burstow, Paul

LJwyd, Elfyn

Butterfill, John

Loughton, Tim

Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

Luff, Peter

Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Cash, William

MacGregor, Rt Hon John

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

Clappison, James

Maclean, Rt Hon David

Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Madel, Sir David

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Malins, Humfrey

Collins, Tim

Maples, John

Cotter, Brian

May, Mrs Theresa

Cran, James Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Moore, Michael

Moss, Malcolm

Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

Nicholls, Patrick

Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

Norman, Archie

Day, Stephen

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Duncan, Alan

Ottaway, Richard

Duncan Smith, Iain

Page, Richard

Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Paice, James

Evans, Nigel

Paterson, Owen

Faber, David

Pickles, Eric

Fabricant, Michael

Portillo

Fallon, Michael

Rt Hon Michael

Fearn, Ronnie

Prior, David

Flight, Howard

Randall, John

Forth, Rt Hon Eric

Redwood, Rt Hon John

Foster, Don (Bath)

Rendel, David

Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman

Robathan, Andrew

Fox, Dr Liam

Robertson, Laurence

Fraser, Christopher

Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

Gale, Roger

Ruffley, David

Garnier, Edward

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

George, Andrew (St Ives)

St Aubyn, Nick

Gibb, Nick

Sanders, Adrian

Gill, Christopher

Sayeed, Jonathan

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Shepherd, Richard

Gray, James

Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)

Green, Damian

Soames, Nicholas

Greenway, John

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Grieve, Dominic

Spicer, Sir Michael

Gummer, Rt Hon John

Spring, Richard

Hague, Rt Hon William

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

Steen, Anthony

Hammond, Philip

Stunell, Andrew

Hancock, Mike

Swayne, Desmond

Harris, Dr Evan

Syms, Robert

Harvey, Nick

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Hawkins, Nick

Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

473

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Whittingdale, John

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

Tonge, Dr Jenny

Wilkinson, John

Townend, John

Willis, Phil

Tredinnick, David

Wilshire, David

Trend, Michael

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Tyrie, Andrew

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Yeo, Tim

Wallace, James

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Walter, Robert

Waterson, Nigel

Tellers for the Noes:

Webb, Steve

Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

Whitney, Sir Raymond

Mr. Keith Simpson.

Question accordingly agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House approves the Government's comprehensive, integrated strategy to modernise the immigration and asylum system to make it fairer, faster and firmer; welcomes the provisions of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 which will overhaul the inadequate legislative framework created by the previous Government and will replace the chaotic asylum support arrangements introduced in 1996 which have imposed an intolerable burden on local authorities; is astonished that the Official Opposition voted in the other place to restore cash benefits to asylum seekers at a cost of £500 million per year; approves the measures being taken to tackle the smugglers and traffickers who profit from illegal immigration; approves the new civil penalty for drivers and others who bring illegal immigrants to this country concealed in their vehicles; welcomes the substantial additional investment that the Government is making to increase the volume and speed of asylum decisions; congratulates the staff of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate on achieving record numbers of asylum decisions; and supports the Government's commitment to protecting genuine refugees while dealing firmly with those who seek to evade the control.

DELAGATED LEGISLATION
Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delagated Legislation),
DELAGATED LEGISLATION

  IMMIGRATION
  That the draft Immigration (Leave to Enter and Remain) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 30th March, be approved.—[Mr.Mike Hall.]
  The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 125.

  Division No. 167]

  [10.28 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Ainger, Nick

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Allan, Richard

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Berry, Roger

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Blackman, Liz

  Ashton, Joe

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Borrow, David

  Austin, John

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Barnes, Harry

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Barron, Kevin

  Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

  Beard, Nigel

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Browne, Desmond

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Beggs, Roy

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Burden, Richard

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Burnett, John

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Burstow, Paul

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  474

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Godsiff, Roger

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Cann, Jamie

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Caplin, Ivor

  Grocott, Bruce

  Casale, Roger

  Grogan, John

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hancock, Mike

  Chaytor, David

  Hanson, David

  Chisholm, Malcolm

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Heal, Mrs Sylvia

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clelland, David

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heppell, John

  Cohen, Harry

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Coleman, Iain

  Hill, Keith

  Colman, Tony

  Hinchliffe, David

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hood, Jimmy

  Corbett, Robin

  Hope, Phil

  Cotter, Brian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cousins, Jim

  Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

  Cox, Tom

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Cranston, Ross

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cummings, John

  Hurst, Alan

  Dalyell, Tam

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Darvill, Keith

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Jamieson, David

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Denham, John

  Dobbin, Jim

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Doran, Frank

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dowd, Jim

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Drew, David

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Ellman, Mrs Louise Ennis, Jeff

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Etherington, Bill Fearn, Ronnie

  Kemp, Fraser

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Khabra, Piara S

  Flint, Caroline

  Kidney, David

  Flynn, Paul

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Follett, Barbara

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Forsythe, Clifford

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fyfe, Maria

  Laxton, Bob

  Galloway, George

  Lepper, David

  Gapes, Mike

  Leslie, Christopher

  Gardiner, Barry

  Levitt, Tom

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Uvsey, Richard

  475

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  LJwyd, Elfyn

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Lock, David

  Rendel, David

  Love, Andrew

  Robinson, Geoffrey (CoV'try NW)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  McCabe, Steve

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rowlands, Ted

  McDonagh, Siobhain McDonnell, John

  Roy, Frank Ruane, Chris

  McFall, John

  Ruddock, Joan

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)Ryan, Ms Joan

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Sanders, Adrian

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  McNamara, Kevin

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McNulty, Tony

  Shaw, Jonathan

  MacShane, Denis

  Sheerman, Barry

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  McWalter, Tony

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWilliam, John

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Smith, Sir Robert (WAb'd'ns)Snape, Peter

  Martlew, Eric Maxton, John

  Spellar, John Squire, Ms Rachel

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Meale, Alan

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Miller, Andrew

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Stunell, Andrew

  Moore, Michael

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  (Dewsbury)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

  Mountford, Kali

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mullin, Chris

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Norris, Dan

  Timms, Stephen

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Tipping, Paddy

  O'Hara, Eddie

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Olner, Bill

  Touhig, Don

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Organ, Mrs Diana

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pendry, Tom

  Tyler, Paul

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Pickthall, Colin

  Wallace, James

  Pike, Peter L

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Plaskitt, James

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pollard, Kerry

  Watts, David Webb, Steve

  Pond, Chris

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pope, Greg

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  (Swansea W)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Purchase, Ken

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Willis, Phil

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Wilson, Brian

  Rapson, Syd

  Winnick, David

  476

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

  Wood, Mike

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth and

  Wray, James

  Mr. Graham Allen.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Lansley, Andrew

  Amess, David

  Leigh, Edward

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Letwin, Oliver

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Baldry, Tony

  Lidington, David

  Bercow, John

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Loughton, Tim

  Body, Sir Richard

  Luff, Peter

  Boswell, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Brazier, Julian

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Butterfill, John

  Madel, Sir David

  Cash, William

  Malins, Humfrey

  Chapman, Sir Sydney

  Maples, John

  (Chipping Barnet)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Clappison, James

  Moss, Malcolm

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  Nicholls, Patrick

  (Rushcliffe)

  Norman, Archie

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Collins, Tim

  Ottaway, Richard

  Cran, James

  Page, Richard

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Paice, James

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Paterson, Owen

  Day, Stephen

  Pickles, Eric

  Duncan, Alan

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Prior, David

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Randall, John

  Evans, Nigel

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Faber, David

  Robathan, Andrew

  Fabricant, Michael

  Robertson, Laurence

  Fallon, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fight, Howard

  Ruffley, David

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fraser, Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Soames, Nicholas

  Garnier, Edward

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gibb Nick

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Gill, Christopher

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Spring, Richard

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Gray, James

  Steen, Anthony

  Green, Damian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Greenway, John

  Syms, Robert Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Grieve, Dominic

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hammond, Philip

  Townend, John

  Hawkins, Nick

  Tredinnick, David

  Heald, Oliver

  Trend, Michael

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Horam, John

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Hunter, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Key, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Mr. Peter Atkinson and

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Mr. Keith Simpson.

  Question accordingly agreed to.

PETITION

  Village Post Offices
  10.39 pm
  Mr. Patrick Nicholls: The petition that I am presenting this evening is in the name of Thelma Budd of 9 Morgan quay, Teignmouth, Devon. It is signed by Mrs. Budd and a number of other members of the Teignmouth Townswomen's Guild, and it is to ask that the House of Commons urge Her Majesty's Government not to carry through their proposals for automated credit transfer, given the threat that that poses to village post offices. The petition ends in the usual way.
  To lie upon the Table.

Bail Hostels
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Allen.]
10.40 pm
Miss Ann Widdecombe: May I make it clear that I raise this issue in my capacity as the Member for Maidstone and The Weald and not in my capacity as a shadow Home Office Minister? It is necessary to say that, because some of the points that I shall make will touch on Home Office matters.
I thank the Minister of State, Home Office for being present, but he has drawn the short straw. Perhaps the Secretary of State for Social Security should have answered this debate. For rather obvious reasons, my speech will be a third of the length that I originally intended, and I hope that the Minister will not interpret that as a discourtesy.
I raise the subject because there is a bail hostel in my constituency. It suffers much from the fact that different rules appear to be applied by the Home Office and the Department of Social Security. I first become interested in the issue through a case that I raised with the Home Secretary in which a foreign national had been charged with a crime and remanded not in custody, but on bail. Unfortunately, the foreign national had no means of support and could not work because she had been tagged. That effectively restricted her during the hours that she was most likely to have been able to work. Residence at the bail hostel rather than anywhere else in the community, such as with friends, was a condition of her bail, but she could not obtain support while there.
The Home Secretary told me that the person concerned could not be evicted from the hostel for failure to pay rent but only for a breach of her bail conditions. However, in the same paragraph, he added that the bail hostel was entitled to make the payment of rent one of those conditions. If she did not pay it, she would be in breach of her conditions. She was therefore trapped by a very theoretical protection that did not, in fact, exist. Because she could not satisfy the habitual residence test, she could not obtain social security.
When I raised the case, I was approached by Kent probation and told about other anomalies that apply to bail hostels. For example, a disabled British resident with multiple sclerosis and in a wheelchair was refused disability living allowance on the ground that he was in custody and that the Department of Social Security regarded bail hostels as custody. However, according to the Home Secretary, bail hostels are not custody; they are alternatives to custody. Once again, there is an absence of joined-up government, and I do not say that to sneer, because many of the rules grew up under successive Governments and over a long time. They now contradict each other and urgently need sorting out.
The other issue that arose was rehousing from bail hostels. The Minister will be aware that one of the biggest factors in the prevention of reoffending is the ability to house people in stable accommodation. However, local authorities are unwilling to rehouse people from bail hostels and to count those evicted from such hostels as homeless within their territory particularly if they originated from elsewhere before they committed the crime.

479
I have several questions for the Minister. What are overseas embassies doing about foreign nationals who come here, break our laws and then turn to us for support that we do not give? We are, more or less, obliged to return such people to custody and that costs vastly more than remanding them on bail. Surely foreign embassies should take some responsibility for their nationals who are in that position. What are the costs of custody as opposed to keeping someone in a bail hostel? Is it not worth sorting the problem out for that aspect alone? Would it be possible to bill other Governments for any extra expenses incurred?
What is the position of British nationals in other European Union countries who encounter the same problem? Does it arise? If so, what is our attitude? If a foreign national—or anybody else—who is committed to a bail hostel has also been tagged, can the restrictions take some account of that and allow some hours for that person to find work?
10.45 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Paul Boateng): I thank the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for raising important issues and I commend her on her fortitude in persevering with the debate while obviously suffering from laryngitis.
The right hon. Lady has written to my right hon. Friend about anxieties raised by a member of staff at Fleming house, which is an approved hostel in her constituency. The staff were worried about two residents who were foreign nationals. I understand that, because the residents did not fulfil the habitual residence test as set out in Department of Social Security rules, they did not receive any financial support from the Benefits Agency. That meant that the two residents were unable to pay the usual maintenance charge that all residents in approved probation and bail hostels should pay.
I want to stress at the outset that, as the right hon. Lady acknowledged, the bulk of her anxieties belong in the bailiwick and come under the remit of the Department of Social Security. I shall draw the matters that she has raised to that Department's attention, and ensure that she receives a written response.
There has been a recent change, about which the right hon. Lady may not yet know. From 3 April this year, housing benefit is no longer payable for approved probation and bail hostel charges. The Home Office has taken over responsibility for paying the element of the charge that would previously have qualified for housing benefit. That will join up at least some of her points.
If the cases of the right hon. Lady's two constituents had arisen after 3 April, they would have been tackled differently. Housing benefit would have been irrelevant because the Home Office now funds the hostels directly on the basis of a grant that is calculated on their occupancy rates. That has contributed greatly to solving the dilemma that several hostels faced.
There was always a concern that foreign nationals in the hostels would, through no fault of their own, be at risk of breaching the conditions of their residence and taken back to court. There was also a perceived disincentive to hostels to take on such foreign nationals, even though public protection and the best interests of the administration of justice demanded it. The change that occurred on 3 April has removed that supposed disincentive.
480
We are committed to the role of approved probation and bail hostels. They operate under the Approved Bail and Probation Hostel Rules 1995. As the right hon. Lady acknowledged, the problems originate in the actions of successive Governments. Nevertheless, they need to be tackled, and we intend to do that.
Placement in an approved hostel is intended to provide enhanced residential supervision in the community through a supportive and structured environment. The work of approved probation and bail hostels is often not sufficiently appreciated by the wider public or, indeed, by some in the profession itself.
Miss Widdecombe indicatedassent.
Mr. Boateng: I am glad that the right hon. Lady agrees, and that Members on both sides of the House are able to signify our appreciation of hostels' work.
Hostels are also intended to be a base from which residents can take full advantage of the community facilities for work, education, training, treatment and recreation. The right hon. Lady raised an important point about her example of a foreign national who, because she was tagged, was unable to work while living in a hostel and therefore had difficulty in making a contribution to the costs.
I have considered the matter, with the benefit of advice from the Department of Social Security, and I am told that existing jobseeker's allowance rules are sufficiently flexible to allow the vast majority of prisoners released under home detention curfew to meet labour market conditions. The conditions of being available for and actively seeking work, which are attached to the benefit, are considered on a case by case basis. European Union nationals are also in a more privileged position to gain access to work and to some benefits.
The right hon. Lady asked me about the position of our nationals in EU jurisdictions, and I shall take advice on that and write to her. We know that, where we have reciprocal arrangements with the country of origin of foreign nationals, it is possible for them to be repatriated during their period of home detention curfew and they can then be supervised in their own country for that part of their sentence, which they would otherwise have served in hostel accommodation on licence.
Miss Widdecombe: Although what the Minister said about people who have a tagging sentence is valuable, my point was more about people who are pre-trial and have to keep to their bail hostel during certain hours.
Mr. Boateng: That certainly is more problematic, because the hours during which those people may be required to remain in the hostel can make it difficult for them to find employment or to continue with their usual work. It is certainly worth our while, as a society, seeking to ensure not only that our arrangements enable sentencers to be aware of the implications of their conditions for an individual's employability and capacity to take up benefit from a hostel place, but that the conditions are sufficiently flexible to enable the individual to take up employment. I shall certainly look into the matter raised by the right hon. Lady.

481
The right hon. Lady also asked me about the attitude of embassies and high commissions. My experience, which is probably similar to hers, is that attitudes vary from country to country, from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and sometimes even from official to official within a particular mission over time. Some seem more understanding and more helpful than others.
My immediate answer to the right hon. Lady's question, then, is that the attitude varies, but in the main, overseas missions take a similar view to ours. If people offend overseas, their first port of call for financial assistance ought not to be their consulate. They should use their own resources. For good and understandable reasons, although consular officials overseas endeavour to be as helpful as they can, they try to do so with a close eye on the public purse, and on the need for people to bear responsibility for their own acts.
Nevertheless, it is important that foreign nationals in that position should be able to receive authoritative advice from the probation service or through-care prison officers about the likely attitude of their consular mission. I shall pursue the matter with the probation and through-care
482
authorities in the Prison Service and explore the possibilities of our doing more in that area, and write to the right hon. Lady.
We want to ensure that the relatively small number of foreign nationals in bail hostels and approved probation hostels should not be disadvantaged by the fact that they are foreign nationals, and that the hostels should not bear an unreasonable burden as a result of the fact that there are foreign nationals among the people for whom they are responsible. We believe that with regard to housing benefit, foreign nationals resident in such hostels will no longer experience a financial shortfall to the extent that was possible before 3 April.
I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for enabling me to clarify, as far as I can tonight, the questions that she raised. It has been a short but useful debate, and I will ensure that the Department of Social Security responds directly to her by letter on the detailed points that more properly fall to that Department. I thank her for bringing the matter before the House, and wish her a speedy recovery.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at two minutes to Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

Newspaper and Magazine Recycling
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Taylor: The Government will soon publish their waste strategy after much consultation in recent months and, indeed, since the general election. Hon. Members will be aware that the strategy contains seven broad principles, including a greater emphasis on recycling and energy recovery, increased public involvement in the re-use and recycling of household waste, the need for challenging but realistic targets, a strong emphasis on waste minimisation, and a need to change the perception of the waste hierarchy. The final two principles are the more creative use of economic incentives, with which I hope my hon. Friend the Minister will deal, and increased public involvement in the decision-making process. I hope that the targets that will be set for recycling a range of materials will ultimately ensure that our nation becomes one of the best in Europe in that respect.
The Government strategy will include targets for increasing the recycled content of newspapers and magazines. Today's debate is, therefore, opportune. It is opportune for many of us, as politicians, because no group of people in this country is guiltier of producing reams and reams of printed material and because of references to our various doings in the newspapers. In a sense, therefore, we are culpable for some of the problems with which society is trying to grapple.
One of my earliest recollections is of my first proper job as a newspaper boy back in the 1960s. I recall the huge number of newspapers that were delivered in the area for which I was responsible. Nowadays, households probably buy fewer newspapers, but they are much bulkier and there are far more free sheets. The volume and weight of newspapers that drop through the letterboxes of North-West Leicestershire in the early years of this century are probably two to three times greater than when I was a paid employee 40 years ago.
I am sorry that the several key discussions that have taken place about the recycled content of newsprint have been in camera. I will not say that they were in smoke-filled rooms, because I know of the millennium resolution of my hon. Friend the Minister. However, I will press him to throw open the doors to let in some light and air. Are we not now in the brave new world of a nation on the brink of having freedom of information legislation? Let my hon. Friend's actions be the first sign of that advance.
The Government and the Newspaper Publishers Association are discussing appropriate targets for the amount of recycled paper in newspapers. However, I regret to say that those discussions hardly include all the bodies with an interest in such matters. The 300 or so hon. Members who signed early-day motion 17 in
38WH
support of mandatory newspaper and magazine recycling targets were contacted by the NPA and asked to consider taking their names off the early-day motion—indeed, one or two of them did. However, when other hon. Members asked the NPA for more information, including a copy of the report that was submitted to the Government in June 1999 on targets for recycled content, their requests were declined. I hope to hear from the Minister that discussions will now broaden and that the June 1999 report can, and will, be made public.
The Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill is progressing through the House and is likely soon to be in Committee, which will provide another forum for debate. That Bill stipulates targets for recycled newsprint and for collecting and recycling newspapers and magazines, and it would require newspaper and magazine publishers to meet mandatory targets to collect and recycle 65 per cent. of the volume of paper that they put into the market by 2016. Publishers would have to ensure that the recycled content of newsprint increased to 80 per cent. by 2010 and meet two interim targets within that period. I commend that Bill and those targets.
What is the desirability and achievability of strong targets from the perspective of producer responsibility? The Government are right to support producer responsibility. Making producers responsible for their products from cradle to grave, or in this case printing hall to church hall, ensures that they are made more aware of the need to make goods more durable, repairable and easily recyclable. That also ensures that local authority funding for recycling comes from the product manufacturers, who produce the first form of what is ultimately waste.
Such requirements also comply with the polluter pays principle, which the Government and the two main Opposition parties support. A Conservative Government first introduced producer responsibility legislation with the packaging regulations, on which they deserve warm congratulations. Those regulations provide that 26 per cent. of packaging should be recycled by, I believe, the end of next year. Increasingly, that target means that packaging companies and retailers need to help, support and invest in local authority recycling schemes. The regulations also give an incentive to packaging designers to plan for recycling and to minimise the amount of packaging.
Those regulations implement a European directive that is likely to be reviewed soon, when its recycling targets may be set higher, which is a most welcome development. I am afraid to say that the United Kingdom has an abysmal record of recycling packaging and is far behind its European neighbours. For example, Sweden recycles 84 per cent. of its glass and Germany recycles 81 per cent., but the United Kingdom recycles only 24 per cent. Switzerland recycles 89 per cent. of its aluminium cans and Finland recycles 84 per cent., but we recycle only 38 per cent. The picture is the same for steel cans.
Those figures are not due to the fact that people in other countries care more about the environment than the British people do. We are as green minded as anyone. They are due to the fact that those countries have invested in recycling schemes. The Government backed a recent European initiative to ensure that car

39WH
producers pay for car recycling, and they continue to tackle the excessive prices charged to consumers in this country. Therefore, the Government are making cars greener and ensuring that consumers are not ripped off by retailers who think that they are too green in the other sense of the word.
Mandatory targets for newspaper and magazine recycling aim to make producers, newspapers and magazines responsible for sharing the cost of increasing the amount of recycling. Targets would also help the United Kingdom to meet its obligations to divert waste from landfill under the landfill directive. They would introduce producer responsibility and help to make the polluter pay, thereby reducing the burden on local authorities and council tax payers.
My constituency is a former mining area, containing wasteland and voids that are attractive to landfill operators. I represent 85,000 people in North-West Leicestershire and I know how vulnerable we are to the requirements of the waste disposal industry. The impact on our environment and the local economy, and the social impact of excessive landfill can be very damaging, so mandatory targets are important. It is particularly important that all newspapers and magazines share such a responsibility, so that no section of the industry is given advantages. We could introduce regulations that set thresholds, so that smaller publishers are protected from excessive costs, as happened with the packaging regulations introduced by the previous Administration.
A producer responsibility for newspaper and magazine publishers to collect and recycle 65 per cent. by 2016 seems reasonable. In fact, that target is precisely in line with the landfill directive that requires the UK to reduce household biodegradable waste, such as paper, going to landfill by 65 per cent. by 2016. Sixty-five per cent. sounds ambitious and it is a laudable target, but it still leaves us far behind our European neighbours. A recent report from the European Commission said that
Recovery rates reach 80 per cent. and even more in Austria, Sweden and Switzerland, but collections in Southern Europe and the UK still clearly lag behind.
That is a source of much regret and an area in which Government action can make a difference. However, 65 per cent. would be a start. I am interested to hear from hon. Members whether they believe that higher targets would be better and achievable. Will my hon. Friend the Minister confirm the Government's position on producer responsibility? Do they think that it is appropriate for newspapers and magazines to be brought under the concept, together with the packaging industry?
What about the targets for the recycled content of newsprint? The regulatory impact assessment for the Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill stated that the newspaper industry is confident that it can reach the target of 65 per cent. recycled paper by 2003. I am encouraged to hear that Ian Broxup, who is the finance director for Aylesford Newsprint—the largest paper reprocessor in the United Kingdom—and a constituent
40WH
of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw), recently told the publication Materials Recycling Week that a recycled content target of 80 per cent. by 2010
looks ambitious but might be achievable.
At present, the Aylesford Newsprint mill in Kent is producing 100 per cent. recycled content newsprint, which performs as well as, if not better than, virgin newsprint. The company can do that because about 30 per cent. of its feedstock is magazines, which have a high virgin fibre content. The suggested targets for collection and recycling include magazines as well as newspapers, so the continuing production of 100 per cent. recycled newsprint is rendered possible.
Mandatory recycling would put newspaper and magazine recyling on a stronger footing, guarantee that the necessary investment was made and therefore bring about employment, economic and environmental benefits from improved resource use.
Mr. Tim Loughton: I am interested to hear about what goes on in Aylesford. On a related subject, will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the good environmental practice of recycling paper in Aylesford will be fully subject to the energy tax announced in the Budget?
Mr. Taylor: I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford may wish to comment on that matter. I cannot do so at this stage.
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: Aylesford Newsprint has a combined heat and power plant and will therefore be exempt.
Mr. Taylor: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. Does my hon. Friend the Minister support targets, either in principle or those in the Bill? I believe that he should. Knowing his environmental credentials, I believe that he will fight for them.
The logging of ancient forests is a matter of concern to many environmentalists. The benefits of boosting newspaper and magazine recyling through challenging targets are manifold. Forests and biodiversity would be the first to benefit. The paper industry claims that newsprint comes solely from sustainably managed forests, but I regret that that is not always the case.
The United Kingdom produces 2.35 million tonnes of newsprint per year, which is predicted to increase by at least 1 per cent. per annum. About 60 per cent. of newsprint is imported—it is mainly manufactured from virgin fibre. Imported newsprint comes mainly from Scandinavia and Canada, with a small amount coming from central and southern Europe.
According to the Swedish Society for Nature Conservation, about 1,700 forest species are threatened or even face extinction due to the methods used by the Swedish forest industry. Swedish parliamentary auditors noted that old growth forests, containing threatened species, continue to be logged and stated that there are insufficient resources for forest protection. Species under threat from logging practices in Sweden include the brown bear, the Ural owl, the capercaillie and the golden eagle.

41WH
The situation is similar in Finland. Although two thirds of that country is covered in forest, only 5 per cent. of that is old growth or ancient forest, most of which is in the northern provinces of Oulu and Lapland and the eastern province of North Karelia. However, the remaining 5 per cent. continues to be logged. Species at risk there include the flying squirrel and magnificent birds such as the golden eagle. That situation is mirrored in Norway, where an ever-diminishing proportion of ancient forest remains. Its coastal rain forest is one of the most threatened ecosystems in the world.
In Canada, the natural environment is being damaged at an ever-accelerated rate. According to Environment Canada, about 90 per cent. of all logging takes place in previously unlogged primary forest areas. Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Quebec and British Columbia all tell the same tale. New Brunswick, more than any other province, has brought its forest into full industrial production. The cougar and wolf have all but disappeared. The Canadian lynx is on the provincial endangered list, woodland caribou have been exterminated, and the pine marten and the fisher are in decline.
Sometimes, people ask, "Does logging really relate to us?" Interestingly, wood from old growth forests logged in Finland is bought by companies such as UPA-Kymmene, the owner of the Shotton newspaper production plant in Flintshire, Wales. In Norway, the major forest products company is Norske Skog, which produces newsprint for the UK market and has been known to supply The Sun, The Mirror, The Express, The Times, The Guardian and The Observer.
In Canada, Abitibi Price, the owners of Bridgewater newsprint mill in the UK, have considered clear cutting the fragile forests in remote northern Labrador, threatening the livelihood of the Innuit people. Ancient forests are logged—logged for us—and some end up, absurdly and tragically, as part of wholly disposable newspapers and magazines. One of the answers has to be increased recycling, which would reduce the devastating effect on our environment for many generations to come.
In her book, "At the Cutting Edge: The Crisis in Canada's Forests", Elizabeth May states:
One encouraging sign that could lead to reduced pressure on the forests is the move to recycle paper. Driven by consumer demands, primarily from US customers, a number of Quebec mills are installing de-inking facilities in order to process newspapers into paper.
So it is not all doom and gloom; some progress is being made. There are some hopeful signs in Canada and Scandinavia.
Recycling waste paper also leads to fewer greenhouse gas emissions than the alternatives of landfill and incineration, so it helps to combat dangerous climate change. Only last month, the British Newsprint Manufacturers Association said that recycling old newspapers is cheaper and environmentally preferable to incineration, helps to displace newsprint imports and generates more jobs. Expanded newspaper recycling would indeed bring about benefits for jobs and for the wider economy. According to a report commissioned by Friends of the Earth, the targets in the Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill would lead to expansion of the UK paper industry, creating about 2,000 new jobs by 2010 and would reduce our import bill by about £175 million by the same date.
42WH
At present, local authorities' recycling targets and achievements are too low. More than 10 years ago, in one of their periodic fits of environmental awareness, the previous Government set a recycling target of a quarter of our rubbish by 2000. However, the average figure for local authorities is 8.9 per cent. North West Leicestershire, my local authority, recycles just 6.7 per cent of its waste. The Minister's borough—the fair borough of Lambeth over the water—recycles only 7.7 per cent. Much more needs to be done at local authority level.
The idea of newspaper and magazine recycling is strongly supported by all readers. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Dr. Naysmith) received more than 700 letters from individuals and organisations in a matter of weeks persuading him to adopt newspaper and magazine recycling as his ballot Bill at the end of last year. Pressure groups can encourage people to write, but people respond in such substantial numbers only on issues that are close to their hearts.
The mandatory targets for newspaper and magazine recycling are well supported in the House. I referred earlier to the fact that almost 300 hon. Members signed early-day motion 17 in support of stronger targets. The list of supporters grows daily. It already includes well over 60 local authorities and industry bodies such as the Independent Waste Paper Processors Association, Waste Watch, the Community Recycling Network and Friends of the Earth.
I hope that I have given an idea of the importance of this issue. It is important socially, environmentally and economically. I have four questions for the Minister. First, do the Government believe that mandatory targets are important for the recycled content of newsprint and, if so, at what level? Secondly, will they introduce producer responsibility in the newspaper and magazine industry? Thirdly, will they ensure that targets are reviewed periodically and that new and more challenging targets are set when earlier ones have been complied with? Finally, when will the Government open out the discussion with the NPA and make available a copy of the NPA's report to the Government of June 1999?
In his acceptance speech for his second, richly deserved Green Ribbon award earlier this year, my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment said that one of his future aims was for
there to be a revolution in the way we handle waste.
Strong targets for newspaper and magazine recycling will herald the start of that revolution. I hope that today's debate will be seen as a key stage in its achievement.
9.53 am
Mr. Jonathan Shaw: May I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing an extremely important debate? As he pointed out, any debate about the paper and newsprint industry is listened to with great interest in my constituency. There are mills employing 1,000 people in the Aylesford and Snodland area of my constituency, producing 1.4 million tonnes of paper and board every year.

43WH
Among the four producers in my constituency is Aylesford Print. It boasts one of the most modern plants in Europe, reprocessing some 450,000 tonnes of 100 per cent.—and that is the best—recycled newspaper every year. That is just under half the total United Kingdom production. The UK consumes about 2.5 million tonnes of newsprint every year; it has recently overtaken Germany as the largest European market. Our growing economy is a testimony to its management. Despite there being a wider choice of available media—the internet and more television channels, for example—people remain wedded to buying newspapers and magazines.
I, too, was a newspaper boy; it was one of my first jobs. Some things do not change: my local party asked me to deliver leaflets every month, and that is still part of my job description.
I support the highly desirable aims that my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire researched and articulated so well. As Mr. Broxup from Aylesford Newsprint said, those aims are tough, but they can be achieved. However, my hon. Friend did not mention capacity, or say how the 80 per cent. target can be achieved. In considering a sustainable development policy, we must also take account of the social and economic aspects of achieving that 80 per cent. target. Without increased United Kingdom capacity, the only way that we will achieve that tough target will be by importing recycled paper. As my hon. Friend said, most of the newsprint imported to this country is virgin fibre, so the life cycle of the paper is as long as it could possibly be.
Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that about 40 per cent. of the nation's paper requirements are already imported?
Mr. Shaw: Yes, they are. The reason why so much is imported is that the three mills that produce newspaper in this country are full to capacity; they cannot produce more. I shall expand on that issue later in my speech. Aylesford Newsprint's company secretary, Mr. Donald Charlesworth, told me the other day that his order book was full. He could fill another one tomorrow, but the United Kingdom does not have the mills necessary to produce the paper, and until we produce more we will have to import.
If the newspaper industry has to meet the requirement, it will mean more degraded paper imports, which have a damaging effect on the three mills, one of which is in my constituency. The life cycle of degraded paper is shorter and therefore has to go to landfill or incineration far sooner. My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire spoke about local people being involved in decisions; if his constituency is anything like mine, incineration is not top of the pops—there is no campaign for an incinerator in my constituency. I regret that we are likely to have one and I am disappointed that my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment did not agree to a public inquiry.
The United Kingdom domestic share of the newspaper sector has risen from 6 per cent. in 1982 to 34 per cent., thanks to a massive £2 billion investment. The
44WH
industry is playing its part. A new machine to reprocess 350,000 tonnes of newsprint costs £300 million. My hon. Friend rightly referred to the number of jobs that will be created. Every 1,000 tonnes of paper recycled creates approximately 12 jobs somewhere down the line, according to the Paper Federation's research. All the mills are now operating at full capacity.
There is only so much room within the European newspaper market. Mills similar to Aylesford have opened in France. We must grasp the opportunity, because the market is shrinking. We can process only what is available. We import majority amounts of newsprint, so why is the climate in the United Kingdom not right, given that we use more newsprint than any other European country? Companies are not investing £300 million in a new mill because we are caught in a vicious circle. For that range of investment, companies require the stream of raw material to be available on day one. They could not operate for a year, a month, a week or even a day unless the raw material was available when they needed it, because losses on their huge investment would be too great.
There has not been a new machine since 1995.
Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend accept that if the newspaper and magazine publishing industry was set challenging targets, as proposed in draft legislation—I commented earlier that this might be desirable—a sufficient, continuous and expanded stream of newsprint for recycling would be produced relatively early on and would justify the high costs of investment?
Mr. Shaw: There certainly does not appear to be support for that from the industry. If so much paper is now available, why are not companies using it? My hon. Friend remarked that many of our European partner countries' recycling rates were considerably higher than ours. The reason is that their collection is better than ours.
All local authorities are under considerable pressures to provide services in education, social services, highways and so on. Recycling is not always at the top of their list. My hon. Friend referred to his local authority and to that of my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary—Lambeth—where recycling services have a low priority. The reason is cost. Local authorities that wish to invest in a recycling scheme—paper is the largest single commodity to be recycled—have to secure long-term contracts to collect the paper. The paper has to be taken somewhere. All the mills operate at full capacity. If local authorities cannot get contracts because all the mills are full, nothing happens. The cycle is complete. Some local authorities have stopped collecting waste paper, because they cannot secure long-term contracts to make the operation viable.
The problem is one of capacity. Companies will not invest unless there is a stream of waste and local authorities will not invest unless there are contracts. That is the conundrum. There has been no investment since 1995 and the Government must consider the options. The quickest and simplest is to invest to provide assistance to companies to cover the crucial risk period while local authorities collect and provide raw materials to mills before they become fully operational.

45WH
The investment would not be huge, but recycling would increase almost overnight. We could then move towards the desirable but tough targets to which my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire referred. Without investment, the proposition will fall. We need capacity, capacity, capacity, with investment and assistance for companies to produce new mills. We would then achieve the desirable targets for recycling that we all want.
10.6 am
Mr. Tom Brake: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing this debate and setting out the impact of our paper-consuming habits here on flora and fauna abroad. It seems that the production of Hansard and Order Papers in the House is leading indirectly to the extinction of the brown bear in Sweden and we should be greatly concerned about that.
I welcome the opportunity to probe the Minister on some key environmental matters this morning. Instead of bemoaning the achievement of local authorities, I congratulate my own authority, the London borough of Sutton, which recycles more than the Government's target of 25 per cent.—and the amount is rising. I support that policy as and when I can.
I want to examine why the Government are taking so long to respond to demands for tough targets for the recycled content of newspapers and recovery of newspapers and magazines. Why are they so reluctant to make public the details of the International Institute for Environment and Development report. If, as has been been suggested in answers to parliamentary questions, it is not theirs to release, why will not the Newspaper Publishers Association release it? What is in the report that must be kept secret, and why have Members of Parliament been provided with only an interim copy of it?
Perhaps the Government do not intend to release the report until they have launched their strategy on waste and perhaps there are stringent targets in the strategy that will satisfy hon. Members in the Chamber this morning. I hope that that is so and that the concerns of the hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) will also be addressed in the document.
Perhaps the Government are embarrassed by their performance on paper recycling. The attitude to recycling in the House seems not to be advanced. An answer to a parliamentary question to the Treasury on its paper recycling scheme suggested that it peaked in 1994–95 and then fell. That coincided with the time when prices for recycled paper were very high. However, the most worrying aspect of that answer was that the Treasury was not aware of the proportion of total waste being recycled. The economy is reasonably strong and there is a great deal of activity, so the proportion of total waste that has been recycled has probably fallen in the past two years. The Government must respond to that.
The worst case scenario—I say this only half in jest—is that the Government are back-pedalling on recycled newsprint content because they are about to announce a major expansion of the waste incineration programme. I hope that that is not the case. The Government made a surprising, possibly almost
46WH
accidental, commitment in the Utilities Bill to generate 10 per cent. of energy from renewable sources by 2010, which is extremely welcome. The only problem with that is that there is nothing in the pipeline to help the Government to deliver the target. There is enormous potential in solar and wind power, but no investment is going into those.
The only quick fix that would enable the Government to deliver on the 10 per cent. renewables target is to use energy from waste as a renewable energy. That would be regrettable because the international definition of renewable waste does not allow the use of energy from waste or incineration, as matter is being burnt that cannot be renewed. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will confirm in his reply that there are no Government plans to rely more heavily on incineration either to get rid of the waste that is being generated or to help to deliver the renewable energy target.
Mr. David Taylor: I share the hon. Gentleman's nervousness about and distaste for a substantial expansion of incineration and I echo the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in limited circumstances, incineration can be a marginally better means of waste disposal than landfill?
Mr. Brake: I agree that there are circumstances in which incineration is probably a better option than landfill, but a better option than either is to minimise, reduce, re-use and recycle.
The secrecy that the Government and the NPA have adopted over the report is matched by some of the newspapers. The Guardian, for instance, which has prominently featured a campaign on waste in the past week, is part of the NPA but is not willing to divulge the information in the report. I wonder why other organisations have not been allowed to participate.
The targets set out in the Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill are that, by 2016, 65 per cent. of newspapers and magazines should be collected and recycled and, by 2010, 80 per cent. of newspapers should be recycled content. The first of those targets is not negotiable, because under European Union law there will be a requirement to reduce household waste by 65 per cent. by 2016, which will include newspapers and magazines. One could argue that the figure should be even higher, because newspapers and magazines are clean and easy to recycle and are user-friendly recyclable materials in a way that other household waste may not be.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: If the percentage of recycled material is increased above 65 per cent., is there not a danger that the newspaper will simply fall apart?
Mr. Brake: I am not sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making but, as other hon. Members have said, other countries already achieve 80 per cent. One of the countries quoted was Sweden. Local authorities in rural areas in this country often cite the fact that their area is rural as a justification for their poor recycling rate. One cannot think of a more rural country than Sweden, which is already achieving very high recycling rates. Authorities that use that excuse for achieving the 6, 7 or 8 per cent. rates quoted earlier must think of a better one.

47WH
The figure of 65 per cent. is achievable. It is already being achieved in other countries. The target of 80 per cent. of recycled content for newspapers by 2010 might be harder to achieve, as the present figure is 52.4 per cent., according to a response to an earlier parliamentary question. However, if we set an artificially low target, one can guarantee that no one will endeavour to better it. Setting the target at 80 per cent. and establishing interim steps towards that target is reasonable. If the Government and the NPA believe that it is not, we would like to hear the reasons why.
The preference of Governments and all political parties is to enter into voluntary arrangements, perhaps binding ones, between the industry, the Government and other organisations. That must be the preferred solution. However, no progress appears to have been made on this matter since June—or if it has, hon. Members are unaware of it because we have been unable to obtain any information about it. The time for discussions is over. Either the Government and the NPA must formulate a tough, binding agreement with rising targets, or the Government must legislate.
10.17 am
Mr. Gordon Prentice: I want to speak briefly to my Bill, the Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill, which astonished me by getting an unopposed Second Reading a fortnight ago, even though the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) shouted "Object." The procedures of this place still mystify me.
I am gratified that the Bill is to be considered in Standing Committee and I hope that in due course it will become the law of the land. It is an important Bill. We consume an immense amount of paper here. It is not only Hansard that is a problem; I discovered yesterday that, over the millennium, the equivalent of 19,000 square miles of wrapping paper was used in the United Kingdom. That is unbelievable.
Mr. David Taylor: Two acres in Scotland.
Mr. Prentice: No, that figure includes Scotland. It is enough to cover Greater London, the entire landmass between Bedfordshire and the Sussex coast and on down to Cornwall—and that is just wrapping paper. If one added the amount of newspaper and card used, we would be engulfed. It is almost impossible to imagine the sheer bulk of those materials: 85 per cent. of all municipal waste goes into landfill sites and 30 per cent. of that waste is paper and card. We must do something about that.
Mr. Taylor: That figure is correct: 85 per cent. of waste goes to landfill. However, does my hon. Friend accept that the landfill sites required are disproportionately scattered throughout the United Kingdom? Some constituencies experience major adverse environmental impacts through the failure of industry, especially the newspaper industry, to recycle appropriately.
Mr. Prentice: Who would disagree with that? We cannot just keep digging holes in the ground and piling
48WH
our rubbish into them. We have to consider the issue more intelligently, and that means recycling. It is perfectly possible to recycle, as the necessary technology exists. As my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) said, the capacity of mills is a problem, as they are running at full capacity. It is a chicken-and-egg state of affairs. How does one get local authorities to collect more newsprint for recycling if there is not the capacity to turn it into useful new products? We can break that cycle by legislating so as to change people's behaviour. That is why the Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill is so important.
Mr. Shaw: If my hon. Friend's Bill becomes law, newspaper companies will import, which will have a detrimental effect on operations and jobs in the United Kingdom. His proposal is not in line with a sustainable development agenda.
Mr. Prentice: I shall be interested to hear what my hon. Friend the Minister says in response to that. It is no part of my master plan that jobs should be lost in my hon. Friend's constituency. One reason why I proposed the Bill is that it will create additional jobs in the recycling industry, which will have huge economic benefits. For example, many people will be needed by local authorities to collect waste paper, and many more will be needed to manufacture the new products.
Friends of the Earth has calculated that a 65 per cent. recycled content by 2003 would create 5,880 new jobs and reduce the UK's import bill by £106 million; 70 per cent. recycled content by 2006 would create 7,080 new jobs; and, 80 per cent. recycled content would create 9,720 new jobs.
Mr. Shaw: Where will the local authorities that collect newsprint take the raw material if there are not enough mills?
Mr. Prentice: My hon. Friend must not get agitated.
Mr. Shaw: It is a fundamental issue.
Mr. Prentice: I know that it is an important constituency matter. However, I cannot speak on behalf of the Government. My hon. Friend the Minister is paid to resolve such conundrums; I am not. I merely paint the broad canvas, while he is responsible for the details.
I have a couple more points to make. We have heard about the damaging effect on ecosystems of unrestrained logging. In Norway, Finland and Sweden the amount of remaining primary forest is tiny—5, 6 or 7 per cent. Managed forests are supposedly sustainable and, on their own terms, they are. However, there has been a huge impact on wildlife: many such forests are wildlife deserts. That is another reason why, if we care about the planet and are concerned about conserving rare species, we must progress to recycling.
So, Mr. Cook, I shall leave it there—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Order. I am sure that all hon. Members recall that in Westminster Hall the Chair must be addressed as Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is not a Committee.
Mr. Prentice: Forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is the first time that I have spoken in Westminster Hall and I am not familiar with its procedures. I shall not make the same mistake again.

49WH
In a couple of weeks, we will hear the Government's definitive view on the matter when the Minister responds to matters raised in Standing Committee—
Mr. David Taylor: Does my hon. Friend share my hope that, in reacting to comments made so far, the Minister will say whether the Government have produced an economic model that illustrates the undeniable link between the setting of ambitious targets and the requirement for the NPA and others to work with local authorities to produce the financial resources necessary to deliver the investment that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) believes is lacking in the industry?
Mr. Prentice: I am sure that the Government will take all these matters into account when I receive a response to my Bill in a fortnight. I hope that we shall soon have sight of the Government's waste strategy. We have a waited a long time for that and I am sure that it will not be delayed much longer.
10.26 am
Mr. Tim Loughton: This has been an interesting debate. It is a shame that more hon. Members were not here to discuss what is a very important subject and I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on raising it today. As a former paper boy—that was many moons ago—perhaps I, too, should declare an interest. In the intervening years, the amount of papers delivered to one's door has grown enormously. On receiving my papers on a Sunday morning, I typically spend the first five or 10 minutes extracting the rubbish—
Mr. David Taylor: The Sunday Telegraph!
Mr. Loughton: I was referring to rubbish in newspapers that one is obliged to read to discover what the Government are doing, such as The Observer and the Sunday People. I was referring to the dross that one encounters before getting down to the good meat in The Sunday Telegraph.
I further congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire on his extensive knowledge of wildlife. Given his comments, one would think that the whole of Canada is denuded of wildlife, but I am sure that that is not the case. I hope that the habitat of the flying squirrel, to which he referred, is not so denuded that they try to fly as far as these shores. I am having quite enough problems with land-based squirrels in my back garden and I do not want to have to cope with flying ones as well.
The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and I are members of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, so this important subject is close to our hearts. That Committee debates the sort of problems that have been discussed today. Those problems are also urgent. As the municipal waste survey for England and Wales shows, about 22 million of the 26 million tonnes of municipal waste are disposed of through landfill. That figure is neither acceptable nor sustainable. Between 100 million and 130 million tonnes of waste per annum are produced by households,
50WH
commerce and industry. In some sectors, that figure is increasing by 3 per cent. per annum, despite hon. Members'efforts to limit waste and encourage recycling.
Targets set in EU directives aim for the recycling of some 35 per cent. of household waste by 2020. If we are to achieve those and match the standards that have already been set in many continental countries, much work remains to be done.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire for mentioning the good work that was begun under the previous Government, although his reference to periodic fits of environmental concern was slightly uncharitable. Our last Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), was one of the most environmentally friendly Secretaries of State, with a great reputation among environmental groups. Not all hon. Members give him credit for that.
Mr. Taylor: I certainly exempt the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal from that broad-brush criticism. It is a pity that his predecessors in the post did not share his interests and priorities.
Mr. Loughton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be greatly relieved at that. He was the longest-serving Secretary of State for the Environment in the past century, which says something about the emphasis that the Conservative Government put on environmental matters.
Despite the tough targets that were set by the previous Government—and carried through to the current Government—and despite the progress that has been made, there are still enormous divergences in the records of local authorities throughout the country. The average figure for the recycling of household waste is still low—about 7 per cent. It is, however, worth noting that the records of certain local authorities are much better than those of others. Of the six local authorities that recycle more than 30 per cent. of their waste, no fewer than five are Conservative run—Chichester, Chiltern, Christchurch, Purbeck and South Bucks. Of the 15 authorities that recycle more than 25 per cent. of their waste, eight are Conservative-controlled authorities, namely—in addition to those that I have already mentioned—East Dorset, New Forest and North Dorset. Of the 26 authorities that recycle more than 20 per cent. of their waste, 13—half of them—are Conservative controlled, adding to our list Mid Sussex, St. Edmundsbury, Surrey Heath, Test Valley and Wycombe. Coming just below those authorities are many other Conservative-controlled authorities, not least Worthing, my local authority, which heads that list. That tells us about the priorities of Conservative-controlled authorities and about their effectiveness in not just talking green, but acting green.
Mr. Taylor: I congratulate the authorities on that list, but is their ability to recycle relatively high levels of material not a reflection of the fact that many Labour-controlled authorities suffered capping regimes that prevented them from investing in the services or facilities that they would like to have had? The capping was less damaging and less prevalent in the case of Conservative-run authorities.
Mr. Loughton: That is not true. Many Conservative-run authorities—I am thinking now of Wandsworth during the 1980s—found ways of making money out of recycling. At a time when raw material prices were rather higher, Wandsworth council made a substantial profit from glass recycling and directed it towards other areas of expenditure.
Another point to remember is that the vast majority of the authorities that I mentioned are in rural areas. We are told that recycling in rural areas is less economical because of the large collection areas. The Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake), also referred to that claim. We can give the lie to it. The records of the authorities covered by the constituencies of members of the Cabinet leave much to be desired. In Kingston upon Hull, which includes the constituency of the Deputy Prime Minister, the local authority recycles just 7.4 per cent. of its rubbish. In Oldham, which includes the constituency of the Minister for the Environment, the local authority recycles just 2.9 per cent. The worst record for a local authority that includes the constituency of a Cabinet member is to be found in Sedgefield, the Prime Minister's constituency, which recycles only 1.4 per cent. of its rubbish. Best practice should start at home and Cabinet members should set an example. Only two local authorities covering Cabinet members'constituencies reach double figures for recycling. That is a pitiable example.
We have heard much about the consultation document, "A Way with Waste", which was issued in June 1999—a long time ago. A figure of 45 per cent. for the recovery of municipal waste—30 per cent. for household waste—by 2000 was identified then. I would be grateful if the Minister could update hon. Members on when we can expect to see the Government's response to that consultation. It has been expected for some weeks. Perhaps he could also tell us the reasons for the delay. The Conservative party has fears about the place in the hierarchy of waste disposal that is to be occupied by incineration—we favour other methods. We recognise that incineration has a role to play and that landfill should be very low down in the waste disposal hierarchy.
Incinerators are, of course, covered by the euphemism "waste to energy" in the consultation document, but they are still incinerators and they still have all the problems that are connected with incineration. The proposals to build 130 new incinerators by 2015, while recycling only 15 per cent. of our waste during that time, strikes the wrong balance. I would be grateful to hear the Minister's comments on incinerators.
There are problems with incinerators. For example, their existence does not encourage an increase in recycling because they are a soft option and they require a constant minimum flow of raw material to fuel them; otherwise, the fires go out. A problem that I have faced in my constituency is the location of incinerators near densely populated areas. Brighton and Hove, the local authority that borders my constituency, has been threatening to park an incinerator on the doorstep of my constituency, regardless of the consequences to my constituents. That authority has also refused to include my constituents in a consultation exercise—that is not acceptable. It has been said that that incinerator should
52WH
bring in waste by sea from the continent to provide it with the raw materials that it requires for fuel—that is not acceptable.
We must find means to deal with our waste as locally as possible. If an authority such as Brighton and Hove borough council wants to be grown-up enough to be accorded the status of city, it should be responsible enough to know what to do with its rubbish, rather than dumping it on neighbouring authorities, as it has done for too many years. That authority recycles only 8 per cent. of its rubbish and charges for supplying recycling collection boxes.
Mr. Taylor: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's call for greater openness and more detailed consultation with communities. Would he extend that principle to encouraging the NPA—to which I referred earlier—to publish the submission that it made to the Government in June 1999? That is a crucial document.
Mr. Loughton: I am in favour of greater openness because it allays people's fears about such things as incinerators. I will later touch briefly on the Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill.
I wanted to mention the landfill tax, which was a Conservative achievement. It has, however, been rather diluted by the Government. Under the Conservative landfill tax, the vast majority of the revenue that was raised was recycled back to local environmentally friendly community projects. We now have an accelerated landfill tax that will go up to £11 per tonne in the present financial year. None of the extra revenue that is being raised by the Government is being recycled for local environmental projects—it all goes to the Inland Revenue. That is another example of the way in which the Government use green taxes as an excuse to raise revenue without recycling any of the money to good causes. We should use landfill tax revenue to encourage increased recycling and re-use and to encourage education that will result in the use of less packaging, increased use of biodegradable packaging technology and sustainable sources of raw materials.
The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred to my query on the energy tax for the recycling plant in his constituency. It is interesting that that plant will pay lower energy taxes by virtue of the fact that it is a combined heat and power plant, not because it is an environmentally friendly business. We should promote such environmental good, but the Government seem in that regard to have set the wrong priorities in the Budget. I wonder whether "capacity, capacity, capacity" will be the Labour party's new war cry at the next election.
There is a problem with the economics of the whole recycling project at the moment, due to the fall in raw material prices. We must find new uses for recycled goods. West Sussex authority is pioneering the recycling of plastic bottles into highly usable traffic signs, at a fraction of the cost of the aluminium versions. They are perfectly sturdy and tend not to get pinched. It is an innovatory project.

53WH
We should find uses closer to home. It is crazy that recycled goods in my constituency have to go to Wales or south Yorkshire to be reprocessed, which uses enormous amounts of fuel and the lorries add to road congestion. We must find sustainable alternatives within communities closer to home. We should use paper as a fuel substitute in domestic environments too.
On the Recycled Content of Newsprint Bill, proposed by the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice), it is probably due to the cock-up theory that it has passed through to Standing Committee. I wish him well with the Committee's deliberations. At first glance, the Bill appears to be a well-meaning attempt to spur the newspaper industry on to greater efforts in recycling. However, the newspaper recycling working group report, which has been supplied to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, shows that there are limits to the level of recycling that can be achieved with the current UK capacity. It also demonstrates that the industry has a firm and practical voluntary commitment to achieving the highest percentage as possible within that capacity.
In 1991, the recycled content of newspapers stood at 28 per cent. That content had risen to more than 52 per cent. on the basis of voluntary measures. We use all the UK-produced recycled newsprint available to us. If more were available we would use it, but we cannot use what does not exist?
Mr. Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughton: May I finish?
The aggregates tax in the Budget is another problem. The Government do not seem to realise that aggregates are a finite commodity for recycling. Aggregates can be recycled only if buildings are knocked down. Unless the Government are recommending a mass knocking-down programme, they will not secure the amount of aggregates that they require.
To conclude, many questions have been posed and responding to them may take the Minister above his pay scale, in terms of what he is paid to do. Nevertheless, the Government must do more through their "Are you doing your bit?" campaign. They must work more closely with local authorities to develop innovative approaches, and with industry to encourage a more environmentally sustainable ethos in technologies. For all the talk in the Budget about research and development tax credits and help for industry, none is linked to green credentials in green technology for businesses. The Government claim that they are putting the environment at the heart of taxation, but they have woefully failed in that respect.
As Friends of the Earth said, if the Prime Minister and the Chancellor do not do more, the Government's new way strategy will be rubbished. We need targets for recycling that are comparable to best practice in the rest of Europe and funds provided for decent recycling services through money raised by the landfill tax, in particular.
I congratulate the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire on securing the debate, but it has raised many questions, which the Minister must now answer.
10.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) on securing the debate. I am grateful for his useful and constructive comments on this complex subject. We have had an interesting and thoughtful debate, and I am grateful for the contributions of all the other former newspaper boys—my hon. Friends the Members for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and for Chatham and Aylesford (Mr. Shaw) and the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) and for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake). I hope to deal with most of the issues that they raised, but I hope that they will forgive me if I dwell more particularly on the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire.
Before commenting on newspaper and magazine recycling, I should like to place the issue in the context of the Government's wider objectives, reflecting my hon. Friend's wide-ranging speech and the broad canvas depicted by my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle, tainted only by the underhand reference to filthy lucre.
The Government firmly believe that tackling waste must be a key priority for the future if we are to continue to make progress towards sustainable development. Last year, we published our draft strategy for waste, "A way with waste" and we expect shortly to publish our final waste strategy in the light of responses to the draft. Both documents are built on the support that we have already received for the vision described in our earlier consultation paper, "Less Waste More Value". The key element of that vision is an integrated approach to waste management. That means that we recognise that every step in the waste management process is part of a whole and should form part of the decision-making process. It means ensuring that all key players are involved, using a mixture of waste management options. Other elements of our overall vision support that approach. We aim to achieve a reduction in the quantity and hazard of waste arising, with higher levels of re-use and the recovery options for waste, including recycling, composting and energy recovery.
As part of the objective of involving all stakeholders, we especially wish to encourage and facilitate greater public participation in the decision-making process. Underpinning all those objectives is our commitment to effective protection of human health and the environment.
Tackling the growth in waste must be at the heart of our waste strategy. On average, each household produces more than a tonne of waste every year. Each year, industry and commerce produce between 70 million and 100 million tonnes of waste in providing goods and services. That quantity is increasing—in some sectors by as much as 3 per cent. a year. A step change is needed in how we think about and manage our waste if we are to make a full contribution to sustainable development. In particular, we need to gain more value from the waste that we produce, while managing it in an environmentally responsible way.
A fundamental element in initiatives to help us to achieve those objectives will be substantially increased levels of recycling. The Government are determined to

55WH
play their part in ensuring that recycling in the United Kingdom is in line with the best practice in other countries.
Our draft waste strategy sets out several goals for waste management in the future. Principally, by 2005, we aim to reduce the amount of industrial and commercial waste landfilled to 85 per cent. of 1998 levels, while focusing on recovering value and reducing environmental impacts. By 2010, we aim to recover 45 per cent. of municipal waste and recycle or compost 30 per cent. of household waste. Achieving the shift to sustainable waste management reflected in those targets will not be easy and will require the involvement of all stakeholders: Government, business, local authorities and consumers.
The Government have already made a start, in partnership with business. The landfill tax escalator provides a strong incentive for waste managers to seek ways of recovering their waste. It may have led one third of companies to introduce or step up efforts to minimise, re-use or recycle waste. We are also taking steps to ensure that those seeking to avoid waste management controls by abuse of exemptions from the licensing system can no longer do so.
Building on the report of the Market Development Group last year, we are developing proposals for a joint programme involving my Department and the Department of Trade and Industry to promote a more sustainable and integrated approach to waste management, and to introduce many of the group's recommendations. We are starting to increase the recycling and recovery of packaging waste as a result of the implementation of the European directive on packaging and packaging waste. Further directives are at various stages of development, covering producer responsibility for end-of-life vehicles, batteries and electrical and electronic equipment.
There is much more that we can and will do. We will produce guidance for businesses on how to measure and report on their waste and to facilitate benchmarking. We are already seeking comments on a draft of the guidance. The "Are you doing your bit?" campaign is an example of how we are already stimulating public awareness and encouraging individuals to get involved by recycling their waste and buying recycled products. We will continue to work with the national waste awareness initiative to that end.
We will press local authorities to complete their waste management strategies and, if necessary, take powers to require them to do so. We will also work with them to develop innovative approaches to stem the growth in household waste, which has been much referred to during the debate. We will also monitor progress towards the achievement of our goals and keep them under review. We will assess progress with all those who have a part to play, including business, local government, community groups and the waste management industry.
It will be obvious from what I have said that we do not think that the Government working alone can achieve the significant changes we envisage. All the key players need to be involved and to make a contribution. The list of those with the potential to assist in meeting our goals
56WH
is a long one and could include waste producers and managers, waste reprocessors, waste regulators, waste management planners, community groups, individuals and households. In the context of newspapers and magazines, it is perhaps best to focus for a moment on two overall groups: consumers and business.
As consumers, whether businesses or individuals and households, each of us can help by thinking about what we buy, what we throw away and how we influence others. Purchasing decisions can help to stimulate the market for more sustainable goods and services. In particular, we can choose products made from recycled materials, which in many cases perform just as well those that are not. Where recycled products are not available, we can ask the retailer or other supplier why not. Such action can help to establish markets for recycled goods. Without those markets, increases in recycling activity are difficult to achieve and sustain.
Consumers can also contribute by reducing the quantity of waste that they produce, separating recyclable material and composting. Individuals and households can also influence the planning process, particularly during the development of local waste plans. That can lead to a better understanding of the type and quantity of waste to be disposed of and help in making informed choices about how local waste services should be organised.
I have already mentioned the contribution that businesses can make to the development of markets for recycled materials through their purchasing choices. There are several other ways in which businesses can help. Many are already choosing to report on their environmental performance. We are currently consulting on guidance to help businesses do that and identify priorities for improvement. Some business sectors are already developing strategies aimed at tackling the economic, environmental and social aspects of their work. We are also encouraging businesses to widen the scope of their management systems to embrace a number of other aspects, including energy and water consumption, emissions, raw material use and product stewardship, which can all help to provide further opportunities to secure savings and reduce the environmental impacts of business.
The Government believe that the initiatives already in place in many companies to label products to provide environmental information can have an important role, particularly when used in conjunction with other market measures. Providing information to consumers about, for instance, whether a product contains recycled material, can allow that consumer to take that information into account in deciding whether to buy. Ultimately, that information could act as a marketing tool.
Finally, businesses can develop producer responsibility initiatives to increase recycling activity in their sectors. Such initiatives involve businesses that manufacture, distribute or sell products or materials taking a greater share of the responsibility for what happens when those materials become waste. As I mentioned, European legislation has proved to be the driver for initiatives covering packaging, end-of-life vehicles, batteries and electrical and electronic equipment. Legislation is already in place for packaging and the other directives may also need to be implemented by regulatory means. Where possible, we

57WH
are keen to encourage the voluntary approach, as that can yield benefits in flexibility and the ability to respond quickly to changing circumstances. That is the approach that we have sought to follow in the case of newspapers and magazines.
My hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire asked me four questions that I will attempt to answer. First, he asked about the Government's attitude towards mandatory targets. We certainly support the principle of targets. However, we—and, I was interested to learn, the Liberal Democrats—would prefer a voluntary approach that allows technical issues to have a bearing on targets.
Secondly, my hon. Friend asked about producer responsibility. Targets, whether voluntary or not, will place responsibility on producers to achieve high levels of recycled content in newspapers.
Thirdly, my hon. Friend asked about the Government's attitude towards reviewing targets and setting more challenging targets. We expect any targets to be subject to review in the light of changing circumstances and, not least, in the light of recycling capacity, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford referred.
Fourthly, my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire and others asked about the publication of the Newspaper Publishers Association report. However, I fear that it is not for the Government to publish it. As the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington said, it is the property of the NPA.
A general request was made for an indication of the timetable for the announcement of the Government's decisions on the recycling of newsprint. As with issues such as incinerators, which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham mentioned, we will make our position clear as part of the announcement that we will shortly make on our waste strategy.
Let me deal in more detail with the issue of newspapers and magazine recycling. Some 1.4 million tonnes of waste newspapers continue to be landfilled
58WH
each year, and newspapers and magazines form a significant proportion of total household waste. That means that increases in the recycling of newspapers and magazines could have a considerable impact not only on the amount of waste landfilled each year, but on the viability of local collection infrastructure. With that in mind, the Government have been working with the newspaper industries through the Newspaper Publishers Association to achieve an increase in the level of recycled material in newspapers. We have worked with the NPA on the basis of a voluntary agreement. Given the gains that that approach has produced, that is still our preference.
In 1991, the recycled content of newspapers was 28 per cent.; in 1998, the last year for which we have confirmed figures, it had almost doubled to 52.4 per cent., which is a significant and welcome increase. My Department has been in discussion with the NPA to secure further increases in the recycled content of newspapers through a voluntary agreement. However, those discussions have taken place in the context of the practical constraints within which the industry must operate. The most important of those is the need to take into account the likely mill capacity that is available in the UK to deliver increased recycling.
Our experience of working with the NPA has shown how we can make progress in partnership with businesses and other stakeholders to achieve significant gains in waste management. I hope that our waste strategy will provide a framework for similar partnerships elsewhere—
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Hill: I am afraid that I do not have time to give way.
Without those partnerships, we shall find it much more difficult to achieve the vision that I have outlined for our waste strategy.

Sub-Post Offices
10.58 am
Mr. Peter Lilley: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this important issue on this particular day. This is my third speech in defence of the sub-post office network in just a few months, and it will not be the last. The issue will not go away, and nor will I. More important, public concern expressed in one of the largest-ever petitions to be presented to No. 10—it was signed by 3 million people—will not go away. The fears of sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses who are lobbying Parliament today will not go away and the growing rebellion among Labour Members who are afraid for their marginal seats will not go away unless the Government drop their plans to force pensioners, disabled people, young mothers and other vulnerable groups to have their benefits paid into a bank account.
Since we last debated this issue, such concerns and fears have grown enormously. The Government have been unlucky, because no sooner had they announced that benefits would be paid automatically into banks—putting rural post offices at risk—than the banks announced massive closures in their rural branch networks. However, the Government's main problem has been self-inflicted. It is increasingly apparent that the initial decision was the opposite of an example of joined-up government. The Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Social Security had not reconciled their conflicting interests or thought through how ordinary people would be affected, and they had not recognised how the knock-on effects would cancel out any benefits.
I have had the advantage—some would say the disadvantage—of being a Minister at the Treasury, the DTI and the DSS, which may make it easier for me to examine the issue from all sides. However, I have always approached the matter first and foremost as a constituency Member, aware of the invaluable role that sub-post offices play in our constituencies. They are important in towns and suburbs, as well as in rural areas, and they are central to the vitality of rural areas and local communities. They provide essential services to the most vulnerable members of society.
At the DTI, I was responsible for the Post Office. I recognised the national importance of post offices, so I committed my party to maintaining a comprehensive national network. At the DSS. I realised even more clearly how essential the network of sub-post offices is—to distribute social security payments to millions of pensioners, young mothers, disabled people and others who cannot be expected to travel far to obtain cash. If the network did not exist, we would have to invent it.
I was a Treasury Minister before that, so I yield to no one in my enthusiasm for saving taxpayers' money—but I wanted only to make genuine savings. I was at the Treasury for long enough as a Parliamentary Private Secretary and then a Minister—seven years man and boy. I observed that the Treasury had a tendency to make savings in one Department's budget even though that resulted only in offsetting cost increases in another Department. That rather perverse practice is enshrined in a doctrine enunciated by the Treasury mandarin, Nick Monk, who said:
Take any cut wherever you can get it.
60WH
That rather myopic doctrine has brought about the current actions by the DSS.
The Treasury has always considered the £400 million annual cost of distributing benefits via post offices to be a tempting target. When I was Secretary of State for Social Security, I was advised that trying to save that money by requiring the payment of benefits into bank accounts would lead to the collapse of the sub-post office network. The only way to prevent that would be for the DTI to subsidise the network, and that would eat up the bulk of the savings. Therefore, the action would bankrupt many sub-post offices, undermine communities, inconvenience the most vulnerable people in our society, and yet produce little or no overall saving. Twice I have asked Ministers whether they have received similar advice from their officials, and twice I have received no reply. We shall see whether the Minister replies today.
The Government's policy is even more perverse than that analysis suggests. They claim that delivering benefits costs far less via banks than via post offices. They say that automated credit transfer costs the DSS only 1p per transaction, whereas payments by order books cost an average of 49p. It is true that the banks charge the Benefits Agency only 1p per transaction. However, that is the cost only of transferring money from the agency to each bank account; it does not include the cost of operating a bank account or the cost of withdrawing money from accounts.
By happy chance, the Government have just published "Competition in UK Banking" by Don Cruickshank. Hon. Members who have reached annexe D4—I am sure that they all have—will have discovered that the average cost of withdrawing cash from a bank by cheque is more than £1 per transaction. The average cost of withdrawing cash from a hole in the wall—an automatic teller machine—is about 30p per transaction. Of course, those costs will not be borne by the Benefits Agency, but nor will they be borne by banks. They get their money from customers, so the costs will ultimately be borne by them, through one charge or another.
Those customers will include the claimants who are forced to have bank accounts. By forcing people to receive benefits via banks, the Government are transferring from taxpayers to bank customers—including claimants themselves—the costs of getting money into claimants' pockets. That is why Ministers are not giving any guarantee that pensioners and others who are forced to receive payments through a bank account will not pay charges or face costs every time that they withdraw cash from a hole in the wall.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ministers have sometimes mentioned at least the possibility of their subsidising the banks?
Mr. Lilley: Yes, that is a wonderfully perverse prospect. The Government have announced an inquiry, saying that banks are a force of evil incarnate, but simultaneously raise the prospect of their subsidising them, at taxpayers' expense, to undertake a task that will, in some ways, be more expensive than the original order book system.
Ministers have not given an assurance that the charges and costs will not fall ultimately on claimants. They have used words such as "we intend" that

61WH
pensioners will not incur bank charges—but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. They have said "we do not want" banks to take money out of the pensions of people who are a bit overdrawn—but wanting is a long way from guaranteeing.
The second, hidden consequence of the Government's policy is the loss of trade, which they call "footfall", for post offices—additional to the loss of contract revenues from the Benefits Agency. At present, pensioners and others who pick up their money in post offices spend some of it in the shop. If they receive the money via their bank accounts or a hole in the wall, they probably will not spend it in the sub-post office. Even if the DTI returned to post offices all the savings made by the DSS as a result of not paying out benefits via post offices, the post office network would still suffer a net loss through loss of trade. Many sub-post offices would still have to close.
The Government's proposed remedy is that pensioners and others be given the right to draw their money at sub-post offices, so benefits will be channelled via a bank account to the post office. Clearly, fewer pensioners will do that than currently have their money paid through the post office. Moreover, if they do so, their bank will have to pay the post office for the service to the banks' customers. It may have escaped Ministers' notice, but banks are not philanthropic organisations. They will want to recoup their costs from customers. If banks are unable or forbidden to do so, they will be reluctant to accept benefit claimants as customers.
Ministers hold out a vision of post offices undertaking banking services, not only for benefit claimants, but for the whole local community, particularly in rural areas where banks have withdrawn. I hope that sub-post offices will undertake that role, and I wish them well. I hope that they can make a profit where Barclays, Lloyds, HSBC and others have retired hurt—but that is just a hope. As yet, the Horizon project has no software to handle banking.
Mr. David Drew: I do not disagree with the right hon. Gentleman, but he is being slightly historical. Surely the answer is the smartcard. My understanding is that smartcard technology is up and running—although not fully—and available. How should that be funded?
Mr. Lilley: I am certainly happy to get on to that subject because I attempted to introduce such a solution but the Government aborted it. It is important to recognise that the truncated Horizon project handles only the internal accounting and management services of post offices. As yet, it does not function sufficiently to take on additional business. Post Office Counters Ltd. intends to seek tenders later this year from companies that are willing to write the software to make such additional business possible. In short, having amputated from the original Horizon project the ability to transmit money from the Benefits Agency direct to post offices, the Govt now propose an ambitious new scheme to graft on to the Horizon project the ability to transmit money between post offices and every bank in the country.
When I was at the DSS, I concluded that compulsory ACT—forcing people to have their benefits paid into bank accounts—was a non-runner. It would either
62WH
destroy the post office network or make hardly any overall saving if the network had to be subsidised by other means. However, I recognised that the process of distributing benefits by order books was one of the most costly, inefficient and fraud-prone ways of delivering money.
Then I discovered that half the £400 million annual cost of Post Office Counters' contract with the Benefits Agency—I believe that that was the amount, but I am open to correction—did not end up in the hands of sub-postmasters, but was absorbed by the cost of printing, warehousing and storing order books and other central costs of Post Office Counters Ltd.
We concluded that, by automating the process of transmitting money from the Benefits Agency to sub-post offices and introducing a benefits payment, we could achieve substantial savings, eliminate fraud and still leave sub-post office revenues largely intact—and that, as a by-product, the computer programme would enable post offices to expand into other areas of business. I still believe that that is the only realistic route. I urge the Govt to introduce it under a different name. They can pretend that they are not doing it; I shall not expose them. I urge them to bring the process back.
Sadly, when the scheme allegedly ran into problems, as all large computer projects across the world do at some stage, the Treasury scuppered the scheme and imposed its pet idea—a compulsory ACT that forced payment to be made by the banking system. All I will say about that now is that, for almost two years, Ministers repeatedly assured the House that the Horizon project would be complete by the end of 2001. They have subsequently claimed that that it was three years behind schedule when they took over.
The Minister for Competitiveness, who will reply to today's debate and who has considerably more integrity than many of his colleagues, was obliged to retract that allegation and admit that the delay had built up only by the time that they cancelled it, two years later. The Govt refused to tell us why the contract did not work and whether there was anything wrong with it, other than to say that there were no technical problems and that it was some managerial quagmire.
I remind the House that the project was based on the up-and-running Irish system for delivering benefits. The new Labour Government have failed where the Irish succeeded. I shall let that be their epitaph. I imagine that in Ireland they will be getting their own back for generations of jokes about the alleged incompetence of the Irish by telling Alistair Darling jokes about the Government's inability to run a system that runs perfectly well in Ireland.
The Government defend the problems that they have got themselves into by using four main arguments. First, they say that sub-post offices have been closing anyway. Over the previous Parliament, they closed at an average of fewer than 100 a year. Under this Government, they have closed at double that rate. Indeed, over the past year, the rate of closures has been five times higher—more than 500 have closed in the past 12 months. That is simply the effect of announcing the prospect of moving to ACT. If the proposal is implemented, closures will run into thousands. To pretend otherwise is simply dishonest.

63WH
Secondly, the Government argue that an increasing proportion of claimants opt voluntarily for payment via their bank account, which in the long run is bound to undermine the post office network. That is scarcely justification for compelling people to move to payments via ACT, thereby destroying the network in the short run. Given time, post offices would be able to develop other revenue sources, but the Government will deprive them of that time and put the whole network at risk.
Thirdly, the Government argue that extra revenue sources will arise from the truncated Horizon project, which will make good the loss of the DSS contract. That would require DSS revenues to grow at about 17 per cent. a year compound between now and the end of the contract. At present, the project has no functionality for additional business. It may get it in due course—I hope that it does—but it will be quite a long time before it can handle new revenue streams. Those other revenue streams were originally intended to be a by-product of the development of the benefits card system; now they are the only feature. Therefore, the revenues that this £800 million project will generate will have to repay that £800 million before there is a single extra penny to compensate for the loss of the contract between the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. Can the Minister seriously suggest that that is realistic?
Mr. John MacGregor: Surely it is not even 2003 and beyond that should concern us. Owing to concern about what will happen to sub-post offices, sub-postmasters are pulling out now—and finding it impossible to find someone else to take on the business.
Mr. Lilley: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why the rate of closures has accelerated. Ministers say that it is just because some elderly sub-postmasters and mistresses cannot cope with the new computers. That might explain why a few elderly people retire, but it does not explain why post offices close and are not filled by young, computer-literate sub-postmasters and mistresses. Sub-postmasters and mistresses are leaving the business because they fear that it is not a viable enterprise.
Mr. Oliver Heald: Does my right hon. Friend agree that closures affect not simply the post office but the whole pattern of shopping in small villages? Fifty people turned up to my surgery in Watton-at-Stone this week concerned about this issue. They say that, if benefits are not paid at the post office, other little shops will die too, because people will no longer go into the post office, collect their money, buy a few things there and then move round the town. They will all go to Hertford or Stevenage.
Mr. Lilley: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I have a neighbouring constituency to his, and exactly the same is being said by my constituents—both those who receive benefits and those who run related businesses. They see the sub-post office as performing a vital role in keeping the community going.
The Government's fourth argument is to say, "We are installing 3,000 ATMs"—hole-in-the-wall machines. Of course, they are not installing them; that will be carried
64WH
out on a commercial basis and in the most commercial locations between Post Office Counters Ltd. and the banks. It will still leave 15,000 sub-post offices without a hole-in-the-wall machine. Costs are highest where usage is lowest, so very few machines will be in rural areas. Even if they are installed there, they will reduce the footfall through the shops, as people withdraw money out of hours.
Mr. Tim Loughton: There is also a practical implication relating to cashpoint machines, in that many sub-post offices are too small to house them. For security reasons, a large area is needed at the back of the machine: 9 sq m is required to house them. Physically, therefore, many sub-post offices will be unable to accommodate them.
Mr. Lilley: That is a very good point. I was unaware of that fact, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend for pointing it out. The more one examines the Government's arguments, the more flaws one finds.
Following the Government's announcement that they are to make the payment of benefits into bank accounts compulsory, the important issue is not the administrative consequences for the Department of Social Security, the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd., but the impact that the proposal will have on pensioners, young mothers, disabled people and other vulnerable groups in our constituencies. However, far from being the first people to be considered, they are the last and, 10 months later, the Government have still not explained how they intend to cope with the problems that those people will face.
Will the Minister set those people's minds at rest by answering the following questions? Will the shift to compulsory payments through the banks mean that pensioners will receive their pensions four weeks in arrears instead of weekly and on time? That would represent a huge one-off saving for the Treasury, but it would be an enormous blow to pensioners, who would have a four-week gap in their finances. Their heirs could pick up the outstanding pension four weeks after they had died, but I hope that the Minister will not use that argument to justify such a move.
How will the Government cope with people who do not have bank accounts, or who do not want bank accounts? Will they compel banks to accept such people as customers? How will the question of those who are legally forbidden to have a bank account be handled? How will the Government cope with the 1 million emergency payments made every year, mostly to people who have no bank account and who would probably be unable to obtain one in normal circumstances? Those people will need that money urgently, and they obtain it at present by cashing a giro in the local post office.
What will happen to young mothers who have always had the option of receiving their money from a post office and spending it on their children? That is why the money was given in the form of child benefit—as a result of a campaign originally waged, I believe, by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). In future, that money will be paid into the family bank account, unless, presumably, they open a second account and pay all the charges that may be incurred as a result.
Is there any guarantee that no bank charges will be levied on those who take out bank accounts for such purposes? What will be the interaction between an

65WH
overdraft and any money paid into the account? Will there be withdrawal charges levied on people withdrawing money from ATMs?
If the Minister has no answers to those questions after 10 months of thinking, it is because there are no satisfactory answers. Only one answer will be acceptable to the 3 million signatories to the petition handed in at Downing street today, to the 18,000 sub-postmasters and mistresses lobbying Parliament today, and to the increasingly worried Members of Parliament, including Labour Members. That answer is that the Government will think again, and reconsider the proposed system of automating the delivery of benefits direct from the BA into post office accounts so that we can preserve a viable network of sub-post offices in order to serve the most vulnerable people in the community.
11.24 am
Mr. Frank Field: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on surviving in this place, and I hope that he continues to survive for much longer. He stretched himself by trying to bring to the debate a degree of partisanship that is not necessarily present, and which is not in the long-term interests of our constituents, including those who operate sub-post offices. I am proud to represent an urban constituency, and sub-post offices are as important to inner-city areas as they are to the countryside. To ensure that Parliament and the Government think carefully about this subject, an all-party group of Members of Parliament has been formed, of which I am pleased to be chairman. Although it properly raises people's concerns, it does not unnecessarily scare people about events that may not happen. It also keeps its eye on the long term.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden—as I shall refer to him in today's debate—did not seem to address the long-term future of our sub-post offices. At the end of his speech, he hinted that, if we were to return to his proposed scheme, all would somehow be well. I wish that it were as easy as that. He has a great deal more ministerial experience than me—my responsibility for the benefits card, like for so many aspects of the Department of Social Security, lasted only 14 weeks.
However, I have a tale to tell about the state of the project that I inherited. I did not merely talk to colleagues and read the papers; I visited the project partners. Had it been my responsibility to do so, I would have sacked the members of the Post Office board, who were appalling people. They were short-sighted and partisan. They were genuinely unwilling to enter into a discussion that I was trying to have on how to secure the long-term future of sub-post offices. They thought themselves smart; they thought themselves clever. They doubtless accepted their fine salaries, but I doubt whether they served post offices or sub-post offices well, and I am disappointed that many of them are still in post today. Perhaps someone else will deal with them.
I also visited the project in west London, in part to see how matters were progressing, but also to meet the benefits staff. I was appalled at the state of play. For some reason, they thought that I wanted to be told that, when someone goes into a Birkenhead sub-post office to post a small parcel to, say, Hong Kong, the postage for
66WH
that transaction will immediately appear on-screen. Instead, I asked, "How will benefits be paid through this system? Given that only a minuscule number of post offices deal with two of the simplest benefits, why has there been no roll-out?" Answers were not forthcoming. My right hon. Friend looks favourably on the development of the project in retrospect, but I would not invest my own money in it. Nor should taxpayers' money continue to be invested in it.
In the knowledge that my right hon. Friend does not want the necessary and proper campaign to degenerate into scare tactics and speculation, I consulted the Labour party resource centre, which I have never used before. I gather that, if one has a bleeper, one is informed when the resource centre has a message waiting. I received one message automatically, even though I did not ask for it and do not own a bleeper. I was jolly pleased that I did receive it, and I shall read it for the record because that is what the Government want. They will want to be judged by it.
The message states that the
government has made it clear that benefit recipients will continue to have a choice: they will be able to draw their full benefits in cash, without charge, over a post office counter after 2005. No one will be forced to open an account with a bank and for those who do not in the end wish to, we will set up a simple electronic money transfer system to help them.
There will be no compulsion. The operative phrase is that recipients will receive their benefits over a post office counter. We are not talking about a machine from which people might draw their benefits; we are assuming that, if the transaction takes place over a counter, there will be a human being on the other side who will hand over the money.
Mr. Richard Page: I am listening to the right hon. Gentleman with fascination, but I wonder why the Minister seems to have omitted in his note to all Members of Parliament, dated yesterday, that there would be no deduction of any charge from the benefit being paid.
Mr. Field: As I confessed, I do not have a pager—so no new message is coming through to explain that. One great advantage of this debate is that hon. Members do not have to rely on frail human beings such as me because the Minister will reply. If the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Page) catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I hope that he will make good use of the letter. I do not want to spend too much time on it, but many important statements in it will reassure people.
Mr. Alan Duncan: The guarantee that the right hon. Gentleman has just read out that people will receive their pensions in full without reduction is reassuring, but if no income accrues to sub-post offices, there will be no counters left. Is he equally confident that the Post Office network will survive to deliver money?
Mr. Field: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. The world is divided roughly into two groups. One consists of those who, when they see an idea, want to know whether it can fly. The other consists of slightly miserable people who, if they can find some

67WH
fault, however small, will try to magnify it beyond all recognition. When I suggest ideas, it is, sadly, usually the Opposition who are supportive and want to know if the ideas can fly, but there has just been a reversal of roles.
I turn to the longer term, which is what we should be debating. I am immensely pleased about today's big and important lobby. For many Labour Members, it will be the first one to begin to frighten the Government about such things as tomorrow and an election in the not too distant future at which we shall be accountable to our electorate. I hope that the campaign will not be negative and that it will look to the future and how we may best serve our constituents, protect the communities that make up our constituencies—whether urban or rural—and provide the best future for sub-post offices.
The letter to which the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire referred—I know that he will make good use of it-refers to Government investment, but there is no such thing; there is only taxpayers' investment. The letter draws attention to the fact that taxpayers are supporting the information technology programme in sub-post offices to the tune of £480 million. Whether that is the correct level, whether it should be changed, whether it will deliver and whether 300 sub-post offices a week will be able to deal with the programme takes us into the realm of trust and hope. I hope that the programme will roll out on that timetable. The sub-post offices in Birkenhead certainly deal with the age group that could benefit from that, but one wonders whether all post offices will fall into such a category.
As has already been hinted in the debate, there is a real possibility that, as our banking system changes beyond recognition, the system that most of us want will be operated through our post offices and sub-post offices, which would be most welcome. One of our concerns about the future must be whether the Government are doing all that they can with support, knowledge and taxpayers' money to ensure a viable future for sub-post offices.
I hope that, from this day forward, we shall think in the longer term about the extent to which other functions undertaken by post offices and sub-post offices in Europe and beyond could be offered as services through our sub-post office network. I shall make one or two suggestions on that at the rally later today. We must look forward rather than back to find a range of services that we can introduce locally.
I hope that, as a party in government, we will seriously consider putting social inclusion at the top of the agenda. There is no point in doing so if the sub-post office system collapses. Although there is necessarily talk about rural sub-post offices, the proposed changes are more likely to affect sub-post offices in towns, because a larger proportion of their revenue comes from benefits work. Therefore, it is an issue for town and country alike. While we are developing the business strategy that we want sub-post offices to adopt, and in order to give them the ability and the chance to do so, we might consider in the longer run giving them a more open, but time-limited, subsidy because of their role in social inclusion. We do not want another handout that
68WH
people can rest on, without making changes; we want to use subsidies in a way that ensures a prosperous, long-term future for the network.
Turning the clock back is not an option for the survival of our sub-post offices. I wish it were as simple as that; I wish that I could say that and believe it. The future is more difficult than that, and is fraught with dangers. I hope that I have hinted at some of the things that, if there is to be a thriving sub-post office system, rather than one which, as now, is dying on the vine, we hope that the Government, post offices and their leadership—both the unions and the Post Office board—will encourage.
Today, we must take note of the feeling outside the House. I hope that it scares a lot of people. It is the first time that the Government will be on the receiving end of a serious lobby. We must not let that feeling dissipate; we must channel it into a positive, long-term future for our sub-post offices. Putting the clock back is not a viable option.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): It may be for the benefit of the Chamber if I recall that hitherto it has been a convention to call the Front-Bench spokespeople 30 minutes before the end of a 90-minute Adjournment debate. There are only 21 minutes left. I shall do my utmost to fit everyone in, but in order to do that I appeal to all hon. Members to be as brief, concise and pertinent as possible.
11.39 am
Mr. Steve Webb: I shall indeed be brief.
I want to ensure that we get on the record today a response from the Minister to the issue of payment in arrears when payment is made by automated credit transfer, raised by the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) in his very effective speech.
When we recently moved an amendment to the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill, the Minister made a passing reference to four weeks in arrears being something of a red herring, and said that, if all pensions were paid by ACT, they would not be four weeks in arrears.
I hope that the Minister can reassure us on the matter, because many pensioners need to budget. They may be able to cope with payments a week in arrears, but for them suddenly to be four weeks in arrears would be untenable. It might ease the transition to ACT if the Govt said that anyone using ACT would receive payments two weeks in advance, or two weeks in arrears, and so on. I hope that the Minister will give clear answers to my questions.
People are not choosing to use ACT on the scale that the Govt suggest. It is true that new pensioners are slightly more likely to opt for ACT, but the Minister forgets that, at the age of 65, nipping to the bank in the car might be viable, but at the age of 80 or 85, perhaps disabled and no longer able to drive, that would not be the preferred option. Older pensioners will suffer if the Minister assumes that they will want to receive benefits on the basis of an option that they chose when they were fit and healthy. They will also suffer if they are not allowed to return to the system of collecting benefits at a post office, or if the post office is undermined. Pensioners should not have to suffer the cash-flow problems of four-weekly payments in arrears.

69WH
I received a note through my letterbox on Saturday morning from someone living in a neighbouring village who had decided to switch her benefit payment from the bank to the post office because she valued its service. I hope that many more people will do the same as a result of today's lobby.
11.41 am
Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to be called to speak in this short debate. The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) emphasised that he, and the issue, would not go away. I dreaded that being true, as his speech continued for some time. However, we must accept that automated payments in one form or another are going to come; King Canute is regarded as a fool but historical analysis shows that he was a wise man, as one cannot resist the inevitable. None the less, steps must be taken to ensure that what is inevitable is not devastating.
I discussed the problems connected with the increase in automated payments on two occasions with my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness and was reassured by his reply to my crucial question about cash. I was also greatly reassured by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) in citing the new authority in our proceedings, the parliamentary Labour party resource centre. That was more reassuring to me than some of the quotations from Hansard, which are less clear cut.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden expressed concern for those in receipt of benefit. Banks will not permit everyone who applies to open a bank account; some people are too poor to have bank accounts, which are expensive to run, except for those who are wealthy in the first place. Some elderly people will never be in the electronic age; the notion of e-commerce, whatever that might mean even to us, is beyond their comprehension. They would probably find a course in Mandarin Chinese easier to understand. Hole-in-the-wall machines, for example, require the use of a PIN—personal identification number. Many people in our society will not acquire PINs and will not fiddle around looking at holes in the wall as though they were followers of some eastern religion. It is something that they just will not do.
Cash machines pay only in units of £10, and that will cause problems if the benefit to be paid is £44.44. Then, of course, there is the matter of the overdraft. It has been well said that banks are not benevolent institutions, and they are certainly not mutual institutions. They would ensure that an overdraft was paid back before any payment was made to the recipient of benefit, thus increasing the spiral of debt.
Finally, there is the point about joint accounts. As the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden pointed out, the payment may be intended for the mother, but the father may think that there are better things on which he should spend that money. It is easy to say that that can be resolved by separate accounts, but that in itself might produce domestic disharmony, which might not be good for the children of the family.
The other question relates to post offices themselves. The point has already been made that the follow-on trade is important. People need to go through the doors to spend their money, not just on direct post office
70WH
facilities, but on all the other items that the post office sells. It might be asked why a post office does not reestablish itself as a village or suburban shop, but another great monopoly makes that difficult: supermarkets. It is difficult for post offices to compete on merchandise and groceries with such large corporations.
There should be great caution about the strength of communities. The local post office performs the functions of the lost marketplace. People come and go and talk to each other. They may not have that social intercourse on other occasions, particularly with the closure of banks in rural areas and small towns. It was unwise for the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden to say that the "banks retired hurt". Few of us have seen a bank either retired or hurt. They hurt small businesses and customers from whom they so often choose to take every ounce of profit. At present, 65 per cent. of rural parishes have a post office and 5 per cent. a bank—"and falling fast", as the song goes.
I know that there are regulators. There is to be a bank regulator and a post office regulator. If it were not for shortness of time, I would quote my hon. Friend the Minister for Competitiveness on the purpose of the post office regulator, who will monitor and investigate. I am a great believer in monitoring and investigating, but sometimes we also want some doing. There may be a case—I merely float it at this stage—before a bank is permitted to close a village branch, for asking whether it has made arrangements to transfer its business to the local post office. The regulator should have powers to stop the closure until it has done so.
My hon. Friend the Minister said that one issue that the Postal Services Commission and the regulator will consider is the social question. Nothing could be more relevant to the social question than the consequences of the closures of sub-post offices
11.48 am
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I want to say a small number of things very briefly. Almost the entire terrain has been covered by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who chairs the all-party group of which I am a member.
There has been much discussion about money this morning, and there will doubtless be more during the rest of the day, but the single commodity that we most need at present is not money but time. When I say "we", I include the Government. Over the past few months, it has become evident that a phenomenon well known to any Whitehall-watcher has set in. There has been a series of scrambled attempts to deal with a problem that is slowly beginning to be recognised. There is no coherent approach to solving it because of lack of time. If the Government committed themselves to delaying the introduction of automated credit transfer until they had come up with a workable alternative—under whatever name—to the system that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was in the course of introducing, there would be a realistic prospect of achieving what we all want to achieve, which is to save the post office network, to serve communities and to deliver, in cash and only a week in arrears, benefits and pensions to millions of the most vulnerable people in our society.

71WH
Time is the commodity that we most need and the Government should be willing to give it. A delay by two years will, as hon. Members pointed out, save an uncertain quantity. It could be a negative saving, but even if the saving were considerable it would not have a great effect on a Chancellor who has sufficient cash to be going on with.
As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead said, the present lobby is probably the first mass lobby that the Government have encountered. Behind it stand 3 million people who have signed the petition; and behind those 3 million stand an incalculable number of millions of others who agree with them. They come from all parts of the kingdom and from all political persuasions and none. It is a genuinely felt lobby. It is not just an effort by a small group of people to peddle a vested interest. It represents a genuine mood in the country. If parliamentary democracy is about anything, it is about responding to such moods.
I hope that Ministers will take away from these proceedings the knowledge that they must do something, but that they should not do anything too radical too fast. They need only to withdraw and reconsider. That would answer the loud complaints and allay the great fears of many millions.
It is remarkable that, thus far, every argument made in defence of going ahead with the present programme turns out, on inspection, to be either intellectually or practically deficient, or both. Not a single argument in favour can be seen to work. That suggests not a deficiency of intellect on the part of Ministers, but that vast armies of bureaucrats in various conflicting Departments around Whitehall are producing to order pieces of paper to defend propositions that are increasingly implausible, which is an inappropriate way to make public policy.
Quite apart from the lobby, Ministers should recognise that something is wrong with the policy process. The Minister for Competitiveness understands, perhaps more than any other, the subject that he has unfortunately been landed with defending. He should be persuaded of the case against the policy process. There is no need to admit that he and his colleagues are capitulating to the lobby. He needs only to stand up and say a few words, which could lead to the erection of statues in his name across the length and breadth of the kingdom. It would be the first time that a politician from any party had stood up and said, "This is the most frightful Whitehall farce, and we are not going to make public policy on this basis any more. We are going to withdraw, reconsider and produce a proper scheme on which we can all agree". If the Minister were to do so, I would personally erect a statue to his memory in west Dorset.
11.53 am
Mr. Tim Loughton: I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on securing the debate on a topical day on such an important subject. It is close to my heart because Shoreham houses the headquarters of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters, which organised
72WH
today's lobby. It has existed since 1897 and has been based in my constituency since 1947. I am proud to welcome the double-decker bus bringing people here today along with a petition of more than 3 million signatures. When I visited a shopping centre recently with some of my local councillors, I never found it easier to gain signatures. Within an hour and a half, more than 1,000 people literally fell over themselves in the queue to sign that petition—a refreshingly odd experience for me.
We must recognise that post offices are not just shops; they are the hearts of communities, on which many other shops rely. For pensioners in particular, they are a lifeline. They are convenient. Many sub-postmasters and mistresses know pensioners by their first names. They help them with form filling and so forth. They watch out for them if they do not appear on pension day. They are an effective early warning system. Post offices also perform a vital service in reducing benefit fraud. Out of about £9.3 billion of fraud detected, only 0.65 per cent. went through post offices. That is in no small part due to the vigilance of sub-postmasters, who participate in a scheme through which they can claim a £10 award for spotting a fraudulent claim.
When I went on a routine visit to a post office in my constituency recently, I was greeted by 80 pensioners who were standing outside. We had an impromptu rally on the pavement. They were there passionately to support their local post office. It was a great community and the sub-postmistress was on first-name terms with them.
This is not solely a rural issue. Worthing, which forms part of my constituency, has 100,000 people and is a town made up of village communities. Let us not confuse this as a rural matter. Many sub-post offices in towns and urban areas will be affected. Worthing has the highest number of pensioners in the country, so it will be particularly affected. Many pensioners do not use cashpoints. If they are forced to go to banks, they will not receive the sort of personal service to which they are accustomed. They will not have people looking out for them. Cashpoints are not terribly good early warning systems if pensioners fail to collect their pensions. Similarly, the people who sit behind bank counters are not especially good at eyeballing potentially fraudulent benefit claimants.
If the stories are true, there will be serious household budgeting problems as well as security implications for pensioners, who will be forced to take their pensions monthly in arrears rather than weekly in advance, as now. We are already seeing the effect of monthly child benefit payments that are made through banks. About 1.2 million people are not allowed bank accounts. My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden asked whether, under the system, banks will be compelled to offer loss-making accounts to people. If a person with an overdraft is claiming benefit that is paid through the bank, the benefit will be swallowed up in the overdraft, so people in the most desperate circumstances will have no cash on which to live. The Benefits Agency will not offer to pay bank charges if they are imposed.
We were told—this was not included in the note that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) received—that if pensioners retain the right to have their pensions paid through post offices, the credit going back to the post offices will fall from 12p per pension transaction to 1p. However, the overheads of sub-post

73WH
offices are not falling at the same time. That offers no basis on which they can survive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) said. Post offices will cease to exist even though people may not be compelled to use banks.
Post offices are losing a great deal of revenue. Soon they will lose the revenue from television licences for people aged over 75—they are paid 17p a licence for providing the service. They are losing work to Paypoint, which the Post Office will not allow them to operate. I mentioned the physical problems of cashpoints in smaller post offices, where they are simply not an option.
Many post offices are in a bad way. The Post Office nationally expects to go into the red this year, largely because of the scrapping of the Pathway scheme. Sub-post offices are private businesses, many of which are just scraping along. It is estimated that 8,000 of the 19,000 post offices could go out of business if the changes go ahead. Many rely on benefit payments for at least 40 per cent. of their income. I got together all the sub-postmasters in my constituency recently, and more than 85 per cent. claimed that they would not be able to carry on if the proposals went ahead. I do not believe that that is untypical of other constituencies.
These are tragic real-life stories. One of my sub-postmasters wrote to the Prime Minister, saying:
I … am a senior postmaster of 12 years standing. I have survived the last 9 years of recession, and general boat rocking from the governments of the day, through my own endeavours. From the laws and the media publicity in the last few years, my business has become, from a very viable concern, a now worthless millstone, that no-one would be interested to buy from me at anytime, due to your plans and my hopes for a reasonable retirement has now been lost…I am 55 years old and I have worked hard for my family for 30 years and the country for 39 years in total. I do not fiddle the state, I keep my VAT payments up to date and correct each quarter and now I am assessed for future Income Tax, even before I have earned it. There is no logic in what you are doing. Why should I be loyal to any Government, which does not support an essential Community Business like mine? What incentive do I have now to continue? … If you carry out your plans, then what I have tried to achieve for later life is for nothing. If that is so, you are reading a letter of a future dole queue member. Due to no fault of my own, a Senior Post Master will be unemployed … You may have the power, but you do not have the right.
That attitude is typical of many postmasters, who now feel threatened.
To add insult to injury, the loss of business tax relief will mean that businesses will diminish greatly in value for people who are retiring. Alas, sub-post offices have become a disaster. From being a community asset that we all cherished, they have become a "millstone" as my constituent says in his letter. They are a diminishing asset with falling turnover and they suffer from rising business rates on the latest rate revaluation.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden was right to say that there has been a distinct silence as regards practical answers from the Government. I have received hundreds of letters from constituents on this matter. In particular, there is genuine fear among pensioners and disabled people. There is fear for the future viability of shops and communities that rely on sub-post offices. Three million signatures cannot be wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, it would be sheer arrogance if the Government did not simply withdraw and reconsider. They should respond to
74WH
today's lobby to show that democracy listens. We need a Post-Office-based solution of the type that my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden tried to introduce under the previous Government. That is not on offer and I hope that the Minister will reconsider.
12.2 pm
Mr. Brian Cotter: First, I endorse what was said about the Minister. If he comes up with the right answer today, I will be the first in line to contribute towards a statue—I have a fiver in my pocket and I might, indeed, go to 10 quid. However, I await the answers—as the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) rightly said, we must have answers.
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on securing the debate, although I am reminded of people who say, slightly light-heartedly, "I did not get where I am today by doing nothing." The previous Government had many years to deal with the Post Office, but they hummed and hawed and changed their minds.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Cotter: I am short of time and I should get on.
We are talking about community and those who have spoken have clearly highlighted it in all its aspects. Community—in towns and villages—is what this country is all about. The closure of sub-post offices and, more recently, of bank branches and the need for transport, when those post offices and bank branches close and people have to go elsewhere, are the issues. We are looking for linked-up government on transport and the other issues that need to be tackled. More important, we need answers from the Government about sub-post offices.
The automation of the system is important. As has been said, automation is a good thing in terms of saving money, but a problem in terms of social exclusion and people being unable to cope with personal identification numbers. Those problems must be tackled. The Minister must explain what will happen in 2003 and how people who cannot or do not wish to have bank accounts will be able to obtain cash.
The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters has stated that benefits that go into a bank account could go to the husband although that might not be appropriate. That issue has been raised before. Today, I received a letter from the federation dated 5 April, which stated that it has not yet been shown how sub-post offices will continue to be allowed to administer benefit payments under the Government's reforms. Its vision is of post offices being at the centre of community life in countryside and towns alike, not of a network shutting down. It states that many will close even before 2003 if the outlook remains so bleak. Hon. Members mentioned that earlier.
It is a matter of great concern that sub-postmasters and mistresses have invested £1 billion of their own money in sub-post offices. The Govt could be guilty of misrepresentation, in that one, two or three years ago, people went into sub-post offices in good faith, but they

75WH
will suddenly find the ground being taken from under them. That is serious. Many who were encouraged to invest money in post offices are now extremely worried.
Of course, post offices in urban areas also face difficulties. A parcel was not delivered to John, a constituent of mine, because he was not at home. The postman went to the sub-post office in the town and was told that John walks his dog and would be passing by in five minutes. As he walked past, the sub-postmaster nipped out and gave John his parcel. That is a fantastic example of people knowing what happens in a community. The sub-post office service is uniquely a community service in that respect, and it is uniquely respected for it.
Along with other hon. Members, I expect a number of people from my part of the country to come to the House. The Western Daily Press, along with many other newspapers, has notably conducted a fantastic campaign to represent community interests and concerns. We need an answer from the Minister because we are looking for something entirely new from sub-post offices that will embrace all sorts of services.
The internet has been mentioned. We are disappointed not to have had the report from the Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit by today because it would at least have given us something to go on. The Government promised us a wonderful utopia, but we are now struggling to come up with it ourselves. I am waiting for a great idea, because ideas there must be. We must be told soon what the Government have in mind.
I was told at a meeting of Post Office directors last week that the Post Office is having discussions with 12 banks. It hopes to make arrangements with them for a banking service in sub-post offices. As we have heard, however, the Horizon project will not in itself cover the scheme. Extra software will be required to conduct a full banking service. The Minister will deal with that. We are concerned that the details have not so far been worked out. Even if the banking system transfers to sub-post offices in places where banks have been closed, I am told that that will account for only half the revenue that sub-post offices expect to lose. I hope that the Minister will say something about that.
Small businesses are anxious because they use sub-post offices a great deal. If there is nowhere for people in a village or community to lodge money overnight, it will put them at risk. The absence of banks is another topical issue. Sub-post offices provide a secure area for placing money—without them, small businesses might suffer.
So much else could be said, but I will say no more for now. We have debated the issues well and we should provide the Minister with a long time to answer our questions. I might even put in £20 for the Minister's statue. I want really good answers today; if I get them, up will come the money. I now look forward to hearing tangible, clear answers from the Minister.
12.10 pm
Mr. Alan Duncan: The suggestion of the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Cotter) is a clear case of statues for answers. We look forward to the results.
76WH
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) could not have been better qualified to initiate the debate today. With his experience in the Treasury, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Social Security, he probably knows more about this issue than anyone else in the House. Far from doing nothing, as the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare implied, my right hon. Friend chose to spend more money than many of his previous colleagues in the Treasury might have wished in order to preserve the post office network.
The heart of the matter is simple. A post office network has to be paid for somehow, and my right hon. Friend brilliantly dissected the way in which the Government are avoiding that question. The Government refuse to accept that one cannot remove the income of sub-post offices and protect the current network. That is why today's lobby is here en masse: 2,000 or more people carrying a petition of 3 million signatures. Those people, like us, appreciate the value of the post office network to the community in rural areas and, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said earlier, in urban areas too. The value of the network is especially appreciated by those in greatest need—people with no bank account, people who cannot get a bank account, the least bankable people with little money and people who need emergency payments but cannot afford charges.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead expressed little confidence in Post Office managers. Does he believe that the commercial freedom that will supposedly be conferred by the Postal Services Bill will solve that problem? He read out a guarantee of full payment without deduction. That is important, but it represents only one side of the equation. Although the recipient might receive his money in full, the post office network also needs an income flow in order to survive as the agent for delivery.
The hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) made the important point that automated telling machines give out money only in units of £10. The people who are reliant on such machines may want and need every penny to which they are entitled, down to the last single one. Units of £10 can cruelly alter the way in which such people have to manage their household budget from week to week or day to day.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made a telling point when he said that we should delay until a workable alternative is available. Similarly, my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) defined the social and practical value of the sub-post office network and read out a powerful letter from one of his constituents.
In my remaining two or three minutes, I should like to deal with the Minister's letter, which he has circulated to all Members of the House of Commons. Unfortunately, it is less than clear about the Government's intentions and it covers more than it explains. I have little sympathy with the first paragraph, where the Minister states that recent coverage has been less than balanced. The Prime Minister was most guilty in that regard, when he told the House that he inherited the ACT switch, which is not true because it was announced only last

77WH
May by the very Government of which he is Prime Minister. He may wish to return to the House and correct that. Some hope!
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned the performance and innovation unit. The Minister's letter states that the PIU was instructed in October but still we have heard nothing. The Postal Services Bill has completed its Committee stage, and it is high time that the PIU stopped resting in the long grass and made its views clear. The proposal has sat on the Prime Minister's desk for some time. If the Prime Minister is concerned about the matter, he should pay some attention to it, tick the relevant box and let us know what the PIU recommends.
The Minister's letter raised a red herring about the installation of 3,000 cash machines. That will not help the people who are most in need—the cash machines will probably be installed in areas that have the most use and where there is therefore the least need. We should protect the post office network. The proposal is a red herring, and the Prime Minister and the Minister are wrong to argue that it will solve many of the problems that we have discussed this morning.
The Minister's letter states that:
benefits … recipients are already opting for ACT.
They may have opted for it because their arm was being severely twisted behind their back. Many people are being pushed into using ACT against their better instincts and wishes. The hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) said that some of his constituents were reverting to the old system and had said that they did not want to receive payment by ACT. They resent the way in which they were forced to use it. Opted? My elbow!
The Minister's letter goes on to say that:
pension or benefit in cash at a Post Office will—
continue to be available in cash. As we said earlier, if money is coming one's way, one can of course get it in cash somewhere, but at what cost to oneself? The Minister says that he wants to protect the network, but what loss of income will it suffer? This matter involves the availability of cash and the source of the income or charges flow for the recipient or the agent who gives the money. In his letter, the Minister did not mention the income flow that will accrue to the post office network. He said:
The amount that sub-postmasters will receive will depend on the contracts that the Post Office Groups strike with banks … These are commercial matters and it would not be appropriate for the Government to become involved.
The Minister washed his hands of the key issue that could serve to protect rural and urban post offices. Will they enjoy much of an income for doing the Government's bidding?
The Minister condemned himself in the conclusion of his letter. He stated:
it is sheer irresponsibility to write off the network, thus devaluing the properties of sub-postmasters who have invested—
billions in their business. That is exactly what he and the Government are doing. People cannot pass on their business as a going concern because its value has collapsed—they have to put up the shutters and close down. The Minister must respond to the problems that his letter contains.
12.18 pm
The Minister for Competitiveness (Mr. Alan Johnson): The future of sub-post offices will be debated in the House this afternoon. We might say that the Chamber is the sub-office and that the House is the Crown Office, and that I am making the first delivery and that another delivery will follow this afternoon. Someone suggested to me that this debate was the hors d'oeuvres before the main course, but I believe that it is the main course and that this afternoon's debate is the dessert.
The hon. Members for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) and for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) tried to turn this debate into a Punch and Judy show, but the right note was struck by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and by the hon. Members for Northavon (Mr. Webb) and for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).
I congratulate the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) on initiating the debate. He is a talented and able politician, which means that he is no longer qualified to sit on the Conservative Front Bench. He brought to this debate a knowledge of the history of ACT and the Post Office. I am pleased that many friends from the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters are coming to London today. I worked alongside the NFSP on the Post Office Users National Council, and still do not see myself as sitting on the opposite side of the table from it. Its members have real problems and are giving voice to the difficulties in their communities. We must resolve those problems in a more effective way than mere point scoring across the Chamber. The whole point of debates in Westminster Hall is that they should be less confrontational, and I shall try to approach the debate in that spirit—although I cannot promise to keep it up throughout the afternoon.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead said, this is the first time many Members of Parliament have encountered a rally by the NFSP. They take place about once every 10 years, and are formidable events. There was one in the early 1980s and one in the early 1990s. On both occasions, the Conservative party was in government. Like today's rally, the previous rallies concerned automated credit transfer.
In the early 1980s, the Conservative Government commissioned the Rayner report. I am not criticising them for that; it was the right thing to do. The report recommended that, for the first time, pensions should be paid through ACT. It also recommended that pensions should be paid fortnightly and that child benefit should be paid monthly. An enormous rally took place in the early 1980s, in which I took part as an official of the Union of Post Office Workers, as it then was. The letters that were sent then were just as heartfelt as those to which the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred. The aim of the rally was to stop all payments through ACT. The then Government—rightly—backed down in respect of fortnightly pension payments, but retained monthly child benefit payments and introduced ACT.
In the early 1990s, the then Government extended ACT to cover unemployment benefit, income support for the unemployed, sickness and invalidity benefit and severe disability allowance. Another enormous rally took place because, as the right hon. Member for

79WH
Hitchin and Harpenden knows, the Government had taken a decision—which was later rescinded—to encourage people to move into ACT.
The NFSP has been forced into a position in which every pensioner who opts for a bank account—perhaps because he or she is progressing from social exclusion to social inclusion—is seen as a threat to its members' livelihoods. This is the third time that we have had this debate about ACT. The issue will not be resolved until we find a consensus that meets the needs of Government, the Post Office and communities. As my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, there is no going back on the decision.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden introduced a well-intentioned benefit payments card, which, as general secretary of the Communication Workers Union, I applauded. I saw him go to Eastbourne to speak to delegates at the NFSP conference. If they had intended to build a statue while they were there, it would have been of the right hon. Gentleman. However, as he knows, the card was only an interim measure based on an eight-year contract. It was a swipe card, although the view of the Post Office was that we should ultimately opt for smartcard technology, and it ran into difficulties. The right hon. Gentleman asked what was wrong with the PFI benefit payments scheme. It would be quicker for me to say what was right with it. I could compare it with ANPOST in Ireland.
The best thing that we can do to inform the debate is to look at the Trade and Industry Committee report. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead knows, we tried to make the private finance initiative project work. I am not blaming the previous Government. The PFI was horrendously complicated—the developer was also the financier. The Public Accounts Committee will soon receive a report from the National Audit Office, which we will study with great interest. The Trade and Industry Committee said:
We appreciate that in such issues, involving large sums of money—
it was talking about whether the Government had been open in 1997 and 1998 about the progress of the scheme—
some discretion was necessary. Ministers were indeed intent over many months—perhaps too many months—on rescuing the project, until their cumulative loss of confidence at the turn of 1998–1999.
Unfortunately, the benefits payment card failed. The Government had to find a way forward that did not involve the complexity of the Benefits Agency and Post Office Counters Ltd. I should say to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, who has escaped the regime of the pager, that it is unfair to blame Post Office management alone for what happened. Blame has been cast more widely than that. It is clear that the Government had to pull the fat from the fire. In terms of a private finance initiative, this well-intentioned scheme was a turkey. Computerisation had to progress in the most difficult of circumstances, and we had to think through how to crack the problem of ACT.
The right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden is undoubtedly an able politician. Had he been in government at that time, he would have taken the same
80WH
route. The Horizon project—involving the conversion of 300 offices a week, and the creation of 40,000 serving positions in 18,500 offices—is an enormous task, but it is progressing well. Clearly, we must ensure that the project does not go belly-up in the manner of the benefits payment card. Nearly 5,000 offices have already been converted, and there is every prospect that the project will be completed by spring 2001.
As a result, we will be able to focus on the inevitable move towards ACT in 2003–05. People such as the hon. Members for Northavon and for West Dorset have qualms about the timing, but in 32 years of association with the Post Office it has been argued that the network is under-used and under-promoted. In this financial year, 383 post offices will have closed, but that is not the record. The record was set in 1986, when 393 post offices closed. Since 1990, 10 per cent. of the network has disappeared. In a 20-year period, 25 per cent. of the network has disappeared. We had to argue for the sale of fishing licences across post office counters, and the previous Government eventually conceded the point. People are waking up to the existence of this under-used, under-promoted network. As the poem has it:
But at my back I always hear
Time's winged chariot hurrying near.
Similarly, the move to ACT is concentrating people's minds wonderfully.
I agree that some post office managers are not the sharpest knives in the drawer. As the NFSP knows, some sub-postmasters close for lunch and take half-days off, and they should perhaps consider a different approach to promoting the network. In the past, some Ministers and hon. Members did not appreciate the role of the network, but they will certainly appreciate it now.
In the time remaining, I shall deal with the points raised by the hon. Member for Northavon. The shift to ACT and the payment of pensions four weeks in arrears are crucial issues for pensioners, but I cannot give an answer on that. We must work with the Department of Social Security to put in place by 2003–05 a system that will meet the needs of benefit recipients. It is almost inconceivable that the final decision will make matters more difficult for pensioners who, by and large, budget from week to week. Indeed, the point that was made by the hon. Member for Northavon and others is well taken.
We were asked whether the 1 million emergency payments will continue to be made across post office counters. The answer, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has pointed out, is yes. We were asked whether pensions and benefits will be paid in full, and whether they will be paid across post office counters. The answer to both questions is yes. Either we will find a Post Office solution involving smartcards and existing technology—thereby solving a number of issues, not least, social exclusion—or we will die in the attempt.
The debate this morning has been about reaching consensus; this afternoon's may be different. However, we can move forward together, for we all appreciate the value of the network and the need to preserve it. We do not need statues—I shall be happy with a pillar box outside every post office.

Holiday Insurance
12.30 pm
Dr. Peter Brand: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate a subject that was brought to my attention by a constituent, Mr. Carter, who came to see me a few weeks ago. Mr. Carter is 79 years old. His wife was gravely ill for several months, before having surgery that was, thankfully, successful, and Mr. Carter thought that it would be sensible for them to recuperate on holiday in Malta. Mr. Carter surfed the internet—people are quite advanced in such matters on the Isle of Wight—and booked a holiday over the telephone. The holiday company, Mercury Holidays, advised him to take out insurance, in case he and his wife were, for some medical reason, unable to go. The people on the telephone mentioned no exclusions, and Mr. Carter took out insurance with Chase Parkinson.
Unfortunately, Mr. Carter had underestimated the stress that he had suffered during the previous months, when he acted as sole carer for his wife. As often happens in such cases, he developed an acute depressive illness, to the extent that his general practitioner said that he could not possibly travel and that he should cancel, or at least postpone, his holiday. At that point, the insurance company was informed and, to his surprise, Mr. Carter received, along with his insurance policy, a letter from Chase Parkinson telling him that he was not covered, because the exclusions contained in the document included all forms of mental illness.
Clearly, that upset Mr. Carter. He examined the policy, but, because it was in such small print, he was unable to read it until he got hold of a magnifying glass. He was then able to pick out some of the issues. He came to see me about the problem because he was very disappointed and felt that something had to be done.
We identified three issues. First, Mr. Carter was not, at the time of taking out the policy, given detailed information about exclusion clauses. The Association of British Insurers produces a document, "Travel Insurance: Important Notice", which is set in the sort of print that I can read without my glasses. It reads as follows:
Health: your policy contains restrictions regarding pre-existing medical problems concerning the health of the people travelling.
That is a reasonable exclusion. In my other job—as a general practitioner—I frequently receive requests from insurance companies to confirm that people have not suffered previously from an illness that would make their insurance invalid.
Mr. Carter received Chase Parkinson's contract of insurance with that document. I cannot read the policy, so I have had it enlarged. My hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who is a trained oculist, tells me that the policy is set in five or six point, and that it would not generally be readable by anyone over 60 without some form of visual aid. The "General Exclusions" section states that the following claims are excluded:
Any claim (a) sustained whilst suffering from alcoholism or drug addiction; (b) attributable to the influence of alcohol or drugs not prescribed by a qualified medical practitioner.
82WH
Both provisions strike me as fair. However, it also excludes claims
(c) due to or arising out of (i) stress, anxiety or depressive conditions, suicide or attempt thereat, psychiatric illness, terminal illness, AIDS, HIV…sexually transmitted disease, any deliberate exposure to danger.
In short, that insurance policy makes value judgments on what is a worthy illness and what is not; it is grossly discriminatory. However, when I wrote to the ABI, I was told that that is not an unusual form in which to frame such insurance policies.
Mental health sometimes receives a poor press. I understand why travel insurance companies do not want to meet claims from people who suddenly decide that they do not want to fly, or whose anxiety about going on holiday makes them cancel, but that is not what we are discussing. My constituent suffered an acute depressive illness, which is as identifiable and diagnostically specific as breaking a leg. Like a broken leg, it gets better with the appropriate treatment. To exclude mental illness in such a broad form cannot be reasonable.
When I wrote to the ABI, I expected to receive an answer stating that the circumstances were surprising and unusual and that the association would speak to the member that had framed the policy; instead, the ABI letter confirmed that that was common practice. Having spoken to the research department of the Financial Research Centre, I am now aware that a significant minority of policies exclude claims for psychiatric, mental and nervous conditions. I have been told that representations have been made to the Department of Trade and Industry. I received a fax from Direct Line stating that it
has consistently lobbied the OFT, DTI and ABI on this matter and we have discussed it with the Consumers'Association who share our concerns. You may not be aware that we have also discussed the matter with one of your European colleagues, Chris Huhne MEP—
the Liberal Democrat MEP for the South East—
who then raised a question in the European Parliament.
The occurrence that we are discussing is not unusual and we cannot allow an industry as important as insurance to get away with what appears to be sloppy self-regulation.
I contacted the insurance ombudsman, who was not prepared to examine the general issues raised in my letter, but offered to take up the case of my constituent in the event of his appeal to Chase Parkinson not succeeding. I am glad to say that as a result of our representations, the insurance company paid out—albeit as an exceptional measure. I am even more pleased that Mr Carter made a generous and substantial contribution from the repayment to the Isle of Wight hospice.
I am grateful for this debate, because I want the Government to address three issues. First, information should be made available at the time of a contract being issued; that will become more important with the increase in the number of people who use electronic means to book holidays and buy holiday insurance. Secondly, when information is given, it must be given in a readable form: five or six point is not acceptable; at least 10 or 12 point is necessary for text to be comfortably readable. Explanatory notes that inform people of exclusions do not reflect the policy if they are set in microdot format—that cannot be right.

83WH
The last issue that I would like the Minister to address is whether insurance policies should pass a test of reasonableness. It is totally unacceptable for people to be excluded from holiday insurance, for example, if they are faced with a diagnosis not previously made of HIV-AIDS or a sexually transmitted disease. Why should they be treated differently? I do not believe that people set out to behave irresponsibly and contract a social disease in order to cancel their holiday. This is an unreasonable exclusion on behalf of the insurance companies.
Similarly, it is mind boggling that insurers should exclude all forms of mental illness. I can appreciate that insurance companies might not cover people who merely feel distressed. However, they are entitled, under the terms of the contract, to seek a medical opinion on an insured person's claim for cancellation of a holiday, and most of us in the medical profession can differentiate between someone who is a bit anxious and someone who is disabled by mental illness. The contract that was offered to my constituent was not reasonable. It should, therefore, fall foul of consumer protection legislation.
12.41 pm
The Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs (Dr. Kim Howells): I congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand) on raising the issue of holiday insurance on behalf of his constituent, Mr. Carter. He explained the matter well, and it is an important subject. The hon. Gentleman is right to highlight the apparent anomalies in the ways in which insurance companies determine what is insurable—not least the way in which they differentiate between one illness and another, the hon. Gentleman's description of which I found extraordinary.
I recall applying for an insurance policy and an agent coming round. He had a huge list—as there always is—of boxes to tick. He checked a list of things that I did not do: he asked, "Do you go sky diving?" to which I replied, "No." He asked, "Are you a paraglider?" and I said, "No." He then asked me whether I was a mountaineer, to which I replied, "Yes." I knew that, as he looked at me, he could see his commission falling away like an avalanche down a mountain. He asked, "How big are these mountains?" and I told him that they were the Alps. "So they're not as big as Mount Everest?" he asked. I said, "No, they're not." "That's all right then," he replied and he ticked the box. The process is, at best, haphazard; at worst, it stacks the odds against the person trying to obtain insurance.
The Department of Trade and Industry takes a great deal of interest in the matter. I was a little perplexed when the hon. Gentleman quoted an agency or a gentleman—I am not sure which—on the subject of lobbying the DTI on this issue. I have checked with sources who inform me that we have not, to our knowledge, been lobbied on this issue. That might be because insurance matters were transferred to the Treasury in 1998. However, we still lead on policy on unfair contract terms in circumstances such as those the hon. Gentleman describes, and I shall come to such matters shortly. The Office of Fair Trading enforces fair contract terms generally.
84WH
Holidays, especially for a whole family, are one of the most expensive items that we buy. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight did not mention that, but then, he had enough to go on with. When booking a holiday, consumers should feel confident that they are adequately protected. That is all the more important, given that a mind-boggling 28 million holiday packages are sold in this country every year.
With so many of our citizens taking holidays, it is vital that they should have access to adequate insurance cover against accidents, sudden illness, loss of personal possessions while travelling and enforced cancellation because of their own or a relative's illness. My advice to those considering going on holiday is that, if they do not already have a comprehensive insurance policy, they should take one out before they leave. Even then, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has warned, policies can sometimes be useless because of the small print.
One must also be sure that one is buying the right insurance. Mr. Carter believed that he was buying the right insurance, but it turned out that he was not. One wonders why it is not easier to make the right choice. The consumer White Paper we published last year stressed the importance of information, which gives consumers more choices and so drives up standards. I am sure that the case put by the hon. Gentleman will help that cause.
Clearly it is not the Government's job to tell industry what to offer consumers: that will come from consumer demand and competition. Industry must answer to consumers, not to the Government. The legislation that covers insurance providers—the Insurance Companies Act 1982—does not extend to the regulation of terms, conditions or prices in insurance policies, which define the type of insurance product that is being made available. Such decisions are best left to the market. However, insurers are expected to base their risk assessment of a client on information on which it is reasonable to rely. In that way they will not fall foul of legislation designed to prevent unfair discrimination.
There is keen competition in the insurance sector: if the policy that someone wants cannot be obtained from one source, it can be obtained from another. Too many consumers assume that they must buy the policy offered to them by the travel agent or the company selling the holiday. They should realise that they have the right to shop around. It is the Government's job to ensure that there is adequate protection for consumers and that companies trade fairly with consumers and with each other. That includes protecting consumers from being misled about the products that they are buying and from unfair competition. It may help if I say a little about the measures that exist to protect consumers purchasing holiday insurance.
The Package Travel, Package Holidays and Package Tours Regulations 1992 require anyone selling a package—defined as a prearranged combination of any two of the elements of transport, accommodation or other significant tourist services—to provide certain minimum information, including information about insurance. They also give consumers rights to compensation for misdescription of any part of the overall package, which could include misdescription of the scope of an insurance policy sold as part of it.

85WH
There is legislation that specifically governs insurance, but it is more concerned with the fitness and solvency of insurance companies than with the nature of their products. It does not tackle as precisely as the hon. Gentleman would like the problem that he has highlighted. However, that does not mean that insurers are not answerable for mis-selling general insurance policies. Indeed, 96 per cent. of the insurance market is accounted for by members of the Association of British Insurers, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and ABI members operate a code of practice on general insurance; therefore, there is non-statutory regulation. The code applies to member companies and to those who sell their products. It gives the customer the right to see both the policy document and a copy of the schedule, and requires key features of a policy to be explained. In short, important information must be given up front.
The case made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight this morning should be thrown down as a challenge to the insurance companies. The most relevant points in a policy such as Mr. Carter's should be stated up front, so that people can see them clearly. They should not be hidden somewhere in the microdot format paragraphs at the back of the insurance policy.
The insurance ombudsman adjudicates on complaints and examines each case individually. He requires evidence that important information was made available to the consumer when the policy was sold. However, the regulation of most general insurance intermediaries is expected to pass to the General Insurance Standards Council later this year. The GISC will have a wide-ranging remit, covering the activities of insurers, advisers, agents and brokers. In due course, a GISC code will replace the ABI code. I understand that the GISC is already talking to the Association of British Travel Agents about how travel agents who sell insurance will be brought within the council's scope.
I appreciate the difficulty of understanding exclusions that are buried in a body of small print, especially when that print is very small indeed and the customer's sight is no longer perfect, which is the case with most elderly people. I was interested in the hon. Gentleman's remark about sight deteriorating after the age of 60; I fear that mine started to deteriorate much earlier than that. Although many insurance companies aim for a plain English standard, insurance documents are inevitably complex, and to provide consumers with full information about important matters that affect the scope of a policy it is necessary to state many terms and conditions. In addition, a provision that is important to one customer may be relatively unimportant to another. Many insurance companies provide back-up through telephone helplines that offer customers advice, including advice on terms and conditions of insurance cover.
I agree with what the hon. Gentleman said about print that is too small for most people to read and about the way in which some documents are written, which adds another layer of denseness to the text. It is very difficult to get into a text of that sort, but it becomes almost impossible when it is couched in language that might as well be Mongolian as far as most people are concerned. It is very difficult for elderly customers to get into that.
86WH
The hon. Gentleman spoke about "named illnesses". Insurers design products against a background of previous claims and ask themselves whether there will be a greater number of claims from sufferers of a particular illness. If so, the insurer has every right to exclude it.
Dr. Brand: Is it reasonable to exclude influenza, because there is a lot of it about? My concern is that, although the "Travel Insurance: Important Notice" document issued by the Association of British Insurers talks quite sensibly about pre-existing medical problems, the schedule to the insurance policy introduces a host of other conditions that do not have to exist previously to be excluded from the insurance. That is misleading.
Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman raises an important issue. I was taken by his description of some illnesses as worthy and others as unworthy, as if people go out on purpose to catch an unworthy illnesses. Life is not like that. Clearly, insurance companies have to make money; that is what they are there for—
Dr. Brand: Decently.
Dr. Howells: Yes, they have to make money decently. Most insurance companies would probably endorse that statement. However, there is a legitimate question to be asked about why some illnesses are on the worthy list and others are on the unworthy list. If statistics are to be believed and the incidence of mental illnesses and the number of people associated with those who suffer from mental conditions are as high as companies suggest, one wonders how people—especially Members of Parliament—manage to obtain decent holiday insurance cover.
Extra premiums are requested for certain conditions. As a mountaineer, I pay through the nose for insurance cover when, once a year, I manage to escape to the mountains. That rankles, but I can understand it. However, it strikes me as extremely strange that an actuary sits down and decides that influenza is a more worthy illness than HIV, even though there is a far greater chance of influenza preventing someone from going on holiday, especially a weekend break. It poses all sorts of ethical questions, as well questions of medical definition.
In the short time left, I should like to deal with unfair contract terms. Regulations on unfair terms in consumer contracts give legal backing to those principles. They apply to contractual terms that have not been individually negotiated, such as terms in standard form contracts. The regulations state that a term is unfair if it creates a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer. In other words, is the term one-sided in favour of the business and against the consumer?
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has reminded us this morning of the broad definition of an unfair contract. If a germane part of the contract is so deep in the microprint that it can affect the holiday of someone such as Mr. Carter, one must ask whether there should not be more transparency, so that the contract is fairer for the consumer.

Controlled Drugs (Law Enforcement)
1 pm
Mr. Paul Flynn: There are three ways in which the enforcement laws on drug abuse can be improved to reduce the harm and deaths caused by drugs. The first way is to allow natural cannabis to be prescribed to the seriously ill. The second is to take the soft drugs market out of the hands of irresponsible criminals and give it to legal businesses that can be licensed, controlled, policed and regulated. The third is to treat hard drugs addicts as patients, not criminals.
I have been greatly encouraged by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister's announcement this week that his judgment had been wrong and that he had changed his mind on an issue affecting devolution in Wales. I cherish the thought that that was the result of reading my book on the subject. It took 18 months to convince the Prime Minister that he was wrong. I hope that in 18 minutes, and with the help of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who hopes to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I can convince the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), that British drugs laws are doing more harm than drugs themselves.
Even though the message that our drugs laws are not working has been clear for many years, Governments have refused to fix them. They have based their views not on evidence but on bigotry and mythology. Governments cannot always do good, but we can ask them at least to avoid doing harm. By inflicting avoidable pain and anxiety on the seriously ill, the Government are now doing harm. Thousands of otherwise law-abiding citizens use medicinal cannabis to relieve chronic pain and distress caused by multiple sclerosis, AIDS or the side effects of chemotherapy. A simple change in the law, recommended by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology and the Runciman report, would allow doctors to prescribe cannabis in the same way as heroin is prescribed, in rare instances.
The law is in disrepute. Last year in Wales, two seriously ill patients were imprisoned for using natural cannabis. In the past 18 months in England, six juries have—rightly—refused to implement the law. In one case, a man was carried shoulder high from the court after being charged with supplying cannabis to up to 100 people. The juries are doing the job that the Government have dodged. Judge Devlin said:
A jury is the insurance that the criminal law will conform to the ordinary man's idea of what is fair and just. If the law is cruel, juries will not enforce it.
Parliament, too, will not enforce a law that prevents juries from acting in that way. I hope that the oppressive measure currently going through the House will be thrown out, because it will deny juries the chance to act as the conscience of the country and refuse to act oppressively against seriously ill people.
Yesterday, the Government acted courageously against damaging prejudices in another place, so why do they become pale shivering wrecks when they consider the drugs laws? There is an unanswerable case for drugs law reform. Where is the courage that the Home Secretary showed on Monday, when he introduced a Bill
88WH
about the hardest of all hard drugs, containing measures to make that drug, not less, but more available? He was implementing a pragmatic measure in the White Paper, to reduce the harm caused by our most addictive and poisonous drug: alcohol. Does the Minister of State not blush in shame at the fact that The Daily Telegraph has taken a progressive line against the forces of conservatism represented by the Government?
As rapporteur for the Council of Europe health committee on drugs misuse, I have examined drugs policies in 41 countries and accumulated a great encyclopaedia of evidence. Two incontrovertible conclusions can be drawn from the experiences of those 41 countries: harsh drugs laws based on prohibition do not reduce drug harm, but may increase it; and pragmatic, intelligent laws based on decriminalisation do not increase drug use, but often reduce it.
The Runciman report exposed the repeated misrepresentation by the British Government, the drugs tsar and the popular press of what has happened in the Netherlands. The report said that the committee was "impressed" by the results of 20 years of decriminalisation in Holland. Cannabis use in that country did not increase as a result of decriminalisation; in fact, it followed the trends in all other countries. Holland now has much lower use of cannabis, especially among 16 to 19-year-olds, and it is used in safer ways and in milder forms than are used in this country. The population of problem drugs users has remained stable, with a rising average age, and almost all are in touch with treatment.
Holland's is a success story: decriminalisation has proved to be the best way to block the gateway from the use of soft drugs to hard drugs. The best way of doing that is to ensure that there is not only one market, as we have in this country. British drug experimenters—the majority of our young people—have to cross the line between legality and illegality to use soft drugs, and they have to frequent areas in which they are likely to be exposed to the pushing of hard drugs as well. The results are self-evident: prohibition increases drugs harm, whereas decriminalisation decreases it.
Lessons can be learned from countries further afield than Holland: we can take into account the experience throughout the rest of the world. In 1987, south Australia introduced a policy of non-prosecution for cannabis use. Civilisation did not collapse. As the Runciman report says, there is now no difference in cannabis use between south Australia and the rest of Australia. During the 1970s, several states in the United States of America reduced to a small fine the penalty for possession for personal use. The rate of increase in cannabis use was lower in the states that depenalised than in those states that did not change the penalties: the states with the harshest penalties had the greatest drug use.
Can we have an intelligent and serious response from the Government on that point? Of the 41 countries of the Council of Europe, the two that have suffered the greatest increase in heroin use in the past 18 months are Sweden and the UK. They happen to be the countries with the severest penalties and the harshest laws. Prohibition increases drugs harm; decriminalisation reduces it.

89WH
One member of the Runciman committee went to Holland and his experiences in that country changed his mind entirely. I urge Ministers to visit Holland, where they might learn that our present laws to control the international trade in drugs have as much chance of success as Canute had when he commanded the tide outside this building to go back. The international drugs trade is the second biggest industry in the world. If we cut off one head of that great beast, two others will grow in its place. The only chance we have of reducing the problem is to adopt a pragmatic line of reducing harm.
The current position in Britain is dreadful. What we have—and the legacy that will be left by the Labour Government when they leave office—is greatly increased use of heroin and cocaine. Decriminalisation is occurring on a completely chaotic and irrational basis. Ninety per cent. of drug arrests in the UK are for simple possession; 80 per cent. of those arrests are for possession of cannabis. Sixty-two per cent. of drugs spending goes on enforcement, whereas only 13 per cent. is spent on worthwhile forms of treatment. In 1974, 3 per cent. of offenders were cautioned; now the proportion is 50 per cent.
Decriminalisation is happening according to postcode. You are eight times more likely to be apprehended in Dorset than in Northampton—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. As I am not going to either Dorset or Northampton, I am not likely to be apprehended at all. When the hon. Gentleman says "you", he is referring to me.
Mr. Flynn: I am sorry. It is unlikely to be you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, who is arrested, but there are 500 people in prison for cannabis possession alone. This country does not have a single prison that is free of drug use. Cannabis offenders go into prison as cannabis users and often come out as drug addicts.
I have been present in most of the debates in the House on the subject in the past 20 years. They all follow the same pattern: the Government boast of the success of their new schemes; they say that their policies are working and they are about to turn the corner. British drugs policy has turned the corner so often that we have been round the block a dozen times. In 1989, David Mellor said that we could be certain of one thing: that the use of heroin had peaked in Britain; but every year since then, heroin use has soared. Ministers from both parties use the same self-deluding, self-congratulatory line; meanwhile, children are dying in greater numbers in this country than in any other country in Europe. The mantra is that drug remedies are not working, but we refuse to see the truth.
The Minister of State recently said on television that he could not accept the Runciman report because Ecstasy kills seven people a year. That is tragic—the untimely death of a young person is always dreadful. However, there have been fewer deaths in Holland in 10 years than in any one year in Britain. No deaths in that country have been caused by inhalants, and the number of deaths caused by other drugs has fallen. We should put the policy in Holland into perspective. We should also consider the fact that, each year, between 500 and 600 people are killed by the simple drug paracetamol, which can be found in most people's home. If we want to
90WH
reduce drug deaths, we must look at the bigger picture, which shows that children and the elderly are being drugged in an irresponsible and dangerous way.
The 10-year strategy is a cop-out—an excuse for not debating the issues, not acting and not thinking. In 10 years' time the drugs tsar will have retired, the Prime Minister will be Lord Sedgefield, and there will have been 1,000 more avoidable heroin deaths. A thousand families need not be bereaved if we consider now what is happening throughout the world, amend our policies and introduce the necessary reforms. Prohibition kills; decriminalisation saves.
In the past, Ministers of both parties have found it convenient to blame the drugs trade and the wicked pushers; we do not lay the blame on ourselves. However, the drugs trade does not cause deaths. It consists of greedy people who are out to make money irresponsibly. If the trade can be turned into a responsible, licensed business, drug crime will be reduced and people will feel able to enter rehabilitation. Harm can be reduced quite spectacularly, as it has been in Switzerland, where experiments have been conducted in respect of injectable heroin.
In future, whatever the political colour of the Government, Ministers will not be able to get away with the excuse that people outside Parliament are responsible for deaths caused by drugs. Politicians decide drug policy. Responsibility for the deaths caused by drugs should be laid firmly at the door of Governments'drugs policies for the past 20 years, not on those outside the House.
1.13 pm
Dr. Ian Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on the passion with which he spoke and on introducing the subject of drugs policy within these portals. I thank him for allowing me to speak for a few minutes. My hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have an issue in common: we fought side by side in the streets and on the platforms of Norwich against a common opponent, Howard Marks, the high priest of the pro-cannabis party, who suffered a severe defeat at our hands.
We are debating a serious subject and I intend to speak about the medicinal value of cannabis and other drugs. For centuries, cannabis has been for used for medicinal purposes all over the world. Drugs can be beneficial or harmful according to the context of their use. Cannabis may be harmful when someone is driving a motor car, but it is beneficial to a multiple sclerosis sufferer. Sadly, legislation is not context-sensitive.
Beneficial effects are being rediscovered because, although illegal, cannabis is widely available. There is no legal commercial interest in cannabis, so little research is carried out into identifying new medical applications. With no commercial interest, it is difficult to secure funding for proper trials. To some extent, charities are being asked to fulfil that role. It is likely that other recreational drugs have effects that could be exploited for therapeutic purposes, although the discovery of such effects is unlikely because most drug research in this country is impossible without commercial backing. The law is a blunt instrument and, at present, it is incapable of taking into account the context of drug use when defining criminality.

91WH
The medicinal uses of cannabis include alleviation of tremor and spasticity and a variety of neurological conditions—especially MS; increasing weight and improving appetite and mood in cancer patients; reducing nausea associated with chemotherapy in cancer patients; and reducing intra-ocular pressure in glaucomas. Those are but a few of the medicinal uses of the drug. Though cannabis may not be the best drug to treat those conditions, without proper trials and experimentation, we shall never know. Medicinal trials on patients would provide a welcome a way forward in establishing the beneficial effects of cannabis. After such trials, the knowledge would be extended into the wider public sphere.
1.16 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I, too, welcome the debate. I congratulate the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on securing it, although I felt that his speech was uncharacteristically offensive.
I do not speak, as did David Mellor or previous Governments, by going round the block. I shall deal directly with the points raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), who is also a personal friend, was characteristically constructive in advocating a scientific approach to deal properly with the issues. Some people argue that there is no need for a debate on these matters, but I disagree: there should be a debate and it is right for it to continue. In that context, I thank the Runciman committee and the Police Foundation for their work in producing a serious and well-considered report.
The hon. Member for Newport, West mentioned The Daily Telegraph. In the past, I have not responded to that point, but, on this occasion, I should like to draw to his and the House's attention the fact that the ultra-libertarian wing of the Conservative party is now running that newspaper, which explains the editorial position on these matters, as on others.
Let me return to the more serious aspects of the debate. First, I shall set out the statutory framework, which is provided in the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971. It places all controlled drugs into three categories—A, B or C—according to their relative harmfulness. Class A includes heroin and cocaine; class B, amphetamines and cannabis; and class C, benzodiazepines and anabolic steroids.
Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Clarke: No, I will not. I intend to conclude my speech within the time available to me.
That classification determines penalties for offences under the Act. For example, the maximum penalty for possession of a controlled drug ranges from two years' imprisonment for possession of class C drugs to seven years for possession of class A substances. Assessments on classification include a judgment on the substance's toxic effect, the prevalence of misuse, and the effects on society. For expert advice on the classification of controlled drugs, the Government rely on the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which was established
92WH
by the 1971 Act. It must comprise no fewer than 20 members and the disciplines represented within the council include medical practitioners, pharmacists, chemists and experts on the social effects of drug abuse.
It is important to set out the current assessment of the medical and social effects. A 1997 World Health Organisation report confirmed that cannabis has both acute and chronic health effects. The acute effects include damage to people's ability to learn and to carry out many tasks, including operating machinery and driving vehicles. The chronic effects include damage to mental functioning, especially learning abilities, which may not be reversible for prolonged and heavy users. A cannabis dependence syndrome has been identified in heavy users, and the drug can exacerbate schizophrenia in people who are already affected by that illness. There are also the obvious health risks associated with smoking the drug. That is why the British Medical Association has concluded that cannabis in its plant form is unsuitable for medical use.
I turn now to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North about the need for research. The Multiple Sclerosis Society agrees that cannabis should not be prescribed in advance of proper trials, but, rightly, it argues for the types of trial that my hon. Friend advocates. The Government want research brought to a satisfactory conclusion as soon as possible, which is why we have licensed several laboratory and research projects over the past few years. The Medical Research Council recently awarded a grant of more than £1 million to enable another major research project to get under way, and the Medicines Control Agency has recently given permission to GW Pharmaceuticals Ltd. to proceed to clinical trials.
Those are important milestones in the development of a potential medicine for multiple sclerosis, and they are to be warmly welcomed. I hope that that goes some way towards meeting my hon. Friend's point about the need for more research. He and I received a delegation from the Multiple Sclerosis Society in Norwich. We discussed the benefits that the society's members felt proper medicinal use might bring. It is important to research and develop such a use, and that is what the Government are doing.
Why should there be controls on drugs? The Government have a clear and consistent view of the damage that drugs can cause to individuals, their families and the wider community, and of the link between drugs and crime and the corresponding need to maintain firm controls. I am familiar with the views of the hon. Member for Newport, West on the 1971 Act, and I concede absolutely and in public that he has a long-standing and sincere desire to see the misuse of drugs eradicated. He made that clear again in his speech, and I cast no aspersion on his motives in that regard. There is a difference in analysis, which I hope to explore in this debate, but I am not suggesting that he wants anything other than a reduction the misuse of drugs and their harmful effects. Ours is simply a discussion about how best to achieve that.
Some people have suggested that decriminalising or legalising currently controlled drugs would reduce both the harm they cause and the market for them, but successive Governments in this country and throughout the world have taken the view that that cannot possibly happen. I will not follow the hon. Member for Newport,

93WH
West in discussing complacent statements about the drugs problem having been solved, because that is not the Government's view; on the contrary, we believe that we have much to do to tackle drugs issues. Today's debate about the legalisation or decriminalisation of certain drugs is only one part of the wider debate.
Most of those who favour legalisation recognise that the balance of the argument would be tipped against them if consumption significantly increased as a consequence of the legalisation of drugs. Common sense and the lessons of history suggest that that would be the case, and it might help if I outline the current levels of drugs use. According to surveys, 1.25 million people in this country used cannabis in the past month. In contrast, between 10 million and 11 million people have smoked tobacco, and 42 million people have consumed alcohol in the past month. However, the illegality of some of the drugs that I have described limits use and deters many other people from using them. Furthermore, the main effect of decriminalisation or legalisation would be an increase in the consumption of drugs, which would be a bad thing for various reasons. The Government's policy on all legal and illegal drugs should be motivated by a desire to reduce use, whether we are talking about tobacco, alcohol or other drugs.
Mr. Flynn: Can the Minister explain why the Runciman report concluded that the decriminalisation of cannabis in Holland, Australia and certain states of America did not increase its use?
Mr. Clarke: The report explains that itself. That is the view to which it came. However, the hon. Gentleman mentioned Ecstasy in connection with Holland a moment ago, and I have the figure for the lifetime prevalence of the use of different illegal drugs among 15 to 16-year-old students contained in recent nationwide school surveys from some EU countries: 8.1 per cent. of those students in the Netherlands had consumed Ecstasy, compared with 3 per cent. in the UK. That is a significant difference, and the implication of consumption is real.
It is argued that the black market would disappear with decriminalisation, but I believe that the criminals would attempt to undercut the legal producers, and that the United Kingdom would provide an attractive base for organised crime. The Dutch police have told us that the semi-legal trade in cannabis in the Netherlands has helped to make the country a safer place for big-time crooks.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the law is enforced inconsistently across this country. It is the duty of the police to enforce the law as it stands. Although the statistics show that the majority of those arrested for the possession of cannabis receive a caution, cautioning rates vary from force to force, as he said. The Government agree that as much consistency as possible is desirable, but discretion is necessary to allow the police to take account of individual circumstances. To achieve greater consistency, the Association of Chief Police Officers last February issued guidelines to its members on case disposal options, including cautions, for drugs offenders. It is still too early to assess the impact of the guidance on that objective. The guidelines emphasise that one way in which the police service can
94WH
demonstrate its fairness in its dealings with those it comes into contact with is by being as consistent as possible in case disposal, as I believe it is.
On the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North about the context of drug use, the guidelines recognise that even an apparently straightforward case can involve a multitude of human, social and situational factors that can influence police judgment on the best way to proceed. It properly emphasises that the people best placed to make such judgments will be those who are most directly concerned and have first-hand access to all available information.
For example, under the final warning scheme, a first offence results in a reprimand, warning or charge, depending on the seriousness of the offence. A young offender cannot be given more than one reprimand: any further offending leads to a warning or a charge. No young person can receive more than two warnings. The final warning scheme has been piloted in five areas for 18 months since 30 September 1998, and it will be rolled out nationally from 1 June this year. Experience of the way in which the scheme works nationally will provide useful information if, in future, it is felt necessary to put adult cautioning on a statutory basis.
The hon. Member for Newport, West mentioned the courts. The balance must be drawn between achieving consistency and providing the courts with the discretion to carry out their job properly. The Court of Appeal issues sentencing guidelines where they appear to be necessary, and such guidelines have been in existence in respect of drugs since 1982. In addition, and as part of the provisions of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, a new statutory body, the Sentencing Advisory Panel, has been established to provide advice to the Court of Appeal on sentencing. Hon. Members may be interested to know that that panel is currently considering drawing up sentencing guidelines in respect of opium.
The Government are determined to break the drugs-crime cycle. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Newport, West said in his uncharacteristically offensive speech, we are not complacent, nor do we believe that the problems have been solved. There is a long way to go and we are committed to finding the right ways in which to proceed. The hon. Gentleman appears to believe that former Conservative Ministers in the Department have appeared complacent, but I doubt that they were complacent in the way that he suggests.
Our objective is to use each stage of the criminal justice system to identify drug-misusing offenders, to get them into treatment where appropriate and to monitor their progress through drugs testing. I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Member for Newport, West paid a great deal of attention to drug rehabilitation. I concede that the Government must do much more work to ensure that proper facilities are made available. We acknowledge that there is a failing that needs to be remedied, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted it.
The link between drugs and crime is now clearly established by research. Our research programme to drug test arrestees shows that nearly 80 per cent. test positive for an illegal drug. The same research suggests that property crime provides about 75 per cent. of the total illegal income of arrestees, of which about one third is spent on buying heroin and/or crack cocaine.

95WH
The Government want to create a healthy and confident society that is increasingly free of the harm caused by the misuse of drugs. A complex set of issues is associated with drugs misuse, which we are fully committed to tackling. We have set out a strategy and we believe that law enforcement agencies have a key role to play. I am glad that we have debated this matter today. It will continue to be actively debated by hon. Members in the House and by others.

Developing Country Debt
1.30 pm
Mr. Steve Webb: I am grateful for the opportunity to discuss the progress that has been made in writing off the debts of the world's poorest countries. The subject brought me into politics—I was concerned about national and global poverty and inequality.
For a long time, I have found it offensive that we generally enjoy such an affluent life style when there is so much unmet need in the world. I welcome the initiatives of groups such as Jubilee 2000, on whose briefing paper I shall draw heavily. A year or two ago, I helped to launch the parliamentary element of Jubilee 2000, and I spoke from a platform in this Chamber, although it then had a different layout.
I welcome the Government's efforts in this context. I am glad that they have reversed the long-standing fall in the percentage of national income that is spent on aid—the change is entirely laudable. I also welcome the lead that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has taken.
I want to discuss the disjunction between perception and reality, and to outline where we should go from here. I support much that has been done. My concern about the disjunction between perception and reality is that in the public's mind debt is virtually off the agenda in the United Kingdom. People have heard the announcement that we are writing off 100 per cent. of debt, and they might have heard President Clinton say a few months ago that the Americans will do the same. They might assume that the issue is largely solved, but the Economic Secretary well knows that that is not the case. Neither the public nor the Government should be complacent about debt.
We have rightly focused on debt during this millennium year, but that should not distract us from the broader problems. Someone said to me the other day that many of the world's poorest people live in countries that are not significantly indebted. We urgently need to tackle the debt issue, but when we have done so we should remember that that effort was part of a larger agenda.
I want to respond to criticisms of the progress that has been made. The phrase, "faster, deeper, broader" stems from the idea that debt relief should move faster, that there should be more of it and that it should be applied to more countries. I received an interesting letter from the Economic Secretary, which I imagine was prepared in response to Christian Aid's "one third, two thirds" postcard campaign. She used the phrase, "faster, wider, deeper", which suggests that she sympathises with the associated goals. I hope that she will expand on her comments.
Although we have heard announcements about the speed of change, the reality is a long way behind. I recognise that that is not wholly or even largely the fault of the UK Government. I urge the Economic Secretary to use her influence and that of the Government in international organisations to speed up the process. Last September, when the Chancellor of the Exchequer was wearing his hat as the chairman of the International Monetary Fund's monetary and financial committee, he said:
If we are successful, it will be a matter not of years or months but weeks before the first country will benefit from debt relief.

97WH
That upbeat and optimistic statement was qualified by another statement in March 2000. The Secretary-General of the United Nations said:
The deeper, faster and broader relief promised last year has yet to materialise.
There is a disjunction between people's perceptions and aspirations and reality.
Mr. Tony Colman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that a good reason for the delay is the need to give heavily indebted poor countries a chance to comment on the poverty reduction programme that is connected with debt write-off? I should be concerned if such conditionality were lost—debt relief should be fast-tracked.
Mr. Webb: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Secretary of State for International Development spoke of the dangers of searching for a perfect poverty-reduction scheme. We need a balance. We must ensure that debt that is written off and that service payments saved are spent on poverty reduction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I agree that we should not drag out that process.
Currently, only five countries appear to benefit from the enhanced HIPC initiative, which is even fewer than was thought likely at Christmas. I want to touch briefly on some reasons for the delays. The role of the International Monetary Fund is important. If Britain's influence is relatively powerful, I hope that pressure can be brought to bear on the IMF. Jubilee 2000 has suggested that the IMF's handling of the situation in Guyana has been neither consistent nor helpful, and I hope that Guyana will shortly receive assistance.
In the context of writing off debts, international organisations such as the World Bank are apparently worried about their triple-A credit ratings. That fear seems unnecessary, and I hope that pressure will be brought to bear in that regard. As the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Colman) noted, there are delays associated with the preparation of poverty reduction strategy papers. One hopes that that process will not be too protracted.
The role of Japan, which is a major creditor nation, has been called into question, particularly in the context of Ghana, Malawi and Benin. In respect of Japan's role and the pressure that is being brought to bear, a rather different message is being given in private than in public. If the Japanese Government are trying to prevent countries from participating in the HIPC process, I hope that the Prime Minister will tell them that such behaviour is inappropriate when he travels to Japan later this year.
Mr. Colman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Webb: No. The hon. Gentleman did not make clear his intention to intervene, and I cannot give way twice.
Japan has expressed concern about the moral hazard associated with writing off debts, yet it supported its banks to the tune of billions. I hope that the Government will make it clear to the Japanese Government that that is unacceptable. The United States Congress seems unwilling to back President
98WH
Clinton's aspirations with hard cash. The European Union seems to be saying, "If the Americans won't play ball, perhaps we won't do our bit." At the bottom of the pile are the people of the world's poorest countries, who have to wait while this virtual merry-go-round continues. I hope that the Minister agrees that those delays are unacceptable, and will reassure us that the Government will do all that they can to break the logjam.
Speed is important, but so is the extent of debt write-off. The perception exists that 100 per cent. of debt has been written off, but, as the Minister well knows, that is far from the case. Indeed, in respect of the five countries that have reached decision point, the average stock of debt has been cut by only 40 per cent. Debt service costs have been cut by only 35 per cent. The 100 per cent. write-offs to which reference has been made are, typically, bilateral, aid-related debt. As far as I am aware, there are at present no pledges for 100 per cent. write-offs from the IMF, the World Bank or regional development banks. Given that one third of HIPCs' long-term debt is multilateral, it is clear that we are a long way from the Jubilee 2000 goal of full write-off during this year.
To give a feel for the inadequacy of the current situation, I shall quote from the Jubilee 2000 coalition briefing. It states:
After full implementation of the Cologne deal, its first five recipients will still be paying more than half a billion dollars every year to foreign creditors—almost as much as they spend on health care.
I shall give a flavour of what that means for those five countries. HIV, which leaves 1 million children orphaned, is a big problem in Uganda, and we are not doing enough for that country. In Bolivia, basic sanitation is a fundamental problem. In Mauritania, nearly two thirds of the adult population are illiterate. The problems in Mozambique have been well documented in recent months. In Tanzania, one third of children are malnourished. On average, those countries continue to pay out substantial sums, even though they are participating in the scheme, and the call for deeper action has been noted.
A slightly alarming development is the suggestion that Overseas Development Administration cancellations—aid write-offs—might be taken into account in considering HIPC initiatives. In other words, as in my field of social security, it will resemble a 100 per cent. taper: every pound that goes to one area is taken from another. Clearly, that was not what the United Kingdom Government intended when they said that they would write off bilateral debt. I hope that pressure will be put on the Paris Club creditors and the IMF to ensure that that does not happen and that there is genuine additionality.
We have discussed speed and depth. Which countries should be covered by debt write-off initiatives? Jubilee 2000 has cited some very needy and deserving countries that have a strong case but are not covered. I should like to refer to two of them. Nigeria has huge debts. Due to its political history, money that it has been given has sometimes ended up in the wrong pockets. One reason why Nigeria was not in the original HIPC initiative was that it had access to borrowing from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development. I gather that under the agreement that Nigeria is reaching with

99WH
the IMF, it will not have access to any further borrowing from the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and only $360 million will go towards poverty alleviation—10 times less than it is due to pay in debt service. That gives an idea of the scale of Nigeria's problem, and I hope that it can be brought into the HIPC scheme.
I should briefly mention Haiti, which has been described as one of the poorest countries in the western hemisphere and is in urgent of debt cancellation. Again, it has a troubled political history.
These are not simple issues. The countries involved clearly have a responsibility to channel the money that is used from debt write-offs into poverty alleviation. However, I get the impression that creditor nations and international organisations are not seized of the urgency of the matter. Some of them—the UK Government may be exempt from this criticism—are continuing at far too pedestrian a pace, not appreciating that as every day goes by another child is missing out on schooling or another mother is missing out on primary health care. The matter is therefore terribly urgent.
I urge the Economic Secretary, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development to use all the influence that they can bring to bear on the multilateral organisations and creditor nations to follow the British lead and to ensure that Britain's promises are borne out by actions.
I often raise the concerns of South Gloucestershire, my local authority, in Adjournment debates, yet the matter that I have discussed today is as important to my constituents as their local traffic or schools. Many of them feel passionately about it. I hope that the Economic Secretary shares my, and their, concerns and will offer us some encouragement.
1.43 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): As a girl raised in South Gloucestershire, I am sad that the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) did not say anything further about it. However, he has raised a very important topic, and I shall endeavour to cover as quickly as I can the points that he made.
No one can doubt the Government's commitment to reducing the debts of the poorest countries. It is clear from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he shares that view, and I am grateful for his recognition of the Government's achievements, especially the work of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Government called for, and secured, a review of the original heavily indebted poor countries initiative and pressured our G7 and international colleagues to adopt challenging standards on debt reduction and the number of countries that receive debt relief. We are committed to giving 100 per cent. debt relief to every country that qualifies under the HIPC initiative.
Many Members of Parliament, of all parties, recognise that our duties to the poorest countries are wider than debt relief for relief's sake. The Government start from a more fundamental principle—our dependence on each other and the fact that we are part of a wider community with mutual responsibilities and
100WH
linked destinies. In today's global market, that interdependence is further accentuated and our fates and interests are bound together. We must look beyond our front doors and national boundaries, as the hon. Gentleman did, and accept that our responsibilities extend beyond traditional national boundaries.
If it is to be sustained, prosperity must be shared and the people of this country well understand that moral imperative. I have seen at first hand the British public's response to the call for debt relief in developing countries. I have seen the thousands of letters and postcards that have been written and I have responded to many of them.
Without doubt, last year's achievements and the agreement reached at Cologne to cancel ․100 billion of developing countries' debt would not have been possible without the actions of ordinary citizens throughout the world. They forced their Governments to listen to the call for faster, wider and deeper debt relief. The challenge now is to implement the enhanced HIPC initiative.
The United Kingdom has been at the forefront of efforts to persuade our international partners to meet the agreed targets under the HIPC initiative and to go beyond the agreed level of debt relief by providing 100 per cent. relief on the commercial debts of HIPCs.
At the beginning of this week, the Japanese Government announced that Japan will provide up to 100 per cent. relief on HIPC debt. The United Kingdom welcomes that announcement and acknowledges that it as an important step along the road to faster, wider and deeper debt relief. We shall continue to remind Japan and others of the importance of delivering on those commitments.
Following the announcement by Germany at the EU-Africa summit earlier this month, the G7 is now acting as one to relieve the debts that have, for too long, burdened those countries. The United Kingdom acknowledges the fact that other countries, such as Norway and Sweden, have made similar commitments and urges other creditors to join us in making 2000 the year in which we make a commitment to debt forgiveness on a global scale.
The challenge of debt reduction goes wider than that. The new HIPC framework acknowledges that we need debt relief not just for its own sake, but to break the vicious circle of debt, poverty and economic decline and to create a virtuous circle of debt relief, poverty reduction and economic development. Debt reduction and aid alone are not enough. That could lead to millions of pounds flowing into prestige projects that do nothing to relieve poverty, or to corrupt regimes and military excesses that destroy rather than build for the future. Only if debt relief is combined with the economic and social policies that are essential for economic development can it be the catalyst that releases countries from poverty. The Government place great emphasis on the implementation of countries' poverty reduction strategies, to which the hon. Member for Northavon referred.
Poverty reduction strategies are vital to the new approach that recognises the links that form the virtuous circle. First, we must deliver enhanced debt relief. Secondly, we must build a link between debt relief and poverty reduction strategies. Thirdly, we must

101WH
create the new conditions for economic development that will allow all poor countries to participate in the global economy. Fourthly, we must recognise that education for all and the recognition of human capital is central to the whole project.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether we are making fast enough progress. The United Kingdom's main messages at the spring meetings will be that the process is important because it integrates macro-economics and structural and social policies in a new and powerful tool that will help developing countries in their efforts to reduce poverty and promote growth. It is important to expand participation in national policy making and the general building of a civic society that promotes openness and transparency. If Governments have sound poverty reduction strategies and an effective budgetary and institutional framework in place, donor focus should increasingly shift from projects to programme assistance. A good poverty reduction strategy will be based on a country-specific analysis of the processes that lead to and maintain poverty and of the impact that particular policies and spending will have on that.
The United Kingdom argues that a country need not have a full poverty reduction strategy paper in place when a decision is made. That addresses the question about how perfect we must be to make progress. We want poverty reduction strategy papers to be in place by completion and we want countries to take as long as they need to achieve a good PRSP that has broad support. However, we want countries to make decisions quickly and we have argued only for countries' IMF programmes to be broadly on track with a plausible road map for producing a PRSP. We are trying to meet the points made by the hon. Member for Northavon about the pace and the way in which the matter should be handled.
The Government's approach to developing countries' debt involves more than just cancelling the debt. Our strategy is to achieve sustainable development. We must be able to work with international organisations, other Governments and non-governmental organisations to develop a momentum towards development. The world's richest nations must accept their obligations
102WH
towards the world's poorest people, so that those people can be empowered to play their full role in the global system.
The hon. Member for Northavon asked what other pressure we might bring to bear. Last week, the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development wrote to the acting managing director of the IMF and the chairman of the World Bank about slippage in the timetable and suggested that the fund and the bank set up a HIPC initiative implementation unit to oversee the HIPC timetable. As a result of their letter, the bank and the fund have now told their respective boards that they will set up a joint committee to manage the HIPC process. The United Kingdom welcomes that development and will propose that the fund and the bank go further and mirror those changes at staff level by setting up a joint committee of the boards to be responsible for managing the HIPC timetable.
The contribution of the United States will be crucial in funding debt relief for the early Latin American cases. There was a setback when Congress failed to deliver last October, but we are reassured by the noises coming from the US Administration that they remain committed to securing the money to meet their pledge.
The hon. Gentleman asked about Guyana, which is off track with its economic reform programme, but we are confident that it is working closely with the IMF to resolve the remaining obstacles.
We have led international efforts to support the Nigerian Government but, with its history, it needs to demonstrate a track record to make progress.
As we embark on another wave of technological revolution, we must be sure that we include the people and places that the world has forgotten for too long. I applaud the hon. Member for Northavon for raising this important subject. We have made great progress and I am confident that we shall continue to make further progress. We are at the forefront of the international community in leading the pressure for effective strategies without losing sight of the fact they must be pursued vigorously at all times to achieve poverty reduction for so many of the world's population.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Two o'clock.

DEFENCE

  Air Brigades
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what progress has been made in providing increased engineer support to the air manoeuvre brigade; and if he will make a statement; [117489]

  (2) what progress has been made in developing the 24 Airmobile Brigade into a high-capability air manoeuvre formation; and if he will make a statement. [117499]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: Sixteen Air Assault Brigade formed on 1 September 1999. It already has three infantry battalions and three aviation regiments under command. It is supported by a dedicated artillery regiment although this will not move from Aldershot to Colchester until at least 2003. The Engineer Regiment to support the Brigade will be formed when barrack facilities have been constructed at Woodbridge in 2003.

  In the interim 9 Parachute Squadron RE and 51 Air Assault Squadron will continue to support the Brigade from their current locations—Aldershot and Ripon respectively. The logistic units which support the Brigade are currently reorganising to their new structure and this should be complete by 2002. The Brigade is also preparing to exploit the potential of the Westland Apache helicopter, the first squadron of which is due to be operational in late 2002.

  Engineer Regiments
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what progress has been made in the establishment of the sixth close support engineer regiment; and if he will make a statement; [117494]

  (2) what progress has been made in forming two new regular engineer squadrons; and if he will make a statement. [117492]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: Two new engineer regiments and three new engineer squadrons are to be formed. 26 (Close Support) Engineer Regiment, has started forming and will be operational by October this year. One of its squadrons cannot, however, be formed before 2003, the date on which its accommodation is planned to become available. The Regiment is initially being formed in Horne Barracks, Larkhill, and early next year it will move into modular accommodation in Ludgershall, thereby allowing Horne Barracks to be refurbished for 19 Field Regiment RA. Its long-term location will be Swinton Barracks, Perham Down, but this is not expected to be complete until 2003 at the earliest.

  23 Engineer Regiment will support 16 Air Assault Brigade and it will form up in its new location in 2003: its two constituent parts are already supporting the
  146W
  Brigade. The Regiment cannot be formed until barrack facilities have been constructed at Woodbridge in 2003. In the interim 9 Parachute Squadron RE and 51 Air Assault Squadron will continue to support the Brigade from their current locations—Aldershot and Ripon respectively.

  The engineer field support squadron is to be formed in April this year, using Gurkha manpower, and this will be operational by September. The first of the two air support engineer squadrons is currently planned to form up in July 2001, and the second in 2003.

  HMS Ramsey
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of HMS Ramsey. [117845]

  Dr. Moonie
  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 12 April 2000:
  I am replying to your question to the Secretary of State for Defence about the cost of HMS Ramsey. This matter falls within my area of responsibility as Chief of Defence Procurement and Chief Executive of the Defence Procurement Agency.
  The expected Unit Production Cost (UPC) of HMS Ramsey is £29.947M.

  Service Accommodation
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many houses specifically for junior officers in the Royal Navy are planned to be built, at what cost and in what locations, in(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01; and if he will make a statement. [118063]

  Dr. Moonie
  During 1999–2000 25 three bedroomed houses were released in a phased handover at Broadwater Park, Ilchester, Yeovil to meet a Royal Navy requirement for junior officers, i.e. Lieutenants and Sub Lieutenants. The accommodation was made available through a Private Finance Initiative (PH) scheme. The annual charge for this type of property, which includes maintenance to an agreed standard, is commercially sensitive information. I am therefore withholding the information under exemption 7a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  During 2000–01 it is planned that a PFI contract for Bristol, Bath, Portsmouth and Shrivenham will be placed. This will provide 70 officers' houses at Seafield Park, Stubbington (including 15 which will be built using Ministry of Defence capital) to meet a joint RN and RAF requirement. The majority are likely to be allocated to RN families. Firm costs are not yet available and are likely to be commercially sensitive. It is expected that construction will be completed during 2001–02.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the cost of the PH scheme to build homes for Royal Navy and RAF officers in Stubbington, Hampshire; and if he will make a statement. [118059]

  Dr. Moonie
  The proposed Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contract for Bristol, Bath, Portsmouth and Shrivenham includes the provision of 55 properties at Seafield Park, Fareham (a further 15 properties are to be provided through this contract as a capital build). The PH element will be for a 25 year period.
  147W
  These new houses will address a shortage of accommodation for officers in the Portsmouth area, where over 100 officers are currently being housed in short term rented accommodation.

  The project is at a final tender stage and estimated prices cannot be released as they are commercially sensitive. I am therefore withholding the information under exemption 7a of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  National Missile Defence System
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what inquiries the US Government have made of his Department about possible use of(a) Fylingdales, (b) Menwith Hill and (c) other sites in the UK as part of plans for a US national missile defence system. [118316]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) on 30 March 2000,Official Report, column 209W.

  Armoured Regiments
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in re-roling an armoured regiment into an armoured reconnaissance regiment; and if he will make a statement. [117498]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The fourth armoured reconnaissance regiment which will be provided by the Queens Dragoon Guards, currently based in Catterick, will have completed its conversion to its new role by October this year. On current plans, they will move to Bovington in August 2003.

  Signals Squadrons
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in forming the two new regular signals squadrons; and if he will make a statement. [117491]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: We are in fact forming four new regular signals squadrons. The first of the two signal squadrons dedicated to support the Logistic Brigades has already formed in Aldershot, earlier than the planned date of 2001, and the second is currently planned to form up in Germany in 2003. The first of two additional air support squadrons is due to form by 2003, with the second being formed when sufficient manpower is available. We expect this to be by 2005.

  Stabilised Weapon and Reconnaisance Mount
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received on introducing the Stabilised Weapon and Reconnaisance Mount into the UK armed services. [117850]

  Dr. Moonie
  None. The Stabilised Weapon and Reconnaissance Mount is a privately funded venture to develop a stabilised weapon and sensor system. If offered by potential prime contractors as an armament sub-system in proposals to meet the requirements of projects such as the Future Command and Liaison Vehicle, it would be considered in accordance with normal procurement procedures.

  AWE Aldermaston
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the experts responsible for assessing the details of tenders submitted by the consortiums applying for the contract to manage AWE Aldermaston. [118513]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The tenders were assessed by Ministry of Defence staff from the Nuclear Weapons area of the Defence Procurement Agency, the Director Nuclear Policy and the Assistant Chief Scientific Adviser (Nuclear) as well as external advisers on legal and commercial matters. Officials from the independent regulators, the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate (NII) and the Environment Agency (EA), were also kept fully informed and consulted as necessary throughout the process. I am withholding the names under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information on the grounds that, given their involvement in high security work, they are potentially vulnerable to the attentions of terrorists, foreign agencies and anti-nuclear groups.

  Docking (Military Vessels)
  Ms Squire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if Rosyth Dockyard and the Forth Estuary are docking places for the military vessels of the UK's NATO allies. [118644]

  Mr. Spellar
  MOD no longer owns either docking or berthing facilities in Rosyth. If NATO ships wished to dock in the former Naval Dockyard it would be by arrangement with the relevant commercial company. NATO warships regularly visit Leith and NATO Auxiliary vessels occasionally berth at Defence Munitions Crombie.

  Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what performance targets have been set for the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency for 2000–01. [119122]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Key Targets have been set for the Chief Executive of the Armed Forces Personnel Administration Agency (AFPAA) for the financial year 2000–01. The Targets build upon progress made by the Agency since it formed on 1 April 1997 and are as follows:

  Pay, Allowances and Pensions Payments
  While making 100 per cent. of payments of pay, allowances and pensions by the due date, the number of errors per 1,000 payments not to exceed 2.5 for pay and allowances and 2.0 for pensions.

  Currency of Personnel Records and Liabilities DATA
  Update all time-critical records within two days from receipt of valid input.

  Responsiveness
  Resolve 93 per cent. of inquiries, including written and official help desk responses, within 10 working days of receipt, across all Services where information and/or authorities is within AFPAA control.

  Efficiency
  To reduce the average unit costs to deliver AFPAA services by 3 per cent. this year.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Doorkeepers
  Angela Smith
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what is the average number of hours worked per week by full-time House of Commons Doorkeepers when the House is sitting. [118203]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  During the first three months of this year Doorkeepers have worked an average of 42½ hours in weeks when the House sat.

  Parking Facilities
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will make it his policy to charge a market rate on Members' parking facilities; and if he will make a statement. [118103]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission has no plans at present to introduce a market charge on Members' parking facilities. However, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 will allow the Authority or the London Borough of Westminster to introduce a licensing scheme for parking in the Palace of Westminster, under which they may levy a charge on the two Houses. The Commission will consider the matter if and when either authority makes proposals for a licensing scheme.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  EU-Africa Summit
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what discussions she has had with her European counterparts concerning the agenda of the EU-Africa Summit. [118048]

  Clare Short
  As Presidency of the EU, Portugal was responsible for co-ordinating preparations for the EU-Africa Summit. I discussed the Summit with the Portuguese Minister for Development when I met him on 11 January. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development also attended an informal meeting of EU Development Ministers on 28-29 January where discussion focused on the role of Europe in promoting peace, security, democracy and development in Africa.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement concerning her engagements at the time of the EU-Africa Summit in Cairo. [118051]

  Clare Short
  During the Africa-Europe Summit in Cairo on 3-4 April 2000, I was engaged in Government business. The UK Government were represented by the Foreign Secretary.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on progress made on development at the EU-Africa Summit. [118049]
  150W
  Clare Short
  The Africa-Europe Summit, Cairo 3-4 April 2000, was the first of its kind. African and European Heads of State and Government sat together to discuss key issues of mutual concern, including development issues.

  The major issues brought to the table were debt, integrating Africa into the world economy, conflict prevention, human rights and democracy, and poverty eradication. Discussions were frank and constructive.

  Follow-up procedures have been agreed including another summit in Europe in 2003. Meetings of Ministers in between the summits and the establishment of a bi-regional group at the senior official level, to meet regularly, will continue work on the issues discussed. In particular, the bi-regional groups of officials will report to Ministers on Africa's debt and the return of cultural property to its country of origin before the next Summit.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development why she did not attend the EU-Africa summit in Cairo. [118052]

  Clare Short
  The Foreign Secretary led the UK delegation at the Africa-Europe Summit. He was fully briefed by my Department and supported at senior official level. I did not consider it appropriate or necessary for me to attend the summit. The same view was taken by many of my development Minister colleagues.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what briefing her Department provided for the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs concerning the development aspects of the EU-Africa Summit. [118050]

  Clare Short
  My Department provided comprehensive briefing on development issues discussed at the Africa-Europe Summit, including regional integration within Africa, transfer of technology, debt, poverty reduction, HIV/AIDS, health and the environment. MID and other Government Departments worked together to prepare briefs on trade, conflict prevention and human rights. In addition, DFID produced and circulated a press briefing on UK Support to Africa for the Summit, covering key aspects of the UK development programme.

  Mongolia
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for changes in the level of aid to Mongolia. [118043]

  Clare Short
  Most UK aid to Mongolia will continue to be channelled through multilateral agencies. The UK contributes around £5.7 million per year through these channels and this figure is set to rise slightly over the next two to three years.

  We will also continue to offer opportunities for civil society organisations to obtain funding for poverty-focused work in Mongolia. We will continue support (at a slightly decreased level) for the Small Grants Scheme administered by the British Embassy in Ulaanbaatar.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on current British aid to Mongolia. [118046]
  151W
  Clare Short
  Most UK aid to Mongolia is channelled through multilateral agencies. Britain contributes around £5.7 million each year through these agencies.

  We also support UK Non Governmental Organisations' work in Mongolia and operate a Small Grants Scheme, administered by our Embassy in Ulaanbaatar, focusing on activities which benefit the poorest.

  In response to the current severe weather crisis, Britain is also contributing to the purchase of essential humanitarian relief supplies in Mongolia. To date the UK Government have contributed £200,000 to the relief effort.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has received from the international community concerning aid to Mongolia. [118044]

  Clare Short
  My Department has received recent representations from the Government of Mongolia, from the Mongolian Red Cross, the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, the United Nations and World Vision concerning aid to Mongolia. These representations have related to requests for assistance regarding the current humanitarian situation following Mongolia's recent extreme winter weather conditions.

  Horn of Africa
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the drought in the Horn of Africa; and what recent representations she has received from the international community concerning that drought. [118041]

  Clare Short
  The United Nations estimate that more than 12 million people face serious food shortages in the Horn of Africa. This is the result of the failure of the rains or very low rainfall in the past three years coupled with ongoing armed conflicts in the region and the presence of large numbers of refugees and displaced persons. The UN launched an appeal for £190 million on 28 January. The UN Secretary General has now appointed Catherine Bertini, Head of the World Food Programme, as his Special Envoy on the drought in the Horn of Africa. She will visit the region 11-19 April.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has for changes in the level of aid to the Horn of Africa region. [118039]

  Clare Short
  We have established a planning figure of about £23.35 million for bilateral expenditure in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Somalia and Sudan in 2000–01 compared to an expected outturn of £13.35 million for 1999–2000. This increase was programmed earlier this year following advance warning of the deteriorating food security situation in the Horn of Africa. The funds are available to support development programmes and emergency interventions. Actual expenditure for individual countries like all other planning figures are likely to vary depending on needs. In addition, the EU and other multilateral organisations to which we provide substantial support will be providing assistance to the region.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans she has to increase the amount of immediate food relief to Ethiopia; and if she will make a statement. [118363]
  152W
  Clare Short
  Since January we have committed some £4.5 million including 16,500 metric tonnes of food to help vulnerable populations in Ethiopia. About £2 million of this has been committed in the last week for food and non-food assistance to help provide relief to vulnerable people in Borana and North Omo. The food is being provided through international non-governmental organisations. We will also contribute 17 per cent. of the 432,000 metric tonnes provided by the EC this year.

  We are ready to do more as needs emerge.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent representations she has made to EU Commissioner Poul Neilson over the suspension of aid to Zimbabwe. [118055]

  Clare Short
  I have made no direct representations to Mr. Neilson on Zimbabwe. At the General Affairs Council on Monday 10 April the Foreign Secretary, on behalf of the Government, said we could support the initiation of consultations under the Lomé Convention between the European Community and the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries on co-operation with Zimbabwe. My Department and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office remain in close touch with the European Commission in Brussels and in Harare.

  Mr. Streeter
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with the Zimbabwean Government concerning the future of the bilateral aid budget. [118054]

  Clare Short
  I have had no recent discussions with the Zimbabwean Government. Our position on development assistance has been made clear in correspondence and through our High Commissioner and development office in Harare.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list recipient organisations and the amounts they have received from(a) British Government sources and (b) EU sources in aid related to infrastructure repair projects in Kosovo since 12 June 1999. [118251]

  Clare Short
  We have provided £10 million towards the cost of repairing the electricity distribution network. Our aim has been to help the local authorities and where appropriate other donors with the supply of equipment and technical advice on the electrical distribution system throughout Kosovo. We have provided £2 million to the water sector, which has included specific repairs to pumping stations. We have also supplied infrastructure equipment to allow the water companies to carry out essential repairs. In addition we have provided £250,000 for the replacement of 5,000 household water pumps through Action Against Hunger. We have also provided assistance to repair and rehabilitate the Pristina district heating system (£0.1 million).

  One component of our support to UNMIK has been to provide £700,000 for the rehabilitation of Ishtok prison and £200,000 for the refurbishment of court buildings. Both these projects have been implemented by local contractors. As part of our programme of restarting

  153W
  essential services in Pristina University Hospital, we have provided £3 million to our IEU to carry out extensive repair and rehabilitation of the hospital infrastructure, services and systems.

  In addition, DFID has committed up to £3 million to a programme of emergency works at Pristina International Airport to enable it to operate 24 hour civilian air operations at ICAO Category One standard. This project is being managed by Scott Wilson Kirkpatrick Ltd. and implemented by a combination of both international and local contractors. We have also funded GOAL with £300,000 to provide emergency winter shelter.

  Locally our Field Office in Pristina has provided £6 million for 300 Quick Impact Projects which have included community infrastructure repair projects such as schools and health clinics, as well as help to small enterprises. These projects have been implemented by a number of different organisations including the UK military and local NGOs.

  Figures for EU support could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Coal Miners (Compensation)
  Mr. Rogers
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations his Department has received from(a) general practitioners and (b) health authorities in respect of the disclosure of patient records relative to coal miners' compensation claims for (i) bronchitis and (ii) emphysema/chronic respiratory disease. [118499]

  Mrs. Liddell
  Some GPs and hospitals have been uncertain about releasing miners' medical records because they were not clear about the legal basis on which records are being sought and their own obligations. The Department has been in close consultation with the Department of Health and the BMA to enlist the help of medical record holders to ensure prompt release of records. The Department has agreed with both these bodies a statement on the legal basis for disclosure and the operational arrangements for access and copying, including the payment of appropriate fees to the record holders. On this basis, the NHS Executive has issued guidance to NHS Trusts and Health Authorities, and the BMA has also issued guidance to GPs. Both have stressed the vital part that hospitals and GPs play in assisting the compensation process. I understand that the guidance is already helping to speed up the records collection exercise, and I very much welcome the co-operation which the medical profession is showing.

  Nuclear Safety
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will place in the Library a copy of the International Atomic Energy Agency report GOV/1998/30, dated 29 May 1998. [118525]
  154W
  Dr. Howells
  The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) document GOV/1998/30 contains the text of the Protocol additional to the Agreement between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, the European Atomic Energy Community and the International Atomic Energy Agency for the Application of Safeguards in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Connection with the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.

  A copy of the protocol was laid before the House on 31 March 1999 as Misc. No.21. Command paper 4282 refers.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proposals to strengthen international nuclear safeguards Her Majesty's Government will put to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty Conference in April. [118497]

  Dr. Howells
  The UK delegation will call for all States which have not yet done so to sign and bring into force safeguards agreements with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), in accordance with their obligations under Article III on the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

  The UK delegation will also call for all States which have not yet done so to negotiate, sign and bring into force as soon as possible a protocol additional to their existing safeguards agreement with the IAEA. These protocols will be based on the Model Protocol agreed by the Board of Governors of the IAEA in 1997. The UK delegation will point to the Additional Protocol signed by the United Kingdom, the IAEA and the European Atomic Energy Community on 22 September 1998, and to the progress of the Nuclear Safeguards Bill [Lords], which contains the legislation necessary to allow entry into force of the Additional Protocol, as proof of our commitment to this process, which is designed to strengthen the existing safeguards regime.

  Rover
  Sir David Madel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if the Task Force he has set up following the BMW decision on Rover will visit the supplier plants to Rover wherever they are in the UK; and if he will make a statement. [118204]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 7 April 2000]: The Task Force set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is to assess the impact on the supplier chain, and has created a Supplier Chain Sub-Group that is lead by Grahame Broome of SMMT. The sub-group will not undertake an extensive programme of visits but is working with consultants Deloitte Touche to reach as wide a range of suppliers as possible. So far, it has devised and sent out nearly 6,700 questionnaires to businesses in Rover's supplier chain. The questionnaire is also available on an internet site and businesses are being encouraged to e-mail their responses.

  More than 300 replies have been received so far and are being analysed to inform the Task Force's work on producing proposals that will support component

  155W
  manufacturers, develop their employees, strengthen their competitiveness and assist their efforts to diversify into new sectors.

  Post Offices (Shropshire)
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list for each constituency in Shropshire the post office branches, indicating those which serve rural communities, which(a) closed and (b) opened (i) between 1979 to 1997 and (b) since May 1997. [118539]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I understand from the Post Office that as of October 1999, the numbers of post offices in each of the four parliamentary constituencies in Shropshire were as follows:

  Post Offices

  Numbers

  Shropshire North

  44

  Shrewsbury and Atcham

  42

  Ludlow

  45

  The Wrekin

  25

  The Post Office does not hold historical data by constituency for the numbers of post offices which have closed or opened, nor do they hold details by constituency of rural post offices.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Alan W. Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the minimum membership of a trade union before it can be registered with the Certification Office for Trade Unions and Employer Associations. [118742]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: There is no explicit minimum set by statute. The statutory definition of a trade union is given in section 1 of the Treaty Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. The Certification Officer has to be satisfied that an organisation meets this definition before listing it as a trade union.

  Redundancy Regulations
  Mr. Woolas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what consideration he has given under the provisions of the Redundancy Payments Regulations 1965 to advice from the Government Actuaries Department in the case of Robert Fletchers (Greenfield)v. Peter Blakeman. [118892]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has considered whether or not the Melton Medes (Fletchers) Fund meets the requirements of Regulation 3 of the Redundancy Payments Pensions Regulations 1965 and, having had regard to advice from the Government Actuary's Department, is satisfied that it does.

  Export Credit Guarantees (Zimbabwe)
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the ECGD funding for contracts relating to Zimbabwe since May 1997. [118750]
  156W
  Mr. Byers
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: ECGD provides unconditional repayment guarantees for the provision of export finance made available by commercial banks. Since May 1997, ECGD has guaranteed the following contracts:

  £ million

  Contracts

  Value

  Mobile Phone System

  15

  Refurbishment of Bulawayo Power Station

  6

  Sawmill

  3

  Land Rovers

  24

  Mobile telecommunications equipment

  6

  Prototype Fast Reactor Fuels
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) of 6 April 2000,Official Report, column 534W, on PFR fuels, if he will publish a list of those whom he considers to have an interest and are being consulted. [118809]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The groups of organisations and individuals listed have already been sent copies of the consultation paper on options for managing the fuels from Dounreay's Prototype Fast Reactor (issued 6 April). As the list shows, we recognise that a wide range of people will have an interest in this consultation, particularly in the Dounreay areas. We are interested in all informed responses on the issue; the consultation paper is available on the DTI's web site at: www.dti.gov.uk/energy/pfrfuel and further paper copies can be obtained from the Department of Trade and Industry, Bay 114, 1 Victoria Street, London SW1H OET

  Dounreay local MPs and MSPs and Scottish MEPs

  Chairmen and Clerks for the relevant Westminster Select Committees

  Convenors and Clerks for relevant Scottish Parliament Committees

  Regulators and Advisory Bodies

  Local Councils

  Relevant Government Departments and Scottish Executive

  Environmental pressure groups

  Trade Unions represented at the site

  Other local organisations and individuals

  Nuclear industry organisations.

  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) of 6 April 2000,Official Report, column 534W, on PFR fuels, what criteria are applied to determine who has an interest in the options for managing the prototype fast reactor fuels at Dounreay. [118808]

  Mrs. Liddell
  We recognise that a wide range of people will have an interest in this issue—particularly, but not exclusively, those in the Dounreay area—and the consultation on the options for managing Dounreay's PFR fuels is open to all. A wide range of people have already been sent the consultation paper; the documents are presented on the DTI's website and further paper copies are available from the Department. We are also seeking the views of all relevant advisory bodies on this issue.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Digital Broadcasting
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what percentage of repeater stations will be digitalised; and where they will be located. [118615]

  Janet Anderson
  The current digital terrestrial television (DTT) transmission plan comprises 81 transmitter sites of which 30 are relay stations. Details of these stations have already been placed on CD-ROM in the Libraries of both Houses. No decisions have been taken as to the number or location of any additional relays to be incorporated into the DTT transmission plan.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what provisions will be made for television viewers in the non-digitalised catchment areas when the analogue system is phased out. [118616]

  Janet Anderson
  Before analogue switch-over takes place, all viewers who currently receive the main free to air channels must be able to receive these channels digitally. We will be looking carefully at all the options for delivering digital services to the home to ensure that this condition is met.

  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the analogue switch-off will be permitted. [118617]

  Janet Anderson
  The analogue signal will be fully switched to digital when the three tests which the Government have set—relating to availability, affordability and take-up—have been met. Under the availability test, all viewers who can receive analogue television now (99.4 per cent.) must be able to receive the main free-to-air channels digitally; under the take-up test, 95 per cent. of consumers must have a digital receiver in the home; and under the affordability test the switch to digital must be within reach of people on low or fixed incomes. The Government expect the tests to be met between 2006 and 2010.

  National Athletics Stadium
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the cost of developing an athletics facility to host the 2005 World Athletics Championships at Picketts Lock, Enfield. [118116]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: My Department has made no estimate of such costs. UK Athletics and Sport England have submitted a range of costs for differing proposals for constructing a stadium and are now discussing the optimum solution for the Picketts Lock site.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what proportion of the estimated cost of the development of the national athletics stadium at Picketts Lock he expects to come from public funds; [118417]

  (2) what his policy is on public support for the management and running costs of the national athletics stadium at Picketts Lock; and if he will make a statement. [118421]
  158W
  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The extent of public funding or support for any stadium at Picketts Lock has yet to be determined as UK Athletics have yet to develop a detailed proposal for the site.

  Mr. Faber
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if it is his policy that all seats at the national athletics stadium at Picketts Lock should have a minimum width of 500 mm and a minimum seating row depth of 760 mm; and if he will make a statement; [118423]

  (2) what his estimate is of the cost of increasing the capacity at the planned national athletics stadium at Picketts Lock to 80,000 in the event of a successful London Olympic bid; [118422]

  (3) if it is his policy that all seats at the national athletics stadium at Picketts Lock should have a 'c' value of at least 60 mm based on a focal point on the outside edge of the outside lane around the bends; and if he will make a statement. [118420]

  Kate Hoey
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: UK Athletics is to be congratulated on securing the 2005 World Athletics Championships for London following its selection of Picketts Lock as its preferred stadium site. UK Athletics is now starting the process of drawing up detailed proposals for developing the site. The design of the stadium, its cost, funding and long term usage are matters for UK Athletics to determine in consultation, as necessary, with Sport England.

  Trafalgar Square
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will make the decision on a permanent work for the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. [118035]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The advisory panel set up under the Chairmanship of Sir John Mortimer to consider the future of the vacant plinth in Trafalgar Square is due to inform me of its recommendations in May, and I intend to publish their report as soon as possible after I have received it.

  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with Sir John Mortimer and his Committee on the fourth plinth in Trafalgar Square. [118034]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  I joined Sir John Mortimer and some members of his advisory group at their inaugural meeting in June 1999. I have had no further discussions with the group about the fourth plinth. I recently met Sir John Mortimer informally on 7 April to discuss progress and I expect to be informed of the group's recommendations in May.

  Lawyers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many lawyers are employed by his Department; and how many were employed in 1995. [117816]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  No lawyers are employed by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. Legal services are provided through an agreement between the Department and the Treasury Solicitor's Department.
  159W
  Five lawyers at the Treasury Solicitor's Department were allocated to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport as at 31 March 2000 and four were allocated to the Department for National Heritage in 1995.

TREASURY

  Working Families Tax Credit
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact of the increase in the Working Families Tax Credit on families in Northern Ireland. [117429]

  Mr. Timms
  30,722 families in Northern Ireland had been awarded the Working Families Tax Credit by the end of February 2000. In addition, 4,351 families were still on Family Credit at that date. The sum of these two figures is more than 5,000 higher than the number of Northern Ireland families with Family Credit awards current at August 1999.

  For the United Kingdom as a whole it is expected that families will get £24 per week more on average under the Working Families Tax Credit than under Family Credit. This includes families who would not have qualified for Family Credit.

  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families are receiving Working Families Tax Credit in Northern Ireland; of these how many he estimates are farming families; and what percentage of farming families in Northern Ireland this represents. [116358]

  Mr. Timms
  30,722 families in Northern Ireland had been awarded the Working Families Tax Credit by the end of February 2000. Of these, 1,149 were awards to families where the main earner was classified to the Standard Occupation Code "Farmer". It is not known how many families with children in Northern Ireland have a farmer as their main earner.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the differences are between administration targets for the handling of tax credit related claims in respect of(a) working families and (b) disabled people. [118011]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 6 April 2000]: The targets adopted by the Tax Credit Office for handling applications for Working Families Tax Credit and Disabled Person's Tax Credit for the period from 1 October 1999 to 31 March 2000 were the ones which the Benefits Agency had agreed for Family Credit and Disability Working Allowance respectively for the period from 1 April to 30 September 1999. The targets were:

  Working Families Tax Credit

  to clear 90 per cent. of express applications (those from employees making their first application) within five working days

  to clear 95 per cent. of non-express applications within 42 working days (and 60 per cent. within 13 working days)

  to process 91 per cent. of all applications accurately.

  160W
  Disabled Person's Tax Credit

  to clear 90 per cent. of applications within 43 working days (60 per cent. within 17 working days)

  to process 94 per cent. of all applications accurately.

  My hon. Friend the Paymaster General is currently discussing with the Inland Revenue all targets for the year 2000–01.

  Mr. Field
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will disaggregate by income decile the number of families claiming the child care component of the Working Families Tax Credit; [117502]

  (2) if he will disaggregate by income decile the number of people in receipt of each tax credit since its introduction. [117503]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The two tax credits introduced to date are the Working Families Tax Credit (WFTC) and the Disabled Person's Tax Credit (DPTC). Insufficient data on income are provided by applicants for these tax credits to allocate them between decile groups of income as conventionally defined for such analyses. Also, household survey data available for analysis do not yet cover families receiving the tax credits. So it is not yet possible to provide the requested analysis for recipients of the tax credits.

  Smuggling
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many customs officers were employed on anti-smuggling activities in each of the past 10 years. [117549]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The total number of Customs officers (in terms of staff years) allocated to frontier anti-smuggling work in the last 10 years, and planned for the next three years, is as follows:

  Year

  Number

  2002–03

  2,676

  2001–02

  2,576

  2000–01

  2,449

  1999–2000

  2,281

  1998–99

  2,263

  1997–98

  2,288

  1996–97

  2,288

  1995–96

  2,580

  1994–95

  2,715

  1993–94

  2,895

  1992–93

  2,895

  1991–92

  3,082

  1990–91

  3,082

  Lawyers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many lawyers are employed by his Department; and how many were employed in 1995. [117806]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Legal advice to the Treasury is provided by the Treasury Legal Advisers' Team of the Treasury Solicitor's Department. These lawyers are employed by the Treasury Solicitor's Department and then allocated to the Treasury. There were 14 legal advisers allocated to the Treasury on 1 April 1995 and
  161W
  18 on 1 April 2000. Although allocated to the Treasury, these advisers also provide some advice to other Departments.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what import duty and tax is paid on imported Beta Interferon. [118528]

  Mr. Timms
  All drugs and medicines are subject to VAT at 17½, per cent. on importation. This product is free of customs duty at importation.

  Where imported drugs and medicines are subsequently dispensed to patients on prescription, the zero-rate of VAT applies.

  VAT (Low-emissivity Glass)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will cut the rate of VAT on low-emissivity glass; and if he will make a statement. [118413]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government introduced a reduced rate for the installation of energy saving materials in all homes in the Budget. The reduced rate applies only to the installation of certain materials whose primary purpose is to save energy. Low-emissivity glass increases the energy efficiency of windows, but that feature is incidental to its main purpose.

  Budget Calculations
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what rate of inflation he used when calculating the increase in petrol duty, and VAT, announced in his recent Budget statement. [118746]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The methodology for calculating the changes in taxes to take account of inflation is set out in Appendix A1 in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which measures announced in the Budget statement were based on a forecast inflation rate. [118748]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The details of how the tax base is indexed to take account of inflation, and when a forecast is used, is set out in Appendix Al in the Financial Statement and Budget Report.

  Climate Change Levy
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost would be of extending the 80 per cent. discount on the climate change levy to horticulture for the financial year 2000–01. [118584]

  Mr. Timms
  As announced in Budget 1999, the Government intend to bring forward legislation in the Finance Bill 2000 to introduce a climate change levy with effect from April 2001. The levy will not be applied in the financial year 2000–01.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates he has made of the number of(a) men and (b) women in (i) full-time and (ii) part-time work who are aged (1) over 90, (2) 85 to 90, (3) 80 to 85, (4) 75 to 80, (5) 70 to 75 and (6) 65 to 70 years. [118648]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Gordon Prentice, dated 12 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on people of various age groups who are in employment. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  The attached table shows non-seasonally adjusted estimates from the Labour Force (LFS) which is the main source of labour market data on individuals. It gives the average number of men and women in full or part-time employment by age group between winter (December to February) 1998/9 and autumn (September to November) 1999.
  The estimates for groups over 80 years of age have been combined in the table as those for the individual age groups requested proved to be statistically unreliable.
  People aged 16 or over are classed as in employment by the LFS if they have done at least one hour of paid work (as an employee or self-employed) in the week prior to their LFS interview of if they have a job that they are temporarily away from. People who do unpaid work in a family business and people on Government-supported training and employment programmes are also included according to the International Labour Organisation convention.

  People in employment (working full or part-time by age and gender) UK, annual average, winter 1998–99 to autumn 1999

  Thousand

  Age group

  All in employment1

  In full-time employment

  In part-time employment

  Men

  65–69

  180

  69

  111

  70–74

  68

  17

  51

  75–79

  24

  2—

  20

  80 or over

  10

  2—

  9

  Women

  65–69

  112

  12

  99

  70–74

  36

  2—

  32

  75–79

  13

  2—

  12

  80 or over

  6

  2—

  2—

  1 Includes people who did not state whether they work full or part-time.

  2 Sample size too small for reliable estimate.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey, ONS

  Retail Prices Index
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what work has been carried out by the Office for National Statistics to construct a retail prices index reflecting a representative basket of goods and services used by(a) pensioners and (b) recipients of income support; and how such an index would differ from the overall index. [118036]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.
  163W
  Letter from John Kidgell to Dr. Vincent Cable, dated 12 April 2000:
  The Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS) has been asked to reply to your recent question on work carried out by the ONS on a retail price index reflecting goods and services used by pensioners and recipients of income support. I am replying in the Director's absence.
  Each quarter the ONS publishes in the Consumer Price Indices Business Monitor (MM23) separate indices for one and two pensioner households, using weights derived from relevant expenditure information from the Family Expenditure Survey (FES). These indices exclude a number of items in the Retail Prices Index (RPI), including charges for NHS services, all housing costs and staff restaurant meals. NHS charges are excluded because they are generally not paid by pensioners, and housing costs are excluded because pensioners are mostly cushioned from rises by the receipt of rebates. Pensioners do not have staff restaurant meals. For rail and bus fares, special pensioners rail and bus fare indices are substituted for the normal index household indices to allow for fare concessions available in some areas.
  Between January 1987, the latest reference period for the RPI, and the fourth quarter of 1999, the RPI increased by 66.8%. In the same period, the one-person pensioner household index increased by 50.1% and the two-person pensioner household index increased by 54.9%.
  The ONS does not construct a separate index for recipients of income support, but does construct the Rossi index each month. This is used for uprating state income-related benefits once a year. The Rossi index is the all items RPI excluding mortgage interest payments, rent, council tax and owner-occupiers' depreciation costs. This is not published, but is made available on request to the ONS.
  Between January 1987 and December 1999, the RPI increased by 67.3%. In the same period, the Rossi index increased by 61.8%.

  New Zealand Investment Exchanges
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what New Zealand investment exchanges have been recognised this year as overseas investment exchanges in the UK under sections 37 and 40 of the Financial Services Act 1986. [118941]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The New Zealand Futures and Options Exchange Ltd. (NZFOE) has been granted recognition as an Overseas Investment Exchange as of today, having satisfied the conditions under sections 37 and 40 of the Financial Services Act 1986. NZFOE is therefore able to carry out investment business in the UK.

  Better Government for Older People
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what progress his Department has made, pursuant to the Better Government for Older People programme to provide access for older people to computer training and Internet services in(a) Staffordshire and (b) England. [118395]

  Mr. Ian McCartney

  I have been asked to reply.

  The Better Government for Older People programme's pilot phase has just come to an end. The 28 local authority-led pilot projects have addressed a very wide range of issues affecting older people, including access to computers and the Internet. A report evaluating the programme and making a number of recommendations for future action is expected to be published in June. The Government hope to respond by the end of the year.

  Staffordshire is not one of the 28 pilot areas but the report will make recommendations applicable to the whole of the UK. The county council has joined the Better Government for Older People Network, the forum in
  164W
  which the pilot projects' experience is shared and discussed with other local authorities, voluntary organisations and older people and which offers access to a programme of seminars, conferences and support. The Minister of State, Department of Social Security, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker), who chairs the Inter-Ministerial Group on Older People, spoke at a BGOP Network event on New Technology in Public Services on 10 April. ICL sponsors the Network and projects in Bolton, Newcastle, Harrow, Devon, Middlesbrough and Lanarkshire.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Marginal Deduction Rates
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many households faced marginal deduction rates from employment of less than 16 hours a week that exceeded(a) 80 per cent., (b) 90 per cent. and (c) 100 per cent. (i) before the 1998 Budget, (ii) before the 1999 Budget, (iii) before the 2000 Budget and (iv) after the 2000 Budget; and if he will make a statement. [118732]

  Angela Eagle
  The information is not available.

  Benefits (Crosby)
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people are in receipt of child benefit allowance in the Crosby constituency; and what percentage they constitute of the total population of the constituency. [118686]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Child Benefit is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 11 April 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people are in receipt of child benefit allowance in the Crosby constituency; and what percentage they constitute of the total population of the constituency.
  As of 28 February 1999, the number of households receiving child benefit in the Crosby constituency was approximately 9,000. This data is based on a 5 per cent. sample of child benefit records and has been derived from the information available in that sample based on residential postcodes.
  Due to the insufficient postcode data supplied to Analytical Services Division from the child benefit computer system, it has been difficult to derive accurate statistics by constituency. The Department is however, attempting to resolve this issue by improving the quality and accuracy of the postcode data and will make this information available as soon as this is achieved.
  Population data for Crosby is also not available in the format requested. The Office of National Statistics have advised that the 1991 census survey is based on Enumeration District information and are unable to match this to constituencies.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in the age bands(a) 18 to 25, (b) 25 to 40, (c) 40 to 55 and (d) 55 to 65 years were in receipt of (i) Disability Allowance, (ii) Invalid Care Allowance, (iii) Carers Allowance, (iv) Incapacity Benefit and (v) other health-related benefit in (A) absolute

  165W
  numbers and (B) as a percentage of the total population of the Crosby constituency in each of the years 1994 to 1999. [118684]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 11 April 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about people in receipt of certain benefits in your constituency.
  Information is not available for all the relevant benefits in the format requested. Unfortunately, population figures are not available for the Crosby constituency and I cannot, therefore, express any figures as a percentage of the population.
  Prior to 1998, figures for recipients of Disability Living Allowance were based on a 5% sample and the numbers for the Crosby constituency are too small to be statistically reliable. However, since 1998, the figures are based on a 100% sample and the details for 1998 and 1999 are set out below.

  18–24

  25–39

  40–54

  55–65

  1998

  82

  417

  734

  939

  1999

  81

  389

  744

  944

  The figures for Severe Disablement Allowance cannot be provided as the sample is too small to be statistically valid and the figures for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit cannot be provided as they are not available by Parliamentary constituency.
  Figures for Invalid Care Allowance are not available by Parliamentary Constituency.
  The only other benefit paid specifically for carers is the Income Support Carers Premium. Figures by Parliamentary constituency has only been available since 1998 but the numbers in the 5% sample are too small to be statistically valid.
  For Incapacity Benefit, it is not possible to break down the age bands, as the 5% sample is too small to be statistically valid. I have provided below the total figure for the age band 18–65 for the years 1995–1999.

  Year

  Number

  1995

  2,800

  1996

  2,500

  1997

  2,700

  1998

  2,400

  1999

  2,000

  This reply covers all the sickness, disability and carer benefits.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people over the age of 65 were in receipt of a benefit other than a state pension in the Crosby constituency in each of the years from 1994 to 1999. [118683]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas, dated 11 April 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people over the age of 65 were in receipt of a benefit other than a state pension in the Crosby constituency in each of the years from 1994 to 1999.
  166W
  Some of the many benefits available to people over the age of 65 are not administered by the Benefits Agency, for example, Housing Benefit, Free Prescriptions, Travel Passes, etc.
  I can provide the following information for those benefits that the Benefits Agency is responsible for delivering.
  For Attendance Allowance (AA) and Disability Living Allowance (DLA), the figures for Crosby constituency are as follows:

  Year

  AA

  DLA

  1994

  1—

  700

  1995

  2,000

  700

  1996

  1,700

  700

  1997

  1,900

  700

  1998

  2,175

  600

  1999

  2,212

  661

  1 Sample too small to be statistically valid

  Notes:

  1. Figures up to 1997 based on a 5 per cent. sample

  2. Figures from 1998 based on a 100 per cent. sample

  For Income Support, the information is only available by parliamentary constituency from 1998. The estimated numbers in the constituency of Crosby in receipt of Income Support over the age of 65 are:

  Year

  1998

  1,800

  1999

  1,900

  For other benefits provided through the Benefits Agency for which people over age 65 may be eligible (see list below), the information is either not available by Parliamentary constituency, or the sample is too small to be statistically valid.

  Industrial Injuries Scheme Benefits

  Incapacity Benefit

  Severe Disablement Allowance

  Winter Fuel Payments

  Cold Weather Payments

  Social Fund Payments

  I hope this is helpful.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what plans he has to reduce processing times for Disability Living Allowance claims. [118519]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of Disability Living Allowance is a matter for Peter Mathison, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. Andrew George, dated 11 April 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking about the plans to reduce processing times for Disability Living Allowance (DLA) claims.
  We have been experiencing delays recently in the processing of DLA claims. We recognise that this situation is not acceptable and that ensuring the efficient and timely processing of claims is a priority. We are taking action to address the problems currently being experienced.
  To reduce delays, we have moved staff from other, less critical areas, of our business and we have set up a special team to identify further process improvements. We are also taking action to reduce variations in performance between different processing units.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that pensioners receiving Minimum Income Guarantee do not have deductions made for repayment of loans from the Social Fund; and if he will make a statement. [118335]

  Angela Eagle
  Interest-free budgeting loans from the Social Fund, designed to spread the cost of routine lump-sum expenses over a longer period, are available to a wide variety of groups receiving Income Support or income-based Jobseeker's Allowance. People who take out such loans, including pensioners receiving the Minimum Income Guarantee, are choosing to use some of their income to pay them back, by deductions from benefit, in the same way that they organise and manage their income to meet other weekly outgoings. It would not be fair or appropriate to exempt any one group from this straightforward repayment arrangement.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners are being targeted as possible qualifiers for the Minimum Income Guarantee in each of the age groups(a) 60 to 65, (b) 65 to 70, (c) 70 to 75, (d) 75 to 80, (e) 80 to 85, (f) 85 to 90 and (g) over 90 years old. [118007]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.

  Pensioners in the following age bands are being targeted as possible qualifiers for the minimum income guarantee.

  Age band

  Total count

  Male

  Female

  60–64

  398,544

  0

  398,114

  65–69

  310,207

  120,042

  190,165

  70–74

  304,452

  121,907

  182,545

  75–79

  438,302

  147,044

  291,258

  80–84

  237,822

  206,689

  31,133

  85–89

  358,822

  135,299

  223,523

  90+

  158,287

  45,001

  113,286

  Total

  2,206,436

  775,982

  1,430,024

  Better Government for Older People
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what financial assistance his Department provides, pursuant to the Better Government for Older People programme for older people who seek access to computer training and Internet services. [118397]

  Mr. Rooker
  This Department actively supports the Better Government for Older People programme, with many local offices working with the programme to examine ways to improve access to services for older people. While this has included a wide range of initiatives, none has provided access to computer training.

  We recognise the need to provide quality services for older people and that they have their own needs and preferences as to how these are delivered. This is why we intend to bring together the current services the Department provides for pensions and pensioners into a new organisation. It will provide a unified, modern service for today's pensioners, whether they choose to deal with the Department by telephone, by post, face-to-face or through the Internet.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Global Environmental Change
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what assessment he has made of the recent report published by the Economic and Social Research Council on its global environmental change programme. [116985]

  Mr. Meacher
  These reports were received by the Department on 5 and 7 April; they are being studied at present.

  London Underground
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many attributable(a) delays of 15 minutes or more and (b) station closures there were on London Underground on each line in (i) 1997, (ii) 1998 and (iii) 1999; what changes there have been since 1997 in the way the figures are compiled; and what impact these changes have had on the figures. [117074]

  Mr. Hill
  This is an operational matter for the London Underground who provide the information in the table to the London Regional Passenger Committee on a quarterly basis.

  Year

  Number

  Train delays 15 minute or over

  1997

  1,711

  1998

  1,820

  1999

  2,178

  Station closures 15 minutes or over

  1997

  1,304

  1998

  746

  1999

  1,088

  These figures need to be considered within the context of an increase in services which contributed to a rise in train kilometres operated in 1999–2000 to an estimated 63.1 million.

  There have been no changes in the way these figures have been compiled.

  To provide the figures on a line by line basis would incur disproportionate cost.

  Bus Shelters
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new bus shelters have been built in each year since 1992; and how many shelters were upgraded in each year. [117272]

  Mr. Hill
  Figures provided by London Transport, who have powers to erect and maintain bus shelters in London, are shown in the table (1996–97 is the first year annual figures are available in the form requested).
  169W

  Built

  Upgraded

  1996–97

  45

  1,230

  1997–98

  0

  1,360

  1998–99

  630

  790

  1999–2000

  565

  335

  My Department does not have comparable figures for outside London, where the provision and maintenance of bus shelters is a matter for local authorities and bus operators.

  EU Environment Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what was the outcome of the Environment Council held in Brussels on 30 March; and if he will make a statement. [117691]

  Mr. Meacher
  I represented the UK at the Environment Council in Brussels on 30 March 2000. Three sets of Council Conclusions were agreed, and proposals to tackle acidification, and on environmental liability, were debated.

  Through Council Conclusions, a strategy for addressing threats to the environment from endocrine disrupting chemicals was endorsed, as outlined in a recent Commission Communication. The strategy will involve the establishment of a priority list of substances for evaluation and to prioritise testing. The need for quick and effective risk management measures where preliminary scientific evaluation reveals grounds for concern was also identified.

  Council Conclusions were also agreed in response to the Commission Communication on a review of the fifth Environment Action Programme. These will assist the Commission in preparing a proposal for the sixth Environment Action Programme, due by the end of this year. The Council called for this to be a strategic document, setting clear priorities for the next 10 years and promoting a range of instruments to break the link between economic growth and environmental pressures. Climate change, waste management, resource use, biodiversity, soil degradation, desertification and reducing the environmental and health risks caused by chemicals and GMOs were identified as priorities for the programme. The need for better analysis of environmental issues and the costs and advantages of measures was also noted as was the need to improve implementation and enforcement of Community environmental legislation.

  In advance of the Fifth Meeting of the Conference of Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity to be held in Nairobi next month, Council Conclusions set out the EU position on the main issues on the agenda. Ministers were also updated on the successful conclusion of the negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol in January.

  £ million

  1997–981

  1998–991

  1999–20002

  2000–013

  2001–023

  (a) Cash terms

  Housing and other

  3,186

  3,385

  3,726

  4,360

  4,981

  Regeneration (including New Deal for Comunities)

  1,405

  1,183

  1,452

  1,542

  1,832

  Transport

  2,940

  2,680

  3,193

  3,599

  3,843

  London Underground, Rail Franchise Payments4 and CTRL5

  2,075

  1,751

  1,935

  1,338

  1,225

  Total DETR

  9,606

  8,998

  10,307

  10,838

  11,881

  of which:

  Current Budget

  4,109

  4,021

  4,581

  4,736

  4,940

  Capital Budget

  5,498

  4,977

  5,726

  6,103

  6,941

  170W
  There was also some discussion on the Community position for the next Conference of Parties to the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES), taking place in April.

  Ministers debated, for the second time, two related proposals to improve air quality. The first would set national emission ceilings on emissions of air pollutants that cause acidification, eutrophication and ground level ozone formation, and the second, target values for ozone in ambient air. Agreement had not been possible on a related proposal controlling emissions from large combustion plants, considered at the last Environment Council in December. Further negotiations on these measures are expected in the remainder of the Portuguese Presidency.

  A first Ministerial discussion was held on the White Paper on Environmental Liability, adopted by the Commission in February. The Commission presented two recently published policy documents on climate change, one concerned with an EU wide emissions trading scheme and the other on common and co-ordinated policies and measures. Climate change was further discussed over lunch when Ministers considered preparations for the Sixth Conference of Parties to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change taking place in November.

  Presentations to Council were also given by the Commission on its Communication outlining the application of the Precautionary Principle, and on environmental indicators. The Presidency reported on the progress of two dossiers subject to conciliation with the European Parliament, the draft Water Framework Directive and draft End of Life Vehicles Directive. In response to a Swedish point under Any Other Business, I explained that I hoped shortly to forward to the Commission a completed environmental risk assessment and risk reduction strategy for the brominated flame retardant penta-BDE, and encouraged other member states to agree prompt action.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list his Department's expenditure limits, including any revisions following the Budget, for the years 1997–98 to 2001–02 on a consistent basis in the format of table 8.1 of the report, Modern Public Services for Britain (Cm 4011), in(a) cash terms and (b) current prices. [117500]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 3 April 2000]: The table sets out the position on my Department's Main Programmes Departmental Expenditure Limit for the years 1997–98 to 2001–02, including the revisions announced in the Budget and £40 million provided subsequently for London Underground, in (a) cash terms and (b) current (2000–01) prices.
  171W

  £ million

  1997–981

  1998–991

  1999–20002

  2000–013

  2001–023

  (b) Current (2000–01 prices)

  Housing and other

  3,448

  3,548

  3,810

  4,360

  4,860

  Regeneration (including New Deal for Communities)

  1,521

  1,240

  1,485

  1,542

  1,787

  Transport

  3,182

  2,809

  3,265

  3,599

  3,749

  London Underground, Rail Franchise Payments4 and CTRL5

  2,246

  1,835

  1,979

  1,338

  1,195

  Total DETR

  10,396

  9,430

  10,538

  10,838

  11,591

  of which:

  Current Budget

  4,447

  4,214

  4,684

  4,736

  4,820

  Capital Budget

  5,950

  5,216

  5,855

  6,103

  6,772

  1 Outturn

  2 Estimated outturn

  3 Planned

  4 Includes sSRA

  5 Channel Tunnel Rail Link

  Note:

  Figures may not sum due to rounding

  Public Transport (North-east)
  Mr. Kemp
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make public transport in the North East more affordable and accessible to those on low incomes. [117943]

  Mr. Hill
  For the three years 1998–99 to 2000–01 we are providing £1.3 million a year for additional rural bus services in the North East. In 1998–99 that money provided for 105 new or enhanced services. Further, we have provided £2.3 million for seven projects in the North East as part of the Rural Bus Challenge competitions, which aim to stimulate innovation in rural bus services.

  The Transport Bill at present before Parliament contains provisions to guarantee that all elderly people will be entitled to at least half-price travel on local buses; we have recently announced that any associated bus pass will be free of charge. These measures will bring benefit to all regions but will be particularly welcome in areas where at present the local authority offer a less generous concessionary fare scheme, or none at all.

  In addition, we have commissioned research to identify transport measures that could help to reduce social exclusion. The research, which is due to be completed shortly, looks specifically at the needs of people on low incomes.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his oral answer of 4 April 2000,Official Report, column 809, on second homes, what is the estimated timescale for making a decision on granting discretionary powers to local authorities to apply full council tax on second homes in certain circumstances. [118189]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Applying full council tax to second homes was one of the proposals made by respondents to our consultation last year on rural issues. We expect to publish our proposals for tackling rural problems in a Rural White Paper in the summer.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will declare 172W
  a moratorium on the siting of telecommunications masts in residential areas until the health and safety implications have been fully explored. [118290]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones, set up at the instigation of the Government and chaired by Sir William Stewart FRS FRSE, is currently considering the possible health effects of the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters and is conducting a comprehensive assessment of existing research. The Group is expected to finalise its report shortly. The Government will consider the Group's recommendations and issue a response.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what measures he can take to increase the number of trains stopping at the Shotton and Hawarden railway stations; and if he will make a statement. [118191]

  Mr. Hill
  The Passenger Service Requirements in franchise agreements specify the minimum number of services which must call at particular stations. Train operators may provide additional services where they perceive a demand. Where additional calls at particular stations require additional subsidy this may be provided by local authorities, or through our Rail Passenger Partnership scheme.

  Trains (Bicycle Carriage)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent discussions he has had with rail operators concerning ways of further facilitating the use of trains by cyclists with particular reference to(a) the removal or reduction of carriage charges for bicycles and (b) improvements in storage; and if he will make a statement. [118100]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State has had no such discussions. The current franchise agreements permit train operators to make a reasonable charge for carrying bicycles although this is a matter for the operators' commercial discretion and a number do not levy any charges. In the current franchise replacement negotiations, we have asked the Franchising Director to promote the
  173W
  use of bicycles by seeking the reasonable provision by train operators of facilities for the carriage of cycles on trains and the storage of cycles at stations.

  Local Deprivation Index
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what extra work is being carried out on the Index of Local Deprivation concerning(a) factor analysis, (b) shrinkage and (c) exponential distribution; and if he will make a statement. [118552]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  All of the points raised during the consultation on the methodology have been considered and where necessary investigated through further data testing. A detailed response to the consultation, including the points raised on factor analysis, shrinkage and the exponential distribution will be released at the same time as we publish the new Index.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the 1999 rankings of local authority wards by level of deprivation will be released. [118551]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Index of Local Deprivation will be published within the next few months. At the same time all of the 1999 rankings of wards will be released.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what consultation his Department is planning to hold with(a) the Local Government Association, (b) special interest groups of metropolitan authorities and (c) the Association of London Government before the publication of the new index of local deprivation. [118555]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The review of the Index of Local Deprivation has been subject to four rounds of consultation lasting 167 days in all. In addition the review has been overseen by a large inter departmental steering committee which included a representative from the Local Government Association. No further rounds of consultation are planned.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will release the new information on the index of local deprivation gathered as a consequence of the recent consultation exercise; and when the summary index on the new proposals will be published. [118553]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The new Index of Local Deprivation will be published within the next few months. A detailed document outlining our response to the consultation will be released at the same time.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he plans to publish the study indexing poverty and prosperity by local authorities, compiled for his Department by Oxford university. [118498]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Index of Local Deprivation which covers all local authority districts and wards in England will be published within the next few months.

  Devon County Council
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what response he 174W
  has made to the request from Devon county council for dispensation to pay for its redundancy and restructuring costs over a period of years. [118503]

  Ms Armstrong
  Devon county council asked to be allowed to treat these revenue costs as capital expenditure. Such applications are granted only when we conclude, in accordance with published criteria, that the costs could not be met out of available revenue resources. My officials have notified the council that, on the basis of the figures provided in January, the criteria are not satisfied and that consent will not be given.

  Housing (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to the oral statement by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), of 21 March 2000,Official Report, column 181WH, what his assessment is of the potential for Hampshire county council to (a) reconsider the designation of land in its current plan and (b) increase further the provision for housing on previously used land. [118549]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have not made any such assessment.

  Hampshire county council together with the unitary authorities will, in the light of advice in Planning Policy Guidance Note PPG3 and the emerging Regional Planning Guidance for the South East (RPG), need to review their structure plan and bring forward alterations they consider necessary.

  Meanwhile, the district and unitary authorities are required to consider PPG3 and the emerging RPG in preparing their local plans in conformity with the newly-adopted structure plan. The structure plan only distributes housing to district level, and apart from the four Major Development Areas, is not prescriptive. The districts, therefore, need to consider how to meet their requirements taking account of the advice in PPG3 on such matters as maximising use of land, avoiding inefficient development, encouraging higher densities and a wider variety of dwellings, thus reducing land take. In bringing forward their local plan proposals they should also take account of our advice to recycle existing buildings and to review all non-housing allocations including industrial and commercial allocations.

  Speed Limits (HGVs)
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what powers he has to alter the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles on single carriage-way trunk roads. [118327]

  Mr. Hill
  Vehicle speed limits are set out in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and may be varied by regulation under the provision of section 86 of that Act. There are no plans to amend the maximum speed limits applicable to heavy goods vehicles on single carriageway roads. These are 50 mph for goods vehicles up to 7.5 tonnes maximum laden weight and 40 mph for those exceeding 7.5 tonnes.

  Merchant Navy
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many British ratings were employed in the UK Merchant Fleet in each of the last five years. [118355]

  Mr. Hill
  The Maritime and Coastguard Agency obtains data on UK seafarers from the Chamber of Shipping. The latest data available for UK ratings employed (by companies who are members of the Chamber) show that the figure is 11,340 as at May 1999.

  A ratings task force, chaired by the Chamber of Shipping, has been set up and job opportunities for ratings will be considered.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many Merchant Navy officer cadets began training in the UK in each of the last five years. [118354]

  Mr. Hill
  The numbers of merchant navy officer cadets who began training in the UK in each of the last five years are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995–96

  398

  1996–97

  460

  1997–98

  465

  1998–99

  494

  1999–2000

  480

  These figures relate only to cadets supported under the Government funded training schemes Government Assistance for Training (GAFT) prior to 1997–98 and Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) since then.

  Shipping
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many new vessels were delivered to UK private-sector shipowners in each of the last five years; and what were their total cost and total tonnage. [118356]

  Mr. Hill
  Detailed information for the last nine available years is presented in Table 7.8 of Maritime Statistics 1998, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. This shows the number and value of expenditure of new ships delivered to UK private sector ship owners.

  The information is summarised in the table.

  Deliveries of new ships to UK private sector ship owners

  Number

  Value of Expenditure (£ million)

  1994

  16

  283

  1995

  13

  472

  1996

  14

  78

  1997

  25

  298

  1998

  16

  261

  No information is readily available on the tonnage of these ships.

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many foreign ships have been inspected under port state control 176W
  arrangements in UK ports in each of the last five years; of those how many and what proportion had to be detained; and what percentage of inspected ships were found to have deficiencies. [118353]

  Mr. Hill
  The figures for foreign-flagged ships inspected by the UK under Port State Control are as follows:

  Year

  Number PSC Inspections

  Number detained

  Percentage detained

  Percentage with deficiencies

  1995–96

  2,098

  206

  9.8

  70.5

  1996–97

  1,880

  157

  8.4

  71.3

  1997–98

  1,890

  179

  9.5

  73.0

  1998–99

  1,980

  155

  7.8

  74.8

  1999–20001

  1,800

  107

  5.9

  72.2

  1 Provisional figures

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many inspections were carried out by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in each of the last five years. [118352]

  Mr. Hill
  The figures for the numbers of ships inspected by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in each of the last five financial years are as follows:

  Year

  Part State Control Inspections

  Inspections of UK Ships

  1995–96

  2,098

  5,293

  1996–97

  1,880

  4,626

  1997–98

  1,890

  3,289

  1998–99

  1,980

  3,668

  1999–20001

  1,800

  3,783

  I1 Provisional figure

  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many marine surveyors were employed by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in each of the last five years. [118351]

  Mr. Hill
  Figures requested are given in the table. The Marine Safety Agency merged with the Coastguard Agency to become the Maritime and Coastguard Agency on 1 April 1998.

  Staff in post, figures as at 31 March 2000

  Year

  Number

  1996

  166.5

  1997

  159

  1998

  160

  1999

  160

  2000

  149

  Disabled Drivers
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what contingency plans he has made for providing continuing cover for parking for disabled drivers if badges were not received by 1 April; [118735]

  (2) if he will make a statement on progress with the introduction of the new disabled parking badges. [118592]
  177W
  Mr. Hill
  The regulations to introduce the new blue parking badge for disabled people came into effect on 1 April.

  Distribution of the new blue badges took place during the last week in March to local authorities who had placed orders. The majority of those local authorities received badges ready for business on Monday, 3 April. However, owing to some technical problems at the printer/supplier, some authorities did not receive the badges until Tuesday, 4 April.

  My Department were informed by our supplier at the end of March that some local authorities had not placed orders for badges, despite letters prompting them to do so from both the Department and the badge supplier. Officials have since written again to all local authorities on this issue. From the checks we have carried out, and from the information provided by the supplier, we believe almost all local authorities have placed orders and have received a supply of badges. We have, however, taken the precaution of writing to ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) asking them to advise members not to take enforcement action against anyone displaying an orange badge which expires in April which is otherwise being used in accordance with the regulations.

  We regret that the transition has not been as smooth as we would have wished, but we hope the action we have taken will avoid any distress or confusion for any disabled motorist who has difficulty getting a blue badge.

  Contaminated Land
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what effect the contaminated land regime which came into force for England on 1 April will have on the programme of financial support to English local authorities and to the Environment Agency to meet the costs of dealing with contaminated land. [118940]

  Mr. Mullin
  The new contaminated land regime (under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990–inserted by section 57 of the Environment Act 1995) came into force in England on 1 April 2000. The Contaminated Land Supplementary Credit Approval (SCA) programme will continue to provide support to English local authorities to deal with contamination. The SCA programme will assist these local authorities in dealing with sites, for which they are responsible, that are deemed to be "contaminated land" under Part IIA. £21 million has been made available under this programme for 2000–01.

  The SCA programme has provided valued support to English local authorities in dealing with contaminated land and, in later years, provided additional grand in aid to the Environment Agency. Under the new regime the grant will be available to the Agency in respect of their new duties for contaminated sites that are designated "Special Site" under Part IIA.

  Authorities with on-going contractual commitments for projects funded in previous years have already received notification that support will continue to be available this year. I have agreed the programme for new projects to start this year and my Department has written today to the successful authorities and to the Environment Agency notifying them of the financial allocations which are being made.
  178W
  The Department will discuss the other bids with the authorities concerned and expects to make some further allocations. It will also decide new bids when they are received.

  The table sets out the allocations which have been made so far this current financial year.

  Local authority

  Number of sites

  Allocation for each authority (£)

  Alnwick DC

  1

  17,000

  Bedfordshire CC

  1

  70,000

  Bexley LB

  1

  50,000

  Bristol City

  1

  100,000

  Calderdale MBC

  1

  100,000

  Derby City

  2

  49,000

  Derbyshire CC

  5

  288,462

  Devon CC

  7

  213,500

  Dudley MBC

  1

  540,000

  Durham CC

  3

  88,500

  Ealing LB

  1

  23,851

  Exeter City

  1

  332,414

  Gateshead MBC

  3

  2,499,350

  Hillingdon LB

  1

  20,000

  Lancaster City

  1

  43,481

  Leicester City

  5

  123,700

  Merseyside WDA

  3

  397,000

  Milton Keynes C

  1

  100,000

  Newcastle-under-Lyme BC

  1

  7,000

  Newham LB

  2

  1,432,860

  North East Lincolnshire C

  1

  44,000

  North Lincolnshire C

  1

  2,278,570

  Nottingham City

  2

  401,713

  Oldham MBC

  3

  30,300

  Oxfordshire CC

  9

  493,793

  Plymouth City

  1

  6,361

  Portsmouth City

  1

  50,000

  Rotherham MBC

  2

  177,628

  Sandwell MBC

  17

  373,249

  Solihull MBC

  1

  89,229

  South Holland DC

  1

  12,750

  St. Helens MBC

  1

  150,000

  Tameside MBC

  2

  28,000

  Trafford MBC

  1

  20,500

  Vale Royal BC

  1

  10,000

  Warwickshire CC

  2

  247,400

  Warrington BC

  2

  76,135

  West Sussex CC

  1

  672,000

  Worcester City

  1

  5,000

  Worcestershire CC

  1

  6,000

  Environment Agency

  8

  1,164,000

  Roads (Greater London)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions which roads are to become the first Greater London Authority roads and Greater London Authority side roads; and if he will make a statement. [119094]

  Mr. Hill
  We consulted extensively in 1998 on which roads should be the responsibility of the Mayor and we announced the Government's intentions for the GLA road network in February 1999. The GLA road network is based on the current red and primary route networks with some adjustments in central London and docklands. Earlier this year, we consulted further on the detail of the orders needed to create the network we had announced. We received 53 responses. Many of these were technical drafting suggestions, but there were 26 which either
  179W
  supported or opposed the inclusion of Belgrave Road in Pimlico. I have placed a summary of all the representations in the Library of the House.

  I have considered carefully all the representations received. In the case of Belgrave Road, the Traffic Director for London has confirmed he is content with Westminster City council's proposals for traffic management in the area and the council has given assurances that they will undertake the necessary works. In the light of this, I have concluded that Belgrave Road should not be designated as a GLA road now. From 8 May, it will be for the Mayor to keep the GLA road network under review. The Mayor may change the GLA road network with the agreement of the local borough, or in the absence of such agreement, with the confirmation of the Secretary of State.

  I have placed maps of the first GLA road network in the Library and shall shortly lay orders to designate the first GLA roads for which Transport for London, the Mayor's new transport executive, will be the highway and traffic authority from 3 July. I shall also be laying 32 GLA Side Roads Orders, one for each borough in which there are GLA roads. These orders will give Transport for London traffic authority powers over small sections of side roads associated with the GLA roads which are currently subject to red route controls.

  Oil Stores (Water Pollution)
  Mr. Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to prevent water pollution from oil stores. [119203]

  Mr. Meacher
  I am today announcing the issue of a consultation paper seeking comments by 12 July on proposals to introduce new controls on water pollution from oil stores in England. I understand that the National Assembly for Wales is considering introducing similar proposals in due course.

  Oil-related water pollution incidents in England accounted for 30 per cent. of all water pollution in 1998, mainly due to leaks from unbunded oil storage tanks. It is my intention to introduce new Regulations later this year to reduce the number of such oil-related incidents in England by about a half by the year 2005. This would be achieved by setting design standards for all above ground oil stores and requiring that secondary containment, such as a "bund" (a surrounding wall) or "drip tray" is in place to prevent oil escaping into controlled waters.

  Oil pollution of fresh waters has grown in recent years, causing harm to wildlife, damage to our rivers and disruption to water supplies. These proposed new Regulations would be a cost-effective measure that would help to protect the environment.

  Those mainly affected by the proposed new Regulations would include anyone storing oil on industrial, commercial, institutional (residential and non-residential) premises. There would be exceptions in certain circumstances, for example, where other controls exist or where the controls would not be cost-effective. Underground oil storage tanks can be regulated by the Environment Agency under the Groundwater Regulations 1998 and it is not considered necessary to introduce further controls.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Personal Envoys
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs under what code of conduct personal envoys operate. [116354]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 28 March 2000]: Any individual acting on behalf of the Government is subject to the normal requirements including confidentiality and accountability to Ministers.

  Kosovo
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which NATO member states' parliaments passed resolutions endorsing NATO's military action over Kosovo. [117828]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 6 April 2000]: According to our information, the parliaments of Germany, Denmark and Turkey passed formal resolutions on NATO's military actions over Kosovo. The Hungarian parliament approved the use of Hungarian airspace and airbases by NATO. The US House of Representatives also passed a resolution expressing support for the US Armed Forces engaged in military operations against FRY.

  Russian Nuclear Arsenal
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to President Putin of Russia in respect of his recent statements on the capacity of the Russian nuclear arsenal. [118495]

  Mr. Vaz
  We have noted Acting President Putin's recent comments on the need for a reduced but more effective nuclear deterrent. We welcome his call for the early ratification of START H and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and for early negotiations on the START III treaty.

  These issues were most recently discussed at senior official level during last month's annual UK-Russian strategic stability talks.

  UNIFIL
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Government have been asked to consider contributing troops to an expanded UNIFIL in the event of an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon by(a) the Israeli Government, (b) the Lebanon Government and (c) other Governments. [118311]

  Mr. Hain
  The British Government have received no requests to consider contributing troops to an expanded UNIFIL in the event of an Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon by either(a) the Israeli Government, (b) the Lebanon Government or (c) other governments.

  Burma
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations Her Majesty's Government have made to the Burmese Government concerning the sentence imposed on Mr. James Mawdsley in Burma and his treatment in prison. [118658]
  181W
  Mr. Hain
  Our Ambassador in Rangoon regularly raises James's case with the Burmese authorities, including the Foreign Minister, Minister of Home Affairs and the Deputy Foreign Minister. The Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, also summoned the Burmese Ambassador in September last year to express our concerns about the case. Our Embassy have sent 43 official notes and one official letter to date.

  In particular, we have protested about:

  the failure of the Burmese authorities to inform us of his arrest;

  the delay over consular access;

  the denial of legal representation;

  the length of the sentence;

  mistreatment in prison;

  lack of access to reading and writing material;

  length of recreation time;

  delay in getting the trial transcript;

  delays in receiving food parcels, letters and books.

  We will continue to do everything we can to help James and remain in frequent contact with his family.

  Serbia and Montenegro
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the British Government are making contingency plans for intervention if Montenegrin steps towards independence are violently opposed by Serbia. [118253]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: The international community, including the UK, is watching the situation in and around Montenegro closely. It would not be sensible to comment on contingency plans.

  Intelligence Service Tribunal
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what arrangements have been made following the expiry of the terms of appointment of the members of the Intelligence Service Tribunal on 15 December 1999; and if he will make a statement. [119095]

  Mr. Robin Cook
  Lord Justice Mummery has been appointed as President of the Tribunal for a period of five years, following his predecessor's acceptance of an appointment to the post of Intelligence Services Commissioner. Sheriff John McInnes has been reappointed as Vice President of the Tribunal and both he and Sir Richard Gaskell have been re-appointed to the Tribunal for a further period of five years.

  Lord Justice Simon Brown, formerly president of the Intelligence Services Tribunal, has accepted an appointment as the Intelligence Services Commissioner for a period of three years from 1 April 2000.

WALES

  Works of Art
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how much has been spent on(a) the upkeep and (b) the purchase of works of art in his Department for each financial year since 1992. [117471]
  182W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Arts on 4 April 2000,Official Report, column 392W.

  In addition, some works of art displayed within my Department are on loan from the National Museum and Galleries of Wales. My Department does not own any works of art, and no expenditure has been incurred since 1992 towards either upkeep or purchase.

  Economy
  Mr. Barry Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary concerning the state of the Welsh economy; and if he will make a statement. [116231]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Secretary and discuss a range of issues.

  It is the sound policies of this Government that continue to build on our growing economy. The Budget is excellent news for the Welsh economy and will see Wales benefiting from increased spending on a number of valuable services. The health service in Wales will get an extra £99 million in 2000–01 from the Budget. Additionally, Wales will get a £50 million share for education and around £9.1 million for transport.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Computers for Teachers Initiative
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many and what percentage of teachers have taken up the Computers for Teachers Initiative in England since its implementation; and if he will make a statement on the benefits of the scheme. [118702]

  Mr. Wills
  To date the DfEE has received some 9,000 applications under this initiative since its launch on 12 January 2000. This represents some 2.3 per cent. of teachers in England in the first three months of the scheme. This initiative is one of a series of initiatives to increase access to computers by teachers and headteachers.

  The major financial incentive of up to £500 subsidy on the purchase of quality assured and high specification computer packages will encourage teachers to participate fully in the Information Age. Teacher competence and confidence in their personal use of ICT should be raised as take-up will be conditional on undertaking training in ICT use in the classroom available to teachers through the New Opportunities Fund. This in turn will benefit their approach to the use of ICT in the classroom. In this way, standards will be raised across all subjects, and school administration and management will be improved.

  Curriculum 2000
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding is provided for Curriculum 2000 for each local education authority for the financial year 2000–01. [118559]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: Funding of £35 million for the Curriculum 2000 reforms has been included in Education Standard Spending for 2000–01.
  183W
  Since local authority funding is unhypothecated, it would not be meaningful to break this figure down to local education authority level.

  Capital Allocations (Cleethorpes)
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total capital allocation since May 1997 to schools in the Cleethorpes constituency; and if he will break down these capital allocations by category. [118654]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is in the table.

  £000

  Capital programme

  Amount allocated to schools in the Cleethorpes constituency since May 1997

  Surplus Place Removal1

  882

  New Deal for Schools

  2,263

  Schools Access Initiative

  80

  Energy Management

  13

  Class Sizes

  1,149

  Grant for Voluntary Aided schools

  536

  Devolved Formula Capital

  401

  Total2

  5,324

  1 Although credit approval was allocated in respect of projects to remove surplus places from schools in the Cleethorpes constituency, the local education authorities (LEAs) arc not obliged to use the credit approval for those schools.

  2 We have made other capital allocations to the LEAs covered by the Cleethorpes constituency, but it is for the LEAs to decide which schools will benefit from the use of those allocations.

  Pupil Behaviour
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps the Government are taking to help schools improve pupil behaviour. [118678]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: We are making nearly £500 million available over three years to help schools improve pupil behaviour. This is backed up with new guidance on "Social Inclusion: Pupil Support" issued last July which offers schools advice on good practice in tackling pupils' behavioural problems. In addition, the Excellence in Cities initiative includes the provision of Learning Mentors and Learning Support Units to help school better manage disruptive pupils.

  And the new Connexions service will complement these initiatives in providing coherent and co-ordinated support for all young people when and where they need it to enable them to participate effectively in appropriate learning.

  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what assessment his Department has made of the impact on standards of educational achievement of poor behaviour in schools. [118677]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: My Department has not carried out an assessment of the impact of poor behaviour on achievement. However, data in the Department's Youth Cohort Study show that in 1997 31 per cent. of truanting pupils gained no GCSEs, compared to only 4 per cent. of non-truanting pupils.
  184W
  In addition, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of School's latest annual report, published in February, shows the clear link between standards of behaviour and educational achievement. For example, in the majority of secondary schools pupils have positive attitudes to their lessons and to school; however, in a minority, pupils' attitudes to learning are particularly poor in Year 9 because not enough is done to respond to early indicators of pupil disaffection.

  University for Industry
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the establishment of the University for Industry. [118373]

  Mr. Wills
  Excellent progress is being made. UfI Ltd. are on track to launch their products and services nationally in the autumn. A major publicity campaign began on 19 March to heighten public awareness of UfI Ltd.'s learndirect brand and to stimulate demand for learning among adults. This is underpinned by the learndirect information and advice telephone helpline which has helped over one million callers.

  Seventy-seven learndirect Development Centres across England, Wales and Northern Ireland are now working with UfI Ltd. to test out aspects of their services and systems as well as developing new approaches to the delivery of flexible learning. The centres are currently piloting 24 on-line products.

  UfI Ltd. are maintaining a rolling process of updating and extending the range of products to be included in their portfolio for the autumn. Their initial priorities are basic skills, ICT skills at all levels and business skills for SMEs. Over 60 per cent. of the learning portfolio will be available on-line initially and people will be able to access learndirect products and services at home, in the workplace or at learning centres nation-wide. The learndirect information and advice service will also be available on-line from May.

  Academic Staff
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what response he has sent to the recent AUT/London University Institute of Education joint paper on the involvement of academic staff in the wider economy. [118430]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government are already encouraging universities to forge links with the wider economy. The DfEE and DTI are funding, in partnership with the Higher Education Funding Council for England and the Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment in Northern Ireland, the Higher Education Reach-out to Business and the Community Fund. Around £83 million is expected to be spent over six financial years. The fund aims to achieve systematic and sustainable change within universities and in how they relate to business through, for example, establishing centres of expertise in business links within universities, and training and development for staff, including programmes of staff exchange.

  Special Needs
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement
  185W
  on the composition, financing and operations of the 11 Special Educational Needs Regional Co-ordination Projects in England. [118645]

  Jacqui Smith
  The 11 Special Education Needs Regional Co-ordination Projects are formed as follows:

  North East
  Redcar and Cleveland, Durham, Northumberland, Newcastle upon Tyne, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, Gateshead, Sunderland, Darlington, Hartlepool, Stockton-on-Tees and Middlesbrough.

  East of England
  Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Essex, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Luton, Norfolk, Southend-on-Sea, Peterborough and Thurrock.

  London
  All 33 London boroughs.

  Merseyside
  St. Helens, Halton, Liverpool, Knowsley, Sefton and Wirral.

  South West
  Devon, Cornwall, North Somerset, City of Bristol, South Gloucestershire, Plymouth, Torbay, Somerset, Bath and North East Somerset, Gloucestershire, Swindon, Wiltshire, Bournemouth, Dorset, Poole and Isles of Scilly.

  West Midlands
  Coventry, Dudley, Sandwell, Solihull, Wolverhampton, Warwickshire, Walsall, Telford and Wrekin, Birmingham, Staffordshire, Stoke on Trent, Worcestershire, Shropshire and Herefordshire.

  North West
  Lancashire, Blackpool, Blackburn with Darwin, Wigan, Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham, Tameside, Stockport, Manchester, Trafford, Salford, Warrington, Cheshire and Cumbria.

  South East
  Kent, Brighton and Hove, East Sussex, Medway, Surrey and West Sussex.

  South Central
  Hampshire, Bracknell Forest, Buckinghamshire, Isle of Wight, Milton Keynes, Oxfordshire, Portsmouth, Reading, Slough, Southampton, West Berkshire and Windsor and Maidenhead.

  East Midlands
  Northamptonshire, Derby, Derbyshire, Leicester, Leicestershire, Lincolnshire, Nottingham, Nottinghamshire and Rutland.

  Yorkshire and the Humber
  Kirklees, Barnsley, Bradford, Calderdale, Doncaster, East Riding of Yorkshire, City of Kingston upon Hull, Leeds, North East Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire, North Yorkshire, Rotherham, Sheffield, Wakefield and York.

  Each Project is bringing together local education authorities, private and voluntary organisations with relevant interests, health and social services, and training providers. The Department for Education and Employment is providing almost £1 million this year to support the network.

  Each Project has determined its own focus and priorities to ensure that they address issues of concern within their region. The focus of the projects ranges from providing for pupils with low incidence disabilities to strategic planning to support inclusion. Early evidence shows that these projects will help to improve and to make more coherent services for children with special educational needs or disabilities.
  186W
  A formal evaluation programme is in place. Early findings should be available in late summer. We also plan to publish a first set of good practice case studies during the autumn term.

  Teachers (Performance-related Pay)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what account has been taken of the situation of(a) disabled and (b) part-time teachers in the threshold procedures for performance-related pay. [118372]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The new performance threshold arrangements are accessible to all qualified teachers, including disabled and part-time teachers covered by the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Documents. Teachers' applications will be assessed in the context in which the applicant works. The assessment is about the effectiveness of the teacher in his or her own job.

  The DfEE is committed to pursuing equal opportunities and has taken a series of steps to ensure that threshold arrangements do not discriminate on any grounds. The independent external assessors deployed to verify the assessments made by headteachers will receive training in equal opportunities issues and will work to a code of conduct which includes a commitment to pursuing equal opportunities. Their activities will be quality assured internally and by the Department. Applications made by teachers for threshold assessment will also be monitored for equal opportunities implications.

  New Deal (Disabled People)
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on progress in the establishment of the New Deal for Disabled People. [118371]

  Ms Hodge
  In his March 2000 Budget statement the Chancellor announced the intention to develop plans for extending the New Deal for Disabled People nationally. We want to build on what we have learnt so far; we also want to ensure that we continue to evolve and evaluate new ways of providing opportunities for disabled people. We intend to announce our detailed plans in June.

  Irish Community
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what action his Department is taking to(a) identify and (b) address the specific needs of the Irish community in Britain. [107584]

  Mr. Wills
  This Department is committed to ensuring all its policies and programmes promote equality of opportunity for disabled people, ethnic minorities and between men and women.

  Furthermore, Irish was added as a national curriculum language in 1999 in response to representations from schools with a large Irish intake.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State
  187W
  for Northern Ireland what is his assessment of the impact of the Minimum Income Guarantee on pensioners in Northern Ireland. [117376]

  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact of the Minimum Income Guarantee on pensioners in Northern Ireland. [117378]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The Government are committed to helping pensioners who are just getting by, to get more, through the Minimum Income Guarantee. Around 73,000 pensioners in Northern Ireland are already receiving their Minimum Income Guarantee through Income Support. We are now turning our attention to 40,000 pensioners, who may not be claiming but are possibly entitled.

  RUC
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the name and insignia of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. [117377]

  Mr. Ingram
  In his statement to the House on 19 January 2000 my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced that the Government have accepted that the name of the Royal Ulster Constabulary should be changed to the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

  My right hon. Friend also announced that the new name would come into effect in the autumn of 2001 and that at the same time a new service badge will be introduced. The new Policing Board will be consulted on the new badge.

  Port of Belfast
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on employment at the Port of Belfast. [117379]

  Mr. Ingram
  I am advised that the Belfast Harbour Commissioners, who are the Harbour Authority for the Port of Belfast, directly employ 133 people at present. Within the Harbour Estate, as a whole, it is estimated that about 15,000 people are employed in a wide range of industrial and commercial activity.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the future of the port of Belfast. [117381]

  Mr. Ingram
  A proposal by Belfast Harbour Commissioners involving the transfer of the Port of Belfast to the private sector, with a view to establishing a public/private partnership, with Government retaining a "golden" share interest, is under consideration. A further option, involving the restructuring of the port while retaining its true port status, is also being examined at present.

  Given the vital role of the port in relation to the Northern Ireland economy, its future is a matter of considerable importance not only to the port authority and port users, but also to those in industry and commerce in Northern Ireland.

  Security
  Mr. Day
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [117380]

  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the security situation in Northern Ireland. [117432]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) on 12 April 2000,Official Report, columns 352–53.

  Decommissioning
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the progress of decommissioning under the Belfast Agreement. [117382]

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on arms decommissioning. [117383]

  Mr. Ingram
  Efforts are continuing to seek a way forward to enable decommissioning to occur as soon as possible. We would urge the IRA to re-engage with the Decommissioning Commission immediately.

  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what is his latest assessment of the prospects for decommissioning. [117437]

  Mr. Forth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for decommissioning of terrorist arms and explosives in Northern Ireland. [11740]

  Dr. Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for decommissioning of illegally held terrorist weapons. [117441]

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the prospects for decommissioning of illegally held arms and explosives in Northern Ireland. [117442]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government cannot force decommissioning to occur. It has to be a voluntary, inclusive and consensual process. I hope by 22 May we will have the issue addressed. The all-party consultation process that is now under way is designed to re-build confidence on all sides so that progress can be made.

  Young Offenders
  Mr. Goggins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on developments in the treatment of young offenders. [117384]

  Mr. Ingram
  The report of the Review of the Criminal Justice system in Northern Ireland was published on 30 March 2000. The report puts forward almost 300 recommendations covering all aspects of the criminal justice system, including a number which deal directly with arrangements for young people who offend. The Government are now consulting with the political parties, the Irish Government, members of the public and those
  189W
  working within the criminal justice system. I would welcome my hon. Friend's contribution to the debate on these important issues.

  In a separate exercise, a departmental review of the juvenile justice centre estate has been published for consultation. The purpose of this exercise is to determine the number and location of juvenile justice centres needed against a background of a reduced custody population. The consultation period will extend over three months.

  Troop Levels
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many soldiers were on duty in the Province on(a) the date on which he assumed office and (b) over the Christmas period in 1999. [117430]

  Mr. Ingram
  Military strengths are recorded on the first of each month and it is therefore not possible to provide an accurate figure for the dates requested. On 1 October 1999 there were 14,552 soldiers in the province and on 1 January 2000 there were 14,319 soldiers in the Province. These are the nearest available dates to those requested.

  The figures quoted are for troops available for duty including part-time Royal Irish soldiers. It is not possible to establish the numbers who were actually on duty on these dates.

  Political Developments
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on political developments in Northern Ireland. [117431]

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the peace process in Northern Ireland. [117433]

  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on recent political developments in Northern Ireland. [117438]

  Mr. George Howarth
  We continue to work in close co-operation with the Irish Government and in consultation with the political parties in Northern Ireland to try to find a way forward which will permit the restoration of the institutions as soon as possible and the implementation of the remaining aspects of the Agreement. Progress continues to be made on the implementation of the Agreement: on 30 March I announced the publication of the review of the criminal justice system in Northern Ireland and I expect to

  1995–96

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Community Relations Unit/Community Relations Council

  Department of the Environment/Department of Social Development

  European Union

  Ballynfeigh Community Development Initiative

  —

  7,300.00

  —

  —

  CALMS

  —

  9,000.00

  —

  —

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  41,600.00

  —

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  —

  CRUSE

  7,000.00

  —

  —

  21,000.00

  190W
  bring forward proposals to this House before Easter on matters related to the implementation of the Patten Commission's report on policing in Northern Ireland.

  Direct Rule
  Mr. Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the administrative difficulties arising from restoring direct rule and from a reduced ministerial team. [117434]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The re-introduction of direct rule, while necessary to safeguard the institutions from collapse, is no substitute for local political representatives, accountable to the people of Northern Ireland, taking decisions about local issues. On Ministerial complement I am content for the time being with this, but should direct rule continue indefinitely, then I would expect the Prime Minister to decide to increase it.

  Victim Support
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much funding organisations claiming to support victims of violence have received(a) from the Government and (b) from EU sources in the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [117435]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments fund a number of self-help groups, organisations and agencies which support victims of violence and their families. Some of theses organisations do not, however, exist solely to help victims, and there are other organisations which assist victims but do not receive public funding. I have set out the available information on groups which have received funding over the last five years.

  With the exception of the NIO's grant to Victim Support (NI) (those sums marked *), payments made by NIO represent 25 per cent. fully additional funding towards projects which have received 75 per cent. funding from the EU Special Support Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (EUSSPPR), which began in 1995, and grants for small pilot schemes paid by the Victims Liaison Unit (those marked **). A total grant of £225,000 is being administered on behalf of the Victims Liaison Unit by the Community Relations Council for which a break down in amounts paid to each group is not available until the scheme ends in July 2000.

  Funding made available by DOE and the Department of Social Development has been provided through Making Belfast Work.

  In addition the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development have issued letters to offer to Fair for £5,000 and South Armagh British Victims for £2,500. The amounts are expected to be drawn down from the Rural Development Council.
  191W

  1995–96

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Community Relations Unit/Community Relations Council

  Department of the Environment/Department of Social Development

  European Union

  FAIT

  —

  43,400.00

  —

  —

  Survivors of Trauma

  —

  —

  1,000.00

  —

  Victim Support (NI)

  *370,000.00

  —

  —

  —

  WAVE

  —

  24,000.00

  280.00

  —

  Women Together

  —

  25,800.00

  —

  —

  1996–97

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Community Relations Unit/Community Relations Council

  Department of the Environment/Department of Social Development

  European Union

  Ballynfeigh Community Development Initiative

  —

  21,000.00

  —

  —

  CALMS

  7,000.00

  18,000.00

  —

  21,000.00

  Community Development Centre North Belfast

  —

  16,500.00

  —

  —

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  44,600.00

  —

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  —

  Cost of the Troubles Study

  10,000.00

  —

  —

  30,000.00

  CRUSE

  5,682.50

  —

  —

  17,047.50

  Institute for Counselling

  2,200.00

  —

  —

  6,600.00

  FAIT

  —

  30,200.00

  —

  —

  NI Music Therapy

  4,000.00

  —

  —

  12,000.00

  Newtownabbey Victim Support

  —

  —

  570.00

  —

  Partnership for those affected by the Troubles

  10,000.00

  —

  —

  30,000.00

  Passionist Youth and Parent Resource Centre

  —

  —

  74,000.00

  —

  Shankill Stress

  750.00

  —

  —

  2,250.00

  Survivors of Trauma

  9,200.00

  —

  —

  27,600.00

  Treetops

  187.50

  —

  —

  562.50

  Victim Support (NI)

  3,000.00

  —

  —

  9,000.00

  *398,000.00

  —

  —

  —

  WAVE

  9,000.00

  33,000.00

  —

  27,000.00

  Women Together

  —

  37,100.00

  —

  —

  1997–98

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Community Relations Unit/Community Relations Council

  Department of the Environment/Department of Social Development

  European Union

  Ballynfeigh Community Development Initiative

  —

  21,000.00

  —

  —

  Barnardos

  8,650.00

  —

  —

  25,950.00

  Bogside and Brandywell Initiative

  7,536.25

  —

  —

  22,608.75

  CALMS

  8,750.00

  —

  —

  26,250.00

  Coleraine/Ballymoney Branch Reg UDR

  750.00

  —

  —

  2,250.00

  Columba Support Services

  2,358.00

  —

  —

  7,074.00

  Community Development Centre North Belfast

  —

  44,000.00

  —

  —

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  44,600.00

  —

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  —

  Cost of the Troubles

  —

  —

  16,400.00

  —

  CRUSE

  8,977.75

  —

  —

  26,933.25

  DPOA

  5,025.00

  —

  —

  15,075.00

  Institute for Counselling

  550.00

  —

  —

  2,200.00

  FAIT

  —

  31,600.00

  —

  —

  FEAR

  750.00

  —

  —

  2,250.00

  Lifeline

  800.00

  —

  —

  2,400.00

  NI Intermediate Treatment Association

  9,600.00

  —

  —

  28,800.00

  NI Music Therapy

  1,000.00

  —

  —

  3,000.00

  Partnership for those affected by the Troubles

  2,500.00

  —

  —

  7,500.00

  St. James Community Forum

  5,300.00

  —

  —

  15,900.00

  Shankill Stress

  17,075.00

  —

  —

  51,225.00

  Survivors of Trauma

  10,507.50

  —

  8,700.00

  31,522.50

  Tar Isteach

  —

  —

  4,700.00

  —

  Victim Support (NI)

  3,750.00

  —

  —

  11,250.00

  *480,000.00

  —

  —

  —

  WAVE

  17,865.00

  36,400.00

  25,600.00

  53,595.00

  Women Together

  —

  32,100.00

  —

  —

  192W 193W

  1998–99

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Community Relations Unit/Community Relations Council

  Department of the Environment/Department of Social Development

  European Union

  Ballynfeigh Community Development Initiative

  —

  21,000.00

  —

  —

  Ballymoney District Partnership

  52,000.00

  —

  —

  6,000.00

  Ballymurphy Women's Support Group

  3,855.50

  —

  —

  11,566.50

  Bogside and Brandywell

  8,478.00

  —

  —

  25,434.00

  CALMS

  1,750.00

  —

  —

  5,250.00

  Community Development Centre North Belfast

  —

  44,000.00

  —

  —

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  44,600.00

  —

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  —

  Cost of the Troubles Study

  —

  —

  —

  —

  COTTS

  18,250.00

  —

  —

  54,750.00

  **10,197.00

  —

  —

  —

  Counselling Network

  —

  —

  2,000.00

  —

  CRUSE

  21,637.75

  —

  —

  64,913.25

  Cunamh

  475.00

  —

  —

  1,425.00

  Disability Action

  **6,170.00

  —

  —

  —

  FAIR

  1,250.00

  2,000.00

  —

  3,750.00

  FAIT

  —

  33,500.00

  —

  —

  HURT

  7,000.00

  —

  —

  21,000.00

  Institute for Counselling and Personal Development

  3,200.00

  —

  —

  9,600.00

  NI Intermediate Treatment Association

  12,400.00

  —

  —

  37,200.00

  NI Music Therapy Trust

  4,000.00

  —

  —

  12,000.00

  Rape Crisis—Sexual Abuse Centre

  4,367.75

  —

  —

  13,103.25

  Relatives for Justice

  6,375.00

  —

  32,000.00

  19,125.00

  St. James' Community

  1,325.00

  —

  —

  3,975.00

  Shankill Stress

  12,225.00

  —

  —

  36,675.00

  **5,000.00

  —

  —

  —

  Survivors of Trauma

  8,100.00

  —

  —

  24,300.00

  **5,000.00

  —

  —

  —

  The Bloody Sunday Trust

  750.00

  —

  —

  2,250.00

  Victim Support (NI)

  *717,000.00

  —

  —

  17,850.00

  5,950.00

  —

  —

  —

  VOICE

  550.00

  —

  —

  1,650.00

  Victims and Survivors Trust

  7,625.00

  1,800.00

  —

  22,875.00

  WAVE

  36,614.00

  35,000.00

  1,100.00

  109,842.00

  **30,000.00

  —

  —

  —

  Wider Circle

  4,666.75

  —

  —

  14,000.25

  Women Together

  —

  32,100.00

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Community Relations Unit/Community Relations Council

  Department of the Environment/Department of Social Development

  European Union

  Amach Agus Isteach

  —

  —

  43,000.00

  —

  Bogside and Brandywell Trust

  1,695.50

  —

  —

  586.50

  CALMS

  8,130.00

  —

  —

  24,390.00

  Community Conflict Impact on Children

  **17,470.20

  —

  —

  —

  Coleraine/Ballymoney UDR

  1,780.00

  —

  —

  5,340.00

  Cornerstone Community

  —

  44.600.00

  —

  —

  Corrymeela

  —

  165,000.00

  —

  —

  CRUSE

  11,450.00

  —

  —

  34,350.00

  Cunamh

  8,769.75

  —

  —

  26,309.25

  Columba Victim Support

  5,475.00

  —

  —

  16,425.00

  Corpus Christi

  4,850.00

  —

  —

  14,550.00

  COTTS

  6,300.00

  —

  —

  18,900.00

  Counselling Network

  2,350.00

  —

  —

  7,050.00

  DPOA

  5,710.00

  —

  —

  17,130.00

  Drumcree Community Trust

  500.00

  —

  —

  1,500.00

  FAIR

  7,500.00

  —

  —

  22,500.00

  FACT

  15,190.00

  —

  —

  45,570.00

  Fermanagh District Partnership

  840.00

  —

  —

  2,520.00

  Greater Ballymurphy Women's Community Support Group

  4,579.00

  —

  —

  13,738.50

  HURT

  3,850.00

  —

  —

  11,550.00

  Lifeline

  1,040.00

  —

  —

  3,120.00

  Lifeways

  7,600.00

  —

  —

  22,800.00

  Loughgall Truth and Justice

  1,050.00

  —

  —

  3,150.00

  194W

  195W

  1999–2000

  £

  Northern Ireland Office

  Community Relations Unit/Community Relations Council

  Department of the Environment/Department of Social Development

  European Union

  Mount Help Centre

  3,600.00

  —

  —

  10,800.00

  Nexus

  13,749.00

  —

  —

  41,247.00

  NE Antrim Cluster

  2,000.00

  —

  —

  6,000.00

  NI Music Therapy

  4,641.50

  —

  —

  13,924.50

  Omagh Support and Self Help Group

  1,000.00

  —

  —

  3,000.00

  PR and RT

  4,000.00

  —

  —

  12,000.00

  Relatives for Justice

  1,500.00

  —

  —

  4,500.00

  St. James Community Forum

  4,223.50

  —

  —

  12,670.00

  Shankill Stress

  10,575.00

  —

  —

  31,725.00

  Strabane Briefing

  8,924.00

  —

  —

  26,772.00

  SDAHW

  5,800.00

  —

  —

  17,400.00

  Survivors of Trauma

  13,210.00

  —

  —

  39,630.00

  The Bloody Sunday Trust

  2,274.00

  —

  —

  6,822.00

  Victim Support (NI)

  *767,000.00

  —

  —

  —

  Victims and Survivors Trust

  3,770.25

  —

  15,000.00

  11,310.75

  VOICE

  4,625.00

  —

  —

  13,875.00

  WAVE

  27,388.25

  35,000.00

  —

  82,164.75

  Women Together

  —

  32,100.00

  —

  —

  West Tyrone VOICE

  6,100.00

  —

  —

  18,300.00

  Patten Commission
  Dr. Palmer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further discussions he has had with the Northern Ireland political parties regarding the implementation of the Patten Commission's recommendations on policing in Northern Ireland. [117436]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government consulted widely on the implementation of the Patten Commission's recommendations as required by the Good Friday Agreement. Although formal consultation ended at the end of November 1999 Ministers and officials have continued to meet the political parties to discuss a range of issues in the Patten Report. These meetings are part of the Government's effort to listen to concerns and put the Government's message across with a view to obtaining the widest possible acceptance and understanding of the Government's decisions in making the police service in Northern Ireland more representative, acceptable and accountable.

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what support he is giving the shipbuilding industry in Northern Ireland. [117439]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government will continue to give Harland and Wolff every support they can in seeking out new profitable work for the Belfast yard so as to safeguard employment and skills there. Ministers and Departments in Northern Ireland are in contact with the company to discuss how we can work together in the light of present difficulties. The company is currently following up on potential new building contracts.

  Human Rights
  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the current application in Northern Ireland of the European convention on human rights. [117443]
  196W
  Mr. George Howarth
  The European Convention on Human Rights applies in Northern Ireland in the same way as the rest of the United Kingdom and Europe.

  Assembly
  Mrs. Fyfe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland under what conditions he would recommend that the Northern Ireland Assembly should have its suspension lifted. [117444]

  Mr. George Howarth
  The decision to suspend the operation of the Northern Ireland Assembly and therefore preserve the institution from collapse was taken because the cross-community confidence necessary to make it work had begun to ebb. We are continuing to work in close co-operation with the Irish Government and in consultation with the political parties in Northern Ireland to try to achieve an understanding which gives both sides the necessary confidence to enable an early restoration of the Assembly to occur.

  Violence Victims
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria are used to decide which groups claiming to support victims of violence should receive public funds. [117122]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments fund a number of groups which support victims of violence. Individual Government Departments have different responsibilities and assess applications against different criteria.

  The Community Relations Unit

  The criteria against which applications are assessed by the Community Relations Unit, a Unit within the office of the First and Deputy First Ministers, relate to the improvement of community relations activities and the appreciation of cultural diversity.
  197W
  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development

  The criteria used for selecting groups are the Rural Development Council's standard criteria under their PlaNet Programme. It has the following minimum requirements:

  Applicant is a bona fide group.

  Based in a rural area.

  In an area of disadvantage.

  Openness to cross-community participation.

  Willingness to address social inclusion issues.

  Commitment to group development.

  The Department of Social Development

  Projects should provide good value for money and as an essential requirement should:

  Have specific quantitative and, where appropriate, qualitative, objectives which should be clearly identified.

  In accordance with the Making Belfast Work mission statement, be of direct benefit to local communities and be seen by them as needed.

  Demonstrate the involvement and influence of the local community in the decisions which affect them.

  Complement or be consistent with agreed area strategies.

  Be additional to mainstream departmental or agency work, or influence to a significant degree such programmes as they apply to Belfast.

  Should be capable of being absorbed into mainstream funding at the end of a specific period or funded from sources other than Making Belfast Work; only in very exceptional cases will Making Belfast Work funding continue beyond three years for any individual project.

  Projects will be given preference if they:

  Adopt a strategic, innovative, preventative and multi-agency approach to the problems of an area.

  Achieve, or at the very least encourage, a high level of local employment.

  Involve partnerships among the public, voluntary and private sectors.

  Demonstrably enhance the provision of public services in the area.

  Harness the skills and experience of the voluntary sector and encourage volunteering.

  The Northern Ireland Office

  Measure 4.4 of the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme specifically targets funding at victims and ex-prisoners groups. Decisions about which groups should be funded are taken by an Intermediary Funding Body, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust. This method of distribution of funding meets one of the main criteria set down by the European Commission; that decisions with regard to funding should as far as possible be taken at community level. The criteria used by the NIVT in making decisions are:

  Clearly demonstrate that they meet the objectives of the sub-programme and measure them (i.e. helping those who are victims of the conflict to come to terms with their losses and accelerate the healing process).

  Be backed by sound community development practices and principles.

  Promote the full inclusion of marginalised groups and people.

  Improve the accessibility of and quality of services for marginalised groups and people.

  Promote the active participation of marginalised groups and people in the design and delivery of programmes.

  Use approaches which are innovative and imaginative.

  Promote gender balance in the management structures of the projects.

  Where feasible, have a cross-community dimension.

  198W
  Victims Liaison Unit

  The Community Relations Council, which currently administers the Victim Support Grant Scheme, on behalf of the Victims Liaison Unit assesses applications under any of the following criteria:

  Seeking funding to help establish a new group working in the area of victims. The group will need to demonstrate that there is an unmet need which cannot be filled by an existing group or service.

  To carry out a "needs analysis".

  To train volunteers or staff in the wide range of relevant support services.

  To produce training or other resource materials which could be of use to groups or individuals working in this area.

  To demonstrate models of good practice.

  Priority will be given to projects which can produce results in the time and financial scale of the scheme.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures(a) he is taking and (b) he proposes to take to ensure that public funds given to organisations which claim to support victims of violence are used for that purpose. [117124]

  Mr. Ingram
  As with any grant award, all projects supported by the Community Relations Unit are subjected to an on going system of regular review and monitoring to ensure that funds are being used for the intended purpose. In addition, projects are also subject to evaluation.

  To ensure that public funds paid to victims of violence groups are used for that purpose, both the NIVT and the NIO carry out verification visits on victims of violence projects. In addition to those checks, independent consultants are employed to carry out audits on a range of public funded projects, including victims of violence projects.

  Within the Department of Agriculture and Rural Development, funds will not be issued until there is an agreed action plan between the group and the Rural Development Council. The Rural Development Council is about to recruit an Audit Officer who will carry out audits/inspection visits to ensure that grant aid has been expended for the purpose for which it was given.

  Making Belfast Work projects are monitored by Departmental staff to ensure that groups comply with the terms and conditions attached to the letter of offer or grant.

  The Government will continue to monitor and evaluate awards to ensure public funds are used for the purpose for which they were granted.

  Management Trainee Assessment Centre
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many companies were invited to tender for the development of the 1998 Management Trainee Assessment Centre; to which company the contract was awarded; what use was made of the results of the Assessment Centre; what plans he has to re-use the materials developed by the contractor; how much was paid to the contractor for work relating to the 1998 Management Trainee Assessment Centre as a percentage of the initial quoted costs; and if he will make a statement. [117317]
  199W
  Mr. Ingram
  Five companies were invited to tender for the 1998 Management Trainee Assessment Centre; the contract was awarded to ASE Consultants; the results of the Assessment Centre were used to determine the rate of progress of individuals on the Management Trainee scheme; there are no plans to re-use the material developed by the contractor for the 1998 Assessment Centre; the amount paid to the contractor for work relating to the 1998 Management Trainee Assessment Centre was the same as the initial costs quoted for the work.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost to date of the Saville Inquiry; and if he will make a statement. [117700]

  Mr. Ingram
  The total costs incurred by The Bloody Sunday Inquiry up to 31 March 2000 are £19,244,028.

  Train Chassis Corrosion
  Mr. Walker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the cost of re-welding train chassis operated by Translink in each of the last three years. [117866]

  Mr. Ingram
  Translink have informed the Department of Regional Development that they spent £615,706 on rewelding train carriage bogies in 1998–99 but nothing in 1997–98 or 1999–2000.

  Chief Electoral Officer
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his reasons are for barring Irish citizens from submitting applications for the post of Chief Electoral Officer. [117255]

  Mr. George Howarth
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The post of Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland is a Crown Appointment. It was considered appropriate to reserve the post for UK nationals because it discharges sensitive functions of fundamental importance to public life in Northern Ireland, including overseeing the conduct of elections.

PRIME MINISTER

  Rented Housing (London)
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Prime Minister what policies are being taken forward by Her Majesty's Government to increase the supply of affordable rented housing in inner London. [117461]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are acutely aware of the difficulties many Londoners face in securing good quality housing at a price they can afford. That is why we are giving local authorities and registered social landlords in London an additional £1.3 billion of resources for investment in housing between 1997–98 and 2001–02. London boroughs have received £400 million of these extra resources already.

  The Housing Green Paper which was announced last week by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister sets out our aims to ensure a sufficient supply of high
  200W
  quality affordable housing is provided where it is needed, including a new Starter Home Initiative. Londoners will be among those who benefit from our proposals.

  Ministerial Code
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the compatibility between paragraphs 126 and 128 of the Ministerial Code and the use by himself, his family, persons within his employ and Ministers within his Government since 1 May 1997 of properties overseas owned by the hon. Member for Coventry, North-West (Mr. Robinson). [116101]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 27 March 2000]: It is for individual Ministers to determine their actions in accordance with the Ministerial Code. I am not aware of any breach of the Code in relation to these properties.

  Serbia
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his letter to the hon. Member for Linlithgow of 4 April, relating to military action against Serbia. [118398]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what recent reports he has received relating to the type and extent of bomb damage in Serbia in connection with the use of uranium armament; and if he will make a statement. [117522]

  The Prime Minister
  The UN Environment Programme published a report in October 1999, which noted, inter alia, that many environmental problems in the FRY do not result from the recent war, but from years of environmental neglect.

  The report's authors have suggested that between 50 and 70 per cent. of the pollution pre-dated the conflict.

  Following that report, the United Nations asked NATO for information about use of depleted uranium (DU) during the Kosovo conflict. The NATO Secretary-General has responded, confirming that DU was used in operations against armoured equipment, mainly in Western Kosovo.

  Kashmir
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister what steps he is taking towards finding a permanent and peaceful solution to the situation in Kashmir. [118505]

  The Prime Minister
  We continue to urge both India and Pakistan to return to bilateral dialogue to find a just and lasting solution acceptable to the people of Kashmir.

  Cancer Services
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister what progress has been made in improving cancer care services since he hosted the Cancer Summit in May 1999. [118323]

  The Prime Minister
  Improving cancer services is one of our top priorities for the National Health Service. For the first time we have a single Minister with responsibility both for cancer prevention and treatment. We have also appointed Professor Mike Richards as the new National Cancer Director to spearhead the drive for fairer, faster cancer services and to ensure the implementation of tough
  201W
  new standards of care. A broad programme of work has been put in place to ensure prompt access to cancer diagnosis and treatment and to improve the quality of our cancer services.

  We are committed to modernising cancer services and have invested an extra £70 million since 1997 for breast, colo-rectal, lung and outpatient cancer services. £80 million has been made available to cut waiting times, and we are investing £100 million in cancer equipment, with the New Opportunities Fund allocating a further £93 million to this area.

  We have introduced a new two-week outpatient standard waiting time for all urgent cancer referrals. This has been in place for breast cancer patients since April 1999 and over 56,000 women have benefited from this standard. This high standard of care will be extended to all those with suspected cancer requiring urgent investigation by the end of this year.

  To help improve the quality of cancer services we have published evidence-based guidance on improving outcomes for breast, colo-rectal, lung and gynaecological cancers. Guidance on stomach cancers will be available in the spring, and over the next two years the National Institute for Clinical Excellence will commission further guidance on a range of other cancers.

  Personal Envoys
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) if he will list the people he has asked to convey messages to foreign Governments, whom he has not described as his personal envoys; on what dates those messages were taken; and to which Governments those messages were sent; [118287]

  (2) how many personal envoys he has appointed; on what dates those personal envoys were appointed; to which Governments those personal envoys have made representations; and when. [118282]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 6 April 2000, Official Report, column 574W.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Prime Minister when(a) Lord Ahmed and (b) Lord Paul were appointed as Prime Ministerial envoys; and what public notification was issued at the time. [118429]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: Lord Ahmed and Lord Paul have not been appointed as Prime Ministerial envoys.

  Engagements
  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 12 April. [118370]

  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.

  Security and Intelligence Service Commissioners
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made to appoint a Commissioner 202W
  under section 8 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994 following the expiration of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's appointment on 15 December 1999; and if he will make a statement. [119150]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Justice Stuart-Smith has accepted an extension of his appointment as Intelligence Services Commissioner until 31 March 2000 to enable him to complete his Annual Report for 1999. He recently completed that term. I thank Lord Justice Stuart-Smith for the contribution he made during his five years as Intelligence Services Commissioner.

  Lord Justice Simon Brown, formerly President of the Intelligence Service Tribunal, has accepted an appointment as the Intelligence Service Commissioner for a period of three years from 1 April 2000.

  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister what arrangements have been made to appoint a Commissioner under section 4 of the Security Service Act 1989 following the expiration of Lord Justice Stuart-Smith's appointment on 13 December 1999; and if he will make a statement. [119148]

  The Prime Minister
  Lord Justice Stuart-Smith accepted an extension of his appointment as Security Service Commissioner until 31 March 2000 to enable him to complete his Annual Report for 1999. He recently completed that term. I thank Lord Justice Stuart-Smith for the contribution he made during the ten years he spent as Security Service Commissioner.

  Lord Justice Simon Brown, formerly President of the Intelligence Service Tribunal, has accepted an appointment as the Security Service Commissioner for a period of three years from 1 April 2000.

  Advisory Committee on Business Appointments
  Dr. Desmond Turner
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the members of the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments; and if he will make a statement. [119149]

  The Prime Minister
  The current members are:

  The right hon. Lord Mayhew of Twysden QC (Chairman)

  Sir John Blelloch KCB (Vice-chairman)

  The right hon. Lord Shore of Stepney

  The right hon. Baroness Williams of Crosby

  The Lord Wilson of Tillyorn GCMG

  Admiral Sir Kenneth Eaton GBE KCB FEng FIEE

  Sir Denys Henderson

  Sir Bryan Nicholson.

  I am pleased to say that Lord Wilson of Tillyorn has agreed to join the Committee. He had a distinguished career in the Diplomatic Service and served as Governor of Hong Kong. He has also had extensive experience of both business and academic life since his retirement.

  The Advisory Committee advises me on applications from the most senior Crown Servants to take up business appointments after leaving the Service, and it also gives advice directly to former Ministers on appointments they wish to accept after leaving office. The members of the Committee are unpaid, and I am grateful to them for the time they give to this role.

HEALTH

  Quality Protects
  Mr. Rammell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the outcome of the evaluation of the Quality Protects Management Action Plans submitted to his Department by local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [118864]

  Mr. Hutton
  All local authorities with social services responsibilities submitted their Quality Protects Management Action Plans (MAPs) to the Department of Health by the end of January. The Social Services Inspectorate has now completed its evaluation of the MAPs, and I have considered their findings. I am pleased to announce that MAPs from all 150 local councils have reached an acceptable standard, with eight assessed as of particularly high quality. I have today written to the chief executives of the authorities to confirm that, subject to Parliamentary approval, they will receive payment of their allocation of the children's services special grant for 2000–01.

  The eight MAPs that were assessed as being of particularly high quality were Blackpool, Manchester, Portsmouth, Stockton-on-Tees, Suffolk, Tameside, Westminster and Wandsworth.

  Local authorities have made a good start over the past year in implementing Quality Protects, which is making a real difference to the lives of children in need and in particular looked after children. We must maintain that momentum to deliver lasting and continued improvements in the way in which children's services are managed and delivered in order to improve outcomes for our most vulnerable children.

  Cancer
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual expenditure allocated by his Department to(a) the Christie Hospital and (b) the Royal Marsden Hospital for cancer care and treatment, in the last three years for which figures are available. [116109]

  Mr. Denham
  The total income for the Christie Hospital and the Royal Marsden Hospital for the years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 is as follows:

  £ million

  Christie Hospital

  Royal Marsden

  1996–97

  51.6

  65.7

  1997–98

  53.3

  70.1

  1998–99

  57.3

  74.8

  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the annual income of(a) the Christie Hospital and (b) the Royal Marsden Hospital was derived from the provision of private health care services, in the last three years for which figures are available. [116112]

  Mr. Denham
  The proportion of the total annual income for the Christie Hospital and the Royal Marsden 204W
  Hospital for the years 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 which has been derived from the provision of private health care services is as follows:

  £ million

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Christie Hospital

  Total Income

  51.6

  53.3

  57.3

  Private Patients

  2.6

  2.8

  3.7

  Royal Marsden Hospital

  Total Income

  65.7

  70.1

  74.8

  Private Patients

  11.7

  13.4

  15.5

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the annual Government funding for research into(a) breast cancer and (b) prostate cancer in each of the last two years. [117138]

  Yvette Cooper
  Our funding for cancer research is provided through a number of routes.

  The Medical Research Council (MRC) is the main agency through which the Government support research on the causes and treatment of disease. The MRC receives most of its income via grant in aid from the office of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. The Department funds research to support policy development in health and social care, and to support effective practice in the National Health Service. The Department also provides NHS support funding for research commissioned by the MRC and charities that takes place in the NHS.

  The approximate annual Government expenditure (Department of Health/NHS, MRC and other Government Departments—principally devolved health Departments) on breast cancer and prostate cancer are £9.33 million and £1.55 million respectively. These figures underestimate the total Government research expenditure in these areas, as detailed estimates of NHS support funding are not currently collected routinely.

  Since 1997 the Government have committed an extra £800,000 to new research projects on prostate cancer, through the Medical Research Council and through the Department of Health. The Department has actively sought to support such work in prostate cancer, and has not rejected any high quality proposals for work in this area.

  The Department recently announced £1 million additional new funding for this financial year for urgent research studies into prostate cancer as a mark of its concern over this disease.

  Following the seminar last year at No. 10 a "Cancer Research Funders' Forum" has been established to help improve the co-ordination of cancer research in the United Kingdom. It is being run by the MRC and includes departmental representatives and the major cancer research charities. At the Department's request, the Forum considered the issue of prostate cancer at its first meeting on 10 January. They agreed to set up an expert group on prostate cancer, which will identify gaps in current research and suggest ways of filling them. The expert group met for the first time on 25 February, and expects to report within months.
  205W
  We have recently appointed a National Cancer Director, Professor Mike Richards, who will spearhead our concerted drive on cancer. He will work in partnership with doctors, nurses, general practitioners, other health professionals and the voluntary sector to improve prevention and modernise cancer services to help ensure equitable access to high quality cancer care. This will include a close interest in the development and progression of research. The Government keep their priorities for research under review. In the NHS priorities are identified through widespread consultation with those using, delivering and managing services. They take account of the burden of disease, potential benefits and Government objectives as well as the responsibilities and work of other funders—including the charities.

  Mr. Stinchcombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much the Government spent on treatments for(a) breast cancer and (b) prostate cancer in each of the last two years. [117139]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information showing expenditure on cancer treatment by cancer site is not available. However, cancer services are estimated to account for 6.3 per cent. (£1.5 billion) of National Health Service hospital expenditure in England. This excludes cancer services not normally provided on an in-patient basis, for example cancer screening, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and community palliative cancer services.

  The Department has commissioned work to improve overall NHS information, including national statistics on hospital prescribing, which will give us a more accurate method of recording hospital expenditure on cancer treatment.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the use of taxanes in the treatment of ovarian and advanced breast cancer. [118325]

  Yvette Cooper
  The efficiency and effectiveness of taxanes is currently being assessed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The process is still continuing but we expect the guidance to be issued shortly.

  Consultants
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants are employed in North East England; what strategy he has for dealing with shortages in the number of consultants; and how many were employed in each of the last five years. [117210]

  Mr. Denham
  The latest information about numbers of consultants in North East England is shown in the table.

  Overall, there is no sign of a national shortage of consultants, and where there are problems, these are in certain specialties or in particular geographical areas. Numbers continue to rise steadily and difficulties in filling vacancies are not widespread.

  At national level we aim to ensure that there are enough doctors in training for there to be sufficient becoming fully trained specialists to meet the future needs of the National Health Service. At local level, it is for NHS trusts and health authorities, who are accountable for the services they provide, to determine the number, grade and
  206W
  mix of staff they require, in the light of local circumstances, in order to provide quality services to patients.

  On 6 April I announced plans to train 393 extra hospital specialists. Added to the specialist doctors already in training, there should be an additional 13,000 fully trained hospital specialists in the National Health Service by 2006–07. The additional places will take forward our plans to increase capacity in the NHS, so that patients have easier access to faster, fairer and more convenient services.

  Hospital medical consultants employed in the North East of England

  Headcount

  At 30 September

  1994

  880

  1995

  1,280

  1996

  1,160

  1997

  1,210

  1998

  1,230

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. The North East of England is defined as the following Health Authorities: Northumberland, Newcastle and North Tyneside. Gateshead and South Tyneside, Sunderland, County Durham and Tees.

  3. Before 1996 some hospital medical staff were employed directly by the Regional Health Authority and so may not be included in these figures.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Abortion
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the evidence-based guidelines, published on 13 March, by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, on the care of women seeking abortion will be implemented. [117684]

  Yvette Cooper
  This new guideline will be circulated to college members. We expect the guideline to be used as the basis of local protocols which are designed to promote the development of high quality services and take account of local needs and service provision. In addition, the guideline will be considered as part of the national sexual health strategy currently being developed.

  Dental Services
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the rate of replacement of fillings and crowns in NHS dentistry in each of the last 10 years. [117853]

  Mr. Hutton
  During 1998–99, 387,777 fillings and 81,891 crowns or approximately 2 per cent. of treatments for fillings and crowns in England and Wales were replaced under paragraph 7 of the Terms of Service for Dentists (Schedule 1 of the National Health Service (General Dental Services) Regulation 1992).

  Comparable information is not available for earlier years.

  The percentage does not include fillings or crowns which are replaced in later courses of treatment on which information is not available.
  207W
  Mr. Beard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how time spent on advising patients on how to improve dental hygiene is reflected in dentists' remuneration. [117945]

  Mr. Hutton
  Time spent on advising patients on how to improve dental hygiene and maintain oral health is remunerated in a number of ways through the fee scales laid down in Determination I of the Statement of Dental Remuneration. Dentists are paid as follows:

  monthly capitation payments for every registered patient under the age of 18 (item 41);

  monthly continuing care payments for every registered patient aged over 18 (item 45);

  fee for examination and report (item 1);

  intensive instruction in the prevention of dental disease (item 6); and,

  non-surgical treatment of periodontal disease (item 10).

  Lawyers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many lawyers are employed by his Department; and how many were employed in 1995. [117811]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department employs no lawyers.

  Legal services are supplied to the Department by the Department of Social Security through a Service Level Agreement. The number of lawyers employed by the Department of Social Security are set out in the answer of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security on 10 April 2000, Official Report, column 25W.

  Waiting Times
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish on a regular basis information about waiting times between patients seeing a consultant and receiving in-patient treatment for each specialty at each NHS hospital. [118260]

  Mr. Denham
  This information is already available on a quarterly basis, as information on waiting times of patients who are waiting to be admitted to an National Health Service trust are published quarterly in Hospital Waiting List Statistics: England, copies of which are available in the Library. The latest data available relate to the quarter ended 31 December 1999.

  Commission for Health Improvement
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what role the Commission for Health Improvement will play in inspecting and monitoring hospital performance in relation to(a) hygiene and the work of cleaning contractors, (b) nutritional standards for patients' food and catering contracts and (c) preventing and stopping cross-infection. [118382]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Commission for Health Improvement will provide robust, independent scrutiny of National Health Service arrangements to assure the quality of health care. Its clinical expertise will be brought to bear on the areas identified. It is recognised that there 208W
  are also important non-clinical, organisational factors to be taken into account. Therefore the Commission will work closely with other external review and inspection bodies such as the Health and Safety Executive and the Audit Commission to ensure comprehensive monitoring of NHS hospitals.

  Taxanes
  Ms Church
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidelines he has issued to health authorities regarding the funding of taxanes; [118344]

  (2) if he will list those health authorities which fund the prescribing of taxanes; [118347]

  (3) if he will list the (a) spending on cancer drugs per head of population, (b) spending on cancer drugs as a percentage of total spending on cancer and (c) spending on cancer drugs as a percentage of total drugs expenditure, in (i) England, (ii) Scotland, (iii) Wales, (iv) Northern Ireland, (v) other EU countries, (vi) the USA and (vii) Japan, for each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement; [118343]

  (4) when he expects to receive the final report from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence on taxanes. [118346]

  Yvette Cooper
  The most up-to-date guidance currently available to the National Health Service on the use of taxanes is included in "Improving Outcomes in Gynaecological Cancer". The efficiency and effectiveness of taxanes is currently being assessed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The process is still continuing but we expect the guidance to be issued shortly.

  Detailed spending information on cancer services, including drugs, is not currently held centrally, and it is not therefore possible to compare data for England with any other country. We do know that spending on cancer in-patient care is estimated to account for 6.3 per cent. (£1.5 billion) of National Health Service hospital expenditure. This figure does not cover spending on cancer services not provided on an in-patient basis including cancer screening, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and community palliative care services.

  Beta Interferon
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what studies his Department has made of the differences in the annual cost of treatment using beta interferon between the UK and other countries; and what factors are responsible for these differences. [118530]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has made no studies of the cost of treatment in different countries. As far as the prices of the beta interferon medicines are concerned, the Department has information both from the manufacturers and from contacts in the health authorities of other countries. Direct comparisons of prices of products of this type are misleading because they are often supplied direct to hospitals, making list prices less significant. Furthermore some countries include distribution costs and some aspects of care within the list price while others account for them separately.
  209W
  Subject to these qualifications, it can be said that in general the annual cost of beta interferons in the United Kingdom is slightly greater than in other European Union countries, reflecting currency movements since the products were introduced.

  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reason there is no neuro-specialist on the NICE Committee which is examining beta interferon. [118541]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence Technology Appraisal Committee consists of 24 standing members, appointed for three years which combines patient advocates, National Health Service clinicians and mangers, academic experts, and industry representation. However, the standing committee is supported by technology-specific clinical experts brought in for a particular intervention. When the committee appraises beta interferon the clinical experts will be neurologists.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on how beta interferon is targeted for use by MS suffers in the National Health Service; [118329]

  (2) what representations he has received (a) in favour of and (b) against extending the availability of beta interferon to MS sufferers; and if he will make a statement; [118348]

  (3) if he will estimate the number of MS sufferers who will potentially benefit from beta interferon in reducing (a) the progress of MS and (b) the number of MS relapses; and if he will make a statement; [118330]

  (4) what plans he has to fund large-scale trials of beta interferon in the treatment of MS sufferers; and if he will make a statement. [118331]

  Mr. Denham
  We have asked the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) to conduct an authoritative appraisal of beta interferon as part of its first appraisal programme. NICE is expected to report in the summer.

  It would be premature to speculate on the number of multiple sclerosis sufferers who will potentially benefit from beta interferon when NICE has not yet come to a view on clinical and cost effectiveness.

  Over the past 12 months the Department's records indicate receipt of approximately 1,000 written representations from hon. Members, patient groups and the public expressing concern about the current arrangements for prescribing and funding of beta interferon.

  Guidance issued by the Department in 1995, Executive Letter (95)97, recommends that health authorities should have in place arrangements for hospital specialists to initiate treatment in the light of medical evidence and local priorities.

  Oncology Drugs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the allocation of investment to health authority budgets for oncology drugs. [118324]

  Yvette Cooper
  Funding for oncology drugs is not identified separately within allocations made to health authorities. Improving cancer services is one of the National Health Services top priorities for action, and health authorities and primary care groups will need to take this into account in allocating resources.

  We have made clear in a letter to all health authority chief executives that the extra £600 million allocated to the Health Service for 2000–01 will, in part, be used to meet any additional costs arising from implementation of recommendations by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Pathogenesis
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what are the identifiable causes of(a) ME, (b) MS and (c) HIV/AIDS. [118585]

  Yvette Cooper
  The causes of myalgic encephalomyelitis also known as chronic fatigue syndrome are not known. A large number of different disorders have been put forward or implicated in trying to identify its causes. These range from biochemical and immunological disorders and various viruses including the Epstein Barr virus (glandular fever). It seems possible that the syndrome represents a spectrum of illnesses, some of which will have an unidentified physical cause.

  The causes of multiple sclerosis are not known. However, there is some evidence to suggest cause may be linked to environmental factors. A 1993 British Society of Rehabilitation Medicine Working Party Report on MS notes that the prevalence of MS is related to geographical latitudes, being higher in the north of Britain than in the South. The best evidence to date reports a prevalence rising from 99 per 100,000 of the population in Southampton to 178 per 100,000 of the population in North East Scotland.

  There is an international scientific consensus that infection with Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) is the cause of Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS). This understanding is based on worldwide studies of individuals with AIDS, populations known to be at risk of AIDS, as well as studies of the virus itself.

  NHS Staff (East Somerset)
  Mr. Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) nurses, (b) doctors, (c) consultants and (d) midwives were employed by the (i) East Somerset Health Authority and (ii) Yeovil district hospital in each year since 1992; and if he will make a statement. [118639]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 April 2000): The information requested is shown in the table.
  211W

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): nursing and midwifery staff and hospital staff, within Somerset Health Authority, and for East Somerset NHS Trust, for each year as at 30 September

  Number (headcount)

  1992

  1993

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Somerset Health Authority1

  Nursing staff

  3,330

  3,440

  3,500

  3,180

  2,780

  2,610

  2,560

  All hospital medical staff2

  310

  320

  350

  400

  410

  440

  460

  Consultants

  80

  100

  120

  130

  130

  140

  150

  Midwifery staff

  190

  190

  200

  190

  180

  180

  190

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  Nursing staff

  850

  850

  870

  930

  750

  700

  750

  All hospital medical staff2

  100

  90

  110

  120

  120

  140

  140

  Consultants

  30

  20

  30

  40

  40

  40

  40

  Midwifery staff

  70

  60

  70

  50

  70

  60

  70

  1 Somerset Health Authority includes Somerset Health Authority, Avalon, Somerset NHS Trust, East Somerset NHS Trust and Taunton and Somerset NHS Trust.

  2 Hospital medical staff includes all doctors working in hospitals within the HCHS sector.

  Notes:

  1. 1992, 1993 and 1994 figures include agency staff and exclude learners.

  2. 1995 to 1998 figures exclude agency staff and learners.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  4. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Sources:

  1. Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  2. Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census.

  Cleaning and Hygiene Services
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate(a) how many and (b) what percentage of hospitals have contracted out cleaning and hygiene services for clinical areas to private operators; how many had done so before 1 May 1997; and how many have done so since 1 May 1997. [118517]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 April 200]: The information is not collected centrally. Trust chief executives are responsible for standards of cleanliness and hygiene in hospitals. Hospitals contract out provision of cleaning services, or provide them in-house. Regardless of the method of provision, the services provided should meet appropriate standards and provide best value. To help trusts meet appropriate standards we will be publishing later this month "Standards for Environmental Cleanliness in Hospitals", developed by the Infection Control Nurses Association and the Association of Domestic Managers.

  Dentists (Pay)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to include dental therapists in a pay review body; and if he will make a statement. [118518]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: Our proposals for modernising National Health Service pay which were published in February 1999 in "Agenda for Change", include bringing some groups of highly qualified staff within the scope of the Nursing Pay Review Body, without changing its fundamentally professional character.

  Initial discussions with NHS trade unions on pay modernisation resulted in a joint Framework of Principles and Agreed Statement on the Way Forward which was published on 8 October 1999. Para 7.2 of the Joint
  212W
  Framework sets out the following starting point for more detailed discussions with trade unions on the qualifying criteria for groups to come within the scope of the NPRB:
  Professions with a minimum entry requirement of three years educational study (or equivalent) to diploma level or higher, in a health specific area (other than medicine or dentistry) and which are state registered and have a substantial majority of members employed in health care.
  Exceptions might be agreed for staff groups which met the majority but not all of these conditions
  Staff groups which support professions added to the NPRB remit, and who have a direct connection with the transferred groups similar to that between nursing auxiliaries and registered nurses would also need to be considered for transfer.

  I am sure the hon. Member will appreciate that as this is part of continuing confidential discussions with NHS Unions aimed at reaching agreement by summer 2000, I am unable to comment further at this stage.

  Re-branding Exercise
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what will be the cost of the re-branding exercise(a) across the NHS and (b) by region. [118670]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: Adoption of the national National Health Service mark is being undertaken as items come up for replacement in the normal course of business. As a result, no NHS organisation has been required to undertake any additional work and no additional costs to NHS organisations are envisaged. New NHS organisations formed as the result of mergers will save money by adoption of the existing mark rather than having to invest in designing a new logo.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what date the re-branding exercise in the NHS has to be completed. [118669]
  213W
  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: Health authorities have been asked to start using the existing National Health Service mark by January 2000, and NHS trusts by April 2001. No deadline has been set for NHS organisations to apply the NHS mark universally.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the cost of materials which will become obsolete through the re-branding of the NHS. [118733]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: No items will become obsolete through the re-branding of the National Health Service. Materials will be ordered in the new style only when they come up for replacement in the normal course of business.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the items used by the NHS on which the new NHS logo is to be placed. [118668]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: The National Health Service mark should be used on any item which previously displayed an NHS trust or health authority logo. Items will be ordered in the new style only when they come up for replacement in the normal course of business.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of cost savings he estimates the re-branding exercise for the NHS will entail. [118671]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: New National Health Service organisations (formed to modernise the service—such as primary care groups and trusts—or as a result of mergers) have saved money by adopting the existing NHS mark rather than having to invest in designing new logos. Over time, further savings will be generated for the rest of the NHS as a common design standard enables the service to negotiate economies of scale with suppliers. The level of cost-saving depends on local turnover of stock within the NHS: items are being replaced in the new style only when they come up for replacement in the normal course of business.

  Hospital Readmissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients aged 75 years and over were readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge for each quarter since 1998–99; and what percentage of discharges this represents. [118687]

  Ms Stuart
  The table shows the number of patients aged 75 years and over who were readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge for each quarter since 1998–99; and the percentage of discharges this represents.

  The number and percentage of patients aged 75 and over who were readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge each quarter since 1998–99

  Patients aged 75 and over who are readmitted as an emergency within 28 days or discharge

  Quarter

  Number of readmissions

  As percentage of all discharges

  1998–99

  Q1

  29,506

  8.6

  Q2

  29,076

  8.1

  Q3

  29,110

  8.0

  Q4

  29,933

  8.1

  214W

  The number and percentage of patients aged 75 and over who were readmitted as an emergency within 28 days of discharge each quarter since 1998–99

  Patients aged 75 and over who are readmitted as an emergency within 28 days or discharge

  Quarter

  Number of readmissions

  As percentage of all discharges

  1998–99

  Q1

  26,724

  7.7

  Q2

  26,758

  7.2

  Q3

  26,525

  7.1

  Source:

  NHS Executive Quarterly Monitoring Activity

  The information given is collected by health authorities and returned to the National Health Service Executive as part of the quarterly monitoring process. It includes all specialties except psychiatry and learning disability.

  Mental Health Act (Charges)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent guidance he has given to local authorities about charging people receiving services under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983; what estimate he has made of the number of(a) local authorities charging people receiving services under section 117 and (b) people being charged for services under section 117; what estimate he has made of the cost of compensating people incorrectly charged for services under section 117; what estimate he has made of the cost to local authorities of abolishing charges for services under section 117; and if he will make a statement. [118795]

  Mr. Hutton
  On 10 February 2000 the Department issued a circular to local authorities and health authorities in England drawing attention to the High Court judgment in the case of Rv. London Borough of Richmond ex parte Watson (HSC 2000/003: LAC (2000)3). Local authorities still charging for services provided as part of after-care under section 117 of the Mental Health Act 1983 were advised that they should immediately cease to do so. The Association of Directors of Social Services (ADSS) has carried out a survey of local authorities in England and Wales with the aim of identifying how many local authorities charge for section 117 after-care services and the estimated costs of providing such services free of charge. We understand that the results have not been published.

  Wheelchairs
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the conclusions of his assessment of the recommendations of the evaluation study by the University of York Health Economics Consortium of the Powered Wheelchair and Voucher Scheme initiatives. [118792]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report of the evaluation conducted by the York Health Economics Consortium reached two major conclusions. First, additional funds were needed if the electrically powered indoor/outdoor wheelchair (EPIOCs) scheme is to meet its objectives fully. Secondly,
  215W
  the voucher scheme had largely met its broad objectives of improving choice but relatively few wheelchair users had benefited from it when the evaluation was conducted. The report recommended that continuation of the voucher scheme should be a matter for local discretion. However, since then the take-up of vouchers has risen steadily.

  We have committed ourselves to ending the variations in health care provision across the country. For that reason, we could not agree that voucher schemes should become discretionary. We want all disabled people to be able to exercise choice. We therefore announced on 29 March that the current funding level of £14 million for powered wheelchairs and voucher schemes will be made recurrent from 1 April. We decided that:

  (i) continued allocation of £14 million should be free of distinctions between what should be spent on powered wheelchairs or voucher schemes, and that health authorities and provider services should consult with service users and take a flexible approach to ensuring this money meets local needs and priorities in wheelchair services; and:

  (ii) that all services should continue to operate a voucher scheme which offers users a choice in having a wheelchair which meets their needs.

  On 29 March we placed the York Health Economics Consortium's report on the National Health Services internet site to ensure service commissioners and providers have access to it.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to continue the provision of ring-fenced funds for the EPIOC scheme and the wheelchair voucher scheme on the same basis as in 1996. [118797]

  Mr. Hutton
  Funds were ring-fenced between 1996–2000 to phase in £50 million for the electrically powered indoor/outdoor chairs (EPIOCs) and voucher schemes. Guidance indicated that funding level in the final year, 1999–2000, would become recurrent in National Health Service baseline budgets.

  On 29 March I announced plans to allocate to health authorities £14 million for EPIOCs and the wheelchair voucher scheme in 2000–01. This sum is some £6 million greater than that provided in 1996–97. The money will be added recurrently to health authority baselines rather than on a one year at a time basis as in the past, to secure the long-term future of both schemes. Also, health authorities will now be able to use the money flexibly to meet the needs and preferences of local service users, whether that be for EPIOCs, vouchers, or other wheelchair service priorities.

  Day Centres
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the charges made by each local authority in England and Wales for attendance at day centres for the physically disabled in each financial year since 1997. [118796]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the charges made by each local authority in England for attendance at day centres for the physically disabled is not collected centrally. However information on the recoupment of fees and charges by each local authority is available at the Department of Health website at www.doh.gov.uk/public/pss—stat.htm.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Bovine TB
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on variations in the susceptibility of cattle to TB infection. [118508]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: There is no such research in place at present, but this is one of the issues being considered by the TB Husbandry Panel, which is due to report shortly.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the(a) terms of reference and (b) financial resources available to the TB Husbandry Panel. [118514]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The aim of the Husbandry Panel is to identify current or future farm management (husbandry) measures which will assist in developing a sustainable policy to control TB in cattle, and its terms of reference are:
  The Panel will assess the scientific evidence on the effects of cattle husbandry in relation to Bovine TB, and in particular:

  a. review the available literature;

  b. take oral and/or written evidence from interested parties, especially those with expertise in cattle farming and TB risk factors, to identify the current expert opinion on best practice.

  Taking account of the epidemiological investigations launched by MAFF following consultation with the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB, the Panel will, within three months of appointment, produce a report which summarises the state of knowledge on the effects of husbandry on controlling bovine TB, and which:

  a. identifies approaches being taken by research and development funders which will fill gaps in knowledge and their relative timescales;

  b. makes recommendations on the steps and responsibility which need to be taken to encourage careful management practices relating to tuberculosis in cattle;

  c. makes recommendations on how best to evaluate husbandry measures for future use, including advice on whether husbandry experiments are justifiable at this stage, and if so, which experiments might be most promising at this stage.

  The budget for the Husbandry Panel is £45,083 which is to cover the costs of the secretariat, the Panel's expenses and other associated costs.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he expects to receive the report of the TB Husbandry Panel and if, following receipt, he will publish it in full. [118507]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The Panel is expected to report at the end of April. The report will be published in full.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the current research projects associated with Bovine TB, indicating for each the cost in 2000–01 and the total cost for the project. [118515]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The current bovine TB research projects, together with total cost and costs for 2000–01 are shown in the table.
  217W

  £

  Research project

  Cost 2000–01

  Total cost

  A spatial analysis using GIS risk factors associated with TB incidents in cattle herds in England and Wales

  43,354

  188,373

  Ecological correlates of tuberculosis incidence in cattle

  123,779

  374,181

  Multivariate analysis of risk factors affecting tuberculosis incidents in cattle herds—phase 1

  34,370

  137,479

  Improved diagnostics for cattle

  170,449

  511,347

  Quantification of the risk of transmission of bovine TB from badgers to cattle within localised areas

  55,196

  167,504

  Integrated modelling of M. bovis transmission in badgers and cattle

  265,043

  890,769

  Detection and enumeration of M. bovis from clinical and environmental samples

  88,178

  297,046

  The risk to cattle from M. bovis infection in wildlife species other than badgers

  272,348

  960,052

  The risk to cattle from wildlife species other than badgers in areas of high herd breakdown risk

  149,128

  591,035

  Development and evaluation of strain typing methods for M. bovis

  305,346

  1,124,682

  Understanding the route of TB transmission from badgers to cattle

  133,471

  266,941

  Developing innovative methods to estimate badger population density

  240,082

  882,089

  An integrated study of perturbation, population estimation, modelling and risk

  299,323

  1,252,592

  Novel methods of estimating badger numbers in the wider countryside

  63,604

  230,424

  Genome sequence analysis of M. bovis

  51,828

  875,101

  Antigen presenting cells and T cell responses to Mycobacterium

  400,000

  1,200,000

  Generation of vaccine candidates against M. bovis

  313,201

  1,566,005

  Testing of vaccine candidates for bovine tuberculosis using a low dose aerosol challenge guinea pig model

  196,753

  1,068,045

  Development of badger vaccines

  101,865

  304,250

  Development of badger immunological reagents

  139,826

  419,560

  Development of a turf model to assess the biological control of M. bovis using Mycobacteriphage

  20,000

  80,000

  Testing TB vaccines in cattle

  263,642

  1,316,635

  A molecular genetic analysis of badger social structure and bovine TB

  162,451

  766,069

  The potential of ticks as vectors of Mycobacterium bovis

  49,942

  49,942

  Ecological consequences of removing badgers from an ecosystem

  254,240

  1,216,016

  In addition substantial new research into the pathogenesis of M. bovis in cattle will be carried out in 2000–01 and succeeding years/ Detailed protocols are being developed and precise costings are not yet available.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will request the TB Forum to consider requiring the TB status of individual animals to be included in the cattle movement recording system. [118424]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: The TB Forum has already discussed this issue which has significant practical implications. The Forum is considering whether the objective could be achieved by simpler means.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated into the risks of TB infection from slurry spreading practices. [118509]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 10 April 2000]: There is no such research in place at present, but this is one of the issues being considered by the TB Husbandry Panel, which is due to report shortly.

  Mobile Phone Networks
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what assessment he has made of the benefits which the roll-out of mobile phone networks in rural areas will bring to farmers. [117690]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  No assessment has been made. However, mobile phones have clear potential benefits for rural communities, including farmers, by improving communications, particularly in isolated situations, and giving users greater freedom and flexibility in work and leisure.

  BSE
  Sir Richard Body
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what his policy is on the compulsory testing of cattle for BSE. [118319]

  Ms Quin
  There is no validated test for the detection of BSE in live cattle. Nor is there a validated post-mortem test for the detection of sub-clinical infection. Until such tests are available compulsory testing of cattle will be restricted to the testing of cattle notified to the Department in accordance with the BSE (No. 2) Order 1996.

  From 1 January 2001 the UK will commence testing of approximately 7,000 cattle per year after death in compliance with recently agreed Commission proposals on epidemio-surveillance.

  Meat and Livestock Commission (Wales)
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent representations he has received on setting up a separate meat and livestock commission for Wales; and if he will make a statement. [118404]

  Ms Quin
  None.

  Under the terms of a Marketing Services Agreement signed in 1997, Agriculture Ministers have already consented to the delegation of certain Meat and Livestock Commission functions in Wales. This includes the promotion of Welsh livestock and livestock products by Welsh Lamb and Beef Promotions Ltd.

  Agrimonetary Compensation
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he is taking to increase the amount of EU agrimonetary compensation paid to dairy farmers in the UK. [118524]
  219W
  Ms Quin
  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on 30 March that £22 million would be paid this year only in agrimonetary compensation to the dairy sector. This represents all the agrimonetary compensation available to this sector, including the 50 per cent. UK contribution.

  Primates
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what provisions have been made to deal with the potential for zoonotic infections on import of primates carried on the Cap Afrique; and if the veterinary surgeon charged with checking the health and wellbeing of the primates was the purchaser of them. [116341]

  Ms Quin
  The Department is responsible for licensing the import of primates into quarantine against rabies in premises authorised by the Department. Licence applications do not require the applicant to identify themselves as the purchaser or owner of the animals to be imported or as the purchaser's or owner's agent. Quarantine premises must employ a veterinary supervisor authorised by the Department to be responsible for the health of the imported animals. Employers of staff who work with simians must take account of their general duties under health and safety legislation and consider the risks from zoonoses that may affect staff and take suitable precautions to prevent or control exposure.

  Over-30-months Scheme
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will set a target date for the introduction of the increase in the maximum weight per animal on which compensation is payable under the over-30-months scheme. [117687]

  Ms Quin
  The Government have made a commitment to seek an increase in the maximum weight per animal on which compensation is payable under the Over30-Months Scheme. Implementation of such a change is dependent on the Commission's willingness to make an appropriate proposal and on support from other member states. We will be pressing for early action but the timing is not within our control.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will seek to amend the European Union's Common Agricultural Policy in respect of the measurement of field margins, in order to ensure that such rules take account of the character of Britain's hedgerows; and if he will make a statement. [117836]

  Ms Quin
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) on 29 March 2000,Official Report, column 172W.

  Fallen Stock
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what estimate he has made of the number of incinerators owned by hunts that are used for the disposal of fallen stock; and how many hunts(a) charge and (b) do not charge for this service. [117959]
  220W
  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 6 April 2000]: No estimate has been made by the Department of the number of incinerators owned by hunts that are used for the disposal of fallen stock. However, if Specified Risk Material is to be incinerated, the incinerator must be approved by the appropriate Minister. There are 159 such incinerators at hunt kennels in Great Britain. Information on hunts' charging policy is not collected by the Department.

  British Farm Standards Label
  Mr. Letwin
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what measures he will employ to ensure that the independent verifiers of the new British farm standards apply appropriate tests to create consumer confidence in this label. [118624]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 11 April 2000]: The Government are not directly responsible for this, but are encouraging the NFU (National Farmers' Union) who are developing the new mark, "British Farm Standard". The NFU intend that the mark should only appear on food which meets the requirements of a qualifying farm assurance scheme. We understand that one requirement on the assurance schemes will be that they should have obtained UKAS (United Kingdom Accreditation Service) accreditation or have a plan in place to achieve it. UKAS accreditation can only be obtained if all participants are subject to independent verification. Through verification, participants are subject to regular inspection which will ensure that they meet the high standards of food safety, animal welfare and environmental responsibility as well as other conditions of production that are required by the assurance schemes. The NFU intend to explain to consumers these key values which will underpin the mark.

CABINET OFFICE

  Government Car and Despatch Agency
  Mrs. Butler
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she has concluded her review of the Government Car and Despatch Agency. [119096]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The triennial review of the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA), the start of which I announced on 27 October 1999, has now been completed. The Cabinet Office, assisted by Lorien consultants, has considered the Agency's performance since 1 April 1997, when it was launched, and the options for the future of its functions.

  The principal aim of the GCDA, which comprises the Government Car Service (GCS) and the Inter Despatch Service (IDS), is to provide secure, reliable, value for money services to its customers. The evaluation of GCDA's performance over its first three years concluded that it has performed well. It has met 14 of 15 key performance targets (including all of its financial and efficiency and productivity targets) set and completed during the period. The evaluation concluded that it had succeeded in meeting its principal aims and objectives, and made a number of recommendations for structural improvements allowing it greater freedom to pursue its commercial objectives. I have placed copies of the executive summary of the evaluation report in the Libraries of the Houses.
  221W
  The review of the standard options (continued agency status, market testing and contracting out, privatisation, abolition) considered each business separately. It concluded that the high security requirements of customers and the unique nature of the services provided by GCS meant that it was not suitable for private sector involvement. It went on to propose a programme of modernisation aimed at improving the efficiency, effectiveness and economy of its services. The review recommended that the IDS should establish and develop, through a Public Private Partnership, a secure, flexible, value for money, nationwide service to complement its existing London and dedicated networks.

  I have considered both reports and I have decided that GCDA should continue as an executive agency for a period of five years. It will implement the programme of reform recommended by this review which will build upon its success over the past three years, and enable the Agency to deliver the high quality, value for money services its customers require. A revision to the Framework Document will now be prepared and published.

  Anti-drugs Strategy (Meetings)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many times the Deputy to the United Kingdom Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator has met members and officials of the United States Government since 1 January 1999; on what date and where each meeting took place; and which members and officials of the United States Government attended each meeting. [117063]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  During the period 1 January 1999 to 31 March 2000, the Deputy UK Anti-Drugs Co-ordinator met General Barry McCaffrey, Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and his officials, during their visit to the United Kingdom in October 1999. In addition to meetings with General McCaffrey, he also sat in on several bilateral meetings between US and UK officials to discuss a wide range of drugs related issues, including Criminal justices intervention issues and drug treatment programmes.

  Lord Levy
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 28 March 2000,Official Report, column 76W, if she will list the meetings between Lord Levy and (a) Ministers and (b) officials within her Department on Government business other than in his capacity as the Prime Minister's personal envoy delivering messages in the Middle East. [117783]

  Mr. Stringer
  To the best of my knowledge, no Minister or senior official in the Cabinet Office has had a meeting with Lord Levy since 1 May 1997 on Government business. This does not include social engagements.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Crown Office List
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the review of the Crown Office List will be published. [119131]
  222W
  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's Department has today published the Review of the Crown Office List. The Review was chaired by Sir Jeffery Bowman. Copies have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Judges
  Mr. Leslie
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if the Lord Chancellor has completed his review of the terms of service of part-time judicial office-holders in England and Wales following the judgment of the High Court of Justiciary in Scotland in the Starrs case. [119130]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales, and the Lord Chief Justice of Northern Ireland and the Lord Chancellor have agreed new arrangements for part-time judicial appointments for which the Lord Chancellor is responsible. We accord the highest value to the maintenance of judicial independence for all judges, full-time and part-time, and the arrangements have been fashioned for that purpose.

  I am placing in the Library of the House two joint statements signed by the Lord Chancellor and by the Lord Chief Justices setting out these changes for the following appointments in ordinary Courts in England and Wales:

  Recorders.

  Deputy District Judges,

  Acting Stipendiary Magistrates,

  Deputy Masters or Registrars of the Supreme Court,

  Deputy High Court Judges,

  Deputy Circuit Judges,

  Retired Lords of Appeal in Ordinary, Lords Justices and High Court Judges;

  and the following appointments in Northern Ireland:

  Deputy Resident magistrate.

  Deputy County Court Judge,

  Deputy District Judge,

  Retired Law Lords, Lord Justices and High Court Judges.

  The Lord Chancellor has also decided that no useful purpose is served by retaining the separate offices of Assistance Recorder and Recorder and he will, accordingly, be recommending to Her Majesty that all serving Assistant Recorders should be appointed Recorders. In future, appointments will be made direct to Recordership through an openly advertised selection procedure.

  I am also placing in the Library of the House joint statements signed by the Lord Chancellor and by the Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales covering the following fixed-term appointments to Tribunals:

  Part-time Immigration Adjudicators

  Part-time members of the Immigration Appeal Tribunal

  Part-time members of the Income and Corporation Taxes Tribunal

  Part-time members of the Lands Tribunal

  Part-time members of the Pensions Appeal Tribunals

  Deputy Social Security and Child Support Commissioners

  Part-time Special Commissioners of Income Tax

  Part-time members of the Appeals Service (social security)

  Part-time Chairmen of the VAT and Duties Tribunal.

  223W
  The Secretary of State for Social Security and the Chancellor of the Exchequer have placed similar statements in the Libraries covering the following appointments for which they are ministerially responsible:

  Secretary of State for Social Security

  Pensions Ombudsman

  Members of the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority

  Chancellor of the Exchequer

  Members of the VAT and Duties Tribunal.

  These changes will come into effect immediately.

  At a later stage, there will be a further announcement about the detailed aspects of these Tribunal arrangements as they will operate in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales following consultation with the devolved administrations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Public Sector (Advisory Group on Openness)
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will accept the recommendations made in the report of the Advisory Group on Openness in the Public Sector. [119124]

  Mr. Straw
  I set up the Advisory Group on Openness in the Public Sector last year to advise me on how I might facilitate a cultural change to greater openness in the public sector. The Advisory Group reported to me in December and I have carefully considered both the report and its recommendations.

  The recommendations address the practical matters necessary to bring about cultural change and to implement a Freedom of Information Act. They set out a broad agenda for action which I am happy to endorse in full. I shall be looking to see how we can best give effect to that agenda and I commend the report and recommendations to all public authorities which will be brought within scope of the freedom of information regime described in the Freedom of Information Bill now before Parliament. A copy of the report has been placed in the Library and is also available on the Home Office website: www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

  Police Firearms
  Mr. Hope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what are the most recent statistics available for the police use of firearms. [119125]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The statistics for April 1998 to March 1999 show that the number of police operations in which firearms were issued to officers was 10,928, a fall of over 7 per cent. on the previous year. The number of firearms incidents in which firearms were discharged by police was five, compared to three the previous year. There were no fatalities.

  There was an increase of 3 per cent. to 7,791 in the number of operations in which armed response vehicles were deployed. Firearms were carried in these vehicles, but were not necessarily issued to officers on each occasion.
  224W
  Full details are set out in the tables.

  Number of operations in which firearms were issued

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  8,726

  12,379

  11,842

  10,928

  Avon and Somerset

  326

  312

  139

  88

  Bedfordshire

  264

  345

  323

  260

  Cambridgeshire

  47

  54

  96

  43

  Cheshire

  219

  288

  216

  299

  Cleveland

  487

  1,026

  103

  35

  City of London

  275

  308

  307

  147

  Cumbria

  54

  72

  68

  52

  Derbyshire

  72

  109

  147

  176

  Devon and Cornwall

  90

  160

  133

  61

  Dorset

  36

  36

  54

  69

  Durham

  111

  131

  103

  114

  Essex

  267

  331

  505

  590

  Gloucestershire

  33

  41

  51

  52

  Greater Manchester

  142

  214

  165

  160

  Hampshire

  190

  245

  217

  129

  Hertfordshire

  47

  96

  82

  75

  Humberside

  92

  291

  472

  317

  Kent

  82

  236

  423

  92

  Lancashire

  227

  333

  338

  616

  Leicestershire

  138

  155

  89

  109

  Lincolnshire

  25

  58

  52

  57

  Merseyside

  280

  671

  675

  484

  Metropolitan

  2,178

  2,439

  2,578

  2,742

  Norfolk

  96

  166

  128

  185

  Northamptonshire

  54

  64

  77

  51

  Northumbria

  452

  1,360

  823

  683

  North Yorkshire

  52

  65

  102

  69

  Nottinghamshire

  57

  84

  306

  266

  South Yorkshire

  225

  155

  302

  135

  Staffordshire

  80

  257

  240

  209

  Suffolk

  150

  180

  193

  174

  Surrey

  70

  133

  87

  60

  Sussex

  445

  235

  330

  123

  Thames Valley

  96

  215

  227

  158

  Warwickshire

  55

  97

  152

  291

  West Mercia

  59

  106

  132

  130

  West Midlands

  226

  270

  227

  305

  West Yorkshire

  657

  617

  630

  662

  Wiltshire

  26

  26

  26

  24

  Dyfed Powys

  11

  17

  27

  38

  Gwent

  47

  89

  86

  64

  North Wales

  117

  233

  310

  386

  South Wales

  69

  59

  101

  148

  Number of Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs)

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  6,554

  6,738

  6,585

  6,308

  Avon and Somerset

  157

  165

  161

  153

  Bedfordshire

  48

  46

  42

  50

  Cambridgeshire

  92

  90

  80

  80

  Cheshire

  84

  70

  82

  70

  Cleveland

  65

  86

  84

  78

  City of London

  120

  88

  81

  55

  Cumbria

  100

  108

  122

  98

  Derbyshire

  130

  110

  100

  87

  Devon and Cornwall

  140

  151

  147

  82

  Dorset

  75

  74

  72

  72

  Durham

  103

  138

  144

  96

  Essex

  203

  228

  217

  235

  Gloucestershire

  85

  82

  84

  79

  Greater Manchester

  186

  209

  182

  217

  Hampshire

  104

  106

  112

  110

  Hertfordshire

  43

  42

  41

  43

  Humberside

  104

  90

  102

  102

  Kent

  144

  150

  150

  130

  225W

  Number of Authorised Firearms Officers (AFOs)

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Lancashire

  138

  132

  125

  132

  Leicestershire

  105

  104

  94

  90

  Lincolnshire

  81

  82

  85

  75

  Merseyside

  119

  147

  165

  121

  Metropolitan

  1,915

  2,035

  1,971

  1,951

  Norfolk

  99

  98

  102

  109

  Northamptonshire

  95

  92

  92

  92

  Northumbria

  160

  173

  126

  123

  North Yorkshire

  134

  108

  95

  83

  Nottinghamshire

  126

  128

  129

  120

  South Yorkshire

  125

  110

  108

  90

  Staffordshire

  80

  78

  86

  92

  Suffolk

  70

  82

  96

  101

  Surrey

  79

  76

  61

  69

  Sussex

  149

  180

  146

  156

  Thames Valley

  175

  185

  194

  179

  Warwickshire

  50

  41

  38

  44

  West Mercia

  153

  155

  159

  139

  West Midlands

  87

  88

  95

  92

  West Yorkshire

  150

  131

  114

  128

  Wiltshire

  145

  134

  105

  88

  Dyfed Powys

  57

  70

  71

  67

  Gwent

  55

  70

  59

  64

  North Wales

  70

  72

  90

  97

  South Wales

  154

  134

  176

  169

  Number of operations involving Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs)

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Total

  5,523

  8,060

  7,544

  7,791

  Avon and Somerset

  200

  247

  121

  83

  Bedfordshire

  239

  309

  285

  240

  Cambridgeshire

  15

  23

  19

  27

  Cheshire

  180

  240

  166

  247

  Cleveland

  465

  1,014

  571

  29

  City of London

  23

  25

  34

  32

  Cumbria

  44

  64

  43

  38

  Derbyshire

  53

  97

  99

  153

  Devon and Cornwall

  21

  77

  58

  43

  Dorset

  22

  28

  50

  66

  Durham

  38

  62

  85

  84

  Essex

  155

  218

  180

  285

  Gloucestershire

  10

  13

  48

  49

  Greater Manchester

  6

  2—

  56

  43

  Hampshire

  159

  208

  170

  114

  Hertfordshire

  20

  35

  25

  26

  Humberside

  35

  284

  437

  277

  Kent

  42

  208

  212

  74

  Lancashire

  187

  320

  321

  596

  Leicestershire

  101

  126

  68

  109

  Lincolnshire

  21

  39

  34

  42

  Merseyside

  239

  618

  559

  396

  Metropolitan

  1,025

  790

  954

  1,573

  Norfolk

  80

  152

  117

  167

  Northamptonshire

  3

  20

  29

  32

  Northumbria

  325

  715

  515

  503

  North Yorkshire

  0

  13

  52

  30

  Nottinghamshire

  44

  66

  1256

  246

  South Yorkshire

  171

  129

  252

  115

  Staffordshire

  70

  235

  206

  185

  Suffolk

  117

  120

  135

  104

  Surrey

  47

  52

  76

  46

  Sussex

  413

  173

  284

  10

  Thames Valley

  73

  164

  184

  139

  Warwickshire

  54

  91

  127

  220

  West Mercia

  39

  77

  98

  99

  West Midlands

  98

  103

  102

  129

  West Yorkshire

  587

  584

  586

  630

  Wiltshire

  1

  23

  21

  17

  226W

  Number of operations involving Armed Response Vehicles (ARVs)

  1995–96

  1996–97

  1997–98

  1998–99

  Dyfed Powys

  6

  12

  19

  30

  Gwent

  39

  58

  47

  39

  North Wales

  14

  173

  260

  298

  South Wales

  42

  55

  97

  136

  1 These forces have changed the counting method for incidents to which ARVs are deployed

  2 No figures available

  Security Service Tribunal
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements have been made following the expiry of the terms of appointment of the members of the Security Service Tribunal on 18 December 1999: and if he will make a statement. [119126]

  Mr. Straw
  Lord Justice Mummery has been appointed as President of the Tribunal for a period of five years, following his predecessor's acceptance of an appointment to the post of Security Service Commissioner. Sheriff John McInnes has been re-appointed as Vice-President of the Tribunal and both he and Sir Richard Gaskell have been re-appointed to the Tribunal for a further period of five years.

  Lord Justice Simon Brown, formerly president of the Security Service Tribunal, has accepted an appointment Lord as the Security Service Commissioner for a period of three years from 1 April 2000.

  Fire Service
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has received the recommendations of the inquiry into the machinery for determining firefighters' conditions of service. [119127]

  Mr. Straw
  Professor Burchill, who undertook the inquiry has submitted to me a number of recommendations for improving the working of the National Joint Council for Local Authorities' Fire Brigades. These include proposals which would involve the acceptance by the employees and the union of conciliation and arbitration, in the event of disputes, a clarification of procedures, a streamlining of the negotiation arrangements, and an independent Chair for the National Joint Council.

  Implementation of these recommendations would be a matter for the National Joint Council rather than for the Government itself. I am, therefore, consulting the employers and the union, and with other interested parties, to confirm that they are willing to accept the proposals and to give them effect. I expect to announce the outcome of these consultations and to publish Professor Burchill's report early next month.

  I am extremely grateful to Professor Burchill for the time and effort he has given to the inquiry, the way he has conducted it and the extent of common understanding and agreement he has already been able to achieve.

  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has reached a decision on the bids for notional credit approvals under the second round of the private finance initiative for the Fire Service. [119128]
  227W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We received indicative bids from ten fire authorities for notional credit approvals under this second Private Finance Initiative (PFI) round for the fire service.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has today decided that notional credit approvals for 2001–02 should be set aside in respect of indicative bids from the fire authorities for:

  Tyne and Wear (Phase one of its proposed scheme)

  West Midlands

  Dorset

  Mid and West Wales.

  It will now be for those authorities to prepare an outline business case. Confirmation of the credit approvals will be given only on completion of such a business case demonstrating that PFI is the most cost-effective solution for the projects concerned, and on approval of the inter-departmental Project Review Group.

  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has also decided that he will be prepared to consider further the indicative bids from Tyne and Wear (Phase two) and London once decisions on provision of notional credit approvals for 2002–03 have been taken.

  We shall be in touch with all those authorities whose bids were not selected on this occasion to offer guidance on how the bids might be developed and resubmitted in any future bidding rounds.

  Kerb Crawling
  Mr. McCabe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to make kerb crawling an arrestable offence. [119129]

  Mr. Straw
  I am very aware of the nuisance caused by the activities of kerb crawlers. The Government agree that a specific power of arrest would assist the police in dealing with this problem. I intend to include this proposal in the draft of a police and private security Bill, on which we will be consulting later this session, and which we will introduce at the earliest legislative opportunity.

  Cybercrime Convention
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on progress with the Cybercrime Convention. [117521]

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Asylum applications

  33,855

  51,255

  176,062

  n/a

  Dependants

  2—

  2—

  2—

  2—

  Asylum seekers and dependants being supported by public funds

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Costs to public funds of supporting asylum seekers and their dependants3

  Total (£ million)

  375

  475

  597

  n/a

  Per head of population4 (£)

  6.38

  8.08

  10.15

  n/a

  Per income tax payer4 (£)

  13.44

  17.03

  21.40

  n/a

  Per household4 (£)

  15.50

  19.63

  24.67

  n/a

  Percentage of total Government expenditure4

  0.12

  0.14

  0.17

  n/a

  228W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by the Minister of State, Home Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), to the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) on 21 October 1999,Official Report, columns 621-22W, which remains valid as a description of the state of play.

  At the request of the United Kingdom and some other member states, it has been agreed with our Council of Europe partners that the draft convention should be made publicly available and we expect it to be released shortly. We plan to consult relevant interests, including industry, and will place a copy of the draft convention in the Library.

  Prisons (Disabled People)
  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to adapt prisons to conform to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. [118793]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service has accepted that its policies should conform to the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The Prison Service has already put in place policies, practices and procedures to prevent discrimination, and to provide auxiliary aids or services to facilitate disabled prisoners' and visitors' access to services. A Working Group has been set up to consider what needs to be done to conform with the requirement of the Act to remove or alter physical barriers to disabled persons' access to services.

  Asylum Seekers
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list, for (i) 1997–98, (ii) 1998–99 and (iii) 1999–2000, together with estimates he has made for the year 2000–01(a) the number of applications for asylum made in each year, (b) the number of dependants of applicants for asylum applying in each year, (c) the number of asylum seekers and dependants being supported at cost to public funds, (d) the costs to public funds of supporting asylum seekers and their dependants, including costs relating to unaccompanied children, (1) in total, (2) per head of population, (3) per income tax payer, (4) per household and (5) as a percentage of total Government expenditure and (e) the cost to public funds of administration associated with asylum seekers and their dependants, (A) in total, (B) per head of population, (C) per income tax payer, (D) per household and (E) as a percentage of total Government expenditure. [118802]

  Mrs. Roche
  The available figures are given in the table:
  229W

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Costs to public funds of administration associated with asylum seekers and their dependants5

  Total (£ million)

  215

  209

  6260

  n/a

  Per head of population4 (£)

  3.66

  3.55

  4.42

  n/a

  Per income tax payer4 (£)

  7.71

  7.49

  9.32

  n/a

  Per household4 (£)

  8.88

  8.64

  10.74

  n/a

  Percentage of total Government expenditure4

  0.07

  0.06

  0.08

  n/a

  1Includes an estimated figure for March 2000.

  2Only available for calendar years.

  3Including costs associated with unaccompanied children.

  4The estimated figure for the UK population is 58.8 million, the estimated number of tax payers is 27.9 million and the estimated number of households is 24.2 million. The total managed public expenditure in 1997–98 was 322.1 billion, in 1998–99 is 331 billion (estimated) and in 1999–2000 is £345.2 billion (estimated).

  5These figures are for total immigration administration which includes asylum administration costs.

  6Includes National Asylum Support Service (NASS) administration costs.

  Figures for dependants are available only for calendar years. In 1997, there were a total of 8,980 dependants, in 1998 the figure was 12,470. Figures for 1999 and 2000 are not currently available.

  In 1997–98 to 1999–2000 asylum seekers were supported by the Department of Social Security and Department of Health (Local authorities). Figures for the numbers being supported change from week to week. Financial year figures for supported asylum seekers are not available.

  Immigration Service
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate has been made of the cost of(a) Immigration Service personnel (i) in ports, (ii) in Croydon and (iii) abroad and (b) immigration appeal adjudicators and tribunals, in the last three years for which figures are available. [118056]

  Mrs. Roche
  The total cost to the Home Office for Immigration Service personnel was £89 million for 1999–2000, £84.6 million for 1998–99 and £84.5 million for 1997–98. A detailed breakdown is provided in the table:

  Immigration Service personnel costs

  £ million

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  Total

  84.5

  84.6

  89.0

  In Ports

  81.8

  81.0

  84.2

  In Croydon

  2.5

  3.3

  4.2

  Abroad

  0.2

  0.3

  0.6

  Notes:

  1. Figures for Immigration Service staff abroad are for Airline Liaison Officers. Costs of Immigration Officers/Chief Immigration Officers at Entry Clearance Units are not available.

  Police post

  Rural?

  Downgraded

  Closed

  Opened

  Constituency: Shropshire North1

  Hodnet

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1990

  —

  Llynclys

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1990

  —

  West Felton

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1991

  —

  Woore

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1993

  —

  Whittington

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1993

  —

  Gobowen

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1994

  —

  Weston Rhyn

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1996

  —

  230W
  2. Costs are for salaries and on costs, but exclude accommodation.

  3. 1999–2000 figures are estimated final outtum.

  The costs of the immigration appeals adjudicators and tribunals are a matter for the Lord Chancellor's Department/Court Service.

  Jill Dando Murder Investigation
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 21 March 2000,Official Report, column 484W, for what reason the number of police officers working on the Jill Dando murder investigation has been reduced; and if he will make a statement on future numbers. [118306]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The number of police officers deployed on any murder investigation is an operational matter for the relevant Chief Officer of Police, in this case the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis.

  The Commissioner tells me that the size of the team investigating Jill Dando's death is subject to regular management review to ensure the efficient and effective progression of the investigation.

  Police Stations
  Mr. Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each constituency in Shropshire the police stations indicating those which served rural communities, which were(a) downgraded, (b) closed and (c) opened (i) between 1979 to 1997 and (ii) since May 1997. [118542]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I have been advised by West Mercia Constabulary in this operational matter. The answer is given in the table.
  231W

  Police post

  Rural?

  Downgraded

  Closed

  Opened

  Constituency: Shrewsbury and Atcham1

  Westbury

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1986

  —

  Longden

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1987

  —

  Ford

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1990

  —

  Shawbury

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1990

  —

  Atcham

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1990

  —

  Bowmere Heath

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1992

  —

  Baschurch

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1992

  —

  Nesscliffe

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1994

  —

  Bayston Hill

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1997

  —

  Constituency: Ludlow1

  Church Stretton

  Rural (small town station)

  Upgraded

  Old one closed 1992

  Purpose built new station opened 1992

  Constituency: Ludlow2

  Craven Arms

  Rural (small town) section station

  Upgraded

  Small single storey station closed and sold May 1999

  Adjacent house converted to larger station: opened May 1999

  Bishops Castle

  Rural (small town) station

  Size downgraded

  1960s station, flats and garaging closed and sold April 1999

  Small new purpose built beat station opened April 1999

  Chirbury

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1987

  —

  Broseley

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1996

  —

  Constituency: Wrekin1

  Trench

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1983

  —

  Hadley

  Suburban

  —

  Sold 1995

  —

  Tong

  Yes

  —

  Sold 1996

  —

  Constituency: Telford1

  Woodside

  Suburban

  —

  Sold 1995

  —

  Constituency: Telford3

  Madeley

  Rural

  Old closed—upgraded to a larger station

  1999

  1999

  Oakengates

  Town

  —

  Sold 1999

  —

  1Between 1979 and 1997

  2From May 1997 onward

  3Since May 1997

  Prison Visits
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the use of telephone booking systems for arranging visits to inmates in prisons in England and Wales; and if he will make a statement. [118491]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service recognises that telephone booking systems can be an effective tool in managing and allocating the huge number of booked visits which prison establishments have to organise on a daily basis. An increasing number of prisons are developing Information Technology systems for this purpose. The Prison Service has completed a study into the use of telephone booking systems for social and official visits to prisoners, the findings of which have informed the production of a statement of business requirements for the introduction of a computerised visits booking system in all prisons.

  The Prison Service is working, in partnership with the private sector, to develop the delivery of improved services through the effective use of Information Technology. One of the aims of this project is the provision of efficient, responsive, customer focused public services, and booked visits are included within the scope of the services to be provided. The Prison Service is in the process of developing the timetable for this work.

  Animal Experiments
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many animals were allowed into the United Kingdom during the last 12 months for use in experiments; and what requirements must be met for such animals to be allowed entry into the United Kingdom. [118488]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Home Office does not record centrally the number of animals imported into the United Kingdom for use in scientific procedures. However, Table 2 of the "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals", published annually in separate volumes for Great Britain and Northern Ireland, records the number of scientific procedures carried out, analysed by Schedule 2 listed species and source of animals. Animals listed in Schedule 2 to the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 can only be acquired from designated breeding or supplying establishments for use in procedures authorised under the Act unless the Secretary of State has granted a specific exemption.

  Table 2 identifies animals obtained from non-United Kingdom sources broken down between those acquired within the European Union and those acquired from outside the European Union. The statistics for 1999 are

  233W
  currently being collated and will be published in July. The statistics for 1998 show that the total numbers of animals acquired from non-United Kingdom sources were:

  From European Union sources

  From non-European Union sources

  Total

  Great Britain

  6,800

  14,745

  21,545

  Northern Ireland

  28

  4

  32

  Total

  6,828

  14,749

  21,577

  The following criteria are applied in deciding applications for such exemptions: no suitable animals must be available from designated breeding or supplying establishments within the United Kingdom; the overseas source must be judged to be of good repute; and travel and import controls must be met. Welfare issues involved in the import of animals from abroad, such as journey times, are also considered as part of the Home Office cost/benefit assessment for project licences.

  Prisoners (Religious Services)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reason inmates in prisons in England and Wales have to make application to attend religious services; and if he will make a statement. [118489]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Prison Service respects the need for all prisoners to be free to practice their religion and makes provision for prisoners to participate in worship.

  That participation is voluntary so numbers can vary and are often quite high. In order, therefore, to ensure proper security arrangements are in place and access and movement is satisfactory, prisoners in some prisons are asked to make applications to attend religious services.

  Such applications are not intended to compromise the prisoner's access to worship but to ensure the worship is safe and trouble free.

  Parole Board (Murderers)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cases were heard during the last 12 months by the Parole Board of inmates convicted of murder and seeking parole; and how many such inmates were granted parole. [118380]

  Mr. Boateng
  The decision whether to release adult murderers on life licence is a matter for the Home Secretary, subject to a recommendation for release from the Parole Board. In the year ended 31 December 1999, the Board considered 590 mandatory life sentence cases, about half of which were tariff expired and, therefore, eligible for release. The Board recommended release in 75 of these cases. Sixty-three of these recommendations were accepted, three were rejected, and nine are still under consideration.

  Those sentenced to detention during Her Majesty's pleasure (having been convicted of a murder committed when under the age of 18) are released on the direction of the Parole Board once their tariffs have expired. The Board considered 41 such cases in 1999 and directed release in 15 of them.

  Illegal Sales
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prosecutions and (b) convictions there were in courts in the United Kingdom for dealing in the illegal re-sale of tobacco, spirits and beer imported from other European countries during 1999. [118487]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Office Court Proceedings Database does not hold information about the characteristics of individual cases apart from those that are evident from the description of the offence with which the defendant has been charged.

  Defendants prosecuted for the illegal re-sale of items would be prosecuted under section 170 of the Customs and Excise Management Act 1979. However, the database does not separately identify such cases from other offences under the Act.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Heppell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what guidance is given to the Crown Prosecution Service on action to be taken against persons with multiple sclerosis who use cannabis as a beneficial homeopathic treatment; and what plans he has to review the guidance; [118531]

  (2) what guidance is given to the police on action to be taken against persons with multiple sclerosis who use cannabis as a beneficial homeopathic treatment; and what plans he has to review the guidance. [118529]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Possession of cannabis is a criminal offence and it is for the police and the Crown Prosecution Service to decide whether to prosecute in a particular case, taking account of the individual merits. If there is sufficient evidence to prosecute, then both the police and the Crown Prosecution Service will weigh public interest considerations.

  The police have a range of guidance, the most recent was issued by the Association of Chief Police Officers in February last year; there are no plans to review this guidance. The Crown Prosecution Service assess all cases in accordance with the Code for Crown Prosecutors; this Code is currently under review.

  Prisoners (Solitary Confinement)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have been kept in solitary confinement by reason of their violent nature and representing a threat to others for each year since 1995. [118534]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested cannot be obtained from the centrally available data; a response could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons his Department did not publish the Draft Code of Practice, pursuant to Clause 44 of the Freedom of Information Bill, before the afternoon of 4 April. [118522]
  235W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The working draft of the Code of Practice was published at the earliest opportunity following necessary consultations with colleagues.

  Copies of the draft Code were placed in the Library on 4 April and sent on the same day to members of the Standing Committee B which had scrutinised the Freedom of Information Bill in Committee.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department on how many occasions Ministers have withheld information from public disclosure under the exemption clauses of the Code of Practice on Disclosure of Official Information since May 1997. [118496]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government publish annual monitoring reports on the operation of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The reports contain statistics on the number of Code requests received by each Department in that calendar year and include details as to the number of requests which have been refused. However, the reports do not identify which of these cases were referred to Ministers or where decisions were taken by officials.

  The 1997 report shows that, for the calendar year, 1,894 requests were refused—of which 1,735 relate to premature applications to the Health and Safety Executive for information relating to civil proceedings. Excluding these cases, the number of refusals of requests over the year was 159.

  The 1998 report shows that in that year, 1,745 requests were refused—of which 1,534 related to premature applications to the Health and Safety Executive for information relating to civil proceedings. Excluding these cases, the number of refusals of requests over the year was 211.

  The 1999 Monitoring report, which will contain the relevant statistics for last year, is being compiled and I will publish it in due course.

  Probation Service
  Mr. Wigley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will establish a review of the(a) hours worked and (b) pay rates of employees of the Probation Service, to include a comparison over the past decade of relativities with (i) teachers, (ii) police officers and (iii) social workers. [118334]

  Mr. Boateng
  We are looking carefully at workforce planning for the new Probation Service. As part of this, we are taking part in reviews of structures for pay and grading and of employee care and work priorities. I do not believe a further review of hours and pay would be appropriate at present.

  Schengen Information System
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if participation in the Schengen information system by the United Kingdom will require the United Kingdom to opt into an agreement based on(a) Title IV of the Treaty of the European Community or (b) other European treaties. [117406]
  236W
  Mrs. Roche
  Participation by the United Kingdom in the Schengen Information System (SIS) will require the exercise of the United Kingdom's opt-in under Article 4 of the Protocol integrating the Schengen acquis into the framework of the European Union, annexed to the Treaty of Amsterdam. The Government have submitted a request under this provision for participation in aspects of the Schengen acquis, including the SIS, and we are currently awaiting its approval. The SIS has been allocated to a legal base in the Treaty on European Union.

  Police Recruitment
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 6 April 2000,Official Report, column 596W, and his answer to the hon. Member for Coventry, South (Mr. Cunningham) of 27 March 2000, Official Report, columns 1-3W, and to the hon. Member for Elmet (Mr. Burgon) of 9 February 2000, Official Report, column 172W, what estimate he has made of the change in police numbers in England and Wales between April 2002 and March 2003 following his announcement that the extra recruits under the Crime Fighting Fund will be recruited over two years rather than three; what number of police officers he plans to recruit in England and Wales in the three years to March 2003; and what are his revised estimates of the total number of police officers in England and Wales over each of the next three years. [118805]

  Mr. Straw
  The additional funding announced in the Budget will allow us to provide for completing the recruitment of the 5,000 officers allocated under the Crime Fighting Fund by March 2002. It will allow for the recruitment of at least 2,000 in 2000–01 and 3,000 (or the remainder) in 2001–02. This means that the theoretical projections of police numbers, based on forces' estimates for recruitment and wastage, for the next two years are as follows:

  March 2001—125,500

  March 2002—127,000.

  The March 2002 projection approximates to the 1997 figure of 127,158.

  On the basis of projections made earlier this year alone, the theoretical figure for March 2003 would be 125,900, as cited in the reply given by the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) on 15 March 2000, Official Report, columns 177-79W. Chief Officers projections were made on the basis of the Compensation Spending Review settlement which extends to 2001–02, but in the absence of any information about funding levels for the police service in 2002–03. Funding levels from 2002–03 onwards will be known only when the outcome of the 2000 Spending Review is announced in the summer, when more realistic projections can be made.

  Lawyers
  Mr. Ieuan Wyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many lawyers are employed by his Department; and how many were employed in 1995. [117810]
  237W
  Mr. Straw
  The number of lawyers employed in the Home Office Legal Adviser's Branch on 31 March 1995 was 18. On 31 March 2000, the Branch had 31 lawyers in post (equating, when part-time staff are taken into account, to 30.5 posts) and two vacancies (which have now been filled by lawyers on loan from other Government Departments). Four of the lawyers in post on 31 March 2000 were also on loan from other Government Departments. The Branch provides legal services to the Northern Ireland Office as well as the Home Office.
  238W
  In addition to its traditional responsibilities, the Home Office has, since May 1997, taken responsibility for an important part of the Government's constitutional programme, including the Human Rights Act 1998, the Freedom of Information Bill and the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill. The Branch also has responsibility for Northern Ireland constitutional legislation. Home Office lawyers have 12 Bills (including Bills for the Northern Ireland Office) in the Government's programme for the current parliamentary session.

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

Post Offices: Payment of Welfare Benefit
Baroness Byfordasked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in paying welfare benefits through post offices.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, starting in 2003 we will be moving to a more secure and efficient method of paying benefits through automated credit transfer—ACT.
There will be no change to existing methods of benefit payment before 2003. And we have made clear that people will still be able to collect their cash from post offices if they wish to do so both before and after the move to ACT in 2003.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that response. The many thousands of people gathered in Central Hall will be glad to hear that they will continue to receive benefits in the same way after 2003.
However, are the Government concerned that, with payments being made through the new system, post offices will become unviable? At present post offices receive 40 per cent of their income through handling welfare payments. It is a great concern.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I, too, share the noble Baroness's anxiety that we do everything we can to ensure the survival of a national network of post offices. I cannot believe that anyone in this House dissents from that view. However, if the Government do nothing, we shall continue to see post offices closing. About 20 per cent of the network has closed over the past 25 years. The reason is that people are voting with their feet. Every year 500,000 people stop using the Post Office's paper order book Giro system and 500,000 new people receiving benefits choose to use ACT. So if the Government do nothing, the post office network will shrink even further.
Instead, the Government are in discussions with POCL and post offices. We shall fairly soon receive a Performance and Innovation Unit report on ways to strengthen in particular the rural post office network so that it sees bank closures not as a threat but as an opportunity to take on some of those services. That is why the Government have been assisting POCL, through the Horizon programme, to spend nearly £½ billion to produce an on-line service facility to those post offices—some of them are not even on electricity
184
at present—so that they can have electronic transmission and can provide banking services and help.
Lord Lipsey: My Lords, I wholly endorse everything that has been said about the virtues of rural post offices. However, does the Minister agree that they are more likely to thrive under what will he an innovative report from the PIU than from the declining and distorted subsidy they receive at present by being used to pay benefits?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it is an opportunity not a threat. People are .voting with their feet. Post offices will decline if they do not offer the mode of payment that most people wish. At present, for example, the average cost of a transaction payment to a postmaster for a DSS transaction is 13p. If, instead, a post office handles a bank ACT transaction, the average cost to a postmaster is 17p. There are huge opportunities. Over half of all our villages have a post office; only 5 per cent have a bank. If we can facilitate the entry of post offices into the Horizon Link electronic transmission age, there is a massive opportunity to offer financial services to those at present excluded from them in our rural society.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will the changeover in 2003 require positive or negative action on the part of beneficiaries who want to continue to receive their money from sub-post offices?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we shall discuss the issue with those people. But even if one has a bank account but wishes to continue to receive one's cash paid through the post office after 2003, one can do so.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that income derived from payment of benefit is at present essential not only to the viability of the post office but also to the income of the sub-postmaster'' Can she offer any concrete proposals which will make the job of sub-postmaster viable after a sharp diminution in the income derived from benefit?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl's question presupposes that there will be a sharp diminution in income and that in turn depends on the willingness of sub-postmasters to take on some of the banking facilities through the Horizon project which will make each transaction more remunerative to them. The Government are doing their bit to ensure that post offices are electronically linked up in order to undertake that role when banks are withdrawing their provision of such services. We are therefore meeting that part of the requirement.
Secondly, POCL is rearranging its payment to post offices and sub-postmasters so that those with the lowest turnover have a higher minimum payment before they receive a charge per transaction. Obviously, we support that.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, are we to understand that the Government have not yet decided how the option to continue to receive cash through the post office will work? Will she state clearly by what method people will continue to be able to do so?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we expect there to be at least three possible options. The first is through the Horizon project which links up all post offices on line for the electronic transmission of money. That is secure, safe, cheap and convenient. An ACT transaction costs us 1p while a Giro transaction costs us —1.36. That Horizon platform means that post offices can offer banking facilities. They are already doing so for Alliance & Leicester, Lloyds TSB and Barclays, and other banks are considering that course. As regards such facilities, they receive a transaction payment, which is more than they receive for DSS payments.
Secondly, depending on the PIU report, post offices may be able to offer a universal banking service through the same systems. Thirdly, banks are to install about 3,000 cash machines.
Earl Peel: My Lords, does the Minister agree with the comment made by her honourable friend in another place that between 400 and 500 rural post offices are likely to close within the next year? If so, would she not agree that that would have a devastating effect on rural communities?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should be most upset if it did. An average of 250 post offices have closed in each of the past two years because the network is shrinking. That is because people are choosing to use ACT. Fifty-four per cent of people who become pensioners choose to have their pension paid by ACT through their bank account. The Post Office is losing 500,000 customers a year. Therefore, if the Government do not encourage post offices to provide banking facilities through the new electronic systems, post offices will wither. That will not be because of anything the Government have done, but because customers have taken their business elsewhere.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is it not a fact that the Government originally intended that welfare payments would continue to be made through post offices and that a sudden change in that policy has created uncertainty and grave doubts among sub-postmasters and their customers about the future?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure whether there has been a misunderstanding of the Government's policy. The Government have always made it clear that cash can be received by customers from post offices both before and after 2003, even if they also have a bank account. If customers choose to have money paid through their post offices they can do so.

Social Services for Disabled People
2.46 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokeasked Her Majesty's Government:
What has been the effect of the judgments in the cases of Regina v. Gloucestershire County Council and the Secretary of State for Health ex parte Barry and Regina v. Gloucestershire County Council and another ex parte Barry on social services for disabled people.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, the House of Lords judgment in the Gloucestershire case did not change the law, but confirmed the legal position to be that which the Department of Health has always believed to apply; namely, that authorities may take their resources into account in assessing the needs of a disabled person and deciding what services to arrange.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the significance of the judgment is that it allows local authorities to plead poverty when cutting or eliminating community care for disabled people? A recent report from the Royal Association for Disability & Rehabilitation confirmed that since the judgment there has been a significant deterioration in the service. It quoted the case of an 86 year-old woman suffering from Alzheimer's disease who was refused a bath or a shower for five years and was forced to have a strip-wash at the kitchen sink. It mentioned other severely disabled people who were pushed to the brink of despair and even suicide.
Regardless of what my noble friend said, is he aware that we want a change in the law, even that interpreted by the Law Lords? We want a law which enables local authorities to do their job without pleading poverty and which forces them to carry out their duty to provide such services for disabled people.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I acknowledge my noble friend's involvement in this area and I appreciate his concerns. The Government do not believe that the Gloucestershire judgment should have led to changes in the practice of authorities as the House of Lords judgment confirmed what had long been the department's understanding of the law.
Following that judgment, we issued guidance which was used to help to safeguard disabled people against possible misunderstandings of it. That made it clear that the judgment did not give authorities a licence to take arbitrary or unreasonable decisions. It also made it clear that the authorities are still under a duty to arrange services for disabled persons where they consider it to be necessary to do so in order to meet a disabled person's need.
I am prepared to examine the specific cases that my noble friend outlined if he raises them with me outside the Chamber.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if the social services fail to meet the needs, they

187
will have to be picked up by the Department of Health? Does he further agree that robbing Peter to pay Paul later is not what one would call "joined-up government"?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, there are many areas where the department feels that services should be examined. We realise that there are problems and failures within social services. The White Paper, Modernising Social Services, sets out our plans to overhaul the social services and to create services in which we can all have confidence. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Addington, that robbing Peter to pay Paul should not be the Government's approach on this issue.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, is it not a straight defiance of Parliament's intention in enacting Section 2 of my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act to deny housebound elderly people even the right to a bath, now one of the most fundamental human rights that is well recognised in the Prison Service? And is it not totally repugnant to Ministers who are committed to social fairness to see an elderly housebound woman stating,
"My husband and I, both in our 80s, are taken to an old people's home twice a year for a bath. We asked the council to put in a bath but were told there is no money"?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, once again, I appreciate the involvement of my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester in this issue and I acknowledge the past service that he has given to disabled people. It is sad that on an occasion such as this we need to raise issues of the type referred to by my noble friend. The Government are taking great steps to try to improve services: we are modernising social services and setting up a modernisation fund and Fair Access to care services. The Better care, higher standards national charter sets out a number of proposals to promote the independence of deaf and blind people. I also remind my noble friend that, although the Government are not complacent on this issue, there is a complaints procedure which can be used within local government. I am sure that like many other noble Lords my noble friend will want to ensure that the ombudsman is used, if necessary, in extreme cases in local government, to ensure that cases such as those mentioned are not treated unreasonably.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that where local authorities face statutory obligations and compulsory spending limits they risk being "damned if they do and damned if they don't"? In the light of that, can the Minister tell us exactly what meaning he attaches to the Government's manifesto pledge to abolish crude and universal capping?
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I have already said that this judgment should not affect the relationship between a local authority and the disabled people who need to make use of the service. So far as the Government are concerned, we are absolutely and positively committed to improving social services
188
benefits for disabled people. In order to achieve that, we have consulted the various elements involved, such as Sense, Deafblind UK, the RNIB and the RNID. We are keen that proper consultation should take place to ensure that local authorities are able to cater for, and government are in tune with, the needs of disabled, deaf and blind people in this country.

Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review
2.53 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putneyasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether, at the forthcoming conference on the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty in New York, they will press for a nuclear weapons convention along the same lines as the conventions now in Force regarding chemical and biological weapons so as to emphasise international commitment to nuclear disarmament.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Government agree that logically the process of nuclear disarmament ultimately is likely to require the negotiation of a nuclear weapons convention to ban nuclear weapons, just as chemical and biological weapons are banned by the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions respectively. Unfortunately, the reality is that the circumstances do not yet exist to make starting such negotiations a practical proposition. Therefore, at the Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference later this month we shall press for progress towards more immediate goals such as further deep cuts in the arsenals of the two major nuclear powers, bringing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty into force and launching negotiations on a fissile material cut-off treaty.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the very process of expressing a desire to move in the direction of banning would of .itself create the situation that the Government desire and make it an obviously sensible and, indeed, inevitable and right thing to do? Unless that is done, the feeling will persist that nuclear weapons are not quite as bad as biological and chemical weapons and do not need to be outlawed. That kind of comparison is fruitless. I suggest to my noble friend that the necessity for banning nuclear weapons is extremely urgent and should be looked at in the same light as the banning of biological and chemical weapons.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand absolutely the passion with which the noble Lord addresses this issue. We have no problem in principle with the idea of a nuclear weapons convention as the ultimate legal underpinning of a nuclear weapons-free world. However, we cannot wish away present political realities and pretend that negotiations on such a convention could be expected

189
to make headway in present circumstances. We agree with the noble Lord that it is a consummation devoutly to be wished but, regrettably, unlikely to be delivered very quickly.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, despite the Minister's reply, does she recognise that there are great opportunities for the United Kingdom at the review of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty? Perhaps I may ask her about two of them. First, can she tell us what will be the position of Her Majesty's Government with regard to the redefinition of the position of India and Pakistan, which are both listed in the existing treaty as "non-nuclear states"? Secondly, can the Minister take advantage of the warm rapprochement—almost a special relationship—between the recently elected President of Russia and our own Prime Minister to press for the Duma to ratify the START II disarmament treaty which now seems a real and exciting possibility?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I can certainly tell the noble Baroness that we hope that both Pakistan and India will consider favourably signing the treaty. We are urging them as energetically as we can to direct their minds to that. We very much welcome the news that the Russian Duma plans to vote on the ratification of START II on Friday. Obviously, we hope for a positive outcome that will open the way for negotiations with the United States on a START III treaty, promising significant further cuts in the two countries' nuclear arsenals. Therefore, we very much welcome this positive move and we are doing everything that we can to encourage our Russian partners to ratify START II as soon as practicable.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to political realities. Will she bear in mind how stupid and entrenched those obstacles to progress can be? They will be there for ever unless determined action is taken to combat them.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we certainly agree that determined action needs to be taken to combat them. That is precisely what we are doing in pushing forward with the conference and trying to make the atmosphere as conducive as possible to a rapprochement, as the noble Baroness has already mentioned. Our energy is devoted wholly to that end.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is it not the case that a number of countries which have not signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty or ratified it are constructing nuclear capabilities, testing nuclear weapons and producing the means to deliver them by ballistic missiles? Is it not pointless to talk about a nuclear weapons convention while that is the case?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I cannot agree with the noble Lord, although I of course understand his anxiety. We must push ahead with this as a policy and encourage others to follow us keenly.
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there is a serious problem of
190
confidence among the non-nuclear powers as to whether the nuclear powers are taking seriously their obligations to negotiate for the abolition of nuclear weapons under Article 6 of the treaty? My noble friend mentioned the possibility of negotiations for a fissile material cut-off treaty. Will there be a vigorous campaign to initiate those negotiations, and would that not be a major step forward?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government understand the frustration of some of the non-nuclear weapon states at the slow pace of progress towards nuclear disarmament. We share it. We have been vigorous in pursuing those matters; we shall continue to be robust in our approach with our partners; and we shall strive to reach a satisfactory conclusion. But we must take others with us. We cannot walk that journey alone.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, one way to end the growing nuclear terror and the spread of nuclear weapons which is taking place is to develop anti-missile defences which render useless nuclear weapons and nuclear delivery systems. Will the noble Baroness say where the Government stand on the proposals of the American Government to go ahead in July with precisely that kind of development? Are we in Britain to be involved with that development which would be a practical way of meeting the nuclear horror?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Americans have been considering that issue, but as yet they have reached no definitive view. We believe that it is important that Britain enters into the debate; considers the opportunity which may be available; and takes those decisions which best befit the security of this nation. We are not at a stage now where we have any particular focused policies which are being advocated. But it is a debate which is causing a great deal of concern.

Federal Europe: Party Policies
3.1 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davisasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any representations from the newly-formed Conservatives Against a Federal Europe (CAFE) and, if so, what has been their response.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have not recently received any representations from the Conservatives Against a Federal Europe—CAFE— organisation and have not, therefore, made a formal response.
Lord Clinton-Davies: My Lords, is it usual for Front Benchers of the Conservative Party, or any party, to join an organisation which directly targets Opposition Front Bench policy? Is the main element of its

191
approach not simply rejection of the euro but withdrawal from the European Union? Where do the Government stand on that?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, your Lordships will know that the Government are very clear that our interests are best met by staying within Europe. We share the concern expressed by my noble friend that many senior members of the party opposite appear to have a contrary view in relation to CAFE. The Government are absolutely clear that we are in Europe. We are staying at the heart of Europe. Europe is acting and behaving to our advantage, not to our disadvantage.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, taking, for example, the federal system as in Germany, Australia and the United States, are the Government in favour of a federal Europe?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government are not in favour of a change in the European status. Europe is doing us very well at the moment and it stays exactly as it is.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that if a multiplicity of countries come together with a single currency and a single interest rate, controlled by a central bank, and with a central parliament, there is no argument about it: a federal system is inevitable? Does she not agree that it is what the Fabians would call the inevitability of gradualness?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I would not.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, surely the evidence is becoming overwhelming that those in the Conservative Party who wish to isolate Britain from the mainstream developments of Europe are now in control of the Conservative Party. They are gaining in confidence and numbers all the time. Indeed, they number some of the closest advisers of Mr Hague. In the circumstances, is it not regrettable that those pro-Europeans who are still in the Conservative Party, unlike their counterparts in the Labour Party in the early 1970s, and with the noble exception of Mr Kenneth Clarke, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe of Aberavon, and a tiny band of brave colleagues, prefer to sit on their hands and keep mum for the sake of party unity rather than speak out in the interests of this country?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are absolutely clear that the Labour Party's view is endorsed by the great majority of those who sit on these Benches. We have always welcomed freedom of speech. There are those on all Benches who exercise that with great facility, and long may they do so.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister aware that last week the Home Secretary wrote me a letter in which he said that he was as clearly committed to the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as I am? Under those circumstances, can we take it that the Home
192
Secretary will resign from the Government rather than consent to handing over the management of our monetary affairs to a foreign bank based in Frankfurt, or was he telling me fibs?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Home Secretary was being frank. He always is. We have not surrendered parliamentary sovereignty. We did not do so yesterday. And shall not do so today, or tomorrow. What the noble Lord does, of course, is a matter for him.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, is the Minister's right honourable friend the Home Secretary able to explain how it is possible therefore for directives to be imposed from Brussels on the British people without any opportunity for Parliament to amend or refuse them?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Viscount knows that that is not true. We ate playing a very full part in relation to fashioning such regulations. We shall continue to do so. The attempts now being made to bring about reform will inure to the benefit of all European states, including ourselves.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that before Britain joins the European Central Bank, if it does, there will be a referendum of the British people; that the British people will decide one way or the other in the light of that campaign; and that that is the highest sovereignty of all and one which many of us respect? Will she confirm that that is the basis on which we should wish to see Britain eventually join the central bank?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I absolutely and unreservedly agree with the noble Baroness. The British people will have their opportunity to speak in relation to this matter, and this Government, although I cannot speak for any other, will listen to them.

Financial Services and Markets Bill
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order:

Clause 1,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 2 to 20,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 21 to 29,

Schedules 3 and 4,

Clauses 30 to 34,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 35 to 39,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 40 to 72,

Schedules 7 and 8,

193

Clauses 73 to 86,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 87 and 88,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 89 to 101,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 102 to 109,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 110 to 129,

Schedule 13,

Clauses 130 to 158,

Schedule 14,

Clauses 159 to 161,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 162 to 199,

Schedule 16,

Clauses 200 to 221,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 222 to 329

Schedule 18,

Clauses 330 to 421,

Schedules 19 to 21,

Clause 422.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Small and Medium-sized Enterprises
3.8 p.m.
Lord Harrisonrose to call attention to the steps being taken by Her Majesty's Government and the European Commission to promote small and medium-sized enterprises in the United Kingdom and the European Union; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, welcome to the wonderful world of small business! It is a world in which my family has been deeply immersed for decades. From travel agent to launderette owner, from bookshop manager to licensee, members of my Labour-voting family have done them all. My parents' firm of waste contractors emptied the latrines of wartime London's Hyde Park and the post-war cesspits of Blenheim Palace. We were, indeed, the southern version of "Where there's muck, there's brass", and we were proud of it. We were proud of being members of that unique community of self-made men and women who see romance in striking out on your own, achieving something by your own hands or in the company of others similarly dedicated to make something that works and pays. That is the untold story of business Britain. Welcome indeed to the wonderful world of small business!
A warm welcome has been given by the present Government who recognise the enormous job-generating powers of SMEs. Thus recent Budgets have implemented new all-employee share ownership schemes, new R&D tax credits for SMEs, a new 10p capital gains tax rate, a new 10p rate of corporation tax for the smallest companies, and the making permanent of the first-year 40 per cent capital allowance.
194
That is all good stuff, but there is much more to do here in the UK. Perhaps I may highlight three areas. I refer first to banks. The recent Cruickshank report identified the £4 billion per year excess profits which banks make from personal and small business customers by charging too much for money transfers and paying too little for deposits. That, in addition to the continuing closures of banks in Britain's rural towns and inner-city areas, is intolerable. Banks have a social function which, if they only had the wit to see it, lays down the firm foundation of future profits. "Short-termism" is a phrase which should be excluded from the banks' lexicon. For the sake of small firms, the Government should continue to act tough with our high street banks.
Secondly, the Government need to spread the news more widely that small businesses are good for you. At the moment, there is a paucity of new SME formation in poorer parts of Britain such as Wales and Merseyside. There are two few women participating in the drive for entrepreneurs and biases remain against go-getters from the ethnic communities. This scandal is, again, partly attributable to the high street banks. A recent authoritative report by the Bank of England details unwitting discrimination practised by banks in their dealings with the ethnic communities. In that respect, perhaps I may say that I look forward to the contribution of my noble friend Lord Patel of Blackburn in his maiden speech.
We must spread our SME net wider. Perhaps I may highlight the situation in schools today where careers advisers are too often dumb in front of an inquiry as to how a young person might be enthused by the exciting world of small business. I am happy to report that my 17 year-old son's school takes this proselytising job seriously with an active young enterprise scheme. "Back to Business Basics" should be Britain's school motto. Business should not be a dirty word in the classroom. We shall widen the base of those confident to come into business only if we catch our buccaneers young and willing.
Thirdly, I welcome the Government's creation of the Small Business Service which, like the SBA in Washington, will become the still, small voice of small firms at the heart of government. For too long, because of the fragmentation of small firms' representative bodies in Britain, that authentic voice has been drowned out; indeed, while ignorant armies clashed by night.
But what of the world beyond Dover beach and Britain's shores? What of our relationship with the European Union and what of the promotion of small businesses in the burgeoning single market? Are we yet blood brothers with our Corsican, Catalan and continental cousins? Well, we are getting there; the more so because our Government take a sensible and pragmatic stance on advancing Britain's cause in Europe. Perhaps I may illustrate that by reference to one of the most tormenting problems of running a small business today: late payment of commercial debt.

195
Recently, our Parliament enacted legislation to outlaw those who cheat early by paying late. An estimated £20,000 million is lost each year to small firms; it might otherwise provide cash flow to help them to survive, breathe and grow. The good news from the Forum of Private Business is that the 1998 Act is beginning to bite. The availability of a statutory right to interest is beginning to inhibit foul play, as it has in other European Union countries such as Sweden where such legislation has existed since the 1970s. But now there is another problem put to me by a Cheshire businesswoman who deals with Swedish suppliers but sells value-added goods on to a big firm locally. She is caught by the double whammy of having to pay early to her supplier in Sweden while receiving payment late in Britain, with attendant cash-flow crises. In other words, British legislation is no longer sufficient by itself to shelter and encourage this and other small businesses who want to carry Britain's flag of enterprise into Europe's single market.
That is why I am pleased that the Government are currently supporting legislation to eradicate the scourge of late payment throughout the whole of the European Union. It must be the priority of government to work with their partners, and with the European Parliament, a co-decision maker on this issue, to clear away the bracken that impedes creation of a true market. Indeed, if there was one abiding message that I would want this debate to carry today, and which my late payment vignette vivifies, it is the imperative for Britain to recognise the primacy of the single market and for the Government to redouble their efforts for its completion. The single market is the magic carpet on which all our hopes ride, and none is a carpet-bagger who seeks that goal.
In 1997, during the British presidency of the European Union, the Government did indeed reaffirm their desire to drive through completion of the single market. More recently at Lisbon, encouraged by Premier Blair, the European Union has renewed its efforts to help small businesses: first, by agreeing to the establishment of a charter for small firms and, secondly, by providing 1 billion euros through the European Investment Bank for SMEs to access vital venture capital. Welcome, too, is the introduction by the Lisbon Council of a European diploma for basic IT skills and the proposal for a rapid agreement on an effective legal framework for e-commerce within the EU. All those initiatives will lubricate the single market.
I rehearse these points because too often in this country we denigrate, deny and despise the work of the European Community. We allow ourselves to bathe in a sea of scepticism about Europe and all things European. The unsought effect of this tidal wave of scepticism is to demoralise British business in its engagement with continental competition. There comes a point where even the most fervent entrepreneur begins to believe the rhetoric that, in the EU, bananas are bent and cucumbers curled with the sole purpose of blighting Blighty.
196
Chief quarry in the sights of the anti-marketeers is the European Commission, which has done sterling work in tackling, for instance, the vexed question of red tape within the single market. The BEST and SLIM programmes reform old rules and simplify new legislation to the benefit of all our businesses. But little acknowledgement is given to the Commission for undertaking the mammoth task of distilling 15 sets of national rules and regulation into one set of EU law which, clearly understood, monitored, policed and enforced, provides encouragement to all potential market participants. Give me, any time, one set of red tape, not 15. The true burden on business lies in retaining 15 unreformed markets—a tangled undergrowth that must be swept away.
To continue that scorched earth policy for business, I look forward to the new programme on SMEs, shortly to be published by the European Commission—a programme foreshadowed by the 1999 report of your Lordships' House entitled Promoting Small and Medium Enterprises (SMEs) in the European Union from the committee chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Geddes. Contained therein are examples of excellent EU initiatives broadening; the base of new entrants to small firms. Women entrepreneurs are a particular resource which we have undervalued as, indeed, are the ethnic minorities, the young and the disabled. I shall place a summary of each of these EU schemes in the Library. Each has the seemingly obligatory acronym: SAFE, EYGE-NET, WEEN, save one entitled "Cross-Border Training: Euro-advisers and Women Entrepreneurs". Here, a network of Euro-advisers is made available to women entrepreneurs to help on all aspects of trading in the single market. Not only are competent Euro-advisers thus created and women entrepreneurs helped, but a booklet is also produced which ensures that useful knowledge gained by this project is passed on to future aspirants. Incidentally, an interesting fact on which to ruminate is that, while women are woefully underrepresented in small businesses, research nevertheless suggests that SME survival rates are higher among women entrepreneurs than men.
I conclude with the single currency. I shall not rehearse the arguments in favour of the euro for those SMEs—often high-tech, highly-capitalised companies at the cutting edge of IT and the Internet—which are already trading in the single market and which readily appreciate that the euro facilitates business. Such firms regret the obligatory entrance fee that has to be paid every time they enter the single market via the pound sterling. I want to comment on the lifestyle small firms, often run by one dedicated entrepreneur, which shy away from any thought of entering the European scene. They, in turn, are the group most sceptical of the euro, yet they also stand to gain from Britain joining the euro. For them, a stable, economic environment is the sine qua non of domestic business success. Mortgages and the cost of borrowing money are their top financial concerns. This longed-for stability is precisely what the euro-zone is now providing to small businesses throughout Europe. Inflation, interest rates

197
and hence the cost of money—each has been lower in the European Union than in Britain for some time; an enormous perk to small and micro-businesses alike.
Of course, in Britain we have had the advantage of the Chancellor's superlative stewardship of the economy as a whole to see us through the problematic times of a strong pound. But when the tectonic plates of dollar, yen and euro grind anew into fresh configurations over the next few years, it may well be the pound that suffers financial shakes and shudders. Then, micro-businesses throughout Britain will resent the second-hand philosophy, falling off the back of Euro-sceptic lorries, which tells them that the euro is bad for Britain. Such cod rhetoric will not bring Britain cash on delivery. The cabotage of money benefits all British businesses, not just road hauliers.
I come to journey's end. Small businesses are big business for Britain today. I hope that the ensuing debate will confirm that truism and bring forth other truths which will lead us at its conclusion to celebrate the wonderful world of small business. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, small and medium-sized enterprises are often spoken of in the context of manufacturing units located mainly in towns and employing 50 to 100 people. In rural areas there are often only between one and 10 people engaged in various activities such as farming, agricultural contracting, livery stables, village sub-post offices and so forth. As a woman—the noble Lord referred to the need for women in business—I declare a former interest as a small business woman twice over: first, as a poultry farmer by trade; secondly, by choice as a tennis coach when I ran a tennis school and in fact enjoyed the experience greatly.
I make no apology that I shall home in mainly on the post offices during this debate. After all, they are small businesses. As recently as this morning a member of the board of post offices was explaining how they are converting 300 post offices a week to the new computer technology. By mid-2001 we shall all be able to carry out simple banking transactions at any post office. Deals to do this have already been set up with the four major banks. Negotiations are under way to provide the same service for the remaining big banks, most of the medium ones and some of the building societies.
That is very good news. But in the same programme a lady sub-post mistress said that 85 per cent of all benefit claimants wanted to be able to claim their cash through their giros at the post office. So there is also concern that the Government intend to stop the benefit payments going directly through the post offices and will encourage claimants to have their claims paid through bank accounts. That move will adversely affect small business enterprises in both towns and cities but particularly in the rural village areas. Post offices will be directly affected. Many of them have already gone and will continue to go out of business. This means that people from other small
198
rural businesses will have to go into town to post nonstandard letters, parcels and packages and obtain supplies of petty cash, and the village shop may go too.
We have already seen that farmers are leaving the land at the rate of 20,000 per year. They do not receive redundancy, severance pay or a golden handshake. Many have their pensions in the form of livestock, so they lose that too. A similar fate awaits some of our sub-postmasters if this Government persist in their plans to remove the payment of benefits through post offices. A sub-post office franchise has to be bought and carries no rights of compensation for loss of revenue, even if it is caused through the actions of officialdom or government. Nor do the franchisees qualify for redundancy, far less for loss of value of their main asset, their home, which they may have been building up to fund their retirement as well.
Around 8,000 people will be affected, almost the same number as are likely to be deprived of their employment at Longbridge. There, however, the similarity ends. At Longbridge the Government may be blameworthy for not asking the right questions or for not devoting enough time to the situation, but they are far from the sole cause. However, the mainspring of the threatened post office closures is the Government's repudiation of the original Horizon project. Longbridge workers are overwhelmingly urban-based dwellers. The sub-postmasters who are most likely to be affected are primarily based in rural areas.
Ancillary staff are also involved in post office closures. As these are small businesses, many will be part-timers. Estimates of the numbers vary, but between 12,000 and 16,000 people are likely to be affected. Some 20,000 or more job losses, mainly from villages and small towns, will have a serious impact on rural communities. There will be a loss of ability to buy stamps, to post parcels, to pay bills—particularly important for those who, for whatever reason, do not have a bank account but obtain cash and coin from the post office. Where the post office subsidised and justified a village shop, the ability to buy the essential needs of survival may also be threatened, though in response to my Question I was surprised that the Minister did not agree with that.
The problem is compounded by the decision of several banks (but particularly Barclays in recent times) to close large numbers of branches in large villages and small towns. The net result of the two actions will be to force rural dwellers to spend more time, money and fuel travelling to larger conurbations to do even the simplest things—buy a newspaper, post a birthday card, obtain sugar and milk or pay the council taxes and other bills.
Those people with full faculties and with a current driving licence may not perceive the problem. But pro rata there are many more older people who live in rural areas than in towns. Many are widows living on their own on small means, some without cars and often with insufficient money to travel on a regular basis to town. Quite apart from the fact that they do not want to put their money in the bank, they do not pass the necessary

199
credit checks that the banks carry out. They do not have any substance for which the banks may try to provide added value. When the day arrives that we are all charged for having a credit account, these ladies— and some gentlemen—will have to pay for the privilege of having a bank account that they did not want in the first place.
A further problem is emerging in that many of those small enterprises which combine sub-post office and village shop sometimes act as collection points for repeat prescriptions. Young mums with no car available during the day, elderly people whose driving days are over and the chronic sick of all ages use such facilities. Their usage is set to rise dramatically, as I understand that GPs will now be restricted to monthly prescriptions instead of specifying three to six months' supply at a time, which has been the present practice.
All this is at a time when the Government claim to be cutting down the opportunities for fraud; yet when publicity is given to either the amount of money lost through fraud or to a particularly successful attempt at catching the perpetrators, my impression is that this is usually associated with fraudulent claims. Can the Minister provide the figures for the value of wrongful payments made because of fraudulent claims and because of fraudulent use of benefit books at post office counters? Can he also tell us what proportion of wrongful payments were made at local sub-post offices in rural areas, where very often the claimants are well known to members of the staff?
It so happens that today's debate tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for which I thank him most warmly, is opportune. The National Federation of Sub-Postmasters presented a petition to No 10 Downing Street this morning. If I tell noble Lords that it was signed by 3,120,000-plus people, they will have some idea of the great concern that there is out there in the country about the Government's proposals for the changes to benefit payments: 3,120,000 is an awful lot of people asking the Government to think again.
In the Minister's response to my earlier Question today I was pleased to hear that she did not consider that payments would be stopped if people wished to continue to receive their cash through the post office. But I pose the question again, because if the majority of people do not use the system, the financial viability of those very same post offices will be undermined. If they go out of business, it will put people at even greater risk and make them more vulnerable.
The post offices are not only places where people go; they are centres that draw people from the village to its central heart. Pensioners are forced to go out and draw their pensions from these centres. They then meet other people, chat and become involved in the local community. It also means that they do not have to pay bank charges for drawing small sums of money.
At present, post office users also have a free bill payment service. As I said earlier, they can collect their benefits if they wish, and do so without charge. Most post offices are open early in the morning, from nine o'clock, to 5.30 in the evening and on Saturday mornings. Many organisations realise the value of this
200
service. Among those who spoke at today's lunchtime meeting—the Methodist Hall across the road from here was full of people—were people from the National Federation of Women's Institutes, Age Concern, VRSA (of which I am a patron), the Countryside Alliance, the Post Office, the Mothers' Union, the CPRE and many others. This is a very big problem.
The petition signatories are also aware that the Government's action will deprive many sub-postmasters of their living. They are currently paid for each benefit transaction that they undertake. As I said earlier, they will lose between 35 and 45 per cent of their total income if the Government push ahead with this as they plan to do. Many of the people who signed the petition are also aware of some of the unanswered questions; for example, if post offices close, how do the Government propose to ensure that the 1 million emergency payments reach the intended recipients as fast as possible? How can the Government guarantee that mothers will continue to receive child benefit if they cannot claim directly from their post office, which may be forced to close, as I pointed out earlier? Will the Government guarantee that those on low incomes who are forced to open a bank account will never have to pay any form of charges and will never become overdrawn or get into debt because of overenthusiastic selling by third parties? That may not seem likely to most of us, but it could be a very real problem for some families.
Like everyone else in a small business, sub-postmasters are entrepreneurial in spirit and opposed to subsidies—which is one of the rumours. They are keen to embrace new technology, to increase their business, to give customer satisfaction and, it is to be hoped, to enjoy the fruits of their labours later in their old age. However, like most people who live in this country, they look to the Government for support and protection in those areas of their endeavours over which they have little personal control. Does the Minister believe that they will be well served if the Government go ahead with their current proposals? Further, does he feel that the proposed concentration on automated credit transfer will promote small, rural businesses in the United Kingdom?
I apologise to the House for the fact that my speech has concentrated mostly on post offices. However, this is a crucial time. Many of our small businesses in rural areas are reliant on our post offices as a means of survival. Finally, I should like to say how much we are all looking forward to hearing the maiden speech that is about to be made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Blackburn.
3.35 p.m.
Lord Patel of Blackburn: My Lords, my interests and activities are community relations, regeneration of industry, business development, religious tolerance and understanding and, of course, Blackburn Rovers Football Club. I was at a loss as to which of these interests I should incorporate in my maiden speech. However, in accepting that there is no danger of Blackburn Rovers being relegated this year, or very

201
little likelihood of them being promoted, I felt that there was no point in bringing their situation to your Lordships' notice.
Given my business background in the Lancashire textiles industry, and having served in various capacities with business associated organisations, such as the East Lancashire Training and Enterprise Council, Lancashire Enterprises plc, Blackburn Partnership and Blackburn City Challenge, I felt it appropriate to speak on behalf of small and medium-sized businesses—and particularly those run by businessmen of ethnic heritage origin.
This choice was reinforced when I learned that legislation had been enacted in the other place, which came into force as recently as 3rd April of this year. That legislation brought into existence the Small Business Service designed to assist small and medium-sized enterprises. This new structure replaces training and enterprise councils and other similar organisations. The role of the service is directed towards assisting businesses made up of small traders or partners and businesses with up to 250 employees. At the bottom end of the scale, a small business is described as having between zero and 49 employees and a medium-sized business as having between 50 to 250 employees.
It is the aim of the current Government to ensure that SMEs survive, succeed, grow and move to become world class; to provide a strong voice for small business at the heart of government; and to help small firms in the matter of regulation. In support of this, the Small Business Service is charged with establishing a network of franchises to deliver high quality business support to small firms.
That small business plays an extremely important part in the economy of the United Kingdom is without argument. Statistics published by the Department of Trade and Industry show that small and medium-sized enterprises account for over 99 per cent of businesses in all regions. They have long been recognised as playing a vital role in the economy. They provide new ideas, products and services and, most significantly, jobs. SMEs are the backbone of our economy.
It may come as a surprise to some of your Lordships to learn that India, and particularly my home state of Gujarat, has had a reputation since the 12th century of exporting its people's enterprise and enterprise skills to other countries. These were to the Middle East and other parts of Asia initially and, since the previous century, to the various countries of Africa, South America and, of course, Europe and North America, too. It will be within the knowledge of some Members of this House that one of the most famous and outstanding sons of India, Mahatma Gandhi, practised law in South Africa before returning to India and his life's work. It is certain that it is within the knowledge of all Members of this House that in more recent years people of Indian origin were penalised for being too successful when they were stripped of all their possessions and deported from Uganda by the despot Idi Amin.
202
I welcome and fully support the Government's aims and objectives to improve the quality of support and assistance to small businesses. While congratulating them I draw attention to some of the problems being experienced by ethnic minority-owned businesses in accessing support mechanisms. Why should this be? In my experience there is no deliberate intent to refuse or make difficult access to support services.
Many small ethnic minority businesses are run by their owners and immediate family members. To keep them viable and competitive with larger and longer-established business undertakings, they are open long hours, seven days a week, with those who run them taking no or little time off for socialising or other activities. Because of this commitment and way of life, they do not have time to seek out and acquire aid from support services. Neither are they, unfortunately, members of support organisations such as chambers of trade or chambers of commerce, which provide service and advice on either an individual or a collective basis.
Another area of small business requiring attention is the clothing and footwear industries. By reason of unfair competition from abroad, they are closing down and jobs are being lost. This has occurred, and is still occurring, in my home town of Blackburn and in my red rose county of Lancashire. The term "diversification" comes to mind, along with the question: how does one diversify an existing business, and where does one get advice and support on that? It may be appropriate to paraphrase the old adage, "If Mohammed can't go to the mountain, the mountain should go to Mohammed".
It is essential, in my view, that given the importance of the growing number of ethnic minority-owned small businesses to the future economy of our country, there should be sufficient direct representation of those interests on the regional development agencies, the Small Business Service and their associated franchises. I trust that the House will support that point of view.
Finally, I express my sincere, heartfelt gratitude for the manner in which I was received by noble Lords and by the courteous and competent members of staff. I felt that I was being welcomed into a large family and I shall always treasure the memory.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my newly ennobled friend Lord Patel of Blackburn. I congratulate him on behalf of the whole House. His speech was brief, witty and non-controversial, indeed, a perfect maiden! The noble Lord, Lord Patel, is a renowned counsellor in his community and a major contributor to the Muslim Council of Britain. With that background and knowledge I am sure that his further contributions will be of interest to us all. Incidentally, friends we are but next season that may be in doubt when Barnsley meet Blackburn Rovers!
I am grateful, of course, to my noble friend Lord Harrison for giving us the opportunity to talk about small firms. The Prince's Trust, Business Division, is one of several Prince's Trust schemes to help

203
disadvantaged young people. As chairman of the Prince's Trust division in South Yorkshire I welcome the Government's action in establishing the Small Business Service and other initiatives to promote small and medium-sized enterprises. In this respect I look forward to their support for the kind of micro businesses started by young people that the Prince's Trust helps. The Prince's Youth Business Trust, now the business division of the trust, was formed in 1983. Since then over 43,000 young people have been helped to start their own businesses. That is an incredibly successful national operation. Nearly all of those young people were removed from the dole register. His Royal Highness, whose idea it was, could never have imagined that rate of achievement.
The average cost of starting a new enterprise is in the region of £2,550 per person. If a person between the ages of 18 to 30 has a business idea, takes a business course, prepares a business plan but does not have the finance to start, banks having refused it, the trust as a last-resort financier will examine and launch it. Up to £5,000 in cash grants and loans would be considered. Of those started, the survival rate is encouragingly high with over 60 per cent trading after three years. That is a much higher rate than with conventionally funded businesses.
The trust is funded by donations, private individuals, companies and various organisations, but in addition—this is most important—it has been funded over many years by various British governments. The most recent initiative is the Government's support, backed by all political party leaders, to pledge £50 million over the next five years, with the trust itself raising £50 million pound for pound.
In providing this unique service all over the country, the trust has received funds for schemes funded by the European Development Fund and provided by the European Union. We are also in a partnership with government departments—the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department for Education and Employment—with local authorities, Business Link, TECs and, particularly, with providers of business training; an essential service which is offered free to the unemployed. Among those unemployed are able and enthusiastic people who seek our help.
Earlier I mentioned our rate of success. Throughout the trust's business division we have provided a free mentoring service (business advisers) attached to many of our young entrepreneurs. We have 7,500 of these volunteers who can often make the difference between failure and success. But, again, could anyone have visualised such a massive voluntary attachment to the trust and to our young people? Credit and thanks are due to them all.
As will have been recognised, the majority of our businesses are micro businesses—one or two person businesses. However, some go on to generate growth and employment for others. For instance, the top 50 trust-supported businesses total an annual turnover of £147 million and between them employ over 1,260 staff. That is some enterprise.
204
I am chairman of the South Yorkshire board of the Prince's Trust, Business Division, which comprises another body of dedicated people. We are grateful for the financial support and encouragement provided over the years by successive governments and for the financial help that we receive from the European Union. We look forward to further national support, and from the EU, under the terms of the Objective 1 status recently awarded to South Yorkshire. This should be a much needed boost for one of the nation's most deprived areas.
I should like to inform your Lordships' House that in the past 13 years in South Yorkshire—that is, Doncaster, Rotherham, Barnsley and Sheffield—we have helped more than 2,000 under-privileged young people with funding, advice and practical assistance to achieve their goal of becoming self-employed. In doing so, we have improved their own and their families' lives, while at the same time boosting the local economy. We have injected £2.5 million into the South Yorkshire economy and we are currently taking approximately 150 young persons each year off the dole and into enterprise.
Nationally, with the support of the Government's major funding, we are aiming to expand—to help up to 30,000 young persons start their own businesses by 2005. To achieve this, we need all the help we can get. In this respect, and from my experience, it is my considered view that support in the form of a funding bridge along the lines of the old enterprise allowance—that is, an initial weekly allowance until an enterprise is established—would give these people some financial cover as they take that often daunting step from unemployment to self-employment. I hope that the Minister and his department will give this some thought.
I turn now to BICs (the business and innovation centres), with which I am involved as chairman of the Barnsley Business and Innovation Centre. One of the key principles underlying the Government's approach to small businesses is that of fostering an enterprise culture that encourages innovators and risk takers. That is precisely what the business and innovation centres are designed to do. The Barnsley BIC was established in 1987 with the specific remit of developing innovative technology-based businesses in order to diversify and strengthen the local economy It is part of a European network of BICs—there are around 120 across Europe—and a national network of eight in this country, which are developing a national incubation strategy promoted by the Government.
With the support of the European Commission, of the Government, of the local authority, of British Coal Enterprises in the early days, of the TECs and of English Partnerships, the Barnsley BIC has to date created, established and seen the growth of more than 85 innovation businesses, which support more than 400 jobs. These are within the coalfield area. The positive impact upon the manufacturing supply chain has been significant, with most of these companies serving national and international markets. The reality is that this is the creation of a high technology and

205
innovative culture in an old coal industry area which is effecting a major transformation in business enterprise.
I notice that the DTI's innovation budget is to increase by more than 20 per cent over three years. In addition, I gather that an enterprise fund will provide support for high technology businesses with growth potential. I hope that the Minister will be able to say that the business and innovation centres will benefit from these policy proposals.
3.53 p.m.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, I confess that I do not support a football club. However, I do support a club in Calcutta—the Tollygunge cricket club. I have spent many happy hours there enjoying the pleasure of the company of many Indian friends. It was a joy to listen today to the very singular maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Patel.
I know that your Lordships' House will have enjoyed the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Mason, which was a clear and incisive summary of the entrepreneurial effects of the Prince's Trust. It is the entrepreneur whom we are talking about today. Small and medium-sized enterprises play a vital part in our economy. Their importance to the supply chain cannot be underestimated—not only in terms of expectation of growth but as a source of considerable employment. I am afraid, however, that many SMEs are currently facing hard times, which are not of their own making.
Noble Lords have made reference to the euro. At the moment, the euro is a weak currency. The strength of sterling is a consequence of that. The boom/bust economy that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wishes to leave behind should be considered in the light of other currencies. It is to be hoped that we can find a way through for sterling which will ensure that our SMEs are not faced with the major concern of massively disparate foreign exchange rates.
The truth is that SMEs are being told by their customers that there is no room to increase their prices— in fact, there is endless pressure on them to reduce their costs—and yet they see an increase in the costs of raw materials because their orders are not as great as those of bigger companies and they do not enjoy the same level of discount.
The situation facing SMEs in the manufacturing sector is difficult. Only yesterday, the Financial Times described what is happening to the machine tool industry. Some 80 per cent of the sector's output is exported. That is important. The Machine Tool Technologies Association (MTTA), the trade body, reported that the sector had cut 2,000 jobs since 1998, accounting for about 14 per cent of its total workforce. Production value has fallen by £100 million in the past year.
The machine tool industry is the pointer of the manufacturing economy. Ever since I started exporting—a very long time ago—people have recognised that the sector is vital to the forecasting of a trading pattern. The machine tool is probably the last
206
item to reach the bottom line of a budget; it is more likely than anything else to be cut when hard times appear to be around the corner. It is the first indicator to manufacturing industry that trouble is on the way. I know this only too well. I worked in the materials handling industry for many years. We always watched what was happening in the machine tool industry; it was from there that we got our information.
Although the MTTA forecasts a small increase in production this year, many companies are expecting little or no rebound due to the problems not only affecting Rover—a big buyer of machine tools—but existing across the board. I am sure that many SMEs, given the opportunity, would say to the Minister, "Please, is there something the Government can do to help?"
SMEs are, of course, very low down the supply chain. A major pressure facing them is "on time" delivery. To achieve this they require accurate information. The Government make great play about the importance of electronic communication and the incentives available to companies to go on-line. But no matter how good the communication systems are, what is important to SMEs is receiving information that is dependable and not constantly changing.
The last debate in which I spoke in your Lordships' House was the Second Reading of the Learning and Skills Bill. At the time, I said that it was an important Bill for industry, not least the engineering manufacturing sector with which I have long been associated. Many in that sector hope that the emerging national and local learning and skills councils will make a real difference to the training needs of their industry. For many SMEs, training does not come very high on their list of priorities. In this ever changing and increasingly competitive world, skilling and reskilling is crucial to survival. Yet, for the majority of SMEs, survival is about the day-to-day running of their companies, ensuring that orders will not dry up. They are unable to give time even to medium-term planning.
According to a survey undertaken by EMTA, the Engineering and Marine Training Authority, the national training organisation for engineering manufacture, a very large proportion of small firms do no training at all. However, those that do train do as much proportionally as larger firms. Engaging small firms is an issue which EMTA believes to be of fundamental importance. But, as EMTA sees it, it is a "Forth Bridge" job. Even to scratch the surface requires working with as many third party organisations as possible, including trade associations, group training associations, TECs, LECs and, in the future, the Small Business Service and its franchises and the local learning and skills councils.
I wonder whether the Minister can help me in relation to the SBS and the local LSCs. It is far from clear what the exact roles of the SBS and local LSCs will be in work-related training. The devil is very much in the detail. I hope that the Minister can assure me that the Government will adopt their own mantra of "joined-up thinking" and give each organisation a

207
clear remit and proper functional links both with each other and regional development agencies to avoid duplication, competition and gaps in the system.
I would not deny that the establishment of the University for Industry and the emergence of "learndirect" and the various sectoral distance learning centres will go some way to help both employers and employees with training. There is need for more flexibility from both the United Kingdom Government and the European Commission in their attitude towards SMEs which embark on training. SMEs complain that those in government are interested only in outcomes. By that I mean that those undergoing training must also be looking to gain qualifications. Certainly, so far as concerns European funding, training is driven by outputs.
Another complaint is that the European Commission funds only companies with a staff of 250 people or below when no more than 25 per cent of ownership belongs to a large company. I understand that Whitehall officials stick rigorously to the rules while our European counterparts —some not so far from our shores—are a little more relaxed. What is needed is flexibility. Many SMEs are making excellent strides in the training of their workforce but there is still much that can be done. I hope that the Minister will be able to address the concerns I have raised.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, it is difficult to be a small and medium-sized enterprise. Most speakers know that. They have run small businesses themselves. As far as concerns the Minister, I am of course referring to the textile business that he had in another life more than 20 years ago, not to the grocery business.
As noble Lords know, not only do small businesses have to make a profit, keep the staff involved and the customers delighted; they also have to keep suppliers on the ball and the community happy. In addition, if your business is involved in science, the food chain, natural resources or nuclear power, you can find yourself challenged by a well organised nongovernmental organisation which diverts your time, money and energy away from developing the business; and now you can see your asset value depressed for no better reason than that you are perceived to be part of the old economy.
We are fortunate that people who work in small and medium-sized enterprises are practical, down-to-earth people who can cope with all this while turning their hands to anything and everything. If they did not have those qualities of leadership and adaptability, we should all be the poorer for the reasons that my noble friend Lord Harrison gave when moving the Motion. So when they voice their concerns, the Government would be wise to listen to what small business people have to say.
It seems to me that as well as late payments—a point made by my noble friend Lord Harrison—they are voicing two main concerns at the moment. Both are directly tied to our membership of the European
208
Union. They are: excessive regulation and the strength of sterling. These are legitimate concerns. What should the response be?
First, on regulation, it is important to point out that regulation is not simply a matter of red tape and the command economy. The down-to-earth, practical business people who work in small and medium-sized enterprises realise that. Regulation is also a matter of subordinating economic values to broader social values. They support these broader social values because they, too, have families and children; they, too, have a stake in the community; and they, too, have friends and family who go out to work. So despite the furore over the minimum wage, socially it is right; and so is the Working Time Directive. This is a good piece of family-friendly legislation. It is probably welcomed by most small companies which are just as interested in the balance between home and work because they realise that treating staff badly is no longer an option. Good staff are too scarce and valuable.
The justified complaint is not that these regulations would force small companies out of business: it is that the process of implementation of regulations is itself a burden on small businesses. The intentions are worthy, but even the worthiest intentions must be put into practice with proper care and attention so that they are not burdensome. Here the Government have to perform better.
The Working Time Directive legislation was poorly drafted; it was unclear; and the DTI had to issue several alternations and clarifications. Its implementation was rushed. I am sure that the reason was partly because of the Government's detailed negotiations with the CBI and the unions regarding the legislation. That led to delays and many derogations. Perhaps my noble friend should learn a lesson from that and consider how well the problems of implementation by small companies were represented at the negotiations. There needs to be more and better co-operation between the regulator and the regulated. I believe that the Better Regulation Task Force has that kind of co-operation in mind and I wish it every success.
Like the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, my second concern regarding small businesses is the strength of sterling. On 28th March in a detailed debate in this House we came to the conclusion that there is little that the Government do about this. As for joining the euro-zone, big business is divided. The small business person is helpless. What can he or she do? Move to the euro-zone? That is probably not practical. Trade in euros? That still leaves the small business with the foreign exchange risk, because it pays wages and overheads in sterling. Hedge the currency? That is expensive.
The only real practical response to the strength of the pound—or the weakness of the euro—is for small companies to raise productivity and to become more efficient and more competitive. My noble friend Lord Patel asked in his excellent maiden speech: how can we achieve that? There are many alternatives and the practical small business person will have to choose the best route and the best combination.

209
One way could be to join the knowledge economy. It seems to be working in the USA, even in the textile industry. US businesses appear to be raising productivity by their use of the Internet to speed up production so that there are fewer raw materials, stock and work in progress to finance. Indeed, some companies have eliminated stock and work in progress entirely by using the Internet for mass customisation. Companies are finding cheaper suppliers and services by participating in business-to-business networks. They are also finding more customers through the Internet and are becoming more competitive by using the Internet to cut out the middle men. But the speed at which that is happening varies from industry to industry. In addition, there is an enormous amount of hyperbole to penetrate in order to get at the truth. Small businesses need guidance.
Technology, too, can help small companies to make considerable increases in productivity. But where does a small company with little or no research facilities find that? As well as the innovation centre referred to by my noble friend Lord Mason, the answer could be at the local university or college. The DTI has introduced several initiatives to encourage universities and colleges to reach out to business and to help to develop new techniques, products and services. The universities and colleges need to work with small companies in order to quality for these funds. So there is a shared interest here. In addition, small companies can qualify for the Teaching Company Scheme.
New technologies are often best developed in cooperation with other firms. That is why clusters have been so successful in the biotechnology industry and in the racing car industry. In the Budget, the Chancellor announced a regional innovation fund precisely to fund the formation of local clusters to make it easier for our small businesses to get involved.
Then there is Technology Foresight, which will help small businesses to get a vision of the future in their own particular industry. It is an invaluable tool for the progress and development of small businesses, which on their own do not have the facilities to develop that vision.
I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, that skills and management training help to raise performance. Time and again, small companies have found how valuable that can be in improving productivity—and not only when there are innovations. Existing methods can always be improved by better skills and training. So many failures of small businesses due to management incompetence could have been avoided by better management training. These are essential aspects of raising productivity. All are supported by the Government. Like my noble friend Lord Patel, I hope that the new Small Business Service will be effective in drawing all these aspects together. Raising productivity is the only practical way for small businesses to cope with the strength of the pound. They deserve all the help they can get. They also need
210
a champion. Like my noble friend Lord Harrison, I hope that the Small Business Service will take on that role too.
The Small Business Service should explain to Ministers that, in the new economy, size matters less. Many big companies have big problems. They are in markets where there is over-production. Consumers are fickle and brand loyalty is declining. The Small Business Service should counsel against size as an argument for grants to maintain national champions. It must show that not enough small businesses have grown into large ones, and that money is better spent on training, improving infrastructure, innovation and information technology. That will help all enterprises, large and small; and it will create small enterprises that will become the large enterprises of the future.
4.16 p.m.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, before thanking my noble friend Lord Harrison for introducing the debate, I should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Patel and say how fortunate he is to have a team like Blackburn Rovers on tap, having myself lived for many years on the thin gruel provided by Bristol City. We enjoyed his speech very much and we look forward to his future contributions.
My noble friend Lord Haskel said that most of us have run small businesses. I have never done so. I was Government Chief Whip in another place running a government for some time, but whether that is related as an important function I am not sure. One thing that I will say to my colleagues on the Front Bench is that I should never have countenanced the plethora of amendments to government Bills which seem to appear almost ad lib. It is not necessary if matters are dealt with first. I include that as a mild reproach because it is important that we put these matters into perspective. I have introduced amendments from time to time in this House, but that was to buy off the Conservatives in the Commons. Concessions had to be made from time in order to get the legislation through.
I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison. He is well known for his expertise in this matter. He has given great service to my party with his knowledge of this subject. Indeed, a couple of years ago he produced a booklet entitled Supporting Small Businesses: The European Dimension. I should like to refer briefly to my noble friend's statement on page 5 that,
"The Single Market is dominated and monopolised by multinationals and larger companies. Such incomplete development fails to bring the benefits of increased competition".
That is an important point. Yesterday, there was comment in the press on Tesco's announcement regarding the number of full-time and part-time jobs that it is to create in Britain and overseas. I do not believe that this is all gain.
North of Bristol there is a great shopping centre, Cribbs Causeway. There is a massive Asda hypermarket there which is being modernised. My wife said to me, "Look at the list of things they are going to do here. What is going to be left for anybody

211
else?" So I called in there and copied down the list of what is coming when the development is completed. The list reads: Asda fresh food market; "Takeaway World" and "Deli Express"; beers, wines and spirits cave; papershop for your home and office; toys, sports and bikes; home housewares and textiles; do-it-yourself; health and beauty; pharmacy; optical and photo-shop: baby shop; new George clothing—that is the proprietary brand; and a new Asda café. How many small businesses in that area will feel the pinch when that range of activities is grafted on? There is a finite amount of money to be spent. If one has an enormous development of that kind, others will be badly hurt. Without any consultation, people who have spent half their lives building up businesses will suddenly find enormous companies doing this kind of thing.
There are knock-on effects. I very much agree with the observations of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about post offices. Other consequences also flow from such decisions. We are all aware of the activities of spin doctors. Perhaps we can make allowance for this as we are to an extent minor practitioners in the art. This practice has spread to the commercial world. A major company will consult its public relations advisers. They will decide on the line to take and, with a few phrases that they repeat in interviews, will not shift from it.
A recent example relates to Barclays Bank. Noble Lords may have seen the interview on television two nights ago with the director of Barclays Bank responsible for retail banking, John Varley. Time and again he was pressed to say whether the chief executive of the bank would appear to explain just what was going on. He replied that that would not happen and that the public would have to do with him. Obviously, a few key phrases had been decided upon beforehand which he kept repeating. I recall that one of the phrases was, "We must give customer choice". I thought that that was a bit of a cheek. To a simple mind like mine, when one closes so many branches it appears that one is reducing choice. I very much welcome the remarks of my noble friend Lord Harrison at the beginning of his speech. I, too, hope that the Government will get tough with high street banks.
On the front page of today's Financial Times Mr Varley comes out with the following gem. Defending the decision to close all 171 branches in one day, he says:
"The instability created by protracted closures is considerable. We had an overwhelming obligation to create as much clarity as we could as quickly as possible".
That is not bad, is it? What would one end up with if one had to précis that comment for the purposes of an English examination? The "overwhelming obligation" did not extend to the chief executive coming before the public to explain what he was up to. Fortunately, that has been remedied in another place. The Treasury Select Committee, chaired by Mr Giles Radice, is to interview the chief executive. Not even the chief executive of Barclays Bank can refuse an invitation to he interviewed by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. One of the great values of such committees
212
is that people who are as slippery as eels can be called to account. But what does it come to when this step is necessary before those responsible will appear in public to explain such a far-reaching decision? It is a shame that we have arrived at this position.
The practice of "spinning" and involving public relations is setting in. Unless we do something about it, all this talk about accountability and clarity of purpose will mean very little to members of the general public whose real grievances cannot be addressed. I give the example of Bristol where a local brewery was closed with the loss of 70 jobs. I wrote to the chairman of the company and pointed out that some time ago the local Bristolians had not complained when the company had blocked off a road and incorporated it in its site in order (it said) to keep the brewery going. I asked the brewery what recompense would be made to Bristolians for the free gift of a very valuable piece of land now that the brewery was to close. I received a letter from a public relations man, which was really an insult to the people of Bristol. I wrote back to that effect on 7th September of last year. The site, which is in the heart of Bristol, sustained tremendous damage during the war. I pointed out to the company that 1,299 Bristolians had lost their lives in the war and that the brewery was behaving pretty badly, since it had survived the 77 air raids sustained by Bristol. I have not even had a reply or acknowledgement to that letter. My letter has simply been brushed aside as if it is from a moaning chap with no resources behind him who was formerly a local Member of Parliament. The attitude of the company is that it will all go away.
If we talk about accountability and clarity, we cannot let small businesses which are in real difficulties and are threatened by larger ones manage on their own: we must appreciate their problems and do our best to ensure that they get every consideration. Such businesses are the very stuff of our communities and unless we seek constantly to protect them they will disappear at an alarming rate. Therefore, I very much welcome the debate initiated by my noble friend and hope that the Government will be able to give further assistance in this matter.
4.26 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I am delighted to contribute to this debate. I should like to deal in particular with the role of universities in supporting SMEs. In doing so, I declare my interest as chief executive of the CVCP, which is the voice of UK universities. I am especially pleased to speak about this matter because I suspect that not all noble Lords will associate universities with small and medium-sized enterprises, or perhaps see their relevance. I was delighted that my noble friend Lord Haskel referred to this matter.
Just as SMEs have assumed greater importance to the UK's prospects for economic growth in recent years, so the role of universities as partners of SMEs has developed at the same level. As the title of the debate suggests, just as government policy initiatives are increasingly focused on stimulating SME growth—we

213
see the most recent evidence of that in the March Budget—so too has government policy acknowledged the part that universities have to play in this.
SMEs make up the vast majority of businesses in the UK but also vary widely from small "lifestyle", or so-called "Mom & Pop" family businesses, to high-tech, high-growth undertakings. This last group, which is IT-driven, is vital to the economy. Ideas are its key input, along with rights-based sales, and that is where universities become so important.
A timely illustration of this is that today the University of Kent officially opens a new electronic systems design centre with £250,000 of funding from DTI. The centre is concerned with micro-electronics and provides consultancy and support to SMEs on design techniques and technologies. This morning I was at the University of Wolverhampton, which is located in a region rocked by the Rover crisis and facing the loss of 20,000 jobs, not just within Rover but the intricate supply chain of small manufacturing enterprises which have supported the motor industry. I predict that the University of Wolverhampton, together with its further education partner colleagues, will be one of the future sources of regeneration as well as retraining in that region. Just last week it launched a Competitiveness Centre which will offer technology transfer and support to SMEs. With a keen eye on overseas markets, I suspect, it was launched by the chief executive of British Trade International.
I have used the two examples of Kent and Wolverhampton, which are in very different regions, to indicate how the growing involvement by universities in SMEs is one of the key distinguishing changes which have occurred in higher education over the past five years. The most recent national survey conducted by PREST at the University of Manchester describes spectacular growth in links. There has been a 40 per cent rise in external income from such links in three years.
Many of the government initiatives that several noble Lords have mentioned have been in response to trends in universities over the past few years. They are an acknowledgement of the many ways in which higher education makes a positive contribution to SMEs and to the knowledge-based economy. Of course, we all recognise that there are challenges in getting partnerships between universities and SMEs right. In the past there has been something of a communications gap. SMEs have previously had little experience of employing graduates. Some chief executives may not have been to university or may be graduates from many years ago and so have little knowledge of what the higher education sector can now offer them.
In the past, some universities may also have been a little slow in seeing the two-way benefits of a relationship with small and medium-sized enterprises. However, that is certainly changing dramatically now, as I hope to demonstrate in outlining the proliferation of imaginative and cutting-edge relationships which have sprung up just in the past couple of years. Recently, tremendous university effort has gone into
214
identifying training needs of SMEs; into speeding up technology transfer to assist them in achieving business results; and into stimulating graduate employment and employability through student placements. The Government have played a key role in stimulating that work.
The DTI's Science Enterprise Challenge for universities provided funds for eight regional centres. Some, like the Bristol Enterprise Centre, are primarily designed to encourage entrepreneurialism among students and researchers. It was opened on 8th March by Sir Alan Sugar, chairman of Amstrad plc. Others, such as that set up by the Scottish consortium— Glasgow, Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt, Strathclyde and Dundee—include an enterprise management centre. The Scottish one is based in Dundee. It focuses on increasing start-ups through the faster commercialisation of research.
The Government's reach-out fund initiative—HEROBC—has proved an enormous success. The DTI has acknowledged the high quality of bids made by universities to the fund. It is not only the traditional big players—the research-led universities—which figure in that activity. I mentioned Wolverhampton earlier; another example is Huddersfield University, which runs an SME support network as part of its reach-out activity. In the past 18 months it has provided advice to support 60 SMEs. It is a good example of a university which may not be research led, but which is very research active and engaged with SME developments in its region.
From the inception of the HEROBC funding stream, CVCP has been calling for the fund to be consolidated into a proper so-called "third leg", alongside the two traditional streams of funding for the universities for research and teaching. We warmly welcomed the DTI acknowledgement that that fund will continue. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Employment referred to the "third mission"—work with business and industry—in his Greenwich speech. That was something of a watershed because it was recognition that the universities' role with business, industry and SMEs is now a major one and that it will increasingly be seen as a core function alongside teaching and research. I must take the opportunity to remind the Minister of CVCP's SR2000 submission, which calculates that around £150 million is needed to put the HEROBC fund on a sustainable basis. We believe passionately that universities' performance in responding to that agenda warrants that investment. I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to reaffirm the Government's commitment to it.
I mentioned activity at a regional level. The recent Budget made it clear that it is not only an economic agenda that is served by government initiatives and university activity with SMEs regionally. The Chancellor announced a total of £230 million towards innovation, enterprise and the use of IT by business. One of his key points was the need to stimulate economic growth and impetus across the whole of the UK, especially in some of the more economically

215
disadvantaged regions, avoiding a concentration of economic activity within the south-east—welcome, of course, though the pace of growth is.
Universities in all the UK's regions will help to deliver that initiative as key drivers of innovation and providers of expertise. It is not only through support and consultancy to existing and fledgling SMEs in the locality that universities are vital. In recent years, economic developments have given university researchers, especially in science and technology, more opportunities to patent and license inventions and then establish their own businesses to develop and exploit them commercially. Therefore, universities themselves are setting up small businesses, known as spin-offs.
There has been a similar increase in rather lower-tech businesses set up to exploit new sources of knowledge and information. Only last month, the University of Essex announced a £6 million agreement with SME managers to form a start-up company, ilotron. Telecommunications engineers at the university sought out the deal to commercialise their ground-breaking research in the rapidly growing global market for network optical routing. The collaborators hope that the deal will tap into an estimated global market for core network routers worth £4 billion in 2002, rising, it is estimated, to £15 billion in 2005. That is the kind of potential that universities up and down the country can contribute to the cutting-edge areas of business.
Here, too, government policy initiatives have played a role. The DTI's University Challenge Fund provided much needed capital or seed funding, in total worth about £30 million. Twelve universities or small consortia of universities benefited from the fund and will use the resources to kick-start spin-offs or startups. The high quality of bids received has meant that the competition is going to run for another year.
Our debate is concerned not only with UK initiatives to encourage SME growth. At European level, too, policy levers are emerging. The Lisbon Council of 23rd/24th March agreed a new strategic goal for the Union in order to strengthen employment, economic reform and social cohesion as part of a knowledge-based economy. The conclusions of the council include the importance of SMEs in making the transition to a competitive, dynamic and knowledge-based economy. The council referred to the need to create a friendly environment for start-up and developing innovative businesses, especially SMEs. I certainly include universities in the list of institutions.
Here in London, Guildhall University has made the running in work with SMEs with the assistance of EU funding. Much of Guildhall's work stems from the fact that the university is within the European Objective 2 area for London as well as being based in the City. Metro new media is a company wholly owned by the university that provides services to SMEs in Lee Valley. With Middlesex University, Guildhall co-founded East London and Lee Valley Teleregion, offering broad services to over 500 SMEs.
216
Of course, no debate on SMEs can ignore the dot.coms. It is not only blue chip corporations which can engage in electronic trading or on-line shopping. Many industry experts predict that SMEs will benefit also from the new technologies and provide much of the growth in the new e-commerce market-place. Staffordshire University's Innovation Management Centre, for example, has secured funding of £286,000 from European social funding to develop e-commerce strategies and Internet sites for up to 40 SMEs.
I hope that I have demonstrated that universities are aware of the crucial contribution of SMEs to the UK's knowledge-based economy and the work that they are doing to encourage it. I welcome the government's initiatives, which hive really encouraged universities to find innovative ways of working with SMEs. But, as I said, the funding is still limited. A major injection into the HEROBC fund would really enable that work to take off in every region in the UK.
I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Harrison for providing the opportunity for the debate. I add my words to those of other noble Lords in my warm congratulations to my noble friend Lord Patel for an excellent and most illuminating maiden speech.
4.39 p.m.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Harrison for introducing this debate. I begin at the same place as he did, which is the state of the economy in general. The best contribution that government can make to industry and commerce is to create a sound economy and to pursue a sensible economic policy, which we have at the moment with low inflation and high employment. I regret that we do not have full employment yet, but I believe that we are on our way. We also have reasonable growth which is lower than I would wish to see. However, we hope that the British economy will grow even more rapidly. All firms gain from a sound economy, but small businesses gain especially—because if there is a downturn, the firms most at risk are the small ones. We experienced that under the previous government.
I turn to the banks which have already been mentioned. Small firms are especially reliant on them for funding. The general view among those I have consulted is that their range of contribution ranges from useless to worse than useless. On the whole, the banks will, as in the old joke, lend one money when one does not need it, but take it away or not extend the overdraft when it is needed.
I was somewhat surprised at the remarks and worries of my noble friend Lord Cocks as regards public relations. I imagine that Barclays Bank spends millions of pounds on public relations and spin doctors, which is a marvellous demonstration of the uselessness of that particular profession. The spin doctors of Barclays Bank, and the hank itself, have done more damage not merely to the image of Barclays, but to the whole of free market capitalism, than any group of international Marxist socialists

217
could ever have aspired to achieve. I do not believe that we should worry about spin doctors as much as does my noble friend.
There is a serious question concerning the financing of small business which needs to be considered. There is a suggestion that there is less than full competition between the banks in their approach to financing small businesses. I believe that they are facing a competition investigation. I look forward to seeing the results. In that connection, I am particularly sensitive to the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford. She was quite right to remind us that a great many small businesses are in rural, not urban, areas. They are probably more vulnerable than any others to the various difficulties that we are discussing today.
There is research evidence which shows that the banks are particularly biased in one area. That enables me to congratulate my noble friend Lord Patel. The ethnic community often finds its way into business via small business enterprises. We have had many examples of that. They have found that they need to finance such enterprises themselves from, say, family money because the banks are less than helpful, or they were in the early days.
My noble friend Lord Harrison also mentioned women. They are involved in a smaller proportion of small businesses, but in terms of women's entrepreneurial activity, small businesses are particularly important. We have a great deal of evidence that the banks are biased against women on the normal ground that they will lend money only if one does not need to borrow it. Women have less to offer in respect of assets and support. It is very important to remember how significant small businesses are for those two groups.
I now turn to the Government. I believe that we were brought here to praise them on this matter and, naturally, being a creep, I add my support to them on matters of this kind. But the Government are as bad as any concerning the problems we are discussing. Reference has been made to late payment. I gather that one should never do business with a public authority and certainly never with government because they are the worse payers imaginable. They keep saying, "We are going to improve our ways". It is about time that the Government did so.
I support the schemes, but by the time one has gone through all the negotiations and activities and tried to get money out of a government scheme, one has lost interest in the project that one had in mind in the first instance. When one looks for help, one wants it now and not after about four years of very hard work. Small businesses do not employ many people, so such involvement means that one is using the very valuable assets which comprise one or two people who cannot also be working for the business. I say directly to my noble friend the Minister that it is all very well for the Government to introduce schemes—I support them—but they must be made much more efficient than they appear to have been until now.
218
I turn to the major problem which my noble friend Lord Cocks also mentioned. In practice, the major threat to many small businesses is big businesses. My noble friend mentioned the retail sector. There is the general question of failure to supply; of the cosy vertical integration which we have seen recently as regards Dixons and computer suppliers. With regard to failure to supply, I refer to the ability of small businesses to do so only on poorer terms—not in terms of costs, but of market power. The only body that seems unable to recognise the anti-competitive threat here is that great body, the Office of Fair Trading. The rest of us see it, but the OFT simply says, "We cannot find the evidence". It is astonishing how difficult it is for that body to find evidence of this kind of threatening behaviour whereas everyone else can see it very clearly indeed. Big business really does act as a threat to small business more generally. Therefore, in terms of the X thousand jobs, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Cocks. They are gross jobs—not net jobs to the economy. Indeed, given the Chancellor's policy, there would be no net jobs because the total number of jobs being created is determined by macro and not micro-economic policy. I am glad that my noble friend made that point.
I am grossly unhappy about what I regard as the considerable amount of aggressive and unfair competition today which did not exist in the past. I shall not mention Sainsbury, but I shall mention Tesco instead, as did my noble friend. I believe that Tesco began on a barrow. That shows that one can go from the smallest business to one of enormous size. However, my guess is that at no point was Tesco subject to predatory pricing and all the similar things that would confront a new Tesco. I am most concerned about that matter.
One other aspect of big business has been alluded to. Until I came to your Lordships' House I had no idea of the enormous power of pressure groups. I had never had any experience of them before. But in so much of the legislation that comes before us one sees the enormous power wielded by big business pressure groups. As regards many of the Bills in which I take an interest an enormous amount of material comes from the "big boys". Many of the Bills that we deal with are just as relevant to small firms, but there is no one acting for them in quite the same way, producing the pressure and the amendments. We always know where a large number of such amendments come from. They have not originated in the minds of the noble Lords moving them. We know precisely where they come from. I am very worried about it. I hope, especially in the industrial area, that more than occasionally the Minister will say, "No one else is speaking up for the small firms as regards this Bill, perhaps we ought to do so ourselves".
As an example, I now introduce a genuinely controversial note concerning Rover. An enormous amount of fuss is being made about that company, the loss of jobs and the fact that the Government have to intervene and find millions of pounds. If I were a small businessman about to go broke, I would say to myself, "Whoever thinks about me? I am going 100 per cent

219
broke; Rover is also going 100 per cent broke. Both are 100 per cent and a lot of me amounts to the same as Rover". I do not want to deflect my noble friend from helping Rover if he believes that is what is necessary, but I believe that it would be money down the drain, even if the Government were to find any. However, it is up to the brilliant people in the DTI to do the work. If I were a small businessman sometimes I would say, "Why doesn't someone think of me and not simply say to me, 'That's too bad, but that is the way markets work'?". My reply to Rover would be, "Too bad, but that is the way markets work".
I finally make a few comments on Europe. I entirely agree with my noble friend that when, rather than if, we join the European monetary union—I am sure it will be "when"—the benefits to British industry will be overwhelming. As was pointed out at Question Time, it will be the wish of the British people that we join once they see what is happening abroad. Joining would be particularly helpful to small businesses, especially those which want to become involved in international trade. They will then not have all kinds of currency problems, but will be able to trade in a single currency.
I conclude by repeating the main theme which has been raised. There are great advantages in your Lordships contributing on these matters. However, ultimately we can do nothing. There are only two kinds of people who can do useful things; the first comprise businessmen themselves to whom I say, as a non-businessman, "The best of luck to you"; the second is my noble friend the Minister whose comments I look forward to hearing.
4.49 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I begin, like other noble Lords, by congratulating my noble friend Lord Harrison for giving us the opportunity to debate this issue. I congratulate, too, my noble friend Lord Patel on his speech. I have listened to and enjoyed every speech. They have all conveyed a knowledge of, and a feeling for, the subject which one does not always note in debates.
I am delighted that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, will speak from the Opposition Front Bench. She is well aware of the problems of small businesses from a successful businesswoman's point of view. The noble Baroness will recall the number of big businesses which were created during the last administration; she may also recall the number of small businesses which were big businesses when her government came to power. I hope that she will join with me in seeking to reverse the trend and ensure that small businesses have the opportunity to grow into big businesses.
I declare an interest as chairman of the United Kingdom Co-operative Council. It appears under category three in the register of interests. The cooperative movement has experience of successful businesses, both large and small. My noble friend Lord Cocks referred to the effect of small businesses as a fall-out from big businesses: the corner shops, workshops, services and factories. I share the view of my noble friend Lord Peston. The factor that affects
220
above all the wealth and health of small businesses is the general economic climate. Many small businesses rely on a successful big business. Therefore the picture is not black and white. One has to recognise that one wins some and loses some.
In the past 20 or 30 years there has been increasing recognition that what one requires in industry and business is a partnership involving management, shareholders and workers. We are all familiar with employee share option plans, stakeholder schemes and the sharing of power in one way or another. I reccgnise that if the Government were minded to be more realistic in giving tax breaks, benefits and grants to enable small businesses to survive and prosper, there could well be a spin off because the pot is limited. We cannot give everyone all they want.
Over the past few years many communities which enjoyed the services of a wide range of businesses have lost most of them. It may be a bus service, a cinema, a pub, a butcher's shop, a bakery, a post office, a bank or a grocery shop. I speak from experience. In hundreds of communities the last vestige of the old order was the corner shop. As other grocers left because they became unviable, the only shop which remained was the Co-op. As villagers became more mobile, they took their business elsewhere.
Do the Government consider the implications of major economic decisions? In the United Kingdom, co-operative societies operate 2,300 food shops, three quarters of them small shops of less than 5,000 square feet. If that seems quite large, let us remember that new superstores are aiming at 100,000 square feet. For example, the Tesco Metro in Wimbledon—it is a very small Tesco—is 10,500 square feet. Co-op shops are spread right across the country from St Austell to Stornoway, Gravesend to Donaghadee, and the Isle of Wight to the Isle of Anglesey. There have been Co-op shops for 150 years.
The co-operative movement does not reap the "peace dividend" in Northern Ireland because its shops have been there all the time. The Co-op has not "returned to the high street" because its shops have never left the high street. Those small shops make an important contribution to the life of local communities. They provide employment to large numbers of people. They allow people to shop in their local area. They provide social contact for the elderly, and parents with little children.
How do the Government regard the consequences of the macroeconomic climate, with the decline and ultimately the death of a village or small community staring them in the face? Are they alarmed, as we are? Do they hold an inquest after the event, as we do? Is there a mechanism, unit or department within a major government department which has the responsibility not only of anticipating the consequences of giving permission for a huge hypermarket but also of cushioning the effect?
In the 1980s, when an industry died, the former Government, although late in doing so, took steps to put something in its place. I see the noble Lord, Lord Elliott of Morpeth, in his place. The noble Lord will

221
remember the mines in the north, and the Consett steelworks. Strenuous efforts were made, recognising that when the major economic imperatives were served, they left a problem for the state. Perhaps I may ask the Government what steps, if any, are being taken.
The European Union is right to seek to promote consumer safety and to provide consumers with information but it must also always consider the impact of EC legislation on small businesses. My noble friend Lord Haskel did not argue that regulation was not needed or that regulation by itself is costly. He referred to the difficulty of implementing the regulations. That should be taken into account.
In this country, the Industrial Common Ownership Movement (ICOM) is a membership organisation whose primary purpose is to promote the democratic control and ownership of enterprises by the people who work in them. It is simply stated. It is a segment of our economy which flourishes but needs assistance. What kind of small businesses do I speak of? I refer to the provision of a foster care scheme, artists' studios, a brewery, an employment agency, an investment cooperative, a doctors' co-operative, a medical centre, a wood recycling scheme, childcare services, a Braille project, environmental services, production and retail of organic produce, buying, rearing and selling of racehorse co-operatives, domiciliary care services, translation services and a driving school. That is a snapshot of a tiny segment of the global and national economy but those co-operatives employ thousands of people who are sustained and serviced by the Industrial Common Ownership Movement. Those people—they have guts, drive and faith—are survivors. However, I hope that in 2000 my Government, which I support and to which I am proud to be attached, will recognise that they need more assistance. There are more than 1,000 worker cooperatives of one kind or another.
They need encouragement and support. They urgently need recognition of the contribution that co-operative SMEs can make to the economy in the form of job sustainability. There are a number of projects, and advice and guidance is available through ICOM.
Co-operative development is sporadic across the UK and is largely dependent upon the existence of a co-operative development agency. There are many ways in which the Government, without being too generous or giving a great deal of assistance, can encourage the growth of such organisations.
A positive programme is required. It should be designed to stimulate and create new co-operatives. A co-operatives Act for which the co-operative movement has asked would provide a framework to take the movement out of the 19th century and place it in the 21st century.
I hope that I have indicated the inevitability of change. When I left school in 1939, I moved into a new world. However, there was a great deal of similarity with the old, with small shops and businesses, and busy, successful, happy little people in communities.
222
Not a great deal has changed. The scale and the consequences have changed, but the spirit of ordinary people to run their own affairs and to manage them, and to take decisions which affect their community, is still alive.
The debate has enabled the Government to pause in their busy existence. They have enormous decisions to make—for instance, those concerning Rover and so forth—but many of the little people have been well served in the debate by Members from all sides of the House speaking from experience. I hope that the Minister will give us and those outside whose problems we try to articulate hope for the future.
5.2 p.m.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for giving us the opportunity to have this debate. I trust that he will forgive me if I take issue with two of his main contentions. He urged us to acknowledge the vital necessity of the European single market—I believe that he called it the "primacy" of the single market—which he went so far as to describe as the magic carpet on which we should all float into the glorious European dream. I want to do a little to bring the noble Lord's magic carpet gently down to earth.
He also had some rough things to say about people whom he called "anti-marketers" and "Eurosceptics". I imagine that he meant anti-European marketers. I would say to him that we are not anti-marketers, although we are becoming increasingly worried about the way in which the single market is developing.
Like most businessmen in the country today, the noble Lord confused the European single market with the former Common Market and more generally free trade. What is worrying some of us is the use by our "partners" of the single market's qualified majority voting system to damage our international interests and some of our interests at home. I mention particularly the art market, the destruction of which has caused enormous damage to many of our small and medium-sized businesses. I could mention dozens of other British interests which have been damaged by European legislation.
Furthermore, I must query his contention that joining the euro would be good for SMEs. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, joined him in that. They contended that being outside the euro was damaging to SMEs. However, not many SMEs, certainly not the smaller ones, do business overseas. After all, only 9 per cent of our GDP is generated with the EU, yet EU regulations and other UK regulations affect 100 per cent of our economy.
That is why the Federation of Small Businesses, at its conference on 25th and 26th March, voted by massive majorities, first, not to join the euro. There was a vote of 64,743 against 13,741. It also voted for the following motion by 66,210 against some 5,600.
"This conference feels that if genuine deregulation cannot be achieved through negotiation with the European Union in the field of business laws, the United Kingdom should move towards repealing Section 2.2 of the European Communities ct 1972".

223
That, in effect, takes us out of the European Union. The Federation of Small Businesses speaks for some 130,000 businesses and is clearly the largest organisation of its kind in the country.
In addition, the British Chambers of Commerce, which used to be a rather Europhile organisation, is now moving against much of the regulation that is coming our way from Europe and gold-plated by Whitehall. At its Conference 2000 last week, it produced a table of 16 measures which have been introduced since the Government came into power, generating a total cost for UK commerce and industry of some £10.6 billion. That appears to be largely an annual burden, led by the infamous working time directive.
The director-general of the British Chambers of Commerce, in his speech last week, said:
"We reject Government attempts to redefine our £10 billion cost burden out of existence. The figures we use are drawn from the Government's own documents and include the full cost of implementing regulations, plus the cost of administering them".
He went on to quote a figure of 4,000 new regulations introduced by government each year. That comes from the noble Lord, Lord Haskins, the chairman of the Government's own Better Regulation Taskforce. The noble Lord, Lord Haskins, might be slightly over-egging the pudding, but nevertheless that is a staggering figure.
What are the Government going to do about that? They could do much worse than to read again the debate on 18th June last year on the Bill introduced by my noble friend Lord Willoughby de Broke, making it essential to gauge the impact of European Union legislation on this country. I wonder what has happened to that Bill. Do the Government hope that it will gather dust into the long-term future or will they read the debate again and take these matters seriously?
5.7 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, we have had a most useful debate which was so enthusiastically introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison. Noble Lords have taken part with knowledge and experience and we have had a number of constructive proposals. I suppose that the only exception would be the intervention of the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, who continued a major debate which he opened recently on what should be our attitude towards Europe and the case for withdrawing from the EU. It did not appear to be relevant to the subject under debate.
I shall deal with the subject that we are debating under three headings. The first emphasises the importance of small and medium-sized firms. The second acknowledges that the Government have done much to recognise that importance, particularly in the last Budget. The third points out, as have many noble Lords, that major problems remain to be resolved. This is indeed unfinished business.
There is no doubt about the importance of the SMEs. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, reminded us that 99 per cent of all the businesses in this country fall into that category. On the basis of that statistic, we are,
224
indeed, a nation of small businesses. Those businesses cover a whole variety of enterprises, from a large number of sole traders to businesses that employ up to 250 people. They cover the whole area of British enterprise and, more recently, have entered the area of new technologies.
The Government have recognised that and I am pleased that in the last Budget—I like to pay tribute where it is due—they introduced a number of fiscal measures to help small businesses. The most important was the reduction of corporation tax to 10 per cent on firms which earn up to £10,000. They also improved the tapering of capital gains tax, which will encourage investment, and extended capital allowances. These are all important. However, as the CBI said in welcoming the measures, they are, of course, a start. We would like to see more of them.
An important further step taken by the Government is the setting up of the Small Business Service. I believe that it has obtained general support throughout the business sector. It was referred to specifically by the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, in his introductory speech, the noble Lord, Lord Patel, and by the noble Lord, Lord Haskel. I also consider that it is a move in the right direction. Of course, previous governments have taken steps to help small businesses, but I believe that this is an important and imaginative measure.
I was particularly struck by the words in the consultative document which was issued last year that the Small Business Service was to provide,
"a strong voice for small business at the heart of Government ".
I considered that to be of vital importance. Following on from that, I believe that the concept that the chief executive will be consulted on all new legislation likely to affect small businesses is innovative and desirable. The service will also provide what is described as a "local gateway" for advice and guidance to small firms. That will be a substantial task. I hope that, in replying, the noble Lord can tell us that the service will be resourced sufficiently to handle that because the requirements for assistance and advice from small businesses which cover the whole range of our economic activity could be considerable.
Having mentioned the positive steps taken by government, I should like, as many other noble Lords have done, to mention some of the issues which still remain to be done. The noble Lords, Lord Cocks, Lord Haskel and Lord Peston, were among those who referred to this. I should like to refer to two issues, among many, that still need to be addressed.
The first is the problem of start-up finance. That was recognised by the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he said in a speech in the other place on 8th March:
"I accept that, currently, barriers stand in the way of many businesses starting up and obtaining the finance that hey need for success".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/3/00; col. 1077.]
He went on to say that many small businesses fail in their first three or four years because they have inadequate finances in their early days. As the Minister indicated, the Government are fully aware of that problem and they are reviewing all the sources of

225
finance that are available. Indeed, they have set up an enterprise fund amounting to £180 million to help with start-up. However, that fund has attracted much criticism because of the complications of obtaining support from it. That was specifically referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and, indeed, has been referred to by the CBI in an otherwise positive response to the Government's measures. It is being hedged around with so much difficulty that the time spent by small firms in trying to extract finance from it can sometimes be regarded as entirely negative. Therefore, it remains a real problem.
I recently came across a case in point with regard to a company connected with my old industry—the coal industry—that was set up to exploit methane presently being vented to the atmosphere from abandoned coal mines. The company is trying to collect the methane and supply it to local enterprise. However, it encountered great difficulty in obtaining the start-up finance for the project. Eventually, it asked a venture capital firm to help it and now has two mines from which it is collecting the gas. One hundred and fifty disused mines in this country are wasting what would otherwise be a valuable resource. The company is trying to develop it. I believe that it is unfortunate that, whereas the capture of methane from landfill sites receives special support, the firm that had the innovative idea of capturing it from disused mines was unable to obtain the finance. No doubt, if it had persevered for a number of years it might have received government help, but it went elsewhere.
Another issue, referred to also by many noble Lords in the debate today—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Haskel—is the growing burden of regulation. Of course, many regulations are entirely desirable, but it is the way in which they have to be dealt with by small firms that creates the problem. One puts oneself in the position of a small firm with two or three persons employed. It could be frustrating if a large part of their time is spent unproductively in filling in forms, trying to understand what answers they must give and negotiating with the government departments concerned. It is a problem which I know the Government recognise. I hope that the Small Business Service will address it as something that must be dealt with on behalf of its customers.
I have concluded that, having accepted the important position that small firms occupy in the economy and the many aspects of the economy that they cover—some of those aspects have been mentioned by noble Lords who have spoken—we are moving into a phase where, I believe, practical action is being taken. In the course of our debate today it was satisfactory to hear that everything is not simply being left to government and that there are other initiatives. The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for example, told us about the important part that universities play in helping small firms, particularly with the new technologies. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, told us about the Prince's Trust and the remarkable task that it performs, buttressing and supporting what government are doing. The noble Lord, Lord Graham
226
of Edmonton, told us of the concept of partnership, particularly in the Co-operative movement, in which he has played such an important part.
Therefore, we are not turning to government exclusively, but government must set the framework; that is what governments are for. I believe that the present Government are building on what previous governments have done. I do not believe that this is a party political issue. I believe that all governments have recognised this problem. They are building on what has previously been done and expanding on it.
We need to recognise, however, that there are still many problems. Some of them have been mentioned today but there are many others. I am glad also, in spite of what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, said, that at the recent Lisbon conference there was agreement, largely as a result of the suggestions made by the UK delegation, that special efforts should also be made at European level to deal with the important issue of small firms.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for initiating this important and interesting debate, which he did so well. It has encouraged many excellent contributions.
As has been said several times throughout the debate, SMEs are the foundation of our future prosperity. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Blackburn, not only on his excellent speech but also on making his maiden speech on such a very important subject.
SMEs can prosper only if they are allowed to get on with creating profits and, in the same process, creating jobs. There are fewer opportunities now than in the early 1900s for new industries which produce tens of thousands of new jobs. Rather it is the 10 or 20 jobs here, the 50 there and so on which will be the pattern of the future. According to the Federation of Small Businesses, in the UK, over 94.4 per cent of all businesses employ fewer than 10 persons, so they are very small businesses indeed.
Those small businesses do not have internal accountants or personnel officers, so in order to encourage them, first, to start up and then to develop and grow, they really need to be nurtured and not hindered by too much regulation and all the burdens that come with it.
With that preamble, I immediately give a cautious welcome to the launch of the Small Business Service, especially with David Irwin as its chief executive. Mr Irwin demonstrated his independence when he criticised the failure of the Government to produce their promised guidance to the parental leave directive even a week before it came into force. He described that as being "just ridiculous.".
As the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, has just said, it is not just the directives—many of them may be excellent—but the way that they have to be implemented by small businesses that causes the problem.

227
The reason for my caution is that with so many such schemes, the Small Business Service will obviously have to be judged by results. As it has only just been launched, it is obviously much too early to say, but I hope that Mr Irwin will be able to continue as he has apparently begun and be as independent of government as possible. If it follows the model of the American Government's Small Business Administration, his role as chief executive should be nearer to that of an advocate for small businesses. We must hope that Mr Irwin's objectivity will not need to be constrained by the source of funding for the SBS and his lines of reporting. We hope that he will be able to look to all government departments for funding and to reprioritise those funds for SMEs with the backing of all the Ministers concerned. We hope that the Business Link teams, with the expert advisers and counsellors, which will be funded by the SBS, will meet the objective of finding a solution to the manifold problems of small businesses, especially those which are just starting up.
This debate is to call attention to what Her Majesty's Government and the EU are doing to promote small businesses. At this point, I should say that the implementation of many of the directives coming from Europe is placing great burdens on small businesses. I shall concentrate on that. Also, I believe that in relation to some of the Government's legislation, they have not thought through how it affects a very tiny business. It may seem that I am just talking about the bad things but I am quite sure that that will be remedied by the Minister putting the other side of the picture.
Employers are now being burdened with the complicated paperwork and costs (estimated at about £100 million per year) of administering the working families' tax credit. Small firms, by their nature, are likely to be employing a high proportion of the recipients of the payments without having the internal resources to act as unpaid benefits officers. Do the Government really believe that employers will want to get involved in the employees' personal and private family situations? Does anyone believe that that burden will be an incentive to employers to take on staff if that involves administering working families' tax credits?
The part-time workers directive was imposed on Britain this month as a result of the Government's break-neck and irresponsible signing up to the Social Chapter. Part-time workers may now become entitled to the same benefits as full-timers, but there is no definition of a "part-time" worker in the directive, nor, indeed, of a "full-time" equivalent. Employers will be required to provide written statements to part-time employees informing them why they are not to be given pro rata conditions. That will provide a feast day for the lawyers.
But that written statement is not a requirement of the European directive. Chris Humphries, the Director-General of the British Chamber of Commerce, described it as a blunt instrument and
228
accused the Government of gold-plating the EU directives and of imposing unnecessary burdens which small firms will find very difficult to shoulder.
From an entirely laudable ambition to have identical regulations affecting similar goods and services throughout the EC, a giant industry has been spewing out long-winded and verbose legislation of unimaginable prolixity. I remember reading—I only wish that I could have found the quote for today's debate—a comparison between the brevity of the Ten Commandments and the thousands of words that it took to regulate the thickness of the covering on a chocolate biscuit!
But more seriously, the Government never lose the opportunity to proclaim themselves the friend of business, especially SMEs. However, only last week we read of the unfortunate Mrs Janet Stephens who employs just seven people making canopies for babies' buggies. Courtesy of Hector, the Inland Revenue friendly tax inspector, 234 pages, weighing 1¾ pounds—I beg your Lordships' pardon, 795 grams—thumped on to her desk. Your Lordships will be relieved to know that that included a two-page leaflet telling her how more supplies of that bumf may be ordered just in case she did not have enough.
Naturally, I should like to give credit where credit is abundantly due; that is, to the Companies Registry. For years, the Small Business Bureau, of which, before I came to the Front Bench, I was an active member, has been campaigning against the unnecessary complexity and repetitiveness of the annual return which every company must file. Last year, the registry produced a simple new form containing all the data on file and which the company only has to sign and send 'back with any amendments noted. That will certainly save most SMEs time, professional fees and the risk of late filing fines. I believe that that is very good.
Although the Government claim to be the friend of small businesses, they have piled costs and overheads on them. When I was dealing with the national minimum wage from this Dispatch Box, despite my begging them ever so politely, they refused to give similar exemptions which are allowed for small businesses in the United States of America, despite the fact that that country invented the national minimum wage. They even refused to exempt workshops where disabled people work, not for wages but for therapeutic purposes. They refused also to exempt holiday camps, where many of the instructors were simply students taking on a holiday job.
The Government fell over themselves to sign up to maternity leave, parental leave and time off for so-called "domestic emergencies" but alt the same time, they adamantly set their face against exempting the smallest of corner shops and village stores and very small businesses. That was not to conform with the requirements of the single market or even for the sake of uniformity throughout the EU—on the mainland, such exemptions are granted—I believe that it was because our Government were anxious to be seen by their partners in the EU as more European than they

229
are. That little group of regulations alone costs some £5,000 million per year, a large part of it falling on SMEs.
The working time regulations, which were sneaked through Parliament by being laid before Parliament the day before the 1998 Summer Recess, are producing a deluge of paperwork affecting more than 1 million businesses. The Government's own estimate of the cost of that alone is £2,300 million per year every year. By coincidence, that is the same amount as is produced by 1p on income tax—
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords—
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this is a timed debate and I hope that the noble Lord will forgive me. As I do not want to overrun my time, it would be very discourteous.
We seem to have the knack of producing regulations that are more stringent than our obligations require them to be and more stringent than our competitors on the Continent impose on their own industries. That is the point I wish to make. The process, to which I have already referred, we describe as "gold-plating". The Environment Agency, for example, is proposing new regulations on the pig and poultry industries which will cost a reported £1,250 per day to enforce. Those regulations do not apply to the rest of the EU. They do not even apply in Scotland.
On Tuesday last week, the Secretary of State triumphantly announced new regulations relaxing the requirement of SMEs to have their accounts audited, which he claimed would save them up to £180 million per year. I think the phrase "up to" is good, but it might be meaningless, as most of the firms will still need professional assistance to prepare their accounts for tax purposes, and no reputable accountant will probably wish to produce a balance sheet without an audit. However, either way, it is certainly a step in the right direction.
What emerged from the recent Lisbon conference, as from so many similar meetings of heads of state and trade Ministers is, I believe, a lot of lofty rhetoric. I do not doubt for one minute that the heads of state sincerely meant every word of their very high-sounding communiqué. But as so often is the case, it is easier to say the right thing than to do the right thing. Politics proposes, but it seems to me that Brussels disposes.
I have urged the Government during several previous debates to bear in mind that the corner shop is not the same as a giant conglomerate. The noble Lord, Lord Cocks, made that clear when he referred to Asda. It was very careful of noble Lords opposite to refer to Asda and Tesco and to make sure that they did not talk about Sainsbury, but that is just the polite way in which this House conducts its business.
The same rules and regulations which can easily be absorbed by large businesses cause a wholly disproportionate burden to small and medium-sized enterprises. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, was
230
careful to say that he thought I had experience of that. Fortunately, I sold my business before all these rules and regulations were introduced. Looking at them now, standing here at the Dispatch Box, I am glad that I did that.
I ask the Government to examine every regulation they make, not from the point of view of uniformity but of proportionality to small businesses. That is the key point. On his return from Lisbon, the Prime Minister called for reforming the EU. He said that we should encourage the EU to follow the United States and UK models with an emphasis on deregulation and flexible labour markets. But as will be seen from the many examples I have given, we are no less bureaucratic. In some cases, we are more bureaucratic than our European competitors. They are sometimes called our "partners", but we should not forget that they are our competitors.
As Adair Turner pointed out recently, Britain's low unemployment and low inflation reflect the profound liberalisation of the labour market introduced by the previous administration. I believe, therefore, that much of the "knocking" about what we did was somewhat unfounded. I urge the Government not to throw away the advantage gained then. Last year, Britain's commerce was inundated with a record-breaking 3,468 new regulations. We are more than a quarter of the way through this year. I ask the Government drastically to cut the number in the nine months or so left to come.
5.33 p.m.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, for initiating this debate and, indeed, thank noble Lords for the many interesting contributions. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Patel, on his speech. It is always a pleasure to hear the first speech in this House of someone who will obviously be a star performer. We look forward to his future contributions. Perhaps I may say on a personal note that I hope he will continue to champion the cause of small businesses. That is clearly a subject of which he has great personal knowledge.
I welcome the opportunity to respond to the debate on behalf of the Government because I believe that there is a good story to tell. The Government are working to create an environment that enables business to meet the challenges of the modern global economy here in the UK, Europe and throughout the world.
I want to focus on small firms, as did most of the speakers today. As many noble Lords said, we recognise that government does not create wealth; small businesses do. Small businesses are the future of our economy and the Government's role is to create the right conditions for them to thrive and prosper. The following statistics show why that is so important. I endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, that small businesses are, in fact, big business.

231
There were an estimated 3.7 million small businesses in the UK at the start of 1998—that includes 2.4 million sole traders—compared to just 25,000 medium-sized businesses and 7,000 large businesses. In 1998 2.4 million businesses were run by sole traders or partners without employees. In 1998 small businesses with under 50 employees accounted for 99 per cent of businesses, 45 per cent of non-government employment and, excluding the finance sector, 38 per cent of turnover.
We have heard much about the need to reduce the burden of regulation. We agree that that is central to building a better business environment. I shall turn in a moment to some of the things we are doing on regulation and how we are managing the process to reduce the number. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, talked about 3,400 regulations. That is last year's figure and is slightly below the average of the former government in their last two years. That figure is not totally reliable. It involves all sorts of things—some of which are not regulations—to control businesses, but also to enable them to do things. However, if we take that figure alone, it is below what was the previous running rate.
We live in a knowledge-driven, global economy, where information and finance can move around the world at the click of a mouse. That affects the way in which people do business. We must ensure that business can take advantage of the new opportunities which now arise with such rapidity. That means providing economic stability, introducing fiscal measures which encourage enterprise and investment, promoting fair competition, investing in skills, encouraging innovation and removing barriers to finance, especially for the innovators and risk takers that generate wealth in the small firms sector.
Our first task over the past two-and-a-half years of Government has been to establish a platform for economic stability and put an end to the damaging cycle of boom and bust. As someone who has spent most of his life in business, there is nothing more damaging for businesses big or small than a boom and bust situation.
We are aware that the strength of sterling causes problems for many businesses. However, taking the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, I totally disagree with his analysis of what can be done about it. The idea that we should weaken the strength of the pound, which can only basically be done by taking policies which will allow inflation to grow in the economy, is to return to that cycle of boom and bust which is so disastrous for small businesses.
It is worth reminding ourselves that in the late 1980s and early 1990s 1 million businesses went under, 1 million jobs were lost in manufacturing and 2 million jobs totally disappeared. I do not think that that is the sort of situation that small businesses want to see happen again. The people who suffer most from that sort of boom and bust are those people in industries such as the machine tool industry. As was
232
rightly pointed out, they are the people whose investment or sales are cut right back in those periods of recession and slump.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords —
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am sorry; this is a timed debate and there are a lot of questions to answer.
I should like to say also that machine tool manufacturers are the sort of people who can raise their productivity; they can use new technology to improve their performance and take advantage of the schemes mentioned by my noble friend Lady Warwick.
Noble Lords on the Benches opposite may not want to be reminded that the previous administration managed an economy which saw insolvencies peak at nearly 16,000 in one quarter in the early 1990s and the lowest number of business start-ups on record—just 77,000 in one quarter. But over 1.2 million new businesses have started up in the lifetime of this Government. There were over 439,000 new business start- ups during 1999 alone. In contrast, the number of business closures during 1999 (386,000) was the lowest for a decade. I believe this demonstrates that the Government are providing the right economic platform on which all of our small businesses can achieve their full potential.
A major step forward was taken with last month's Budget. As a result, Britain now has its lowest ever corporation rates for small companies and, with the 10p starting rate from this month, the lowest starting rate among major industrialised countries. The measures introduced this year, together with the 3p cut in the small companies' rate already announced, will cut corporation tax bills of small companies on average by nearly 25 per cent.
Budget 2000, as has already been mentioned, set out a substantial package of further tax measures to help small businesses. These include cuts in capital gains tax; permanent first-year capital allowances; 100 per cent first-year capital allowances for investment in ICT by small businesses; an R&D tax credit for SMEs; and a new all-employee share ownership plan and enterprise management incentives giving employee share ownership in the UK its biggest ever boost and helping small firms to recruit and retain the key staff they need to succeed.
In answer to the point of my noble friend Lord Graham, we are taking action to encourage employee share ownership because that is clearly an important aspect of new businesses over a period of rapid growth. A final feature of the Budget was tax reliefs to promote corporate venturing, encouraging large and small companies to work together for their mutual benefit.
Let me now turn to the Small Business Service, which is a key part of the Government's overall strategy to create an entrepreneurial Britain. I welcome the endorsement of my noble friend Lord Harrison and say to my noble friend Lord Peston that one of the prime tasks of the SBS will be to put the

233
viewpoint of small businesses right at the heart of government. It has three over-arching aims: a strong voice for small business at the heart of government; world class business support services; and to mitigate the effects of red tape. And no one should doubt that David Irwin, the chief executive of the Small Business Service, will make a great success of the venture. He has great experience in this area and has already shown considerable independence in that regard.
At the same time, we need to do more in relation to ethnic minority businesses. We are therefore setting up an ethnic minority business advisory forum to act as a sounding board to help to address the kinds of issues mentioned in this debate. I agree with my noble friend Lord Patel that, if Mohammed will not go to the mountain, the mountain should go to Mohammed. In the case of the Small Business Service, it is key that the people involved go out into the field, visiting small businesses, rather than sit in their offices waiting for people to visit them. Small businesses do not have the time.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, raised the question of sub-post offices. We will certainly make available what information we have in relation to some of the deficiencies in the current system which lead to considerable opportunities for fraud. We cannot delay the modernisation of the benefits payment system any longer, though in fact there will not be any change to existing arrangements until 2003.
It should be said, on the other side of the equation, that, with the Horizon project, sub-post offices will have the ability to provide more banking services. With the closure of some rural banks, which is regrettable, they will have an opportunity to take their place. It should be made clear that those receiving benefits through sub-post offices will do so without deductions. People will still be able to receive benefits in cash. As I said, there will be no changes until 2003, so there is a lot of time to take account of this.
I agree with the praise of my noble friend Lord Mason for the Prince's Business Trust. It is an excellent and highly successful initiative which achieves both economic and social objectives, and shows how they can be achieved at the same time. The New Deal for young people allows 18 to 25 year-olds to select a self-employment option at the gateway. Young people receive financial support and advice throughout the self-employment route and the guidance of a mentor. But we will always look at new ideas, and are currently looking at professional, regional innovation funds, which could help to fund the sort of innovation centres my noble friend mentioned.
The noble Viscount, Lord Oxfuird, raised the question of the boundary between the Small Business Service and the Learning and Skills Council. There is no specific problem in that regard. The Small Business Service does not have training as a primary target, whereas it is absolutely integral to the objectives of the Learning and Skills Council.
234
I should like to say to my noble friend Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe that, while we want to see small businesses succeed, they in turn must consistently adapt to the changing economic scene and the changing needs of their customers. Regrettably, there will always be failures in management and it is not the role of government to intervene to support those situations. The role of government is to create the right environment and incentives; it is for business to take advantage of the opportunities.
I was delighted by the speech of my noble friend Lady Warwick. She identified something of great importance; that is, the cultural change taking place in our universities. It is extremely impressive. The number of spin-off companies and the research now being done for companies has risen dramatically in recent years. We want to build on the success of Science Enterprise Challenge and the HEROBC scheme. I agree that the universities of today should be at the heart of our knowledge-driven economy. They should not be seen, as so often was the case in the past, as parasites of our economy, but as being at the heart of our knowledge-driven economy. I was greatly encouraged by the way the universities are rising to this challenge and incentive.
My noble friend Lord Graham raised the question of the impact of economic change on urban and rural communities. That is something that both the DTI and the DETR are conscious of. That is why it is essential to promote new sources of growth and jobs created by SMEs as the way forward.
The noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to our surprise, raised the question of Europe. I should remind him of the survey conducted by the British Chamber of Commerce which found that 38 per cent of companies favoured joining or making a commitment to join the euro; 36 per cent were against and 24 per cent were for keeping the options open. Also, the figure of £10 billion needs to be looked at carefully; £7.5 billion of that is the implementation of the working time directive. This Government believe that that was an important and highly desirable piece of legislation. We make no apology for it, nor for the cost involved.
Let me turn briefly to the future. The Small Business Service will make sure that the Government think "small" first. David Irwin has a specific mandate to examine new and existing regulations and is already making his voice heard. To make it easier to remove the burden of regulation, the Government are introducing a Bill that will enable changes to be made without having to wait for space in the main legislative programme.
We have acted to do something about deregulation. The new Labour Government have introduced effective mechanisms for tackling red tape across government. The Government have appointed a Regulatory Reform Minister in each department to examine and get rid of unnecessary regulations and to minimise the burden of any new, necessary proposals by consulting with business.
The Government have established a top level panel to call Ministers to account for the regulatory performance in their departments. These reviews have

235
now begun. Following the meeting on 27th March, the Department for Trade and Industry and the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions agreed to a package of specific regulatory reforms. Both departments issued press notices, as well as issuing a joint notice with the Cabinet Office. In the next meeting on 18th April, the panel will scrutinise measures being put forward by the Department of Health and the Home Office to reduce regulatory burdens. Again, a press notice will be issued.
Business has been given a powerful voice in this process. David Irwin, Chief Executive of the Small Business Service, and my noble friend Lord Haskins of the Better Regulation Task Force are both members of the panel. David Irwin's role will be to put the special needs of small businesses at the heart of the Government's regulatory reform programme.
I turn now to some of the specific actions that we have taken to minimise burdens on business. We have merged the Inland Revenue and the Contributions Agency, thus ensuring that companies have to deal only with one organisation and one company audit. This was recommended by the previous administration's deregulation task force in 1995, but was something that that administration failed to do.
We are modernising the weights and measures legislation. So far as concerns the Employment Relations Act, we have exempted employers with 20 or fewer employees from the trade union recognition procedures. We have exempted small shops from the EU requirement to show the unit price of pre-packed goods. We have also exempted employers with four or fewer employees from the requirements to provide access to stakeholder pensions and deduct pension contributions.
Last month, the Chancellor of the Exchequer ordered an investigation into competition in the provision of banking services to see whether the market is working effectively and whether it is serving the interest of smaller firms in the United Kingdom. From the viewpoint of the small business, I believe this to be the key issue. I was pleased that my noble friend Lord Peston raised the matter. Much still needs to be done on the question of finance for small businesses, but we have already taken a number of steps. We shall continue to look at this area and take more steps in the future.
I was delighted that my noble friend Lord Harrison drew attention to the serious harm caused to small businesses by the late payment of commercial debts. The Government are determined to change the late-payment culture that existed under the previous administration. In November 1998 we introduced the Late Payment of Commercial Debts (Interest) Act and we have also taken very strong action so far as concerns government payments. I should point out to my noble friend Lord Peston that the Government have improved the overall payment performance of central government year on year since taking office. We shall continue to publish data annually showing the percentage of invoices paid on time by central government.
236
As this debate includes the European Union, I should also say that I believe the Lisbon summit also moved the date very firmly forward in terms of the enterprise agenda. Some very specific and clear targets were set at that time.
In summary, through fiscal and monetary reforms, the Government have created a sound and credible platform of stability and long-term economic growth. Now, with both the lowest corporate tax rates for businesses ever and the lowest ever capital gains tax rates for long-term investors, Britain is becoming one of the best places for companies to start, to invest, to grow and to expand. That is why we are seeing so much inward investment to the UK at the present time.
The Government want to see a highly competitive environment for business in the United Kingdom, but we also want to make certain that people have the knowledge, skills and equipment to create competitive advantage in the fast-moving economy in which we now live. The Government want to create an environment where opportunities for enterprise are open to all—young or old, male or female and regardless of ethnic origin or where people live—and to make sure that the global knowledge-based economy is a bringer of opportunity and not a threat.
We cannot stop change; we cannot hold back global forces. However, we can provide economic stability. We can provide people with opportunities to upgrade their skills through organisations, such as the University for Industry, and we can provide incentives for innovation and enterprise. In all of this we will listen carefully to the voices of small businesses so that our policies are always attuned to their needs. In the future, the Small Business Service will always make certain that the voice of small firms is heard in all parts of government.
In a period of rapid economic change small businesses are faced with many opportunities, as well as many difficulties. Their speed of response and flexibility gives them a real advantage. I hope that I have made it clear in this debate that the Government see small businesses as playing a vital role in the knowledge-driven economy and that we want to enable and incentivise them to seize the many opportunities that they have for profitable growth.
5.55 p.m.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, in concluding this debate, perhaps I may take up the theme of my noble friend Lord Graham of Edmonton who said that he had enjoyed today's debate. I have thoroughly enjoyed it, for two reasons. I enjoyed it, first, because I have learnt an awful lot today about small businesses. I thank each and every speaker for his or her contribution to the debate about the role of small businesses. Secondly, I enjoyed it because of the diversity of views expressed by all speakers. In that respect, I believe that we reflect the diversity of small businesses in Britain today. Indeed, our discussion has ranged from the Prince's Trust to the role of universities, to the problems of post offices and ethnic communities and to the possibilities for workers' co-operatives, to name but a few.

237
We even invaded the football pitch of some of the smaller teams around the country in our debate—for example, Barnsley, Blackburn and Bristol. I wonder why there is no major team in the Premier League whose name begins with the letter "B". However, I recall that Sir Alex Ferguson and his colleagues are in Strasbourg today in an attempt to try to change the Bosman ruling on the single market, which so affects our football teams—especially the smaller clubs.
I should just like to make one remark that I have been provoked into making by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. I should tell him that life has moved on. I invite him to walk down the Corridor of this House into the Salisbury Room. I do so because he made mention of the art market. I also invite the noble Lord to inspect the catalogues from Sotheby's, Bonham's and other major art houses here in London. If he does so, he will find that even in respect of sales of British paintings the suggested sale prices are now expressed in both pounds sterling and the euro.
During our debate today much mention was made of shops, from corner shops to the major supermarkets. However, this debate has not been a talking shop: we have really made a contribution to the well-being of small businesses. I hope that we can go further in future debates to ensure that small businesses are put at the heart of Britain's business. I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. I am advised that I need to beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

NHS: Disability Equipment
5. 59 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stokerose to call attention to the recent Audit Commission report on the provision by the National Health Service of specialist disability equipment; and to move for Papers.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Audit Commission's report on equipment services for old and disabled people is a truly shocking indictment. It vividly demonstrates indifference, neglect and incompetence which have lasted for decades. The report examines five essential services provided to some 4 million people, including 700,000 wheelchair users, 400,000 users of orthopaedic shoes and callipers (orthotics), 65,000 users of artificial limbs (prosthetics), 2 million people using National Health Service hearing aids, and 1 million users of community equipment services who require basic but essential equipment.
The Audit Commission is in no doubt about the value of these services. Its report states:
"Equipment services provide the gateway to independence, dignity and self-esteem for many older or disabled people. Proper equipment is central to effective rehabilitation; it improves quality of life: it enhances people's life chances by allowing access to education; and it reduces the effects of illness and disability at very low costs compared to other forms of healthcare. It is no exaggeration to say that these services have the potential to make
238
or break the quality of the lives of many older or disabled people, and the lives of those 1.7 million people who provide informal care for more than 20 hours each week. Equipment services are central to the Government's drive to promote greater independence for older or disabled people".
I agree with the Audit Commission. The value of good equipment services is undeniable. But so, too, are the consequences of bad equipment services. What kind of life is it if a person is lost in a fog of misunderstanding because of a poor hearing aid; or cannot walk without pain and discomfort because orthopaedic shoes are faulty; or cannot cope with a heavy, unsuitable wheelchair; or, when confined to bed, develops painful bed sores because a special mattress is not available? It is an absolute disgrace that this equipment, which is so obviously needed, has not been routinely available to a universal high standard. The record is deplorable and disabled people are suffering as a result.
I mention some examples. Some noble Lords may have heard of the woman who lost her hands and legs. She said that she was given a poorly made hook for a hand, and artificial legs which did not fit and caused blisters. She said that she was in total desperation and that going to the prosthetics department of the hospital was like stepping into a time warp; nothing had changed in 50 years. She eventually obtained excellent prostheses privately, but only because of a wealthy philanthropist, which, of course, is simply not an option for millions of other disabled people.
What are we to make of the trust which had an explicit policy of not issuing pressure relieving mattresses until bed sores had developed? Sores are not only painful. They take a long time to heal and can also be life threatening. My only criticism of the Audit Commission is that it did not name and shame the trust.
The Audit Commission's report is comprehensively damning. It found that essential services get no priority. Waiting times are excessive. The patient often receives equipment that is unsuitable or painful. It is an incredible saga. The views of patients are not sought. Good practice is not copied. Research and development are inadequate. Specialist, multidisciplinary centres are lacking. Referral systems are poor. So, too, are information systems. Management is weak and inadequate. There is no feedback or audit of services or failures. A conflict of interest can exist between the clinician and the salesman selling the equipment. That is an incredible saga of incompetence. Any one of those shortcomings would be a cause for concern. Added together, they are a cause for anger and condemnation.
This nation prides itself on progress. However, the report's findings regarding equipment services take us back to the early part of the previous century. All too often equipment turns out to be out of date. This is especially true of hearing aids. More than half of the hearing aids provided by the National Health Service are the cheapest and the most basic. Those are the official facts. It must be a major reason for one-third of the aids being infrequently or never used. The pilot digital programme initiated by the present Government is welcome, but I wonder why it was not

239
introduced years ago. The substantial advances in digital technology in the private sector have existed for a long time.
In view of the enormous number of inadequacies it is no surprise to read not only of disabled people receiving poor equipment, but, as a result, of much financial waste with faulty equipment left unused. If people are forced into institutional care because of inadequate services, the cost escalates. Everyone loses—disabled people, the Treasury and society as a whole.
There are some bright spots, some good centres and some helpful local authority service providers. However, good practice is not copied. We hear a great deal today about the postcode lottery. The report reveals gross inequalities between regions and within them. It states bluntly that the standard of service is "unacceptable" in many parts of the country.
The report is a grave reflection on those who were responsible in the past. I welcome the present Prime Minister's response when he said,
"We cannot have a situation where older and disabled people are let down in the way this report suggests".
I want to raise the question of how it has happened that millions of disabled people have suffered so much and so needlessly. Who is responsible? Very little, if any, of the material in the Audit Commission's report is new. All that the report has done is to find evidence, collate it and present it admirably, thus authenticating something we have known for years.
So, we must ask, did Ministers of the Tory government, in power for 18 years in the 1980s and 1990s, know about this state of affairs? If so, what did they do about it? A well informed report by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in 1986 complained about the unhealthy lack of competition in the prosthetics market. But what happened next? Very little, it seems. The Audit Commission report states that few new suppliers have entered the market since. Overall we have to conclude that if effective action had been taken during those years on the issues dealt with by the Audit Commission, this sorry situation would never have arisen. The government of that time bear a heavy responsibility.
Today, fortunately, there is a new spirit in the air. The voluntary disability organisations have a new spring in their step. The vigorous organisation, emPOWER, a consortium of charities, has made a major contribution to these key issues by its conferences, charters and case studies. I pay tribute to it.
The welcome for the Audit Commission report by the Prime Minister, the statement by the Minister of State at the Department of Health, John Hutton, that work has already started to drive up standards in the main areas of the report, the setting up of a working group by the Department of Health to see how the orthotics service can be improved, and the establishment of the Disability Rights Commission before the end of this month—I think on the 28th—are all happy auguries for the future.
240
But they are just that—auguries. Nothing more or less. We need now an absolute commitment at every level to make radical improvements, and to make them a high priority. We need to sustain the momentum rather than have a seven-day wonder.
The report makes some excellent and welcome recommendations which require changes in organisation. But the main change needed now is one of attitude. Unless we stop regarding equipment for older and disabled people as unimportant and dispensable, we shall make no substantial progress. We require now—I hope my noble friend can give the House such an assurance—a clear timetable of improvements that can be expected, and when, and an explanation of how they will be monitored by the Government. Nothing less will do. Those of us with a special interest in disability will carefully monitor progress.
If the Government follow the Prime Minister's constructive lead and vigorous action is taken to deal with the shortcomings outlined in the report, we shall at last provide older and disabled people with the quality of equipment services they deserve, undoubtedly enriching their lives. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
6.12 p.m.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, on securing this debate on such extremely important issues. As he said, the Audit Commission has produced an excellent report. It highlights particular services which are of great importance to many people. It will ensure that they are given at least a higher priority than they have been in the past.
The report demonstrated how poor and patchy the service often is; the long wait that people often have to endure to obtain what they need; that individual needs are frequently still not met; and that the equipment is often poorly fitted and arrives after individuals have waited for a very long time.
I also welcome the recommendation in thy report to consult service users and their carers. In regard to carers, I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, will undoubtedly address their specific needs. I should like to mention the needs of individual elderly, frail people who often care for chronically sick and disabled elderly partners, usually spouses. Such people need specialist equipment—hoists, stair lifts, baths and so on—to make life bearable and to ensure that the cared for person is able to stay at home—a big cost saving to public services. It would also alleviate much personal suffering and restore dignity to many people.
I want to stress the fact that two-thirds of disabled people are elderly. Their disabilities are often multiple, both in cause and in effect. They are often neglected by comparison with the more frequent acute tragedies which tend to affect the younger victims of accidents or injuries. The disabilities which affect older people are often associated with their age and often become more incapacitating over the years.

241
Finally, I wish to mention rehabilitation. Last year my own organisation, Age Concern, produced a report entitled Rehabilitation discovered. It demonstrated that the medical profession is often more comfortable and better trained to deal with acute conditions. Staff and patient expectations are often very low. Good rehabilitation services can help many people with disabilities to regain their independence, but they require prior investment, particularly in community-based services.
In its report, the Audit Commission recommended the provision of integrated rehabilitation centres which would provide clinical and managerial leadership. For this a different culture is needed, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, said, in which users and professionals work in partnership to obtain the services that they need. We would like to see a new national service framework for disablement services established by the Government, to set national standards and to define service models which would significantly improve the independence and dignity of life for many older and disabled people.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, my good and noble friend Lord Ashley has done the House an important service in securing this debate. Since it takes place in parliamentary time allocated to these Benches, disabled people will also be indebted—as I am—to Labour Peers generally for having agreed, within a week of its publication, to give the Audit Commission's report such priority.
The noble Earl, Lord Snowdon, expressing deep concern about the report in a speech he made last Thursday, called it "a real shocker". That was no exaggeration. The report describes in graphic detail the outdated and unusable equipment supplied to disabled people by the NHS and local authorities alike and the inhumanity of the treatment meted out to them. It cites the case of a woman who has waited 12 years for a hoist to help her to move her chronically sick husband in and out of bed. We are told as well of the 25 year-old woman, referred to so movingly by my noble friend, who lost both her hands and legs when she was hit by meningococcal septicaemia, a rare form of blood disease. Let me briefly remind the House of the extent of preventable suffering in this shocking case. She was given a poorly-made hook for a hand that did not work properly, and artificial legs that did not fit. The report quotes her as saying:
"They had cut these two enormous holes in the front which caused terrible problems with blisters. I was in total desperation".
Last year she won a "Pride of Britain" award for outstanding bravery, and her life was transformed when publicity about her plight led to a benefactor paying the £27,000 bill for the new limbs she now wears. Memorably, she told the Audit Commission:
"It was very important: children and young women need a limb that looks like a limb, not something cobbled together and covered with an orange stocking".
242
Another case cited is that of a three year-old child who was born without a right foot. Her parents complained of long delays in obtaining an artificial one. When it finally arrived, the quality was poor. Of three prostheses made in nine months, one split, one was too small and the other was too large. She, too, eventually received private care.
A quarter of the people who have artificial limbs provided by the NHS cannot use them properly due to poor fitting that causes discomfort and pain. A fifth of amputees wait for more than six months for a first fitting of their artificial limbs. Nearly one in five wheelchair users has to wait more than two months for delivery and the Audit Commission's controller says that the policy of promoting independence for disabled people in the community is undermined by,
"long waiting times, unclear eligibility criteria and poor-quality products".
What compounds the concern and anger of the disability organisations with which I have discussed the report is that it only confirms what they have been telling Whitehall and Westminster for years about the extent of avoidable hardship among disabled people who depend for their mobility and independence on equipment from the NHS and local authorities. The organisations claim that Whitehall's main preoccupation has been with initiatives such as the costly and now discredited and abandoned Benefit Integrity Project, not with improving disability equipment or increasing the take-up of disability benefits. They point out that not one case of proven fraud was revealed by the Benefit Integrity Project after over 40,000 visits to the homes of disabled people by DSS inspectors and that Ministers themselves have said that the amount unclaimed in disability living allowance alone may exceed £6 billion.
Of course, my noble friend who will be replying to this debate speaks as a health Minister and these other issues are the responsibility of the DSS; but disabled people and their organisations say that repetitive emphasis has been put by Ministers on "joined-up" government and that palpably it cannot happen when priorities are so ill chosen and the shortcomings of one department undermine the policies of others.
Let us take one example from this scathing report. It says that people are being forced unnecessarily into nursing homes, costing the NHS millions of pounds when, with proper help and equipment, they could live in their own homes. Millions more are being wasted, insists the report, because some local social services authorities lose up to 80 per cent of the disability equipment they supply, including items such as hoists and mattresses. The report examined equipment provided by the NHS and social services departments for 4 million people in England and Wales. It found that poor services are stripping disabled people of both their dignity and independence.
Commenting on this on 29th March, the author of the report says:
"There are lots of people using these services and the quality of the help they get can make or break the quality of their lives, their families' and those who care for them. If people can live independently in the community it saves lots of money in the

243
health care system. If you give people access to the equipment they need, there is a much lower rate of hospital action, decline is much slower and they have a better quality of life".
He goes on:
"The problem that we came across just about everywhere was that budgets are under very significant pressure and it is always easier to reduce expenditure on equipment than on staff. The quality you get depends on where you live. It is a real lottery by post code".
This does not suggest that he found much evidence of "joined-up" thinking—even perhaps of "joined-up" writing—let alone "joined-up" government. Very clearly what he has established is that present arrangements are inhumane; that if the right agency gives the right help at the right time and in the right place, a huge waste of resources can be avoided; that pressure on hospital beds, not least in the winter months, can be reduced by timely and appropriate help in the community; and that cost effectiveness is now at a discount among both NHS and local authority suppliers.
It is, of course, true that N HS budgets no less than those of local authorities have been under relentless pressure and that the perverse—and indeed bizarre—judgment in the case of Regina v Gloucestershire County Council and the Secretary of State for Health ex parte Barry has been widely interpreted as an invitation to local authorities to argue lack of resources for failure to provide the statutory entitlements that enable disabled people to live independently in the community.
It is plainly in straight defiance of Parliament's intention in enacting my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill in 1970 to deny housebound disabled people the right to a bath, now one of the most fundamental of human rights which, as I said earlier today, is well recognised in our prisons. Yet the recent Out of Service report, published by the Needs Must Coalition of disability organisations, shows that some disabled people have now been waiting five years without being able to bathe in their own homes. Here are brief extracts from the statements of two of those quoted in the Audit Commission's report. The first is from a woman in Staffordshire. She says:
"My husband and I, both in our 80s, are taken to an old people's home twice a year for a bath. We asked the council to put in a bath but were told there is no money".
The second comes from a housebound person on the south coast, who says:
"All care was withdrawn over the Christmas and New Year period. I went without food as there was no one to cook it for me. All baths stopped and my home help's hours were cut by two-thirds without letting me know".
A third case quoted is that of a 73 year-old man who was paralysed in an accident at the age of 28. He worked all his life until retiring a few years ago. He lives independently on industrial injuries benefit and the basic state pension and requires help in his home for up to 14 hours a week. He was charged £12 a week for this help. Now his local authority has put up the charge to £112 a week: a cripplingly punitive ten fold increase.
244
In effect, statute law on home-care facilities for disabled people is now in abeyance in many parts of Britain and both the Audit Commission's report and Out of Service graphically document a crisis in community care that cannot be allowed to continue. Their withering criticisms of present arrangements can only be convincingly addressed if ministerial directives are now issued both to health and local authorities that take full and urgent account of the strikingly clear message of both reports. At the same time I urge Ministers to respond quickly and positively to the call of the 35-strong disability charity consortium, emPower, for a National Service Framework on Disablement Services and to let us know this evening—I speak as honorary parliamentary adviser over many years to the Royal British Legion—what consultation they have had or will be having with BLESMA and other ex-service organisations about the Audit Commission's report.
I heard the Prime Minister say with clarity and eloquence two days ago that a strong economy and social fairness are the two overriding objectives of his Government. Much to the credit of my right honourable friend, no one can doubt that our economy is stronger now than for many years and that social fairness is more achievable than before. But the Audit Commission's report and Out of Service show how long a road disabled people still have 10 travel to win anything like social fairness.
Where a person with a disabling condition cannot be cured, the supervening duty of parliamentarians is to do all they can to reduce the handicapping effects of her or his disability. Sadly, what both the Audit Commission report and Out of Service demonstrate is that, far from being reduced, the handicapping effects of disability are being gratuitously increased by health and local social services authorities all over the country, leaving disabled people disadvantaged twice over and doubly distressed. I strongly urge my noble friend to respond quickly and positively to both reports. I have every confidence that he will want to do so.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ashley for giving us the opportunity to debate this important issue. As ever, he and my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester lead the way in these matters. Perhaps I may say also what a pleasure it is to have the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, with us now to add her powerful voice and experience. The noble Baroness was right to predict that most of my remarks will be about the issue of carers.
As noble Lords have reminded us, the opening paragraphs of the Audit Commission's report recognise the effect that providing the right equipment has on the lives of carers. That comes as no surprise to those of us who have worked in this field. Complaints about delays in the supply of equipment, failure of the equipment itself, and unsuitability of the equipment

245
for its purpose are among the most common problems that are brought to the Carers Help Line at the Carers National Association.
Some of my most vivid memories are of conversations with carers revolving around their stories about these problems. I remember in particular one small woman called Kathleen, disabled herself, who was caring for her even more disabled 14 stone husband. After a wait of almost six months following his stroke, a wheelchair was eventually supplied. Neither was given any instructions on its use. It was in any event too large for most of the doorways in their small flat. One of the things that they wanted to do was eat their meals together at their kitchen table. The wheelchair was so inadequate for the intended purpose that the husband had to eat his meals in the hallway with a tray across his knee because the wheelchair would not go through the door. His wife's existing disability was exacerbated by the weight of the wheelchair and she, like many carers, injured her back.
If there are problems with wheelchairs, problems with hoists are even worse. I remember one mother's astonishment when her heavily physically disabled son was admitted to hospital. No nurse would even attempt to lift him without another nurse and a hoist, while his mother lifted him several times a day from bed to chair, to lavatory, and back again, with no help at all and indeed was expected to do so. She had already been waiting 14 months for a hoist to be fitted.
A survey of carers' experiences of the NHS carried out by the Carers National Association in 1998 found that half of the carers who responded had sustained a physical injury since they had begun caring. Women, at 54 per cent, were more likely to incur an injury than men, at 43 per cent—largely because of their less robust physical condition. Many carers also reported exhaustion and there is no doubt that reducing the level of care that carers have to give by providing the right equipment is desirable.
Carers say that small but important pieces of equipment can make a difference to their lives by reducing the level of the caring tasks. Pressure-relieving mattresses are among those. It must be remembered that some carers have to turn patients not just once or twice a day, but constantly, and through the night too, in order to prevent pressure sores. The Audit Commission found, as my noble friend Lord Ashley reminded us, that one trust did not even think about providing pressure-relieving equipment until sores had actually developed. The commission also estimates that the cost of treating pressure sores is in excess of £35,000 per episode.
We must not forget, too, the cost of treating carers for the injuries that they suffer. As one carer put it, "I strained every muscle in my body". The survey that I have quoted, Ignored and Invisible, mentioned also that occupational therapists were second only to general practitioners and district nurses in providing practical help to carers and that they were very much valued for that.
246
Incontinence services are mentioned only briefly in the report, but we should not forget them either. I always remember the particular problems that carers have had with those services, when lack of information and clarity was coupled with embarrassment about dealing with the subject, and that led to many horror stories. I was always struck not only by the physical problems of disabled people and their carers but the emotional anguish which resulted from the fighting and the chivvying. "You get weary", said one carer. "You shouldn't have to fight for equipment. You get passed from pillar to post as they argue about whether you are entitled to this or that. I felt just like giving up many times and just managing alone".
The report confirms that there is confusion over people's eligibility for help, which then results in arguments between departments and in even more delay. In that area, as in so many others, co-operation must exist between departments. If things worked better, the health benefits for carers and those for whom they care could be significant.
The Audit Commission suggests that local authorities and health authorities could use the powers in the Health Act 1999 which allow integrated services, pooled budgets and lead commissioning where there is a health benefit. Carers often find a lack of integration between health and local authority services and the report highlights that. Along with increased funding of the NHS, the survey of carers' experiences that I have quoted mentioned better integration as a key priority. That could help reduce delays. Carers often experience a threefold delay. They experience delay in having a carer's assessment, a further delay in having an occupational therapy assessment, and yet another delay in having the equipment delivered and fitted.
The report gives a sobering account of how lack of co-ordination blighted the early life of a baby born with disabilities in both legs and the distress of the parent carers. One of the baby's legs was amputated and a full-length splint was prescribed for the other. But the consultant responsible for fitting an artificial limb decided that the splint—the responsibility of a different clinician—needed to be modified. As the report puts it, a "debate" ensued. Even when that issue was resolved, the modified splint,
"sat on a shelf for several weeks",
as the supplier and the hospital argued over outstanding invoices. Meanwhile, a separate argument was taking place among the wheelchair service, social services and the regional centre for disabilities about a special buggy for the baby and a chair. In the end, all three units did their own assessments.
The story in the report concludes:
"The package of care eventually provided was considered inadequate by the specialists at the regional centre".
Yet that inadequate process, with its inadequate result, took over a year to complete. And who was providing the care for the baby during that time? The parents of course—with very little help.
I do not really see how anyone who is familiar with this field could disagree with the recommendations in the report on greater integration, better leadership,

247
improved quality and cost-effectiveness. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, I am delighted that there is emphasis on user involvement in developing and improving the services.
The commission recommends that the Government include key monitoring, performance and practice issues into key areas such as the national priorities guidance and national service frameworks. It also highlights a further couple of helpful suggestions. It says that hospital discharge procedures could be improved and that this would be an ideal time properly to consult and assess the needs of carers. The assessment could include assessments which have regard to a carer's need for equipment. New guidance on hospital discharge is being developed at present and would be an ideal place to reflect on these issues. I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure us on that point.
The second helpful point that I should like to draw to your Lordships' attention is that professionals need to have more reasonable views about what are acceptable levels of care for a carer to provide. Carers are left in situations where they have to lift a person alone and without appropriate assistance. If the carer was employed it would be a clear breach of health and safety lifting and handling regulations. Given the additional stress and injury suffered by a carer, it suggests that early intervention and the provision of the right equipment can deliver health savings as well as make carers' lives more tolerable.
I remind the House that the Carers and Disabled Children Bill awaits its Report stage in another place. That Bill is expected to come before your Lordships' House after Easter. If that Bill becomes law it will open up new possibilities in terms of carers' rights and updating guidance on carers' assessments. The Bill makes provision for carers' assessments and services to help carers to care. While the services are not defined, the Bill excludes those services which would be considered to be of an intimate or personal nature to the disabled person. Equipment, such as pressure-relieving facilities, could therefore be defined as a carer's service. I hope that that will be borne in mind when the Bill comes before your Lordships' House.
Finally, as other noble Lords have said, it makes sound economic, as well as moral, sense to give disabled people as much independence as possible and to support carers. We should never forget that carers save our nation billions of pounds by the care that they give willingly and with love. We must provide the equipment to help them.
6.41 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, to put it bluntly, this report reads like a Kafkaesque bureaucratic nightmare. It says that good service is provided but that it is patchy and one may spend hours trying to find it. If one is the right person in the right place, something will be done; if not, one has a struggle. The essence of the report is that one may never find the right service; or one may find it having wasted a vast amount of time and money. The technology is
248
available to do much of what is described in the report. I do not believe that the report suggests that anything should be provided which is not a developed product. However, the report suggests that increasingly the services do not reach the right people and that the structures currently in place tend to work against and not with each other.
People do not talk to each other. It appears that "doctor knows best" has now turned into "the specialist knows best" or "the department knows best"; in other words, one department cannot possibly do something if another department knows best. The noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley, said that carers are now being treated for slipped discs. They Lave had to lift perhaps twice their body weight a number of times in the absence of a comparatively inexpensive piece of equipment to help somebody in and out of the bath.
At Question Time noble Lords drew attention to the problems arising from the judgments in the cases in Gloucestershire which mean that local authorities do not have to provide certain kinds of care. I tried to draw the attention of the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench to the fact that, as a result, in acute cases often the health service will have to pick up the bill later. The Government then have to fork out more money and the lives of the people concerned are damaged and wasted. Nobody wins. Often the only person who benefits is a professional paper-pusher in a low-grade job. I am sure that the same person could be employed to ensure that people talked to each other. One of the few bright spots in the report is its assertion that many of the current government initiatives could, if used correctly, solve a number of problems. Was it not ever thus? When have we not had the capacity to do it? However, without the necessary will to do something, it will not happen.
Having got the main criticisms out of my system as quickly as possible, I believe that we should seek to make people's lives as full and independent as possible. In many cases people's lives can be improved comparatively easily, quickly and cheaply if the structures and cultures are in place. At the moment, in the majority of cases, that is not so. If the structures are in place, one has artificial limbs that work properly, wheelchairs in which people can sit for long periods of time, and supportive shoes in which people can walk comfortably. It appears that one of the greatest enhancements of personal lifestyle at home or in public is independence of movement.
Technological initiatives have already been taken. The RNID suggested in its briefing that one-third of people did not use their hearing aids because they were simply not worth using. It also suggested that one could double the number of users of hearing aids and improve their quality of life by using currently available technology; in other words, social exclusion can be dramatically reduced if we make the best use of what is available and stop wasting money on out-of-date equipment which cannot be used and which the public do not tolerate.
I thought for a minute that I had got rid of all the bad bits of the report. The report does not contain very much good news, other than possibly the suggestion

249
that one day we may be able to do something slightly better. We cannot do much worse than we are doing, unless we seek to make people's lives unpleasant. But we can ask the Government to address one problem; namely, to state what should be available according to best practice and then let users know. For the foreseeable future, people will still have to struggle through the machinery to access the right services. I am aware that in the field of special needs education, for example, if people have the information, they are usually much better able to obtain what is needed. Usually they have a struggle to find it, but once they have the information that they need, it is much easier to ensure that something is done. I believe that recently one of the Minister's colleagues told a meeting of emPOWER just down the corridor that there was a problem here.
The first step that the Government can take is to inform people of best practice within current levels of resource. We are talking primarily about resources. Reference is made to back-up services but not carers. We are talking here about a cheaper form of assistance. People are expensive. The main thrust of the report is that the Government have the opportunity to introduce the right people in order to retrieve acute situations by means of the correct assistance. We have to get the bureaucratic system right to give people the necessary expertise without too many forms to fill in and too long a wait. Invariably, an acute condition which is treated early is easier and cheaper to deal with. If these services can be provided quickly, we shall improve everybody's quality of life.
If the culture of buck-passing, departmentalisation and Chinese walls is not attacked soon—since I do not know how far back this problem goes, I do not attack those on the Benches to my left—we shall merely create a new situation where the barriers are shifted slightly sideways. A new department which is set up to deal with the matter will say, "But this is our department to deal with a new initiative". Unless joined-up government is pursued with real vigour we are in danger of creating new blocks. I know that that happens. Therefore, another challenge faced by the Government is the need to look sideways.
Much of what I was going to say regarding cases has already been used by other noble Lords. Therefore, I shall conclude my remarks by saying that unless the Government are prepared to use their resources to the best of their ability—or rather, at least to make an improvement in the use of the resources they already have—they might as well give up. They must put energy and time into the problem; not just money. I have come to the conclusion that those are probably more difficult than money to get out of establishments, particularly establishments within government.
6.50 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, for giving us the opportunity to discuss this disquieting report. I am proud to declare an interest
250
as a patron of DEMAND, a registered charity founded by the late wife of my noble friend Lord Renton which makes special bespoke equipment for disabled people.
The saga began a long time ago. The McColl report of 1986 revealed a service for disabled people which was inadequate and inefficient, largely due to the actions of officials who unwittingly distorted the market-place. They did so by giving the manufacturers design specifications instead of performance specifications. That resulted in uncomfortable and unattractive wheelchairs with profit margins so low that many of the companies went out of business. The limb fitting service was in the hands of a monopoly which supplied 75 per cent of the UK market on the back of a poor service from a workforce much of which was complacent and sloppy.
Happily, almost all the recommendations of the 1986 report were implemented. Great credit is due to the distinguished team behind it. That included the noble Lord, Lord Hussey of North Bradley—who has asked me to say how sorry he is that he cannot be present for the debate—and my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach. A special health authority was established to effect the necessary changes under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Holderness, himself a bilateral amputee from the last war. My noble friend Lord McColl was the distinguished vice-chairman.
I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, that considerable improvements ensued. The artificial limb providers' monopoly was broken with the help of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the trade opened up to allow more competitors. There was better training of prosthetists and orthotists. Modern techniques were made more readily available throughout the country. Later, indoor and outdoor powered wheelchairs were supplied to those severely disabled people able to make use of that provision. Unfortunately, it is abundantly clear from the Audit Commission's report that the situation has deteriorated over the past few years. The task of the commission is, of course, to examine the economy, efficiency and effectiveness of the use of resources, with the aim of the best possible delivery of services within the money available for the 7 million disabled people in the UK.
I turn first to orthotic services. There are 400,000 people who use orthotic footwear, callipers, splints, surgical collars, spinal braces and so forth. Improvements have undoubtedly occurred during the past eight years, but, as the report identifies, they have been uneven. The criteria for supplying orthotics have not only varied between trusts, but have varied also at different times of year depending on the available budget. The service itself is fragmented. Will the Minister take steps to correct those unacceptable anomalies and to implement the report's recommendations to ensure that each service receives complete medical records, is subject to clinical audit and has sufficient throughput to ensure high quality? Will the Minister implement also the recommendation that those orthotic services which currently supply breast prostheses, wigs and support stockings should

251
be located in clinical directorates alongside breast care specialists, physiotherapists and vascular nurse specialists?
I turn now to prosthetic services. As we have heard, there are approximately 60,000 amputees in the UK served by the NHS, some of whom are content and some of whom are not, especially young people who lost their limbs through accidents rather than disease. The curious thing about the report is that I can find no reference in it to the 5,000 surviving ex-servicemen and women who risked their lives and gave their limbs in the service of their country and who traditionally rarely complain about anything. The organisation which represents more such limbless people than any other is, of course, BLESMA. It is extraordinary that no one seems to have talked to its representatives. Had the noble Lord, Lord Hussey, been present, I know that he would have expressed his firm and authoritative view that—as he put it to me—there is far too much whingeing on the part of some service users and that many are perfectly satisfied with the service that they receive.
However, it is clear that there are too many quite unacceptable delays in supplying legs for recent amputees. My medical friends tell me that that should occur as soon as the stump has healed—usually within four weeks—but two-thirds of patients have to wait much longer for no good clinical reason. Prosthetists are skilled and dedicated people. However, each of the 42 centres in the UK has on average only two or three new amputees per week; a workload which could hardly be described as excessive. What is even more unacceptable is the time taken to repair prostheses. Only 54 per cent of repairs are carried out within 24 hours. Ten per cent take up to 48 hours, 15 per cent take two to five days and 21 per cent take over five days.
Equally worrying are the 25 per cent of people who do not use their artificial limbs once they have received them. The reasons include: too much pain—which accounts for 25 per cent of those people; too heavy—18 per cent; too uncomfortable and "doesn't fit"—12 per cent. Those are shameful statistics. As a result of the McColl report the number of companies fitting limbs increased significantly, but in the past few years the number has been reduced to three, which is even more of a monopoly than there used to be. I hope that the Government view that situation with as much dismay as I do. Will the Minister take appropriate steps to reverse that trend and to encourage excellent firms such as Dorset Orthopaedic Services to tender again?
I should like to ask the Minister also about the present policy of the NHS Supplies Authority, which seems to take the cheapest tender even if the quality of the service offered is poor. Does not the Minister agree that a poor service means that the cost of correcting the damage is usually more expensive in the long run, to say nothing of the unnecessary distress caused to patients? We desperately need more companies to come into that area.
252
Continuity of care is too often lacking. As that is an essential component of proper care, will the Minister implement the recommendation that trusts should allocate a named prosthetist for each patient to manage treatment on a long-term basis and should arrange appointments in such a way that patients are able to see their own named prosthetist?
I turn to wheelchair services. As we have heard, there are at least 640,000 wheelchair users in the UK, about 70 per cent of whom are more than 60 years old. The provision is described in the report as a lottery that is dependent on postcode. It states that services could be improved by being more responsive to the views of the users and by better practice in procurement, stock management and recycling. Waiting times presented serious problems, with 25 per cent waiting over a month for an assessment and 10 per cent waiting more than two months to get an outpatient appointment. Waiting times for receiving chairs were lengthy; 17 per cent waiting four to eight weeks and a further 16 per cent waiting more than eight weeks. Will the Minister implement the three main recommendations here: first, that most users be assessed close to home; secondly, that proposals be introduced to deliver incremental quality improvement programmes; and, thirdly, that systematic re-assessment programmes be introduced for all users?
Equipment that enables a million people to live independently in the community is supplied by local authority social services and NHS community trusts. I am, of course, referring to community equipment services. Unfortunately, the hapless patient may find, through no fault of his own, that he falls between these two stools. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, mentioned the case of Eleanor Jones, who had to wait for 12 years before she could get the electric hoist that she needed to move her husband who had been left paralysed by a stroke almost two decades ago.
Effective working relationships must be established throughout the country not only to provide co-ordinated and caring service, but to avoid the waste of resources. For example, walking sticks, zimmer frames, bath benches and simple home adaptations not only preserve the independence of older people and improve their quality of life, but also cut healthcare costs in half. In a recent trial quoted in the report of those who had unlimited help according to need, which amounted on average to 14 devices each, cost 14,000 dollars per person in total healthcare costs over the following 18 months. In marked contrast, users given standard care, which amounted to two devices each, cost over 30,000 dollars in total healthcare costs per person during the same period.
Lastly, I should like to mention the very important field of audiology services. Although there are 5 million or 6 million people in the UK who could benefit from a hearing aid, fewer than 2 million people actually have one. As the report states, millions of people could benefit from reduced waiting times and the provision of more modern hearing aids and from the integration of NHS hearing aid services with local

253
authority assistive listening services which provide such devices as telephone and doorbell aids. I was very much struck by one sentence in the report which says:
"Nowhere is the cost versus quality debate in public service provision better exemplified than in the provision of hearing aids".
In order to correct the present deficiencies in the audiology services, can the Minister tell the House which of the recommendations he intends to implement?
In summary, this excellent report describes the unsatisfactory state of all of these services, which are plagued, first, by the lack of involvement of the users at all levels of service planning and delivery; by the low priority given by managers to the service; by under-investment on the part of the public sector and supporting industry and, lastly, by geographic variations in the quantity and quality of the service.
It is abundantly clear that urgent action is needed to implement the recommendations. Will the Minister give the House an assurance that this is one area where a decision need not be put off by the setting up of yet another taskforce; but rather that he will follow the wartime example of Mr Churchill and place the recommendations in a box clearly marked "Action this day"?
7. 3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Hunt of Kings Heath): My Lords, this has been an important, uplifting and, I believe, instructive debate. I begin by expressing my gratitude to my noble friend Lord Ashley and other noble Lords for drawing to the attention of the Government what all noble Lords consider to be a very important report published by the Audit Commission. I know that a number of other noble Lords would have wished to take part in the debate. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Morris for informing me of the regret of the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, that she is unable to attend your Lordships' House tonight.
We are all aware of the importance to disabled and older people and their carers of the services examined in this report. I do not believe that there can be any doubt at all that these services have not had either the profile, the attention or the leadership that they deserve within the National Health Service and local agencies. My noble friend Lord Ashley and other noble Lords have rightly drawn attention to many of the shortcomings identified in the report—the consequences of poor equipment services which have proved to be painful and unsuitable.
My noble friend Lord Ashley referred to the trust which, quite extraordinarily, was not issuing pressure-relieving mattresses until patients developed sores. We have heard also of inadequate local authority services, of inadequate research and information systems, and of out-of-date equipment. The noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, referred to long waits and to the need, a view I very much share, to consult users. She referred to the particular problems faced by older people caring
254
for frail spouses in the context of multiple disabilities. I say to her that I fully accept that we need to do much better as regards services generally for older people. That is one reason why we shall be developing a national service framework for older people.
My noble friend Lord Morris, who has always been a doughty fighter for disabled people, spoke about the problem of long waits to be fitted and to receive equipment. Much of that equipment can be poor and, as he said, has been poor for many years. I accept fully the comments of my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley, as regards carers and the problem of unsuitable wheelchairs arriving too late and being the wrong size. She is right to draw our attention to the exhaustion felt by many carers having to cope in such circumstances. I was particularly struck by her comments on the problem of lifting. That is something we face in the National Health Service. There is a high incidence of back problems among nursing staff as a result of lifting accidents. How much more is the pressure on vulnerable carers having to deal with that kind of situation in their own homes.
I accept the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord Addington, when he spoke about a bureaucratic nightmare illustrating the problem of structures in place at local level which can often seem to fight against each other rather than provide a cohesive service. There can be little doubt that these services have been neglected for many years and that insufficient attention has been given to management, leadership, performance and development. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ashley and understand the anger felt by so many people over the poor quality of service that is often available.
However, there is a brighter side. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Addington, was unduly pessimistic. Within the report there are excellent examples of good service and clear clinical leadership, with doctors, nurses and technicians working together and health authorities and local authorities also working together. It is these examples of good practice on which we have to build in order to get the services up to scratch. I could not agree more with my noble friend Lord Ashley when he said that because many of the services have a make or break impact on so many people, we have to do better.
My right honourable friend the Prime Minister and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health have acknowledged the shortcomings. Some are already being tackled. We have promised that further action will be taken to improve services where it is clear that there is scope for doing so.
As made clear in today's debate, the report looks at five key areas of service of particular importance to disabled and older people. These services can make all the difference between isolation and dependence, being able to get out and about, and living lives with a minimum of support from other people. As the report says, they are the gateway to independence, dignity and self-esteem for many older or disabled people. For carers, equipment such as lifting devices and

255
adjustable beds are often critical in enabling them to cope without risk to their own health, as my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley so vividly pointed out.
These services can provide a critical component of rehabilitation after illness and can reduce the need for more costly forms of healthcare such as delayed hospital discharge or premature admission to residential care.
We are not talking about a handful of people with special needs. There are a very large number whose needs vary from simple pieces of equipment to complex artificial limbs or electrically powered wheelchairs. The cost of providing these services is estimated at around £400 million a year. It is therefore important not only that we provide the services but that those services are of high quality and provide value for money.
The Audit Commission's report is hard hitting. It highlights an unacceptable variation in the availability and quality of service across the country. Procedures, it says, follow tradition rather than reflect local need. Staff as well as users are often unclear about eligibility criteria. Services are fragmented and there is a lack of clinical leadership. Equipment is not always of the best quality.
The report makes several recommendations as to how standards can be improved and a fairer service provided. For example—it is an important recommendation—it proposes the development of a "hub and spoke" arrangement across regions with specialist services at the centre supporting local services. There are proposals for joint health and social service arrangements for community equipment stores; the raising of the profile of those services and engaging the attention of senior managers, which I suggest is crucially important; and the better tracking of equipment to improve quality and save money by increased recycling.
From the tenor of my remarks, noble Lords will understand that the Government welcome the report. We believe it to be fully in line with our aim of tackling variations in the availability and quality of health and social services across the country for which the increase in NHS spending announced by the Chancellor in the Budget provides an important launchpad.
We are already working on improving equipment services. The measures we are taking will deal with many of the shortcomings identified by the commission. Even before considering the recommendations of the report, we are committed to significant improvements. We are investing £4 million this year in modernising the NHS hearing aid service. We have set up a working group to consider the introducing of silicone cosmesis in artificial limb services. We have funded the Disabled Living Centres Council to publish guidance on community equipment services. This has been promoted through national conferences. We are also funding the DLCC to promote the continued exchange of good practice on an Internet website.
256
NHS purchasing and supplies has set up a number of working groups to bring together service commissioners, providers, representatives of the disability equipment industry and disabled people themselves to advise the authority on the services it provides. We shall be discussing specific recommendations from the report with them. Perhaps I may say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that of course we want to ensure that the best equipment is provided in the most effective way. We shall consider the points he made in the context of those discussions within NHS supplies which will embrace the views of users. I also understand the noble Earl's point about the number of manufacturers in the market. I understand that the NHS Supplies Authority operates an open tendering process. There is no limit on the number of manufacturers during that process. But we will reflect on the specific point he makes in the context of considering the role of NHS supplies in this area.
We have also commissioned the Oxford Brooke's University to develop a national training framework for all providers of wheelchair services. We are making £14 million recurrent with effect from 1st April for the provision of powered wheelchairs and for the continuation of the wheelchair voucher scheme which gives users the opportunity of contributing to a higher performance wheelchair of their choice. The recently published report on the evaluation of these two schemes has confirmed the success of the powered wheelchair initiative and the real contribution that it is making to the quality of life of severely disabled people. It has, however, made it clear to us that local services have found it difficult to supply the number of powered wheelchairs needed. The wheelchair voucher scheme has been slower to pick up than we had expected but there is now a steady increase in the number of people taking advantage of it.
I have made clear that we welcome the Audit Commission's report. We are already tackling many of the issues raised and we shall be looking carefully at the recommendations for change in areas that we have not so far scrutinised. But it may be helpful if I summarise the Government's response under the headings of the five services on which the commission reports.
First, I turn to orthotic services. The Department of Health issued guidance on contracting for orthotics services as long ago as 1995. Although the guidance dealt with many of the points raised by the commission, I accept that our advice has not been taken fully into account, although the Audit Commission report reveals that 53 per cent of trusts have complied with the key aspects of that guidance.
Following a conference last year put on by the disability organisation, emPOWER, my honourable friend Mr John Hutton has given a commitment that we will take action about improving the quality of orthotics services. He has asked that an NHS supplies orthotics group look at how individual users' views can be taken into account and more attention paid to the design and appearance of orthotic footwear. The

257
Department of Health, in conjunction with NHS supplies, has set up a small steering group to monitor progress on this front.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, asked some specific questions in relation to the recommendations in this area. These are early days. However, I assure the noble Earl that we shall take a careful look at the recommendations. Some fall to local decision because it is right that local services are able to come to a view. On others we shall have to take a national view; and we shall come to that view as soon as we can.
I refer next to artificial limbs services. Although in many respects those services are of a high order, it is nevertheless disappointing that some centres are not achieving the standards of practice we would expect. I pay tribute to the work over a considerable number of years by the noble Lord, Lord McColl, in recommending action to be taken in relation to the old artificial limb and appliance centres. It undoubtedly had a positive impact. However, it is clear that we need to build on those improvements.
Reasons for the reported under-use of limbs supplied are complex. They may be related to patients' general health, the quality of rehabilitation in getting them mobile again, or environmental barriers which affect their confidence. That is something we need to consider more closely. The delay in getting a first fitting may be for sound clinical reasons. But where that is the case it is important that clinicians give patients a full explanation of how their care will be managed.
The Government have given their broad support to emPOWER's users' charter for prosthetic and orthotics services. We look to health authorities and primary care groups to work with service providers and users to improve those services. As I said, the NHS Supplies Authority has set up a strategic commissioning group. I expect that group to consider carefully how it can respond to the report's findings and recommendations.
Perhaps I may say this to my noble friend Lord Morris and the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Of course we would very much wish to engage with ex-servicemen's organisations to gain their views and opinions about the report and the developments in services that need to take place.
I referred earlier to the measures being taken to improve the wheelchair service. The sum of £50 million of added investment has been made since 1996 to allow NHS wheelchair services to provide indoor and outdoor powered wheelchairs and to introduce voucher schemes. In recognition of unacceptable variations in eligibility criteria and speed of assessment around the country, we endorse the report's recommendation that health authorities and trusts need to establish clear targets to improve performance. We agree totally that disabled and older people should not be unnecessarily confined to their homes because they are unable to get a wheelchair when they need it.
258
I turn to audiology services. My noble friend Lord Ashley and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, referred to issues of cost versus quality, as they described them. We recently announced a £4 million investment in 2000/2001 to modernise NHS hearing aid services. All NHS trusts are being invited to put forward proposals to take part in the scheme. The scheme will evaluate the benefits and costs of digital hearing aids for the NHS. It will evaluate efficient and effective ways of supplying hearing aids and examine the delivery of a modern hearing aid service for NHS patients.
The Department of Health will be working in partnership with the RNID, the NHS Supplies Authority and the Institute of Hearing Research to deliver the project and to ensure that it is properly evaluated. We know that this initiative has struck a chord. By the time the deadline for applications for pilot status was reached, we had received more than 80 expressions of interest from audiology departments.
I turn to community equipment services. It is clear that these services can be the key in helping people to live independently in the community. However, we also know of the historic confusion around the respective responsibilities of health and social services.
I agree with my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley that there is a compelling need to achieve a joint approach. That is reflected in the good practice guidance from the Disabled Living Centres Council, which I mentioned earlier. We want health and social services to take advantage of the new flexibilities—that is, lead commissioning, integrated provision and pooled budgets—which will enable them to work jointly in getting better co-ordination and efficiency.
Much mention has been made of the problem of getting health and local authorities to work across boundaries. I believe that the situation has drastically improved during the past two years. There is plenty of evidence of health and local authorities being prepared to sit around a table and reach good agreements on how they will work together. I accept that we need to go further and monitor their performance. However, we should be prepared to acknowledge the good work that has recently taken place. As regards the emergency planning of services for winter pressures in the NHS, the NHS was enormously gratified by the willingness of local authorities to work with it. There is a new and constructive relationship which we need to encourage. The flexibilities as regards finance between the two agencies will enable that to happen.
There is clearly considerable scope for improved efficiency and effectiveness across the whole range of disability services. I understand and accept the proposition put forward by a number of noble Lords that investment in services and support for carers can have an impact on lessening demands on other services because people will be able to live independently. I accept also the risks of authorities believing that equipment is an easy hit when budgets come under pressure. We cannot allow that to continue.

259
My noble friend Lord Ashley asked for a clear timetable. We are studying the recommendations in the report and are working on the modernisation plan for the NHS. Any timetable will have to await the outcome of those exercises. Similarly, monitoring arrangements will have to be put in place in this context and in the context of overall changes in developments in services. However, I listened carefully to the comments made tonight and I will ensure that they are fully considered in the discussions that we need to take forward.
My noble friend Lord Ashley said that the main change that is needed is in attitude. Perhaps I may say how much I agree with him. I assure him and other noble Lords that the Government accept that change is needed. It is accepted that we need to monitor the performance of management and we will ensure that improvements take place.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I do not intend to detain the House, but I want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in what I regard as having been a splendid debate. All the contributions were well informed. We differed in emphasis, but we had the same objective of helping disabled people.
However, I am afraid that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and I must disagree about what follows the splendid report of the noble Lord, Lord McColl. I was quoting from the report of the commission, but, like the noble Earl, I was surprised by the omission of BLESMA. It is possible that the commission discussed issues with BLESMA, but did not mention that in its report. Until we discover whether discussions took place, the thrust of what the noble Earl said was right. It is a pity that ex-servicemen and BLESMA were not mentioned, but we shall have to see what can be done about that.
I was heartened by my noble friend's response. I liked its tone and welcome the significant amount that is being done. However, I am not too happy about his comment on the timetable. Although I recognise that he wants to set things in order and in motion to create a timetable, such things have a habit of drifting on. I can only ask my noble friend to ensure that the question of a timetable does not drag on. We strongly believe that without a timetable we shall get nowhere.
The same comments apply to monitoring, which my noble friend said will also come. But, like Christmas, it can be a long time coming. If it is continually deferred by the pressures of other events, we might not get monitoring. Therefore, I press my noble friend to see what can be done about the timetable and the monitoring.
I am grateful for my noble friend's response and I appreciate what the Government are doing. I thank him and all noble Lords who took part in what I regard to have been a most constructive debate. It has taken the issues forward most strongly and vigorously for disabled people. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion for Papers.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Suspension of Hospital Medical Practitioners Bill [H.L.]
7.27 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It came into being because a serious number of hospital consultants have been victims of a most unjust system. I gave full details of the situation in your Lordships' House on 13th January 1999 and I shall not take time tonight repeating all I said then. But I will remind the House of the salient points.
I want to make it crystal clear from the beginning that neither I nor any of those who are kind enough to support me in this matter are in the slightest degree interested in excusing or protecting doctors who behave wrongly. That is not the purpose of this Bill and it is not the purpose of any of the speeches which I am sure will be made in its support.
However, I continue to make the case for doctors who are suddenly suspended by their hospitals without being told what they are supposed to have done, with no right of appeal, kept on suspension for months or even years and literally locked out of their hospitals at once. I know of a case in which the wife of a suspended hospital doctor was dying of cancer in the same hospital and, because of his suspension, he was not even allowed to visit her.
Sometimes doctors are not even informed when they have been found innocent. That cannot he right. A doctor's reputation, good name and career are totally destroyed. These days, the medical profession moves so quickly that if a doctor has been out of the system for even a short time it is virtually impossible—or, if not, then it is extremely difficult—to return to making a success of his career. Therefore, careers are destroyed. There have been breakdowns, debts and suicides over this matter, and I cannot stress sufficiently that the seriousness of the situation screams for a remedy.
Even if all the doctors were guilty, there is no justification for treating them in that way. Even felons who commit the worst crimes in the criminal calendar are treated better than those trained and dedicated hospital doctors. However, the overwhelming majority of them are not guilty; they are found to be innocent of all charges. In the debate last year, I stated that out of 201 cases of suspended doctors I hat I knew of, only 25 were subsequently found to be guilty of the charges against them. I repeat: only 25 out of 201 were found to have acted wrongly. Some of the remaining 176 must wait years to be cleared.
I also listed some of the trivial reasons why consultants had been, and still are being, suspended. One consultant, for example, merely wrote a repeat prescription for his ward sister. Another deleted from his own files on his own patient, whom he had treated for a very long time, repetitious details which he did not feel were necessary. That was enough; he was suspended. Another helped with a charitable appeal

261
for equipment, then, with others, spent the money on the very equipment for which the appeal had been made. That was enough; he was suspended.
Your Lordships should also bear in mind that, because the suspended doctors receive full pay throughout the period of their suspension and legal costs are involved, this wrong and crazy system costs the NHS millions of pounds. A recent study on the matter came up with a figure of £10 million to £12 million per annum. I have been monitoring the situation myself for 40 years and I hate to think of the sums of money that have been wasted in this way over that period of time. As I listened to the previous debate, I considered in how many ways the money could be better spent. Other noble Lords will have their own ideas about that.
However, it is not only a question of the waste of money; the system deprives patients who need care of the specialist who supplies it. Only this week I have received letters from people in Coventry. I read from one such letter:
"There is deep public concern in Coventry, especially among women breast cancer patients, that Miss Ackroyd—a surgeon they greatly admire and respect—has been 'removed' from her duties".
I am told that already 600 people have signed a petition asking for her reinstatement because she is such a good doctor and has served them so well. Now, those patients are treated in a kind of piecemeal way. Apparently, one doctor has been brought in and another may or may not be. This is a case where patients are being deprived by the system of a much loved, greatly respected and, from what I gather, extremely efficient doctor.
Following the debate in January last year, I drew together a committee with representatives drawn from the BMA, the HCSA, the medical defence unions (there are two) and from other interested people and doctors who, either themselves or perhaps within their family, have experienced the evil of suspension. I chaired the committee and we worked for six months. Finally, we drew up a list of nine points which we felt should be established in order to remedy the situation and to give fair play.
Following that, the Summer Recess intervened. However, as soon as I could, I set to work with parliamentary draftsmen to produce the Bill now before your Lordships. It incorporates all the nine points which we worked upon. At this stage I should like, if I may, to pay a most warm tribute to a very expert lady from the parliamentary draftsmen's department who helped me. Her help has been absolutely invaluable.
Since then, the Chief Medical Officer has produced a document which I was assured advocated procedures which would address the situation just as effectively as does this Bill. I was informed that it contained all that was needed to gain justice for hospital doctors who are suspended. I rushed off to the Library to find a copy of this miraculous document. It was not there; neither was it in the Printed Paper Office. I am much indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, who arranged for me to
262
be sent a copy. I received it on Monday and read it eagerly—every page of it. I was never more disappointed. I should have known. I had already received reports from several medical sources that the solutions offered in the report failed in almost every respect to solve the problem. Of course, the BMA has made its views about it quite plain, and I have no doubt that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has received a brief on the matter from the BMA. The BMA is very disappointed and does not consider that the proposals will help a great deal.
When I read the report I wondered why this much vaunted document did not give us what we need. I came to the conclusion that the Chief Medical Officer and the rest of us view the problem from fundamentally different angles. The main—and I believe perhaps the only—aim of the medical officer's report is to deal with doctors who behave wrongly. I am not surprised about that because there have been many cases in recent months, and indeed even years, where doctors have behaved wrongly. We read screaming headlines about it in the press. We know all about what happened in Bristol and in various other places, and a shudder of horror goes through the public when they read about it. I can well understand why the Chief Medical Officer felt that that was the problem. The document's first and main aim is to deal with doctors who behave wrongly. The whole thrust of it is "dealing with poor performance".
I must say with some regret that the language is lofty but really rather woolly. It talks about "professional self-regulation", "implementation of standards and quality improvement", "co-ordinating mechanisms to prevent poor clinical performance"—that is a favourite; it is mentioned twice!—and "developing skills in handling poor performance". The document suggests that doctors should receive retraining, be monitored and obtain medical treatment. The doctors I am talking about are trained. Many have been working for years and would find it rather insulting to be monitored when they do not even know what they are supposed to have done.
The doctors I am talking about do not really need medical treatment, or at least they did not, though they might after a few months or years of being suspended, because it is an agonising experience to go through.
I shall detain the House for a few moments with an example of what I am saying and why I believe that that is the aim of the Chief Medical Officer. He said:
"The strategy set out in this consultation document aims to bring to an end the past failure in preventing, recognising and dealing with poor professional performance in medicine".
On the next page it states:
"Across the NHS as a s hole the present arrangements for dealing with poor clinical performance exhibit serious weaknesses".
I can understand him being worried about that but the point I make is that that is not the problem that the Bill seeks to address. The Bill's aim is to prevent injustice and to speed up the procedure whereby a competent, proficient consultant can be suspended for months or years without even the slightest attempt at fair treatment.

263
I remind the House that the problem is said by the BMA to be increasing. The Chief Medical Officer acknowledges the need for procedures to be speeded up but that is really the only need which is met in his proposals. It is as though he is treating a bunion and we, or the Bill, are treating glaucoma—two totally different problems.
The nine points on which the Bill is based incorporate the precise steps which experts in the field think are essential to remedy the situation. The first is that suspension should take place only to protect patients, staff, evidence or the doctor himself and should not be confused with the disciplinary process. That is something else with which the Chief Medical Officer's report deals. It talks about the disciplinary process. The Bill is not concerned with that.
Reaching a decision on whether or not to suspend must be dealt with urgently. The Bill then deals with who should be responsible for ma king the decision; namely, the chief executive of the health trust. Then it says that the allegations against the doctor, the classification or category in which they lie and the reasons for suspension must be clearly stated and made known to the accused in writing without delay. That is absolutely fair and right.
The Bill then goes on to provide that the doctor should have an immediate right of appeal against the suspension and how that appeal should be dealt with. The trust must then decide within one calendar month of the decision to suspend whether prima facie evidence exists to invoke a disciplinary procedure and if so, whether suspension should continue. All the nine points deal with the matter of urgency and not allowing people to be strung on that particular rack for months, if not years.
Any decision to exclude the doctor from hospital premises must be made separately from the decision on suspension. The reasons for it—namely, that the doctor poses a danger to staff or has an ability to tamper with evidence—must be relayed to the doctor concerned.
The Bill then deals with the fact that the decision to suspend must be notified immediately to the NHSE, which is then responsible for monitoring the continuation of the suspension. Again, that is a move to make sure that it does not go on.
There are two more small points. At no time can the inquiry panel add new charges to those originally put forward. It must deal solely with the existing charges unless the doctor himself agrees. That provision is included because there have been cases where some doctors found themselves suspended; the inquiry found they were totally innocent of all the charges, but they remained suspended while there was an attempt to find some further possibility of other charges. That cannot be fair.
Full reasons for the suspension of a hospital doctor must be conveyed to any private hospital where the suspended doctor has admitting rights. Many doctors working as consultants work in private hospitals. We felt that it was important that those private hospitals should be kept informed.
264
Therefore, I hope that the House will agree that the nine points are carefully put together, and I believe that they are just, fair and right. The Bill puts those nine points into effect. There may be a few amendments to be made. Nobody would suggest for a moment that one can always get everything perfect first time round. But those are the main aims and I think that they are fair.
The Bill is the result of a great deal of work. I started working on this 14 years ago, when I first became aware of this kind of case, during the time 'hat I was a Member of the other place. The Bill has the support of Members on all sides of the House. It is totally nonpolitical. Several noble Lords have written to me, regretting that they cannot be here this evening to speak in support of the Bill.
The Bill is quite literally the only way that the present inhumane situation can be remedied. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.— (Baroness Knight of Collingtree.)
7.45 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, certainly does not let this issue slip out of the parliamentary view. All doctors and many of their patients will be grateful to her for that. Although we know that this very fair and well thought-out Bill will almost certainly not reach the statute book, it gives us a further opportunity to examine the situa lion and to assess progress, if indeed there has been any, since the noble Baroness's Unstarred Question, on 13th January of last year.
On that occasion, my noble friend Lady Hayman ended her reply as follows:
"I hope that, in replying to your Lordships this evening. I have made clear that we recognise that there is a problem, and that we are taking firm action to produce solutions and improvements in the current system. However, I must reiterate that that has to be done as part of an overall commitment to improving the quality of care and protecting patients. The systems in place at the moment have not served either some suspended doctors or some patients well in the past. It is our responsibility to change them as part of the modernisation of the National Health Service and to ensure consistently high standards of care for all patients".—[Official Report, 13/1/99; col. 270.]
It is for my noble friend's successor, my noble friend Lord Hunt, to tell us what action the Government have taken since then and what changes in procedures are either in place already or are proposed.
The department's report published last November, Supporting Doctors, Protecting Patients, does not really offer very much to improve the current unsatisfactory position. Further work is needed to ensure that the suspension procedure is used only to protect patients, or the doctors themselves, when the clinical care being given by a practitioner is of an unacceptably low standard.
Other disciplinary matters should he dealt with by procedures which involve interviewing the doctor concerned and with verbal and, finally, written warnings. In normal employment practice, the employee concerned has the right to representation

265
at each of those stages and, in most cases, continues at work unless the behaviour is actually dangerous. He goes on working, unless that is the case, until an agreement is reached or the employee is dismissed or agrees to some redundancy terms. Good employers will often suggest counselling or offer opportunities for the employee to retrain if that is relevant. The noble Baroness has told how, in this case, it very seldom is relevant.
There is a strong case for returning to national, across the country, guidance on disciplinary procedures. I am sure that that is something which the noble Baroness's Bill would ensure. There is still a tendency for trusts, in varying degrees, to use suspension as a disciplinary measure when the problem first requires investigation of the facts. Suspension may be appropriate if patient safety really is at risk; but usually it is not.
In my speech during the debate on the Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Baroness, I quoted some of the points made by the British Medical Association's Consultants Committee in response to the October 1998 internal review by the Department of Health of the procedures for the suspension of hospital doctors. Doubtless my noble friend Lord Hunt has in front of him the BMA document of that date and any current statements by that association. Many of the points made then are recorded in my speech in last year's Hansard. Therefore, I do not need to repeat them.
Sadly, in the BMA briefing which I had before this debate, the same points are made as those in January 1999. In other words, there has been little progress, except in Scotland where a report entitled Suspensions—a New Perspective was published last April. The recommendations contained in that report were accepted by profession, hospital and health authorities alike, and appear to be working well. If it can be done in Scotland, surely it needs only a further heave to bring in a system in England and Wales which will work here and meet the points which were made so well by the noble Baroness.
However, the problem has not gone away. As the noble Baroness mentioned, the number of NHS consultants suspended from work has been increasing, according to the BMA. In four out of five cases of suspension, concerns about clinical competence are not upheld. However, as the noble Baroness said so well and fully, patients are denied the services of a doctor unnecessarily for months or even years.
I shall be delighted if my noble friend can say that the British Medical Association is wrong and that the trend is now coming down. But I am afraid that that will not just happen. A new, fairer, broom is required to sweep out the inefficient and unjust non-system which now appears to prevail in too many trusts. The noble Baroness's Bill points the way forward. Why do not the Government incorporate its main content, as hinted last year by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, as part of the proposed modernisation of the health service?
7.53 p.m.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I declare an interest as a council member of the Medical Protection Society. I listened with interest to my noble friend Lady Knight and commend her on her sterling work on behalf of hospital and medical practitioners.
Since the publicity associated with the General Medical Council's determination of the Bristol case, which was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, there has been a surge in the number of doctors suspended from their NHS posts. Where there is a threat to patients, removing the danger is obviously right, but steps short of suspension may be adequate; for example, the doctor might well agree to cease certain areas of work during an investigation. Outright suspension has serious consequences for both the doctor concerned and for the service that he or she is providing. Doctors, as well as patients, require protection, first, from unnecessary suspension and, secondly, from unduly prolonged periods of suspension.
Suspension in employment law is meant to be a neutral act. Doctors, especially consultants, are high-profile individuals within their hospitals. Their absence cannot go unnoticed and inevitably it will be assumed that there is no smoke without fire. The doctor is stigmatised, and that stigma is compounded if he or she is excluded from the trust premises, as that carries the implicit suggestion that some ghastly act might be committed if the doctor is allowed back into the hospital. There is a lack of expertise in many trusts in the way in which these matters are handled. There is a strong case that medical directors and chief executives should be required to seek legal advice before taking unilateral action.
The majority of the suspensions are measured in months, not days or weeks; some extend to years. During that time, the doctor's skills are eroded. The National Health Service is deprived of resource and, most invidious of all, the individual's position is progressively undermined to the extent, in some cases, that his or her position becomes untenable even if exonerated at the end of the inquiry. There is also a need for a simplified and easier system of redress for doctors whose cases are mishandled.
The medical profession is a profession under siege. Currently up to 40,000 patients a year die as a result of hospital accidents and one in 14 suffers an "adverse event", such as diagnostic error or operation mistake. Only a tiny proportion pursue any claim, but the number is on the increase. The Government have tremendous difficulties with current figures on litigation. Health authorities in England and Wales spent £1 billion in 1998–99 on settled claims and an estimated £2.4 billion is unpaid in current cases where the claimant is likely to win. There is possibly another £3 billion to £4 billion on claims which are as yet unreported. Perhaps the Minister can comment on that and on how it might affect the new funding announced for the health service.

267
We know that the majority of doctors are hard working and do a tremendous job, often in very difficult circumstances. However, that is not the stuff of headlines, which remain the province of the Shipmans and Ledwards of this world. It is imperative that the current debate on the accountability of doctors is not allowed to distort further the public's perception of the profession.
The Minister kindly sent me a copy of the consultation document Modernising Medical Regulation in which one of the proposals is that the General Medical Council should have an enhanced power to suspend doctors from the medical register on an interim basis, making that power wide ranging and enabling the GMC to act quickly. That is a positive step and should be commended. I know that the General Medical Council is keen to have those changes as a first step towards a reassessment of its powers to protect patients.
As much as public confidence must be restored in the profession, the profession's confidence in those who manage the NHS must also be restored by removing knee-jerk management and over-reaction. Restoring a proper balance is what this Bill is all about. Providing the proper degree of protection to hospital doctors demonstrates Parliament's commitment to fairness and natural justice. The Bill does nothing to undermine proper regulation of the profession but a great deal to protect doctors in whom we have invested large sums of money on training. The Bill is to the good of patients and doctors and there are no plausible arguments to block its passage to the statute book.
Finally, I commend my noble friend Lord Howe and the Minister on taking part in two debates in a row, and recognise their stamina.
7.38 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I add my thanks and congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, on pursuing this subject so diligently over the years and on dedicating her time, in particular over the past year, to the drawing up of the Bill in conjunction with representatives from so many different interested bodies.
As the noble Baroness stated, it is clearly understandable that in the light of so many recent high profile cases in which medical practitioners have acted negligently, incompetently or even criminally, public and government attention has been focused on toughening disciplinary procedures in an effort to ensure the safety of patients at all times.
Government proposals outlined in March, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, build on the earlier consultation paper, Supporting Doctors—Protecting Patients, and will involve inter alia the implementation of lifetime bans and additional powers of suspension for the General Medical Council. The Health Minister, John Denham, was quoted last October as saying:
"Recent events have highlighted that the current system is inadequate. Patient safety is paramount and it is vital that the Government—and the GMC—act quickly to restore public confidence".
268
He went on to say:
"The majority of our doctors are hardworking, honest and trustworthy but where problems arise patients need to know we will act fast to protect them and take strong steps to ensure that they receive the best possible care".
I am sure that all the supporters of the Bill agree with both sentiments. They certainly do not intend to minimise the need for patient protection. The GMC itself has been active in promoting the need for new powers and proposals such as revalidation which will ensure higher quality among doctors, and is to be commended on that.
Massive attention is being given at local trust and health authority level, with the assistance of the Royal Colleges, to the issue of clinical governance. However, as we have heard tonight and in previous debates on this matter, there is another group that requires and deserves a rapid response when problems arise: the medical practitioners themselves. Mr Milburn, when he was Minister for Health, recognised the isslue, hence the review commenced in October 1998. The noble Lord, Lord Rea, mentioned the response of the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, when she was Minister for Health in this House.
I am sure that many of us received correspondence from doctors after the debate in January last year, also initiated by the noble Baroness. Lady Knight, outlining severe injustices which had taken place. One correspondent wrote to me as follows:
"The disciplinary action taken against me and the manner in which it was conducted were excessive and unjust. The procedures pursued by the Trust were deeply flawed leading to 'abuses of process' throughout … meetings which I was required to attend prior to my suspension were clearly disciplinary in nature and intent but were not conducted according to the Trust's Disciplinary Procedure. I was given no prior warning of impending disciplinary action, no verbal warning and no prior, lesser disciplinary sanction".
I am personally aware of many other cases of suspension which have been inspired by nothing more than professional rivalry. It is notable in these circumstances how much distress is caused not only to the doctor involved, but also to the patients of that doctor who are denied access to the doctor's services. Generally—we have seen the press over the past few months—there are many reported cases where practitioners have been suspended for what seem 10 be entirely inappropriate reasons; for example, the hospital doctor who was suspended for purchasing a piece of medical equipment for his department for which he had been fund-raising with the trust's knowledge for some time; and the head of a hospital pathology department who disputed the merits of merger proposals and remained suspended for nearly nine months, taking early retirement shortly after his reinstatement.
One case that truly highlights the sheer folly of some of the suspensions is the recently reported case of Professor Savidge, a senior blood specialist at St Thomas'. He was suspended for a full 10 months following a complaint about an alleged indiscretion with a female colleague while they were attending a medical conference in Moscow. The complaint was made by a third party. Eventually, Professor Savidge

269
was reinstated after no evidence whatsoever had been put forward by the complainant. To this day, Professor Savidge denies having even met the woman cited. Dr Peter Tomlin, who runs a support group for suspended doctors, described the case,
"as an outrageous waste of time and money".
That clearly must be the case. The common pattern of so many of these suspensions seems to be unfair procedures which provide inadequate natural justice for the medical practitioner involved.
Complaints against doctors have more than trebled in the past six years, according to figures from the GMC. In 1999, there were 3,000 general complaints in comparison to only 1,000 in 1993. As the public appear to become increasingly litigious, the financial burden on the health service grows exponentially. We now know that the total projected liability of the NHS is £3.4 billion, according to the National Audit Office.
Clearly there is a need to provide protection for the accused as well as for patients and complainants in this increasingly contentious environment. We need a set of national standards which apply in the case of suspensions and provide the necessary procedural protection. Clarification of the procedural steps that need to be taken in the case of suspensions is long overdue.
The Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight of Collingtree, is therefore an important step towards redressing the current imbalance. From nearly all the cases we have heard about during the course of these debates, the key issues that appear time and again are fairness, openness and speed. There is no valid reason why some of these cases have dragged on for so long with so little disclosure of evidence and at such cost to the health service.
In addition, as has also been mentioned in previous debates by the noble Baroness and other noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, there are many instances where suspension practice appears to be in breach of the Human Rights Act. As British legal practice moves further forward towards concordance with European law in this field, the provisions of this Bill may well help to avert an even greater leap in the NHS's potential litigation liability. Legislation of this kind, which facilitates the fair and prompt administration of suspension procedure, can only be a positive step.
I believe that the specific steps required by this Bill and the rights provided are highly significant: the requirement for there to be no delay; the requirement for consultation particularly with appropriate practising clinicians; the duty to consider alternatives to suspension and whether it is really needed to protect the interests of patients, staff and the practitioner; the requirement to give written reasons for decisions and to convey them to the NHSE and any private hospitals involved; the requirement to review the suspension; the right of appeal to a tribunal, and the right to appear before it.
270
The Bill also helpfully deals with the vexed question of exclusion from NHS premises, so graphically described by the noble Baroness, Lady Knight. We are in her debt for formulating these proposals in a timely fashion, in contrast to the Government who, despite their earlier assurances, failed to introduced anything equivalent. The outcome of their review proved disappointing. The issue is even more important now that it is proposed that health authorities be given the power to suspend GPs. As the noble Lord, Lord Rea, said, it is notable that in Scotland, regrettably so often ahead of us, proposals have been agreed between government and the professions on this matter.
These safeguards are extremely welcome and important. I hope that the Government will give the Bill their full backing in principle so that in Committee we can argue only about the details and not about the principles involved. The Bill should be seen as a significant waymark on the road to ensuring not only the safety of patients, but also the fair and equitable treatment of medical practitioners.
8.8 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Knight is to be congratulated on her assiduous pursuit of these important issues. I believe the Bill deserves our support.
By way of a baseline in this debate, I suggest that there are two propositions on which most speakers, if not all, would be agreed. The first is that professional standards of practice on the part of doctors should be properly assessed. That is the principle upon which clinical governance is based and to which the professions are fully signed up. The new revalidation and fitness to practice proposals are an important part of that agenda. No one wants to see poor standards of clinical care in the NHS.
The second proposition is equally widely accepted; that is, that the procedures currently employed in NHS trusts for suspending those doctors who are believed to be performing poorly are not working, either efficiently or fairly. In some cases, as we heard, they lead to gross injustices. It is those injustices which this Bill is designed to address.
Much has happened since this matter was last debated in January 1999 and it is right that we should be fair to the Government. Last November, as my noble friend mentioned, the Department of Health published its proposals designed to prevent and tackle poor performance on the part of doctors in the document, Supporting Doctors—Protecting Patients. I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a copy.
I shall not anticipate the Minister's speech too closely; he will doubtless wish to explain the document in his own words. But, perhaps unlike my noble friend, I believe the paper makes a positive contribution to the debate. The proposals lay weight on the early recognition of problems and the need to deal with them in a manner that is both easily understood and, as far as possible, non-confrontational. The emphasis is on making sure that patients are not put at risk and on giving support and, where necessary, retraining of

271
doctors whose clinical performance falls below acceptable standards. Existing disciplinary procedures would he abolished and a clear set of revised procedures laid down covering the different types of issue—for example, disciplinary, contractual or clinical—that can give rise to complaints in the first instance. Importantly, however, the power of suspending a hospital doctor would remain.
My own view is that these proposals have a great deal to recommend them. However, as my noble friend pointed out, their defect is that they do not go nearly far enough. The underlying assumption in the consultation paper is that, providing the new procedures are in place—procedures to be promulgated largely, I understand, by means of guidance—the suspension of doctors will not be an issue. That seems to me to be a somewhat pious hope. There is perfectly reasonable guidance in place at the moment, and it has signally failed to achieve a fair outcome. Even if the majority of hospital trusts abide fully by their revised procedures, situations are simply bound to arise where decisions about the suspension of doctors have to be made. If that is so, we have to ask what systems should be put in place to govern the conduct and process of such suspensions.
Nothing in the Government's proposals seems to me to address the issues of equity and fairness that my noble friend has highlighted both in her speech and in this Bill. It is simply not acceptable for the nature of a complaint to be withheld from the doctor whose suspension has itself resulted from that complaint. It is not acceptable for members of a trust to be judge and jury of a complaint that the trust itself has initiated. A doctor should be entitled to representation before an assessment panel. He should have a right of appeal. There should be mechanisms to ensure that delays in hearing a complaint are kept to a minimum. Where doctors are wrongly treated and then exonerated, there should be compensation. Above all, suspension should only be resorted to when patient care is jeopardised and there is no other appropriate procedure open.
Statistically, four out of five cases where there are concerns about a doctor's clinical competence are not upheld. Yet, at present, there is a definite Kafkaesque quality' to the suspension procedures as operated in some trusts to the extent that doctors are made to feel condemned, before they have even been heard, for an offence of which they are often completely unaware. As my noble friend Lord Colwyn emphasised, the unjust stigma suffered by doctors and the damage to careers is considerable.
Surely none of this can be consistent with the human rights legislation that is due to come into force later this year. Indeed, because of that legislation, it seems to me to he all the more essential that these issues are gripped and resolved without delay. It really would be deeply unfortunate if, by October—when, I understand, the Act comes into force—we had no adequate systems in place to deal with suspensions, and then found that doctors were resorting to court action to resolve perceived injustices. As at 31st December last, 27 hospital and community medical and dental staff had been suspended for six months or more at an estimated cost to the health service of £2.5
272
million. The systems that are needed should be fair, open and transparent; and they should be nationally applied. It should not be acceptable for each hospital trust to have its own, sometimes idiosyncratic, procedures to deal with complaints. I am very far from convinced that a national system is achievable through mechanisms that are not legally binding; which is the reason why I support this Bill.
I understand that the Government have expressed a willingness to negotiate on putting in place a set of formal procedures to cover suspensions. That is welcome. However, what I would like to hear from the Minister is a firm commitment to enter such discussions and a definite timetable for doing so. The Government also need to address the possibility that the systems to be put in place in England will differ from those in Scotland which, in turn, will differ from the Welsh and Northern Irish procedures. It would be retrograde if each part of the Union had a set of procedures that differed in a material respect from procedures followed in another part. What action are the Government taking, for example, to ensure that the proposals contained in Supporting Doctors—Protecting Patients are taken up across the United Kingdom as a whole? Will the noble Lord also look carefully at the suspension procedures as practised in Scotland?
For the reasons that I have identified, I sincerely hope that the Government will not dismiss this Bill out of hand and that they will wish to look further at what it contains. I join my noble friend in commending the Bill to the House.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity presented to the House tonight by the noble Baroness, Lady Collingtree, to debate this important issue. Like other noble Lords, I am indebted to her for once again bringing this matter to our attention.
These issues affect not just individual doctors; they affect the whole performance of the National Health Service and the quality of service that we offer our patients. Doctors are very important members of the health community. I certainly very much agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that we rely on their expertise and their ethical obligations to ensure that we are looked after properly when we go to see a doctor with our most private concerns.
We know that the great majority of doctors provide an excellent service and give their patients the best possible care. But, sadly, we also know that some doctors let down the profession. They may find the demands being placed on them too great. They may have difficulty in keeping up with the dramatic technological advances made in patient care in the past two decades. Undoubtedly, doctors who provide inadequate care are a danger to patients. There are also others who, because of ill health, pose a threat to patient safety. Although these doctors represent a very small minority, they have undoubtedly damaged public confidence in the medical profession at a time

273
when, as the noble Lords, Lord Colwyn and Lord Clement-Jones, have suggested, complaints and litigation are very much a rising trend.
Clearly the paramount interest in all this is that of patients. We must ensure that doctors who are criminal, inadequate or ill will not have opportunities in the future to harm patients. We must have systems in place to ensure that such cases can be easily identified and discovered. When they are discovered, action needs to be taken quickly either by the NHS or the General Medical Council. In these situations, immediate suspension is often the only way to stop a dangerous doctor from threatening patient safety. It has always been the Government's policy that suspension should be used primarily when a doctor's continued practice causes a danger to patients, or when it is necessary to facilitate investigation into serious allegations.
The noble Baroness has raised her concerns about the practice of doctor suspensions on a number of occasions, most notably in our debate in your Lordships' House last year. I fully appreciate the stress that suspensions can place on doctors and their families. The Government believe that such suspensions should be resolved as quickly as possible. As the noble Baroness said, it makes no sense to keep expensively trained doctors suspended unnecessarily. One has to point out that suspension is often resorted to when there is a question about a doctor's poor performance. Too often, perhaps, a disciplinary route is taken quite inappropriately. We need to help doctors long before they reach the suspension stage and long before they can do harm to patients. I very much agree with the noble Baroness that we need to look at alternatives to lengthy suspensions.
My noble friend Lord Rea mentioned current performance. Since 31st March 1995 a total of 75 cases of suspension lasting over six months have been reported. As at 31st December 1999—the latest date for which figures are available-27 hospital and community medical and dental staff, including 17 consultants, have been suspended for more than six months. That shows a slight reduction over the figures for the quarter ending September 1999. There are indications that the health service has already taken note of the concerns that have been expressed about the way suspensions have been developed and used in past years. The NHS is much more aware of the need for extreme care and caution in resorting to suspensions.
In order to address some of these problems, and indeed the wider problems of dealing with the poor performance of some doctors, the Chief Medical Officer published his paper, Supporting Doctors—Protecting Patients. Hospital doctors' suspension is one of the issues addressed. The consultation on the paper has just finished and we are carefully considering the responses. The comments made by noble Lords tonight will be invaluable in considering those responses.
274
I was disappointed in the comments made by a number of noble Lords on the document. I do not share noble Lords' pessimism about it. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was right to reflect on its positive points. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, that a key reason for referring a doctor to the new support and assessment service is when a concern is raised but where there is no agreement on the cause of the problem. Quick referral to this service will enable independent assessment of the problem. The doctor may be exonerated or an action plan may be suggested to deal with the problem. In those circumstances, the doctor will be clear about what the concerns are and will have the benefit of an independent review.
I shall return to that matter in more detail later. It is also important to reflect that it is not just the NHS which has a responsibility to patients to ensure that they are safe in the hands of their doctor. We must not forget the role of the General Medical Council, which, through its statutory duties to regulate the medical profession, also has a legal duty to protect patients. Following the tragic and disturbing case of Dr Shipman, the Government propose to widen the GMC's powers so that it can deal more effectively and quickly with doctors whose fitness to practise comes into question. The changes to those powers are intended to strengthen the bond of trust that must exist between doctors and their patients, and to express the Government's and the GMC's determination to apply the lessons of those tragic events so that patients have proper protection.
I return to the details of hospital suspensions. At the time of the debate in your Lordships' House last year, my noble friend Lady Hayman informed noble Lords that the Government intended to order a review of the current suspension procedures for hospital doctors and dentists with a view to speeding up the process. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked me what progress had been made on the review. My noble friend informed your Lordships last year that this was to be an internal management review which aimed to develop a new national policy for suspensions. The review, which took place last year, identified four areas for improvement: the early detection of poor performance which if not remedied could lead to suspensions; the consideration of other options short of formal suspension; more rigorous control of the length of suspensions; and strengthening of local capacity and expertise to manage suspensions.
Noble Lords will see that the issues of suspension and poor performance are linked in those conclusions. I do not believe that it is straightforward: it is difficult to consider those issues separately. They have to be considered as part of the whole package of measures needed to tackle poor performance. Because of that, and before the review of suspensions was completed, the Chief Medical Officer began to address the wider issues surrounding the identification and handling of poor clinical performance. The whole question of suspensions is bound up with those wider issues. It was therefore decided that the conclusions of the review of suspensions should be subsumed within the proposals

275
for a comprehensive reform and modernisation of the present arrangements for tackling poor clinical performance in the NHS.
I turn to the specific aims of the Bill. Many of the proposals in the Bill are not, I believe, very different from the findings of the review team, nor from normal practice in most trusts. The noble Baroness proposes that in future the chief executives of NHS trusts are made responsible for the decision to suspend doctors and that they must consult practising clinicians and other appropriate persons as they see fit. In reality, that is what happens now. Normally, prior to the suspension, the medical and human resource directors and the chief executive will all be involved in the decision-making process. Other interested parties, such as the health authority's director of public health, the GMC and the medical Royal Colleges might be asked for help and guidance prior to making a decision to suspend.
The noble Baroness also requires the chief executives to consider whether there are alternatives to suspension and to satisfy themselves that this is in the interests of the patients, staff and practitioner. The Bill also requires them to inform the NHS executive who will monitor suspensions and, if the practitioner has a private practice, the chief executive is to be required to notify the private hospital where the practitioner has admitting rights. The noble Baroness's Bill also requires each suspension to be reviewed monthly by the chief executive and the suspension automatically revoked if disciplinary proceedings are not commenced within one month. The Bill also gives certain appeal rights to the practitioner and requires the chief executive to follow certain rules before a decision can be made to exclude a suspended doctor from the premises.
We have sympathy with some of the aims of the Bill, some of which, as I have indicated, were identified as areas for improvement by the internal review. However, I have one serious concern about one aspect of the Bill which suggests that, where disciplinary procedures are not invoked within one month of suspension, the suspension ceases to have effect. That would mean in the future that, where a doctor is suspected of a serious criminal offence—for example, like Dr Shipman—or where performance has endangered patients' lives or there has been a drug problem, or in cases which, because of their complexity or the need to investigate a large number of matters, are bound to take time, that doctor would have a statutory right to practise, even though the risk to patients is still there. I believe that that would also cut across our proposals for dealing with poor performance. In the few cases when suspension was considered necessary, the Bill would force a doctor into the disciplinary route—the very thing that we are trying to avoid.
I certainly want to ensure that the new system on which the CMO is consulting at the moment will allow us to deal with many of the issues that have been raised in your Lordships' House tonight. I believe that those proposals will help the small minority of doctors whose performance gives cause for concern. In this
276
way, in the future, by supporting doctors to improve their performance, we shall see the end of protracted delays and the legalistic inflexibility of the old arrangements. We need doctors' support for that process. Suspending highly trained doctors is an expensive business. It does not help the doctors unless there are means of improvement available to them. It is certainly not good for the taxpayer to have a doctor who might perform reasonably for 90 per cent of the time but requires help to gain the other 10 per cent—for example, through further training— suspended for lengthy periods unnecessarily. It is not in the public interest to suspend doctors if there are alternatives to disciplinary action.
We are looking at these alternatives. For example, Birmingham Heartlands Hospital is currently developing new ways of identifying doctors' development needs. Problems will now be identified earlier and action taken before patients are put at risk. I am convinced that the proposals contained in the Chief Medical Officer's paper should help poorly performing doctors because it would provide an early diagnosis of the problem in a neutral environment. It would give the NHS, the patient and the doctor an objective assessment of the nature and seriousness of the problem and the action needed to address it.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised the point that suspension would still remain an option. The proposals for the support and assessment service would largely resolve the need for many of the suspensions that currently take place and for several separate and time-consuming investigations. In future, suspensions should only be needed where a doctor refuses to be referred to a support and assessment service; where an employer is investigating or taking action under internal disciplinary procedures because of alleged personal misconduct or failure to fulfil contractual responsibilities; where there is imminent danger to patients and there is a need to ensure that they are immediately protected; and where an employer is dealing with a doctor who is referred back from the support and assessment service with a report concluding that the problem is "serious and intractable".
As I said, the current number of suspensions lasting over six months is 27, the large majority o which are performance related. Under the Chief Medical Officer's proposals, in future, rather than suspending the doctor, these kinds of cases will be referred to the assessment and support service. The Government believe that the proposals contained in the Chief Medical Officer's paper will address most of the current problems surrounding hospital doctors' suspensions.
However, I recognise that in spite of everything that might be done to help poorly performing doctors, there will always be some doctors who are either criminal, incompetent or ill, who will continue to pose a serious threat to patients. In those situations, the Government have to be able to take all action necessary to have systems in place to stop such doctors harming patients.

277
We are, of course, carefully considering the responses to the CMO's consultation document. We shall certainly, in the light of that, wish to clarify the circumstances in which doctors should be suspended. For those doctors who are suspended by their employer, we shall ensure that there are robust monitoring processes in place so that doctors are not suspended unnecessarily, nor for an inordinate length of time.
I should say to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who expressed some scepticism about our ability to manage performance in that area, that we shall ensure that every avenue is explored to avoid suspension and to help the poorly performing doctor.
In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, I say again that as a backstop to all these measures we shall be giving the GMC additional powers to suspend a doctor, as well as stopping rogue doctors from coming back on to the medical register. In the meantime, we want to ensure that those few doctors who will continue to be suspended are dealt with fairly—I accept the point entirely—and as quickly as possible. But uppermost in our mind will always be patient safety.
In conclusion, the issue of hospital doctors' suspensions is but a small part of the bigger picture of identifying and handling poor clinical performance. The issues of discipline and poor performance need to be handled as part of a package. I fully accept the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that the NHS is not exempt from the Human Rights Act and that we must ensure that the way in which we deal with those working in the National Health Service complies with that Act and with employment law. We do not consider that doctors need special treatment in law over and above other citizens; we do not believe that it is either necessary or appropriate to put on to a statutory footing the procedures whereby NHS employers suspend doctors.
We recognise the underlying aims of the Bill of the noble Baroness, Lady Knight. But, as I said, we believe that it is flawed and we are not able to support it. I accept that, undoubtedly, the debate has been timely and informative. I shall certainly ensure that the important issues raised are fully considered in the consultation on the CMO's paper. I assure the noble Baroness that we will take on board many of her concerns in the action we propose to take on suspensions and discipline.
Lord Colwyn: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, can he say whether the escalating costs of suspension litigation will affect the recently announced increased spending on the NHS, which of course we all applaud?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, if we are having to pay more money out as a result of litigation, clearly that has to come from the pool of money we make available to the National Health Service. However, some of the figures I have seen in the media
278
have been rather exaggerated. The figures quoted list the potential liability if all the claims currently being made against the NHS were to be successful. While I would by no means underplay the significant implications of the rise in litigation, I think that some of the figures are exaggerated.
Lord Rea: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, perhaps I may make one point. Both the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, and I mentioned the solution that appears to have satisfied most people in Scotland. She asked whether the Government would take into consideration what has happened in Scotland in any decisions that are made in this area in relation to England.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: Yes, my Lords. I recollect that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, also asked me about the position in Scotland. We are aware of the arrangements that have taken place in Scotland. As I said, we were going to develop our own guidance in relation to the suspension of doctors, but this has been overtaken by the wider work contained in the Chief Medical Officer's report. That is why we are developing the support and assessment centres and why I believe that suspensions in the future will be much fewer than at the moment.
I accept that we need to learn from the way in which our health services are being developed in the four countries of the United Kingdom. I also accept that we need to make sure—particularly in the case of actions taken against professionals—that there is a sharing of information. This should help to prevent practitioners who are the subject of disciplinary proceedings in a country where it is considered they should not be practising from moving to another country.
I refer noble Lords to the announcement last Friday by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about the setting up of an initiative to enable both him and the First Ministers of the other countries to discuss matters relating to the National Health Service. That will allow us to have both cohesion in terms of NHS developments generally throughout the UK and will reflect the distinctive approaches of the four countries.
8.39 p.m.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, I thank most warmly those noble Lords who have been good enough to speak in support of the Bill. I would say to the Minister—I made this amply clear in my earlier remarks—that all of us feel that patients must be supported. None of us supports for one moment doctors who have behaved wrongly. What worries me is that the Chief Medical Officer's report and a good deal of what the Minister said is based on an assumption that many doctors out there are behaving very badly and must be dealt with. Suspensions come in almost as a second thought. That is why I said earlier that it is not a question of supporting bad doctors; it is a question of trying to support and help those doctors who have not behaved badly.

279
I remind the Minister that the overwhelming majority of doctors who have been suspended are subsequently found to be innocent of all charges. All the way along the argument seems to be, "We must protect the patients. Therefore, we cannot protect the suspended doctors". That worries me very much.
I am very sorry indeed that Dr Shipman found his way into the debate. I have my own view about that monster, which I think is shared by many. The amazing point about the Shipman case is that other doctors cheerfully signed the papers for Shipman which enabled him for years to get away with what was going on. The machinery was in place, but it did not function. That is what troubles me about the Minister's answer. I have an awful feeling of déjà vu because I raised this matter on numerous occasions in the other place. I have had two debates on it in the other place and one in your Lordships' House. On each occasion the Minister on the Front Bench has assured me, in rather the same terms as the Minister has assured me tonight, that all will be well, that official steps will be taken and the problem will fade away. But it never, never does. That is the trouble. That is why the Bill has been brought forward.
280
I would assure your Lordships that the Bill's wording is not mine. We drew up the Bill because all the experts involved decided that these points had to be brought in as a fair way of dealing with innocent doctors who are suspended. The Minister referred to a trust deciding within one calendar month whether prima facie evidence existed. The view of the experts was that it was relatively simple at least to see that there was evidence—not to go into the evidence, of course, but to say, yes, there is evidence and that decision does not need to be dragged out over a period of years. That is why the experts wanted that point included.
It is because I am aware of the gross injustice which is going on and because I have lost faith that the matter will be sorted out without any national answer such as a parliamentary Bill would provide that I must ask your Lordships to be good enough to give the Bill a Second Reading.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  European Commission for Democracy Through Law
  European Commission for Democracy Through Law
  Part-time Judicial Appointments
  Part-time Judicial Appointments
  Crown Office List: Review
  Crown Office List: Review
  Elderly Patients and Diamorphine Misuse
  Elderly Patients and Diamorphine Misuse
  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Comprehensive Spending Review
  Pig Industry: Insolvencies
  Pig Industry: Insolvencies
  BSE: Monitoring Plans
  BSE: Monitoring Plans
  BSE
  BSE
  Scrapie
  Scrapie
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies
  Personal Service Providers: IR35 Provisions
  Personal Service Providers: IR35 Provisions
  Openness in the Public Sector
  Openness in the Public Sector
  UN Human Rights Treaties
  UN Human Rights Treaties
  Security Service Tribunal
  Security Service Tribunal
  Firefighters: Conditions of Service
  Firefighters: Conditions of Service
  Fire Service: PFI Bids
  Fire Service: PFI Bids
  Kerb Crawling
  Kerb Crawling
  Firearms: Use by Police
  Firearms: Use by Police